[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[Issue]
[Pages 12326-12574]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 12326]]

             CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 

                United States
                 of America

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



June 10, 1999
                                                           June 10, 1999





                     SENATE--Thursday, June 10, 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:
  Almighty God, all-powerful source of true spiritual power, authentic 
leadership power, and lasting inspirational power, we come to You to be 
empowered by Your indwelling spirit. Forgive us for our desire for the 
facsimiles of real power. We struggle for power, play power games, and 
barter for power within our parties and between our parties. Often we 
manipulate with quid pro quo. Sometimes we use people as things instead 
of using things and loving people. Help us to be so sure of Your love 
and so secure in Your power that we will be able to live honest, open, 
nonmanipulative lives.
  You have told us that the truth sets us free. We commit ourselves to 
search for Your truth about the issues that confront us, debate the 
truth as You have revealed it to us, and speak the truth in love. May 
this be a day in which the Senate exemplifies to America and to the 
world the unity of those who may differ in particulars but are never 
divided on essential issues.
  Today we thank You for the distinguished leadership of Senator Ted 
Stevens. Yesterday he cast his 12,000th vote as a U.S. Senator. Now we 
cast our votes of affirmation and appreciation for his strong and 
decisive leadership. Thank You for his faith in You and for his 
unswerving patriotism to our Nation. Through our Lord and Saviour. 
Amen.

                          ____________________



               RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator McCain is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________



                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately resume 
consideration of the Y2K legislation with the intention of completing 
action on that bill this afternoon.
  Following the debate of S. 96, the Senate may begin consideration of 
the State Department authorization bill, any appropriations bills 
available for action, or any other legislative or executive items on 
the calendar. Therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout today's 
session of the Senate.
  I thank my colleagues for their attention.

                          ____________________



                       RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Under the previous order, 
leadership time is reserved.

                          ____________________



                                Y2K ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of S. 
96, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant 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 the 
     year's date.

  Pending:

       McCain amendment No. 608, in the nature of a substitute.
       Bennett (for Murkowski) amendment No. 612, to require 
     manufacturers receiving notice of a Y2K failure to give 
     priority to notices that involve health and safety related 
     failures.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased with the progress we have 
made thus far on this bill. We have limited the number of remaining 
amendments, and I am hopeful we will be able to reach agreement as to 
time agreements on the remaining amendments so we can conclude 
consideration of this important legislation.
  I am also pleased we have turned back two attempts to emasculate the 
legislation. Those critical votes encouraged me that the Senate will be 
able to pass meaningful and effective legislation regarding the top 
priority issue for the broadest possible cross-section of the Nation's 
economy.
  The ongoing fight between the welfare of the Nation's economy and the 
trial lawyers is going to reach additional crucial votes on amendments 
today and in final passage. Over the past few weeks, I have waited to 
hear rational, logical reasons for defeating this legislation or for 
gutting it with more compromises. I have heard none.
  S. 96, with the substitute amendment offered, represents a reasonable 
and effective means of addressing this important issue. It represents a 
significant compromise from the version of S. 96 which passed out of 
the Commerce Committee, and even greater departure from H.R. 775 which 
was recently passed by the other body. It truly incorporates bipartisan 
discussion, negotiation, and compromise. While ensuring it is not mere 
window dressing or mirage, there is nothing in this bill which should 
be objectionable to any of my colleagues who truly want a solution to 
the Y2K problem rather than an excuse to protect the litigation 
industry. This matter is of utmost importance to the broadest cross-
section of American commerce imaginable. Accounting, banking, 
insurance, energy, utilities, retail, wholesale, high tech, large and 
small, all support this effort to prevent and remedy Y2K problems and 
to avoid a disastrous litigation quagmire. They are unanimous and 
steadfast in their support for S. 96 with the Wyden and Dodd 
agreements.
  As opponents, we have the trial lawyers, a cost center in our 
economy. The interests of the trial lawyers are clearly to assure a 
continued income stream from Y2K litigation. I have been told that over 
500 law firms have established practice specialties to handle Y2K 
litigation. Many of these firms are reportedly touring the country 
dredging for clients. Opportunistic legislation costs the economy 
money, time, and resources which then cannot be expended on value-added 
productivity.
  As I have stated several times during this debate, the cost of 
solving the Y2K problem is staggering. Experts have estimated that 
businesses in the United States alone will spend $50 billion in fixing 
affected computers, products, and systems. But what experts have also 
concluded is that the real problems in 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. I 
quote:

       Experts have increasingly been saying 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 
     mild 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.

  I am looking forward to continued debate on the merits of this bill 
with those who do object to it. I look forward to voting on other 
amendments and bringing this critical legislation to a successful 
conclusion.
  I believe the two votes we took yesterday, one on the Kerry amendment 
and one on the Leahy amendment, clearly indicate the position of the 
significant majority of this body, because those two were very critical 
amendments. Both of them would have had a significant effect on this 
legislation--obviously, in my view, a significant weakening effect.

[[Page 12327]]

  I thought the debate we had yesterday, especially with the Senator 
from Massachusetts but also with others, was a very important and 
valuable debate and contributed to the knowledge and information of all 
Members of the Senate. We intend very soon to propose a couple of 
amendments that have been agreed to by both sides, but at this time, 
with the absence of the minority in the Chamber, we will wait for that 
to happen.
  I want to quote from a statement of ``Administration Policy'' 
concerning this legislation.

       The administration strongly opposes S. 96 as reported by 
     the Commerce Committee, as well as the amendment intended to 
     be proposed by Senators McCain and Wyden as a substitute. The 
     administration's overriding concern is that S. 96 is amended 
     by the McCain-Wyden amendment . . .

  Actually, it is McCain-Wyden-Dodd--

     . . . will not enhance readiness, and may in fact decrease 
     the incentives organizations have to be ready to assist 
     customers and business partners to be ready for the 
     transition of the next century. This measure would protect 
     defendants in Y2K actions by capping punitive damages and by 
     limiting the extent of their liability to their proportional 
     share of damages, but would not link these benefits to those 
     defendants' efforts to solve their customers Y2K problems 
     now. As a result, S. 96 would reduce the liability these 
     defendants may face, even if they do nothing, and accordingly 
     undermine their incentives to act now when the damage due to 
     Y2K failures can still be averted or minimized.

  I have to admit, as a member of the opposition, that I have seen some 
fairly tortured logic associated with messages of veto threats by the 
administration. I am not sure I have ever seen such tortured logic as 
is embodied in this particular paragraph I just described.
  One of the fundamental facts that has been ignored--obviously must 
have been ignored in this message from the Executive Office of the 
President, OMB--is that these companies and corporations that are all 
supporting this legislation are both plaintiffs and defendants. In 
other words, many of these companies will be bringing suit themselves 
or seeking to have others fix their Y2K problems and may bring it to 
court if that is not the case.
  When we are talking about this legislation, at least according to the 
administration, S. 96 would reduce the liability these defendants face, 
even if they do nothing, and accordingly undermine their incentives to 
act now. One would have to have one's curiosity aroused as to why 
people who are prospective plaintiffs would limit their ability 
willingly to seek redress and to repair any problems associated with 
their business.
  From the Clinton administration there is a ``Background Paper'' from 
PPI, the Progressive Policy Institute, entitled ``Avoiding the Y2K 
Lawsuit Frenzy, Ensuring Y2K Liability Fairness.'' I would like to 
quote from that. The authors are Robert Atkinson and Joseph Ward.

       While the Clinton Administration has voiced support for 
     some of the broad goals found in these bills, it has 
     expressed serious reservations about certain provisions, in 
     part on the grounds that their scope is unprecedented and 
     that it is not fair to limit liability for firms in this or 
     any circumstance. As discussed below, some of its concerns 
     should be addressed in revised legislative language, but the 
     overall concept of a fair liability regime is still very 
     necessary in this case. It is important to recognize that the 
     Year 2000 is a one-time event that appropriately deserves a 
     one-time solution.

  That seems to have been ignored by the administration. In three 
years, this legislation sunsets. Then we go back. No matter how zealous 
an advocate I happen to be for raw tort reform and product liability 
reform, the fact is that this legislation will be over 3 years from 
now.

       The goal of public policy in cases like this should be the 
     side of innovation and economic growth, and not on the side 
     of predatory legal practices that seek to harvest the fruits 
     of others' labor. In this regard, the bills mentioned above 
     are similar to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act 
     that the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) supported in 
     1995, which sought to reduce litigation that would harm 
     economic growth or raise the cost of goods and services for 
     most Americans. However, while PPI believes that some Y2K 
     liability-limiting legislation is needed and that these bills 
     provide a useful framework for action, there are certain 
     aspects in each of the bills that appear to err too far in 
     favor of potential defendants. In particular, it appears that 
     some of the restrictions on who can recover both punitive 
     damages and compensatory damages for economic loss may 
     exclude individuals who suffer losses resulting from a 
     defendant's reckless disregard or fraudulent behavior. In 
     order to ensure that effective liability-limiting legislation 
     passes Congress with required bipartisan support, both sides 
     of the aisle should work together to responsibly and fairly 
     address these issues.

  Which we did address, thanks to Senator Wyden and Senator Dodd.
  They:

       Encourage remediation over litigation and the assignment of 
     blame;
       Enact fair rules that reassure businesses that honest 
     efforts at remediation will be rewarded by limiting 
     liability, while enforcing contracts and punishing 
     negligence;
       Promote Alternative Dispute Resolution; and
       Discourage frivolous lawsuits while protecting avenues of 
     redress for parties that suffer real injuries.

  Clearly, thanks to not just the original legislation but the changes 
that we gladly accepted from Senator Wyden and Senator Dodd, we have 
addressed those concerns.
  They go on to say:

       The effects of abusive litigation could be further curbed 
     by restricting the award of punitive damages. Punitive 
     damages are meant to punish poor behavior and discourage it 
     in the future.

  Everybody knows we will not have this problem again.

       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.
       Except in cases of personal injury, punitive damages should 
     be awarded only if the plaintiff proves by clear and 
     convincing evidence that the defendant knowingly acted with 
     ``reckless disregard.''

  Except in cases of personal injury, punitive damages should be 
awarded only if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence 
that the defendant knowingly acted with reckless disregard.

       In his last State of the Union Address, President Clinton 
     urged Congress to find solutions that would make the Y2K 
     problem the last headache of the 20th century, rather than 
     the first crisis of the 21st. Year 2000 liability legislation 
     needs to be a part of that effort. By promoting Y2K 
     remediation rather than unsubstantial and burdensome 
     litigation, we can begin the next millennium focused on 
     continuing this period of unprecedented economic growth, 
     instead of unproductively squabbling over the errors of the 
     past.

  I want to point out again that already we are seeing a significant 
drain on our economy just fixing these problems associated with Y2K. 
Later on I will include in the Record some of the expenses that a 
number of major corporations and small businesses have already been 
required to expend that otherwise could have been spent on far more 
productive and beneficial efforts, such as research and development, et 
cetera.
  But if we add this burden, I am convinced, as are most economists, 
that we can have a definite deadening effect on this unprecedented 
economic prosperity we are experiencing thanks to the very nature of 
what we are trying to fix. Had it not been for this incredible 
information technology revolution we are going through, I know we would 
not be in this period of unprecedented economic prosperity. That is why 
I think this legislation is so important. I think in some respects you 
could rank this legislation among the most important that the Congress 
will address this year.
  Again, I thank my friend, Senator Wyden, and others on the other side 
of the aisle for joining together so we could obtain a significant 
majority that I believe will now give us room for optimism that we can 
pass this legislation today or, at the latest, early next week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I would like to pick up on a couple of points made by Chairman 
McCain, and particularly on this matter of tackling the issue in a 
bipartisan way.
  Certainly, when a consumer business gets flattened early in the next 
century as a result of a Y2K failure, they are not going to ask, is it 
a Democratic failure or a Republican failure? They are going to say: I 
have a problem. What is being done to fix it?

[[Page 12328]]

  The central point we have been trying to make--Chairman McCain, and 
Senator Dodd, who is the Democratic leader of the Y2K effort, and I--is 
that we have spent many weeks trying to tackle this in a bipartisan 
way.
  The fact of the matter is that when the bill came out of the Senate 
Commerce Committee, we were not at that time able to come before the 
Senate and say we did in fact have a bipartisan bill.
  As a result of the negotiations that have taken place for many weeks 
now--led by Senator Dodd, our leader, Senator Feinstein of California 
who has great expertise in this matter, and a variety of Democrats--we 
have now a bill that has 11 major changes that assist consumers and 
plaintiffs in getting a fair shake with respect to any litigation which 
may develop early in the next century.
  These were all areas where a number of Members on the Democratic side 
of the aisle thought that the original Senate Commerce Committee bill 
came up short. We went to Chairman McCain, and we said we would like to 
get a good bill; we would like to get a bill the President of the 
United States could sign; we would like to get a bipartisan bill.
  We said we had a few bottom lines. One of them was that we were not 
going to change jurisprudence for all time; this was going to be a 
time-limited bill. Chairman McCain agreed to our request that this last 
for 36 months. This is a sunsetted piece of legislation. We insisted 
this bill not apply to anybody who suffers a personal injury as a 
result of a Y2K failure. If you are in an elevator or you suffer some 
other kind of grievous bodily injury as a result of a Y2K failure, all 
existing tort remedies apply.
  We took out all the vague defenses that some people in the business 
community earlier thought were important. We said we are not going to 
give somebody protection if they just say they made a reasonable effort 
to go to bat for a plaintiff or the consumer.
  Those 11 major changes were made to try to be responsive to what the 
White House and a variety of consumer groups feel strongly about.
  Frankly, the area I am most interested in, in public policy, is 
consumer rights. I started with the Gray Panthers. I was director of 
the Gray Panthers for 7 years before I was elected to the House of 
Representatives, making sure that consumers got a fair shake and that 
the little guy was in a position, if they got stuck in the marketplace, 
to have remedies. That is at the heart of my public service career.
  I believe this is a balanced bill. This forces defendants to go out 
and cure problems for which they have been responsible. It also tells 
plaintiffs we would like them to mitigate damages; we would like them 
to figure out ways to hold down the cost; we should direct as much as 
we possibly can to alternative dispute systems. Picking up on the theme 
of Chairman McCain, that is a bipartisan proposition. I think we have 
been responsive to key concerns that have been made by those with 
reservations about this bill.
  There are some areas where we cannot go. I will emphasize as we move 
to today's debate a couple of those big concerns. We cannot allow under 
our legislation the creation of new Y2K torts that are not warranted on 
the basis of the facts. We believe, in areas like the economic loss 
issue which was debated so intensely yesterday, that the appropriate 
remedies involve State contract law. When consumers are faced with 
economic losses, we want to see them get a fair shake in this area, and 
we believe State contract law should govern.
  What we are not able to do is allow those who believe State contract 
law is inadequate with respect to economic losses, we cannot support 
them repackaging those claims as new Y2K torts. We favor the status 
quo. With respect to economic losses, we want to see consumers 
protected in the right of contract. However, this Member of the Senate 
thinks it would be a big mistake to create on the floor of the Senate 
today and in the days ahead new Y2K torts, new tort claims, that don't 
exist today under current law.
  I am very hopeful that we are able to finish this legislation today. 
It is bipartisan legislation now as a result of the 11 changes that 
have been made. I am very hopeful the White House will not veto this 
legislation. I have said repeatedly that to veto a responsible bill is 
just like lobbing a monkey wrench into the technology engine that is 
driving the Nation's prosperity. That is what is going to be the real 
effect of vetoing a responsible bill in this area.
  We continue to remain open to ideas and suggestions from colleagues. 
We want this bill signed. We have made, as I say, 11 major changes 
since this bill left the Senate Commerce Committee on a bipartisan 
basis under the leadership of Senator Dodd, who is the Democratic 
leader on the Y2K issue. There are areas where we cannot go, such as 
the creation of new Y2K torts in this area.
  I look forward to today's debate and am anxious to continue to work 
with colleagues in a bipartisan way. I am very optimistic that the bill 
the Senate hopefully will pass today will get the support of the White 
House.
  I yield the floor.


                     Amendment No. 612, As Modified

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murkowski, I send a 
modification to amendment No. 612.
  It is my understanding this amendment is acceptable to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 612), as modified, 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 may give priority to notices with 
     respect to a product or service that involves a health or 
     safety related Y2K failure.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 612), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, there is no question that the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, and the distinguished 
Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, have done yeomen work in alerting the 
land with respect to the potential Y2K changeover as of January 1, 
2000. Pursuant to their diligent work, we have had hearings in several 
of the committees. We have had laws passed now that allowed the parties 
to communicate with each other without fear of antitrust violations so 
they could go ahead and work to make sure that everyone was Y2K 
compliant.
  I only came to the floor just momentarily, hearing about predatory 
law exercises, exercises of predatory law practices and otherwise you 
get what you get under the contract. The atmosphere or environment is 
totally out of sorts. We are hearing about a litigious society. The 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut again and again said, and I 
noted the expressions I was looking for in the morning Record: 
``running to the courthouse,'' ``race to the courthouse,'' ``rushing to 
the courthouse,'' on and on. Again: ``shopping around to find someone 
with deep pockets,'' ``glitches.''
  I have a glitch on my computer right now, and I know they have deep 
pockets, but I am not rushing to the courthouse. People who have 
computers want to do business. They rely on the computers for the 
procedures and the progress of their interests. Having practiced law 
actively in the courtroom for 20 years, I can tell you nobody rushes to 
the courthouse. Try a rush beginning this afternoon and you will find 
yourself standing in line. All the

[[Page 12329]]

civil dockets and criminal dockets are full.
  This panorama and environment painted by the proponents of this 
legislation is all out of sorts with reality. Tort claims are down. All 
the surveys we have had at the hearings show that tort claims are down. 
It is a litigious society. Everybody is suing everybody for sex 
discrimination or age discrimination or racial discrimination and 
various other suits that were unheard of 30 years ago and are now 
abundant on the docket. But with respect to claims, tort claims, if 
this afternoon I brought a summons and complaint on behalf of my 
distinguished chairman, I would be lucky if I could get to the 
courthouse during the year 1999. That is the reality.
  Incidentally, the cases they talk about--litigious, frivolous cases 
and spurious charges and those kinds of things--and trial lawyers, they 
try to fit trial lawyers in there like they prey; ``predatory'' is the 
word used by my chairman. Trial lawyers have no time for fanciful or 
spurious claims whatsoever. They know when they get the client, the 
client does not have any money for billable hours. On the contrary, the 
client principally has to rely on the lawyer's faith in the claim of 
the client in order to take care of all the charges, all the expenses 
of interrogatories, discovery, the pleadings, the filings, the motions, 
the trial itself. And when you come to verdicts, mind you me, those who 
bring the claim have to get all 12 jurors by a greater weight or the 
preponderance of the evidence making that finding; 11 to 1 is a 
mistrial. So you have to get all 12 and you have to be sure there is no 
error within the trial.
  All along, the expenses are taken care of. That is what nonpluses 
this particular individual Senator, in the sense I am surrounded here 
in the District of Columbia with 60,000 billable hour boys running 
around talking about ``litigious society,'' ``predatory practices,'' 
``rushing to the courthouse,'' ``racing to the court,'' ``running to 
the courthouse,'' ``shopping around.'' Here is 59,000 lawyers 
registered to practice in the District of Columbia who will never see a 
courthouse. They will see a Congress. They will see you and me, the 
jurors. We are supposed to be fixed, so they work on fixing juries and 
running around spreading rumors and doing a favor here and getting a 
favor there. So that is the real world we live in.
  But to paint this legislation as doing away with predatory practices 
and racing to the courthouse and running to the courthouse? You have a 
$10,000 or $20,000 computer, if you are a doctor and you have a 
computer, and you want it fixed. You do not want a trial. They have 
made it so you are bound to go out of business and not get a lawyer, if 
you cannot get any damages, economic damages.
  The distinguished Senator from Oregon, again and again and again, 
says: Get what the contract says, get what the contract says, billable 
hours, get what the contract says. If you go buy a computer and get a 
warranty--and that is the contract--it is only for a certain period of 
time and everybody reads that warranty quick. Who says anything about 
economic damages? It will say something about a sound article for a 
sound price and they will give you some repairs after you stand in 
line, and so forth. But with respect to your standing in line and 
waiting, under this bill for 90 days, you are broke. You are out of 
business. You are closed down. You have lost your customers. This is a 
fast-moving world in which we live and small business, with all the 
competition, does not have in-house counsel on retainer, on billable 
hours, just as all the computer companies do that are force-feeding 
this particular measure.
  That is why the Senator from South Carolina gets annoyed with the 
entire thrust of the measure.
  With respect to its needs, let's go to the record. Under the 
Securities and Exchange Commission, all publicly listed companies, 
through their 10(k) reports to the SEC, give notice to the stockholders 
of the state of readiness, the worst case scenario, or the risk 
involved, the contingency plans to comply with any potential Y2K 
problem, and the cost. Many of them, most all of them--I do not know 
any privately. I talked with the gentleman from Yahoo. Four years ago, 
he was a Stanford student, and now he is well along the way. I admire 
him because, unlike AOL, America Online, that everybody is hugging and 
loving around here, dining and wining and traveling out to Virginia, 
Yahoo does not charge. America Online is trying for a monopoly. The 
cable folks have around 300,000 to 400,000; America Online has 17 
million, and their push for openness, openness, openness means: Let me 
make sure I retain my monopoly.
  In any event, all of these are publicly held companies and they are 
burdened with that duty, and this has been going on. We act like 
everything with Y2K is going to happen tomorrow. The bill gives them 90 
days. We are going to give them 180 days. Tell them to go ahead and fix 
it. Call up everybody now; test it; find out if it is Y2K compliant.
  I look forward to meeting some of these company people later today. 
Cisco Systems, as of December 1998, a year and a half ago: Current 
products are largely compliant in their 10(k) report to the SEC.
  Yes, here it is. Dell Computer. Here is a distinguished gentleman who 
has made a tremendous success. He deserves every bit of credit. I am 
not talking in a cursory or derogatory fashion. I am talking in an 
admiring fashion. I love success and particularly business success. I 
give him every bit of respect. Dell Computer, as of December 14, 1998, 
in their report: All products shipped since January 1997 are Y2K 
certified, I say to the Senator from Oregon. I want him to hear that. 
We have it here. Dell Computer, one of the best, as of December 14, 
1998, all products shipped since January 1997 are Y2K certified.
  General Electric: A complete analysis of the microprocesses; Y2K 
compliant as of November 12, 1998.
  Intel Corporation: The company has assessed the ability of its 
products to handle the Y2K issue and developed the list, published it 
and support follows. As of November 10, 1998, they will be in 
compliance. Deployment, integration tested, will be completed by mid-
1999.
  I do not have their mid-1999 report, but that is what they reported 
to their stockholders. That is where lawyers look at these things.
  Incidentally, this Senator voted for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission reform with respect to the excessive reading of these 
filings and bringing any and every charge as a result of 10(k) filings. 
We did not want to require the filing and just lay the groundwork for 
predatory legal practices. I helped the distinguished Senator, Nancy 
Kassebaum, pass the airplane tort liability bill. I have been on both 
sides of this fence. But they have me categorized, and I love it.
  The truth is, Yahoo systems are currently Y2K compliant in all 
respects. That is February 26, 1999.
  Even writing a book with respect to this is very interesting. The 
book, to be published later on this summer, by Eamonn Fingleton, is 
``In Praise of Hard Industries.'' I quote from page 65:

       A major part of the problem is that corporate America's top 
     executives have not been monitoring their information 
     technology departments as closely as they should. As Paul A. 
     Strassmann has pointed out, the millennium problem, for 
     instance, is stunning evidence of ``managerial laxity.'' In 
     his book, The Squandered Computer, Strassmann comments: 
     ``There is absolutely no justification for allowing this 
     condition to burst to executive attention at this late 
     stage.''
       According to Strassmann, a former chief information officer 
     of Xerox Corporation, the computer software industry should 
     have started getting ready for the new millennium by the 
     early 1970s, if not the mid-1960s. He gives short shrift to 
     the software industry's excuse that the millennium bug arose 
     because programmers were legitimately concerned about 
     economizing on computer space. He maintains that such 
     economizing was justifiable only in the very earliest days of 
     computerization, the era of punched cards, which ended in the 
     mid-1960s. ``The insistence on retaining for more than thirty 
     years a calendar recording system that everyone knew would 
     fail after December 31, 1999, is inexcusable management.''

  There you go. Here they come up with Chicken Little, the sky is 
falling, predatory law practice, racing to, running to the courthouse, 
whoopee to the

[[Page 12330]]

courthouse, a total fanciful background that does not exist.
  Let me come up to date. What is this? I never have read it before, 
but I learn. The May 1999 issue of Institutional Investors. This crowd 
does nothing but make money and sit around and punch. The article, on 
page 31, ``Y2K? Why not?''.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Y2K? Why Not?

       The millennium draws near, with no shortage of dire 
     prognostications. The Y2K computer bug, depending on which 
     Cassandra is consulted, may bring widespread power outages, 
     transportation foul-ups, even economic hardship. Duetsche 
     Bank Securities chief economist Edward Yardeni, for example, 
     believes there's a 70 percent chance that a recession--most 
     likely severe and yearlong--will hit in 2000, all because so 
     many computers will, at the stroke of midnight, think they're 
     entering the 20th century.
       These worries notwithstanding, most U.S. companies appear 
     to believe they have the Y2K problem licked. A resounding 
     88.1 percent of the chief financial officers responding to 
     this month's CFO Forum expect that their companies will make 
     the transition to the next century without any computer 
     problems. Just as important, CFOs know that outside contacts 
     must be ready as well, and 95.2 percent say they have worked 
     with suppliers to that end. Nearly 73 percent of respondents 
     are convinced that their suppliers and clients will be 
     prepared for the year 2000; only 4.8 percent worry that 
     suppliers or clients won't be ready.
       Such is the CFO's confidence that 62.7 percent of 
     respondents believe that fears of a millennial computer 
     crisis are overblown. And as for those predictions of 
     economic recession, not a single CFO responding to the survey 
     agrees. Admits economist Yardeni, ``I seem to be the only one 
     on this planet who thinks we'll have any chance of a 
     recession, let alone a severe one.'' He suspects that CFOs 
     are relying too much on their tech departments' reassurances. 
     ``I wish there was more verification of these happy tales the 
     CFOs are reporting.''
       Time will tell.
       Do you feel your company's internal computer systems are 
     prepared to make the year-2000 transition without problems?
       Yes: 88.1%
       No: 6.0%
       Not sure: 6.0%

       Have you done a dry run of your computer systems for the 
     year-2000 transition?
       Yes: 80.2%
       No: 19.8%

       If yes, how did they fare?
       No problems: 12.1%
       Few problems: 86.4%
       Major problems: 1.5%

       What have you done to prepare for the year-2000 transition?
       Tested all systems: 87.3%
       Rewrote computer code: 81.9%
       Hired consultants: 75.9%
       Bought new software: 86.7%
       Bought new hardware: 74.7%
       Worked with suppliers to ensure preparedness: 95.2%
       Alerted customers to your preparations: 81.9%
       Informed the Securities and Exchange Commission of your 
         actions: 62.7%
       Solicited legal advice: 47.0%

       Do you think most of your company's suppliers or clients 
     will make the year-2000 transition without trouble?
       Yes: 72.6%
       No: 4.8%
       Not sure: 22.6%

       What parts of your financial operations are vulnerable to 
     year-2000 problems?
       Billing and payment systems: 66.0%
       Accounting and financial reporting: 58.5%
       Cash management: 60.4%
       Foreign exchange: 22.6%
       Pension management: 34.0%
       Payment to bondholders or shareholders: 13.2%
       Risk management: 20.8%
       Corporate growth and acquisitions: 13.2%
       Capital-raising plans: 5.7%

       How much money has your company spent preparing for the 
     year-2000 transition?
       Less than $500,000: 11.0%
       $500,000 to $999,999: 6.1%
       $1 million to $2.49 million: 4.9%
       $2.5 million to $4.9 million: 20.7%
       $5 million to $9.9 million: 12.2%
       $10 million to $14.9 million: 8.5%
       $15 million to $19.9 million: 4.9%
       $20 million to $29.9 million: 11.0%
       $30 million to $50 million: 11.0%
       More than $50 million: 9.8%

       Did the cost of preparing for the year-2000 transition have 
     a material impact on your company's business or financial 
     performance in 1998?
       Yes: 16.9%
       No: 83.1%

       Do you expect it to have a material impact in 1999?
       Yes: 10.8%
       No: 85.5%
       Don't know: 3.6%

       Do you expect Y2K transition problems to have a material 
     impact on your company's business or financial performance 
     next year?
       Yes: 3.6%
       No: 89.2%
       Don't know: 7.2%

       Do you think the fears of a year-2000 crisis are overblown?
       Yes: 62.7%
       No: 21.7%
       Don't know: 15.7%

       What effect do you think year-2000 transition problems will 
     have on U.S. business and the U.S. economy overall?
       Relatively no effect: 14.3%
       A few weeks of headaches: 44.2%
       A few months of headaches: 37.7%
       A minor drop in GDP: 3.9%
       A major drop in GDP: 0.0%
       Economic recession: 0.0%

       The results of CFO Forum are based on quarterly surveys of 
     a universe of 1,600 chief financial officers. Because of 
     rounding, responses may not total 100 percent.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Presiding Officer.

       These worries notwithstanding, most U.S. companies appear 
     to believe they have the Y2K problem licked. A resounding 
     88.1 percent of the chief financial officers responding to 
     this month's CFO Forum expect that their companies will make 
     the transition to the next century without any computer 
     problems. Just as important, CFOs know that outside contacts 
     must be ready as well, and 95.2 percent say they have worked 
     with suppliers to that end. Nearly 73 percent of the 
     respondents are convinced that their suppliers and clients 
     will be prepared for the year 2000; only 4.8 percent worry 
     that suppliers or clients won't be ready.

  Now we are going to change 200 years of tort law for 4.8 percent that 
still have 180 days, and the law does not give them but 90. So they 
must think something can happen in 90 days. We can double that. You 
like 90; I give you 180. Start right now. You don't have to do that. 
The market will take care of it, as Business Week says it is doing.
  I quote further:

       Such is the CFOs' confidence that 62.7 percent of 
     respondents believe that failures of a millennial computer 
     crisis are overblown. And as for those predictions of 
     economic recession, not a single CFO responding to the survey 
     agrees.

  This prediction had been made some months back, last year sometime by 
Yardeni, a respected economist. I remember the gentleman because I was 
at the hearings when he used to be with Chase Manhattan. He talked that 
it could even cause a recession.

       Not a single CFO responding to the survey agrees with that. 
     Admits economist Yardeni, ``I seem to be the only one on this 
     planet who thinks we'll have any chance of a recession, let 
     alone a severe one.''

  Tell Yardeni to come to the Congress. The majority around here knows 
we are going to have a recession--predatory practices, racing to the 
courthouse. There would just be a jam to get the business.
  I quote:

       He suspects that CFOs are relying too much on their tech 
     departments' reassurances. ``I wish there was more 
     verification of these happy tales . . . .''
       Time will tell.

  Here is the question that is printed in the particular article:

       Do you feel your company's internal computer systems are 
     prepared to make the year-2000 transition without problems?

  The answer is: 88.1 percent said yes; 6 percent said no.
  Next question:

       Have you done a dry run of your computer systems for the 
     year-2000 transition?

  The answer is: 80.2 percent said yes; 19.8, no.
  So four-fifths have already been testing as a result of the fine work 
by the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Connecticut and, of 
course, our distinguished Senator on the Judiciary Committee, Chairman 
Hatch, and Senator Leahy of Vermont.
  Then you go down there:
  What have you done?
  They have all kinds of things down here: 86 percent bought new 
software. You see Dell and Intel and everybody else, they are 
certifying that when the purchase is made, this is Y2K compliant. 
Business is business. They cannot be playing around with monkey shines 
waiting on politicians in Washington to change the tort law. They have 
good sense. That is why they are successful.


[[Page 12331]]

       Do you expect the Y2K transition problems to have a 
     material impact on your company's business or financial 
     performance next year?

  The answer: 3.6 percent said yes; 89.2 percent said no.

       Do you think the fears of a year-2000 crisis are overblown 
     [in the business world]?

  They give you a long list. You know how chambers of commerce work. 
They are stupid enough, by gosh, to give me a medal this year for last 
year when they are opposing me in the election. So don't tell me about 
the Chamber of Commerce. You are looking at the fellow with the 
Enterprise Award from the National Chamber of Commerce. But last year I 
got the stinkbomb. I can tell you that right now.
  They send around letters and leaches and everything that I was 
terrible for business. So don't listen to all the letters about all of 
those places. None of those State chambers of commerce is complaining. 
I notice they got one from South Carolina. They don't know from sic'em 
down there about Y2K. That is one place.
  You don't have to worry about what the State of North Carolina does. 
They will be ready come next month. They had a recent article--just 
yesterday morning; I should have brought that to the floor--that they 
are all in shape and ready to go. But for all the cases, the best I 
have heard, as my distinguished chairman mentioned, 80 cases--I have 
not been able to find that. The best authority has said that is mixed 
in with some other cases.
  The most recent information--and brought right up to date--is the 
letter a month ago by Ronald Weikers who appeared before our committee, 
an attorney at law. Let me qualify him. The gentleman says here in this 
letter:

       I have studied the Y2K problem carefully from the legal 
     perspective, and have written a book entitled ``Litigating 
     Year 2000 Cases'', which will be published by West Group in 
     June. I frequently write and speak about the subject. I do 
     not represent any clients that have an interest in the 
     passage or defeat of any proposed Y2K legislation. Feel free 
     to call me, should you have any questions.

  He starts off the letter:

       Thank you for speaking with me earlier. Thirteen (13) of 
     the 44 Y2K lawsuits--

  This is as of April 26--

     Thirteen (13) of the 44 Y2K lawsuits that have been filed to 
     date have been dismissed entirely or almost entirely.

  There is a court system, undescribed, or improperly described, by 
Senators on the floor of the Senate. The court generally does not have 
stumblebums just sitting up there and all rushing to the courtroom: Let 
me give you 12 people, and here is your money, and let's go. They test 
the truth of all the allegations, and even agreeing with all your 
allegations, you still do not have a case in court.
  Thirteen of them have already been dismissed.
  Twelve (12) cases have been settled for moderate sums or for no 
money.
  They are not deep-pocket cases.

       The legal system is weeding out frivolous claims, and Y2K 
     legislation is therefore unnecessary.
       Thirty-five (35) cases have been filed on behalf of 
     corporate entities, such as health care providers, retailers, 
     manufacturers, service providers and more. Nine (9) cases 
     have been filed on behalf of individuals. This trend will 
     continue. Thus, the same corporations that are lobbying for 
     Y2K legislation may be limiting their own rights to recover 
     remediation costs or damages.

  That is signed by Ronald N. Weikers. We asked yesterday, and he has 
updated the 44 to 50. He has added six more since that time, which we 
have here for the record.
  So there is all the law and the Securities and Exchange Commission 
requiring that you notify your stockholders about any and all problems, 
and what are you doing about it, and the potential costs. And there is 
all of the debate in Congress, and the special law passed this year, 
and everything else like that.
  Those who usually are on the side of corporate America--even the 
Washington Post says let's not just be jumping around passing laws. 
That is the most irritating thing. I cannot get anything done with the 
budget. Here we are spending over $200 billion more than we are taking 
in, and everybody is talking about: The surplus, the surplus, the 
surplus. It is not just the $127 billion from Social Security, it is 
the money from the Senators' retirement fund, the civil service 
retirement fund, the military retirees, the highway trust fund, the 
airport trust fund, the Federal Financing Bank. Medicare moneys are 
being used for Kosovo. Think of that, Senators.
  But everybody is talking about whether we are going to have a 
spending cut or spending increase or tax cut because of the fat 
surpluses. I hope they will bring that thing up. I cannot get anything 
done about that. I can't get anything done about campaign finance. I 
was here when we passed it in 1974, 25 years ago. It was a good law. It 
did away with soft money, no cash, everything on top of the table, and 
limited spending in elections. Senator Thurmond and I could have had 
about 670,000 registered voters. Let's double it to 1\1/2\ million, 2 
million. I just had to spend $5.5 million to come back here and make 
this talk.
  I can tell you here and now, this thing is outrageous, because I am 
spending all my time racing around the country. Talk about small 
business. Raise in a year and a half to 2 years 5\1/2\ million with 
shares of stock in general at $100 a share. That is a pretty good 
business. Don't tell this politician about small business. I am a small 
businessman. We had to raise that money, but it is a disgrace.
  We can't get anything done. Fortunately, I supported McCain-Feingold. 
Senator McCain now has joined me on my constitutional amendment, one 
line: The Congress is hereby empowered to regulate or control spending 
in Federal elections. In fact, the States like it so much we added the 
States are able to control spending in State elections. Thereby, we 
immediately go back and we make constitutional the original act, or 
whatever they want to do. It doesn't disturb McCain-Feingold. We can 
still proceed with that and not hear the argument of the Senator from 
Kentucky about whether it is issue oriented or candidate oriented. All 
that is subjective. We will know, once we pass McCain-Feingold, it is 
constitutional; that we hadn't wasted time.
  That is what I want. Just give the Congress its will to get rid of 
this cancer on the body politic. We can't get that done.
  You can't get anything for the Patients' Bill of Rights. You can't 
get anything for the ultimate solution to Social Security. You can't 
get anything done about anything, but they come up with a nonproblem 
that everybody, corporate America and everybody else, says, look, we 
have been moving on. We have cut off our suppliers and everything else 
of that kind. Then you come to the floor with the overreach.
  Well, last year we protected the consumers, and yesterday afternoon 
we said no protection for the consumers. They said they won't get a 
lawyer. I can guarantee you, they won't get a good lawyer. A lawyer who 
is really working for a living would say: Wait a minute, businessman. 
You come in here, you have to wait. You came in too quick. You have to 
wait 90 days before you really come in and get anything done.
  In the meantime, they have been given notice so they are hiding all 
the records. They learned something from Rosemary Woods and President 
Nixon, I can tell you that. So the records are not around. They have 
cleaned up their records. So they know.
  Otherwise, having waited that time, then you have to file; then you 
have to get in line. You are waiting another year. Who is the lawyer 
who is going to carry those expenses? He has other work to do.
  So they are not going to be bringing any cases. You are not going to 
be able to get a lawyer with this bill. That is what is going to 
prevent you from getting a lawyer, because there is no economic damage. 
The economic damage, the real loss is not the $10,000 for the computer. 
It is the million-dollar loss of customers and goodwill and the ability 
to serve and the loss of advertising revenues and everything else going 
down.
  My friend from Oregon says: Well, we give you what the contract says; 
this bill will give you what the contract says.

[[Page 12332]]

  Sure, it gives what the contract says. That is an oxymoron. We know 
it gives you what the contract says. But the contract doesn't contract 
for economic loss. We are talking about misrepresentation, wrongful 
acts, fraudulent representation, tort--not contract. So don't give me 
this stuff about the contract, and we are giving you exactly what the 
contract says.
  That is our complaint. We want what States all over the Nation, all 
50 States, give you right now, and we do not want to repeal that.
  When we don't repeal it, then they come in in the next 180 days, the 
next 6 months, and they go to work and they start getting something 
done, because they realize this bill has either been killed in the 
Congress or vetoed by the President. They have to get right with the 
market world or get out of the way. That is the way free enterprise 
works. It is a wonderful thing. We all talk about it.
  By the way, don't give me this thing about the computer world created 
all of this productivity. Sure, it increases productivity. But what 
really created this economy--we are not going to stand here and listen 
time and time again--is the 1993 economic plan. Don't give the award to 
Bill Gates; give it to Bob Rubin.
  We were there. We had to struggle to get the votes. We had to bring 
in the Vice President to get the vote. They were saying over at the 
White House and at the Economic Council: Let us have a stimulus; we 
have to have a stimulus. Rubin says: No, pay the bill.
  What did we do? We paid the bill. We started paying off the bill. 
With what? Increased taxes. With increased taxes on what? Social 
Security.
  I voted for it. The Senator from Texas said: You voted for increased 
taxes on Social Security. They will hunt you down in the streets and 
shoot you like dogs. That is what he said.
  The other Senator, Mr. Packwood, said: I will give you my house, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, if this thing works.
  Kasich, who is running for President, I am trying to find John. I 
don't know whether he is running as a Democrat or Republican, because 
he said: If this plan works, I will change parties and become a 
Democrat.
  We have the record. They are trying to subterfuge this as this 
computerization is moving overseas and asking for what? They want all 
the special laws. They want capital gains. They are making too much 
money. So they have the onslaught: Wait, estate taxes, we ought not to 
die and be taxed at the same time. So we have to change the formula for 
estate taxes. No, excuse me, immigrants. Don't pay Americans, just 
bring them all in. Let's have an exemption from the immigration laws. 
Let's have an exemption from the State tort laws. Let's do everything. 
Let's upset the world for the idle rich.
  Come on, 22,000 millionaires for Bill Gates. I employ, by gosh, 
instead, 200,000 textile workers at the mill. I would much rather have 
that crowd. Fine for the IQ group, but I am talking about working 
Americans, middle America, the backbone of our democratic society.
  So what we have here is an onslaught for the computer world, for 
capital gains, immigration laws, estate taxes, Y2K exemptions, any and 
every thing. They have money. They have contributions. We would like to 
get their contributions. So Democrats and Republicans are falling all 
over each other trying to show what goody-goody boys we are. We will 
change the State laws. We will take the rights away from consumers and 
injured parties. We will destroy small businesses that bought a 
computer. They won't even be able to get a lawyer with all of this 
stringout of how to bring a case and everything else of that kind.
  Saying, don't worry about it, it is only for 3 years, 3 years it will 
be gone--if there is a crisis on January 1, it shouldn't exist for over 
a year. Everybody will know within a year whether they are Y2K 
compliant and be able to file. But no, they want to use this for 
further argument, and I gainsay the way they are shoving it now, not 
agreeing to economic damages in the Kerry amendment, turning down the 
Leahy amendment for consumers rights. I am afraid what I said was a 
footprint for the Chamber of Commerce, but rather I think they really 
are on a forced drive for a veto because they can use that. Who vetoed 
productivity, the great industry that brought all of this productivity 
to America? Who vetoed it?
  I can see Vice President Gore trying to get up an answer to that one. 
That is going to be very interesting.
  Senator Hatch led the way with his bill last year, and we got 
together and started confronting this particular problem. As I speak--
and I am ready to yield now to my distinguished colleague from North 
Carolina--they have not 90 days, but we are giving them twice that 
amount. Put everybody on notice, this thing they tell me is on C-SPAN 
so everybody ought to know to get Y2K compliant, try it out, test your 
set. If it is not, go down and, by gosh, get it fixed now. Don't run to 
the courthouse. Run to the computer salesman who sold you the thing, 
because they--Dell, Intel, Yahoo, all the rest of them--are coming in 
and saying that everything is Y2K compliant. We can't wait around for 
Congress to change all the tort laws.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I can't help but note the Senator from 
South Carolina mentioned Mr. Gates has 2,000 employees for 
millionaires.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Twenty-two thousand. That is in Time magazine, the 
year-end report. It is a wonderful operation.
  Mr. McCAIN. There are 22,000 millionaires. I know our respective 
staffs feel like millionaires for having had the opportunity of working 
here in the Senate with us. I know I speak for all of our staffs.

                          ____________________



                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 886

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 91, S. 886, the State 
Department reauthorization bill, at a time determined by the two 
leaders, and that the bill be considered under the following 
limitations: that the only first-degree amendments in order be the 
following, and that they be subject to relevant second-degree 
amendments, with any debate time on amendments controlled in the usual 
form, provided that time for debate on any second-degree amendment 
would be limited to that accorded the amendment to which it is offered; 
that upon disposition of all amendments, the bill be read the third 
time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as 
amended, if amended, with no intervening action.
  I submit the list of amendments.
  The list is as follows:

       Abraham-Grams: U.S. entry/exit controls.
       Ashcroft: 4 relevant.
       Baucus: 3 relevant.
       Biden: 5 relevant.
       Bingaman: Science counselors--embassies.
       Daschle: 2 relevant.
       Dodd: 3 relevant.
       Durbin: Baltics and Northeast Europe.
       Feingold: 4 relevant.
       Feinstein: relevant.
       Helms: 2 relevant.
       Kerry: 3 relevant.
       Leahy: 5 relevant.
       Lott: 2 relevant.
       Managers' amendment.
       Kennedy: relevant.
       Moynihan: relevant.
       Reed: 2 relevant.
       Reid: relevant.
       Sarbanes: 3 relevant.
       Thomas: veterans
       Wellstone: 3 relevant.
       Wellstone: trafficking.
       Wellstone: child soldiers.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



                                Y2K ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Edwards be recognized to offer two amendments as provided in the 
previous consent, and time on both amendments be limited to 1 hour 
total, to be equally divided in the usual form, and no amendments be in 
order to the Edwards amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 12333]]


  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before yielding, we would expect votes on 
the two Edwards amendments probably within an hour or less. That is our 
desire, and we will clear that with the leaders on both sides.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. EDWARDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                 Amendment No. 619 to Amendment No. 608

  Mr. EDWARDS. 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 North Carolina [Mr. Edwards] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 619.

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

       Strike Section 12 and insert the following:

     ``SEC. 12. DAMAGES IN TORT CLAIMS.

       ``A party to a Y2K action making a tort claim may only 
     recover for economic losses to the extent allowed under 
     applicable state or federal law in effect on January 1, 
     1999.''

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to deal 
with section 12 of the McCain-Dodd-Wyden bill. Let me read it first to 
make it clear what the amendment deals with. I am quoting from the 
amendment now, and this would replace section 12 in the existing bill:

       A party to a Y2K action making a tort claim may only 
     recover for economic losses to the extent allowed under 
     applicable State or Federal law in effect on January 1, 1999.

  We have drawn this amendment in the narrowest possible fashion, and 
we did that for a number of reasons. Number one, there has been great 
concern voiced on the floor of the Senate about allowing and continuing 
to enforce existing contracts under contract law. This amendment has no 
impact on that whatsoever. The provisions in the McCain bill that 
provide for the enforcement of contract law remain in place.
  I also say to my colleagues that if this amendment is adopted in the 
very narrow form in which it has been presented, all of the following 
things, which I think many Members of the Senate want to support, 
remain present in this bill.
  Punitive damages will remain capped. The bill will continue to apply 
to everyone--consumers and businessmen and businesswomen. Joint and 
several liability is completely gone. In other words, proportionate 
liability, which has been a subject of great discussion, remains in 
place. The duty to mitigate remains in place. The 90-day waiting period 
remains in place. The limitations on class actions remain in place. The 
requirements of specificity and materiality in pleadings remain in 
place.
  All of the things that have been discussed at great length and have 
been at the top of the list of what these folks have been trying to 
accomplish on behalf of the computer industry remain in place.
  What this amendment is intended to do is close a loophole. It is a 
loophole that is enormous. Here is the reason. We will enforce, under 
the provisions of the McCain bill, a contract. The problem is, there 
are millions and millions of computer sales that occur in this country 
every year that are subject to no contract; there is no contract 
between the parties. Under the provisions of the McCain bill, as it is 
presently, if a consumer or a small businessperson purchases a 
computer, there is no written contract between the parties, which will 
be true in the vast majority of cases; so there is no contract to 
enforce, there is no agreement between the parties on the specific 
terms of what can be recovered and what the limitations of those 
recoveries are.
  Let's suppose, in my example, that a blatant, fraudulent 
misrepresentation has been made to the purchaser. Unless we do 
something to amend this section, since there is no contract in place, 
we will put the purchaser in the position of being able to recover 
absolutely nothing but the cost of their computer. For example, a small 
family-run business in a small town in North Carolina--Murfreesboro, 
NC--buys a computer system. There is no written contract of any kind 
between the parties. What happens is, their computer system doesn't 
work; it is non-Y2K compliant. It turns out that the people who sold it 
to them knew it was non-Y2K compliant and, in fact, misrepresented when 
they made the sale that it was Y2K compliant. So we have, in fact, what 
probably is a criminal act in addition to everything else, a fraudulent 
misrepresentation.
  Unless this amendment is adopted, if that family business has lost 
revenues, lost income, lost profits, while they continue to incur 
overhead, they are unable to recover even their out-of-pocket losses--
the money they have to actually pay as a result of their computer being 
non-Y2K compliant--simply because there is no contract between the 
parties. That would be true even under the most egregious situation, 
i.e., where a fraud has occurred, where a misrepresentation has 
occurred, where a criminal act has occurred, even under those extreme 
circumstances.
  Unless this amendment is adopted in its very narrowly drawn form, 
that purchaser, small businessperson or consumer, is limited to the 
recovery of the cost of their computer, even though their family-owned 
business, which has been in business forever, has been put out of 
business, even though they have lost thousands of dollars in revenue, 
even though they have had to pay out of their pocket for losses that 
have occurred as a result of a fraud committed against them. Even if 
the defendant can be put in jail for their conduct, this small 
businessperson is out of business, and what they can recover against 
this defendant is the cost of their computer.
  There is a huge, huge loophole that exists in this bill as presently 
drafted, and that loophole is for all those cases across America where 
there is no contract. That is going to be true in the vast majority of 
cases. Most people don't have contracts. They go to the computer store 
and they buy a computer. Some computer salesman comes to their business 
or home and sells them a computer. So what we are left with is what 
happens to those folks--the folks who don't have a contract, which is 
going to be the vast majority of Americans, businessmen, businesswomen, 
consumers who have purchased computers. They are not going to have a 
contract.
  I will tell you who will have a contract. The folks who will have 
contracts--therefore, their remedies will be clearly defined in the 
contract--will be big businesses. That will be true of the computer 
companies who sell their products because they can afford to hire a big 
team of lawyers to represent them and draft contracts for them. That 
will be true of big corporate purchasers of computer systems who need 
them in the operation of their business, such as Kaiser-Permanente and 
other big companies that use computers. The lawyers get together and 
draft the contracts and everybody knows from the beginning what the 
responsibilities of both the seller and the buyer are.
  The problem we have is that it is not going to be the big guys who 
are going to be protected. It is the little guy who has absolutely no 
protection. The only conceivable remedy they have is in tort.
  What we did in this very narrowly drafted provision is say they can 
recover economic losses only to the extent allowed already under State 
law or Federal law, which means that to the extent in Arizona there may 
be a limitation, or in Utah, or in Oregon, a limitation on what folks 
can recover and what they have to prove. There are some States that 
only allow pure out-of-pocket losses to be recovered--not lost profits. 
There are many States that have limitations on these things.
  We create absolutely no cause of action, no tort claim. We create 
nothing that does not already exist. But we close the loophole. The 
loophole we close is for those millions and millions of Americans who 
will not have a contract. It is just that simple. All the other 
protections in this bill remain in place.

[[Page 12334]]

  I want to say to my colleagues who have voted already against Senator 
Kerry's amendment, who intend to vote on final passage for the McCain 
bill, that you can vote for this amendment very narrowly drawn which 
closes the loophole that exists and still vote for the bill on final 
passage. I will not be doing that myself, because I think there are 
other problems in the bill. But this amendment does not create any 
problem with that.
  I just want to point out a couple of things which were said yesterday 
during the debate by my friend, Senator Wyden from Oregon.
  He said:

       I just 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.

  That is a verbatim quote.
  This amendment couldn't be any clearer. All it does is keep existing 
State law in place for those people who do not have a contract. It is 
that simple. If they have a contract, the contract is going to control 
because the section immediately preceding section 11 specifically 
requires that the courts enforce the existing contract. But for all 
those folks out there who do not have a contract and who may have been 
lied to, or who may have had misrepresentations made to them and are 
maybe subject to criminal conduct, they have no remedy whatsoever under 
this bill. That is the reason we have drawn it so narrowly.
  Again, Senator Wyden pointed out yesterday that he believes they 
should recover exactly what they are entitled to today, that the law is 
exactly what they are entitled to recover today, and there are numerous 
quotes throughout the day where Senator Wyden spoke to this issue.
  What I say to my friend Senator Wyden is what I really believe we are 
doing here. I know he expressed concern yesterday about creating causes 
of action, creating force in Senator Kerry's bill, and I understood 
those concerns. What we have done is draft this in a way that can't 
possibly create anything. What it says is they may only recover for 
economic losses to the extent allowed already under existing State or 
Federal law.
  When you put that combination in with the provision immediately 
preceding it that requires contracts to be enforced, then I think what 
we have done is closed a loophole, closed it in the narrowest possible 
fashion. Leave all the restrictions that already exist on economic 
recovery in this country in place, deal with those millions of 
Americans who could have been the subject of fraud, abuse, and 
misrepresentation and allow them to recover, because otherwise they 
have no possible way of recovering. They have no contract. But to the 
extent folks have a contract, we are going to enforce that contract. We 
are going to require that the courts enforce that contract.
  I think this really dovetails perfectly with what I believe to be the 
intent of the McCain-Wyden bill.
  The bottom line on this amendment is this: It is narrowly drawn. 
Those folks who intend to vote on final passage for the McCain bill can 
vote for this amendment perfectly consistent with their desire to do 
everything they can to protect the computer industry. But for that 
class of people who have no contract, who have no cause of action 
whatsoever, this creates nothing. It simply allows under existing law 
for them to pursue whatever claim they have--only those people who have 
absolutely no contract. If they have a contract, the contract is going 
to be enforced, and it ought to be enforced. I have no problem with 
that whatsoever.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is narrowly drawn. 
I think it is consistent entirely with the purposes of the McCain bill. 
It leaves all the protections in place that the folks who support the 
McCain bill believe in. It closes an enormous loophole that exists in 
this law at the present time.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague, 
and I appreciate what he is trying to do. This bill is trying to 
resolve what really are unlimited litigation possibilities. If we don't 
pass this bill, that could really wreck our computer industry and wreck 
our country and would make it even more difficult to get the computer 
industry and everybody involved in Y2K problems to really resolve these 
problems in advance of the year 2000.
  I rise to oppose the Edwards amendment, which basically strikes the 
economic loss section of S. 96, the Y2K bill.
  I have followed carefully the debate of the bill. And, as of now, it 
is the Dodd-McCain-Hatch-Feinstein-Wyden substitute, S.1138, that we 
are now debating.
  My observation is that during this debate there has been much 
confusion over the economic loss section.
  Let me attempt to clarify this matter.
  It is important to note that the economic loss rule is a legal 
principle that has been adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and by most 
States.
  The rule basically prevents ``tortification'' of contract law, the 
trend that I view with some alarm.
  The rule basically mandates that when parties have entered into 
contracts and the contract is silent as to ``consequential damages,'' 
which is the contract term for economic losses, the aggrieved party may 
not turn around and sue in tort for economic losses. Thus, the 
expectation of the parties are protected from undue manipulation by 
trial attorneys. The party under the rule may sue under tort law only 
when they have suffered personal injury or damage to property other 
than the property in dispute.
  The economic loss rule exists primarily or principally because of the 
importance of enforcing contractual agreements. If the parties can 
circumvent a contract by suing in tort for their economic losses, any 
contract that allocates the risk between the parties becomes worthless.
  The absence of the economic loss rule would hurt contractual 
relations and create an economic and unnecessary economic cost to 
society as a whole. It would encourage suppliers to raise prices to 
cover all of the risks of liability and would encourage buyers to 
forego assurances as to the quality of the product or service. If 
anything goes wrong, simply sue the supplier under tort law.
  The economic loss rule also reflects the belief that the parties 
should not be held liable for the virtually unlimited yet foreseeable 
economic consequences of their actions, such as the economic losses of 
all the people stuck in traffic in a car accident.
  In light of this, most States apply the rule without regard to 
privity, and the vast majority of States that have considered the rule 
have applied it not only to products but to the services as well with 
some exceptions for ``professional services,'' such as lawyers and 
``special relationships''.
  Why then should Congress codify the economic loss rule with regard to 
Y2K actions or litigation?
  First, adopting the economic loss rule helps identify which parties 
have the primary responsibility of ensuring Y2K compliance. It is one 
of the major goals of the Y2K legislation to encourage companies to do 
all they can to avoid and repair Y2K problems, and adoption of the 
economic loss rule helps us to do exactly that.
  Second, adoption of the economic loss rule preserves the parties' 
ability to enter into meaningful contractual agreements and preserves 
existing contracts. Parties who suffer personal injury or property 
damage, other than to the property at issue, could still sue in tort, 
or in contract, while those suffering only economic damages would be 
able to sue in contract.
  Third, adoption of the rule would strengthen existing legal 
standards. We have the rule in this bill, and there is very good reason 
to have it in this bill.
  By strengthening existing legal standards, we would avoid costly and 
potentially abusive litigation as a result of the Y2K failures.
  That is what we are trying to avoid.
  This bill only lasts 3 years. It then sunsets. The bill's purpose is 
to get through this particularly critical time

[[Page 12335]]

without having the Federal courts and the State courts overwhelmed by 
litigation, yet at the same time providing people with a means of 
overcoming some of these problems. That is the whole purpose of this 
bill.
  If this amendment is adopted, that whole purpose will be subverted. 
It is not a loophole at all, as Senator Edwards contended. If we change 
this rule and adopt this amendment, we surely will have courts clogged, 
we surely will have undue and unnecessary litigation, and in the end we 
surely are not accomplishing what we need to accomplish--encouraging 
the companies to do what is right and to get the problems solved now. 
That is what we want to do. This bill will do more toward getting that 
done than anything I can think of.
  Lastly, adoption of the economic loss rule would establish a uniform 
national rule applicable to Y2K actions. This would help to avoid the 
patchwork of State legal standards that would otherwise apply to Y2K 
problems and actions. The subtle and complex idiosyncrasies and the 
rule's applications by the various States strongly indicate the need 
for a uniform national rule with regard to Y2K actions.
  Without a uniform rule, which we have in this amendment, every issue 
concerning Y2K liability may have to be litigated in each different 
State. This increases the already enormous costs of Y2K litigation.
  As I stated, the Supreme Court has adopted and endorsed the economic 
loss rule, which has greatly influenced State law. The leading case is 
East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc. In that case, the 
company that chartered several steamships sued the manufacturer of the 
ship's turbine engines in tort for purely economic damages, including 
repair costs and lost profits caused by the failure of the turbines to 
perform properly. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court denied 
recovery in tort under the economic loss rule. The Court's ruling was 
based in large part on the propriety of contract law over tort law in 
cases involving only economic loss.
  The Court goes on to say:

       The distinction that the law has drawn between tort 
     recovery for physical injuries and warranty recovery for 
     economic loss is not arbitrary and does not rest on the 
     ``luck'' of one plaintiff in having an accident causing 
     physical injury. The distinction rests, rather, on an 
     understanding of the nature of the responsibility a 
     manufacturer must undertake in distributing his products. 
     When a product injures only itself the reasons for imposing a 
     tort duty are weak and those for leaving the party to its 
     contractual remedies are strong . . . Contract law, and the 
     law of warranty in particular, is well suited to commercial 
     controversies of the sort involved in this case because the 
     parties may set the terms of their own agreements. The 
     manufacturer can restrict its liability, within limits, by 
     disclaiming warranties or limiting remedies. In exchange, the 
     purchaser pays less for the product . . .

  The Court's ruling was also based on the fact that allowing recovery 
in tort would extend the turbine manufacturer's liability indefinitely:

       Permitting recovery for all foreseeable claims for purely 
     economic loss could make a manufacturer liable for vast sums. 
     It would be difficult for a manufacturer to take into account 
     the expectations of persons downstream who may encounter its 
     product. In this case, for example, if the charterers--
     already one step removed from the transaction [which included 
     the shipbuilder in between]--were permitted to recover their 
     economic losses, then the companies that subchartered the 
     ships might claim their economic losses from delays, and the 
     charterers' customers also might claim their economic losses, 
     and so on. ``The law does not spread its protections so 
     far.''

  Let me turn to state law cases. The leading case on this issue is 
Huron Tool and Engineering Co. v. Precision Consulting Services, Inc., 
532 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). In Huron, the Michigan Court of 
Appeals held that the Economic Loss Rule barred plaintiff's fraud claim 
against a computer consulting company to recover purely economic loss 
caused by alleged defects in a system provided under contract. The 
court explained:

       The fraudulent representations alleged by plaintiff concern 
     the quality and characteristics of the software system sold 
     by defendants. These representations are indistinguishable 
     from the terms of the contract and warranty that plaintiff 
     alleges were breached. Plaintiff fails to allege any 
     wrongdoing by defendants independent of defendant's breach of 
     contract and warranty. Because plaintiff's allegations of 
     fraud are not extraneous to the contractual dispute, 
     plaintiff is restricted to its contractual remedies under the 
     UCC. The circuit court's dismissal of plaintiff's fraud claim 
     was proper.

  Hotels of Key Largo, Inc. v. RHI Hotels, Inc., 694 So.2d 74, 77 (Fla. 
Ct. App. 1997), holding that the Economic Loss Rule barred plaintiff's 
fraud claim seeking to recover economic loss caused by the defendant's 
failure to promote the plaintiff's hotel per contractual agreement, 
says: ``[W]here the only alleged misrepresentation concerns the heart 
of the parties' agreement simply applying the label `fraudulent 
inducement' to a cause of action will not suffice to subvert the sound 
policy rationales underlying the economic loss doctrine.''.
  Raytheon Co. V. McGraw-Edison Co., Inc., 979 F Supp. 858, 870-73 
(E.D. Wisc. 1997), holding that the Economic Loss Rule barred tort 
claims, including strict-responsibility, negligent, and intentional 
misrepresentation claims, brought by purchaser of real property against 
seller to recover purely economic loss caused by environmental 
contaminants in the soil says: ``[T]he alleged misrepresentations 
forming the basis of Raytheon's fraud claims are inseparably embodied 
within the terms of the underlying contract . . . [Therefore,] Raytheon 
cannot pursue its fraud claims.''
  AKA Distributing Co. V. Whirlpool Corp., 137 F.3d 1083, 1087 (8th 
Cir. 1998), holding under Minnesota law that the Economic Loss Rule 
barred plaintiff's fraud claim based on defendant's statements that the 
plaintiff would be engaged as a vacuum-cleaner distributor for a long 
time despite one-year contract says: ``[I]n a suit between merchants, a 
fraud claim to recover economic losses must be independent of the 
article 2 contract or it is precluded by the economic loss doctrine.''
  Standard Platforms, Ltd v. Document Imaging Systems Corp., 1995 WL 
691868 (N.D. Cal. 1995, an unpublished opinion holding that the 
Economic Loss Rule barred plaintiff's fraud claim based on defects in 
Jukebox disk drives manufactured by defendant says: ``In commercial 
settings, the same rationale that prohibits negligence claims for the 
recovery of economic damages also bars fraud claims that are subsumed 
within contractual obligations. . . . [Plaintiff's] fraud claim is 
precluded because it does not arise from any independent duty imposed 
by principles of tort law.''
  This rule regarding intentional torts is not new but is in fact a 
restatement of old principles separating contract law from tort law. In 
general, breach of contract, intentional or otherwise, does not give 
rise to a tort claim; it is simply breach of contract. Thus many courts 
in addition to those above have held, without mentioning the Economic 
Loss Rule, that claims such as fraud emerging only from contractual 
duties are not actionable. See, e.g., Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. V. 
Recovery Credit Services, Inc., 98 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 1996), holding 
under New York law that plaintiff's fraud claim against a collection 
agency to recover funds collected by the defendant under contract with 
the plaintiff was not actionable where the fraud claim merely restated 
the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract: ``[T]hese facts amount to 
little more than intentionally-false statements by [the defendant] 
indicating his intent to perform under the contract. That is not 
sufficient to support a claim of fraud under New York law.''
  In sum, the application of the Economic Loss Rule to intentional 
torts, such as fraud, is best summarized by the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Eighth Circuit in AKA Distributing Co., listed above:

       A fraud claim independent of the contract is actionable, 
     but it must be based upon a misrepresentation that was 
     outside of or collateral to the contract, such as many claims 
     of fraudulent inducement. That distinction has been drawn by 
     courts applying traditional contract and tort remedy 
     principles. It has been borrowed (not always with 
     attribution) by courts applying the economic loss doctrine to 
     claims of fraud between parties to commercial transactions.--
     AKA Distributing Co., 137 F.3d at 1086 (internal citations 
     omitted).

  In sum, the economic Loss provision in the Y2K act is not a radical 
provision or change in law. That is why I oppose its removal from the 
bill, which in

[[Page 12336]]

essence the Edwards amendment would accomplish.
  This is not a simple problem. This is something that we have given a 
lot of thought to. For those who believe we should have unlimited 
litigation in this country because of alleged harms, this is not going 
to satisfy them. For those who really want to solve the Y2K problem and 
to save this country trillions of dollars, the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from North Carolina will not suffice.
  The amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, attempts to freeze 
the State law of economic losses--freeze it in place. However, the 
States are not uniform in this area.
  One of the things we want to accomplish with this Y2K bill --which is 
only valid for 3 years, enough to get us through this crisis--is to 
have uniformity of the law so everybody knows what the law is and 
everybody can live within the law and there will be incentives for 
people to solve the problems in advance, which is what this bill is all 
about.
  The purpose of the Y2K Act is to ensure national uniformity. A 
national problem needs a national solution. That is why we need the 
national economic loss doctrine or rule, based on the trends in State 
law towards them. We do need uniformity if we are going to solve this 
problem, or these myriad of problems, in ways that literally benefit 
everybody in our society and not just the few who might want to take 
advantage of these particular difficulties that will undoubtedly exist. 
We all know they will exist.
  The remediation section of this bill gives a 3-month time limit to 
resolve some of these problems. We hope we can. On the other hand, we 
don't want to tie up all of our courts with unnecessary litigation.
  I have to emphasize again that this bill has a 3-year limit. This 
provision ends in 3 years. That is not a big deal. It is a big deal in 
the sense of trying to do what is right with regard to the potential of 
unnecessary litigation that this particular Y2K problem really offers.
  Let me just mention, I know the distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina is aware that his own State has adopted the economic loss 
rule. Let me raise one particular case in North Carolina, the MRNC 
case.
  Let me offer a few comments on this case.

       Specifically, with respect to what losses are recoverable 
     in the products liability suit, North Carolina's court 
     recognized that the state follows the majority rule and does 
     not allow the recovery of purely economic losses in an action 
     for negligence.

  It cites a number of cases which I ask with unanimous consent be 
printed in the Record.

       At issue in this case is whether MRNC suffered economic 
     loss. Central to the resolution of this issue is what 
     constitutes economic loss. The court noted that when a 
     product fails to perform as intended, economic loss results. 
     Economic loss is essentially ``the loss of the benefit of the 
     users bargain.'' ``[T]he distinguishing central future of 
     economic loss is . . . its relation to what the product was 
     supposed accomplish.'' So economic loss should be available 
     for only contract claims. Tort law should not be allowed to 
     skirt contract law. In other words, contract law should not 
     be ``tortified.'' This is what the Y2K Act codifies. Economic 
     loss should not be allowed in cases where a contract exists. 
     This is the law of North Carolina and most states.

  I ask unanimous consent these matters be printed in the Record at 
this particular point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      AT&T Corporation, Plaintiff,

                                   v.

   Medical Review of North Carolina, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party 
                               Plaintiff,

                                   v.

   Carolina Telephone & Telegraph Company and Northern Telecom Inc., 
                        Third-Party Defendants.

                          No. 5:94-CV-399-BR1.

   United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Feb. 10, 1995.

       Long-distance telephone company brought action against 
     customer, seeking payment for past-due charges for long-
     distance telephone services. Customer counterclaimed, and 
     brought third-party complaint against telephone company, that 
     installed telephone system which included voice mail system, 
     and system manufacturer, alleging manufacturer was negligent 
     and breached implied warranty, arising from alleged telephone 
     line access by unauthorized users via system, resulting in 
     long-distance telephone charges. Manufacturer moved to 
     dismiss. The District Court, Britt, J., held that: (1) under 
     North Carolina law, customer's negligence claim against 
     manufacturer sought to recover purely economic loss, which 
     was not recoverable under tort law in products liability 
     action, and (2) customer's breach of warranty claim against 
     manufacturer was not ``product liability action'' under 
     Products Liability Act so as to render applicable Act's 
     relaxation of privity requirement.
       Motion granted.


                   [1] federal civil procedure   1722

       170Ak1722--For purposes of motion to dismiss for failure to 
     state claim, issue is not whether plaintiff will ultimately 
     prevail, but whether claimant is entitled to offer evidence 
     to support claim. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.A.


                  [2] federal civil procedure    1829

       170Ak1829--For purposes of motion to dismiss for failure to 
     state claim, complaint's allegations are construed in favor 
     of pleader. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A.


                       [3] products liability  6

       313Ak6--When action does not fall within scope of North 
     Carolina's Products Liability Act, common-law principles, 
     such as negligence, and Uniform Commercial Code still apply, 
     but they apply without any alteration by Act, which might 
     otherwise occur had Act applied. U.C.C. Sec. 1-101 et seq.; 
     N.C.G.S. Sec. 99B-1(3).


                     [4] products liability    17.1

       313Ak17.1--Under North Carolina law, long-distance 
     telephone company customer's negligence claim against 
     manufacturer of voice mail system, alleging customer suffered 
     harm in charges for unauthorized long-distance telephone 
     calls as result of manufacturer's failure to change standard 
     preset dialing access code and to provide instructions and 
     warnings concerning alteration of access code, sought to 
     recover purely economic loss, which was not recoverable under 
     tort law in products liability action, where allegations 
     centered on product's failure to perform as intended, and no 
     physical injury had occurred.


                      [5] products liability    6

       313Ak6--Under North Carolina law, elements of products 
     liability claim for negligence are evidence of standard of 
     care owed by reasonably prudent person in similar 
     circumstances, breach of that standard of care, injury caused 
     directly by or proximately by breach, and loss because of 
     injury.


                     [6] products liability    17.1

       313Ak17.1--Under North Carolina law, with respect to losses 
     that are recoverable in products liability suit, recovery of 
     purely economic losses are not recoverable in action for 
     negligence.


                             [7] SALES  425

       343k425--Under North Carolina law, long-distance telephone 
     company customer's breach of warranty claim against 
     manufacturer of voice mail system, with which customer was 
     not in privity, arising from charges imposed on customer for 
     unauthorized long distance telephone calls allegedly 
     resulting from manufacturer's failure to inform customer of 
     system's susceptibility to toll fraud if certain 
     precautionary measures were not taken, was not ``product 
     liability action'' under Products Liability Act so as to 
     render applicable Act's relaxation of privity requirement, 
     where customer had only alleged economic loss. N.C.G.S. 
     Sec. 99B-2(b).
       See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial 
     constructions and definitions.


                      [8] PRODUCTS LIABILITY  17.1

       313Ak17.1--North Carolina's Products Liability Act is 
     inapplicable to claims in which alleged defects of product 
     manufactured by defendant caused neither personal injury nor 
     damage to property other than to manufactured product itself. 
     N.C.G.S. Sec. 99B-2(b).


                             [9] SALES  255

       343k255--When claim does not fall within North Carolina's 
     Products Liability Act, privity is still required to assert 
     claim for breach of implied warranty when only economic loss 
     is involved. N.C.G.S. Sec. 99B-2(b).
       *92 Marcus William Trathen, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, 
     Humphrey & Leonard, Raleigh, NC, for AT & T Corp.
       Craig A. Reutlinger, Paul B. Taylor, Van Hoy, Reutlinger & 
     Taylor, Charlotte, NC, for Medical Review of North Carolina, 
     Inc.
       James M. Kimzey, McMillan, Kimzey & Smith, Raleigh, NC, for 
     Carolina Tel. and Tel. Co.

                                 Order

       BRITT, District Judge.
       Before the court are the following motions of third-party 
     defendant Northern Telecom Inc. (``NTI''): (1) motion to 
     dismiss, and (2) motion to stay discovery proceedings. 
     Defendant and third-party plaintiff Medical Review of North 
     Carolina, Inc. (``MRNC'') filed a response to the motion to 
     dismiss and NTI replied. As the issues have been fully 
     briefed, the matter is now ripe for disposition.

                                I. Facts

       In 1990, MRNC purchased a new phone system from third-party 
     defendant Carolina

[[Page 12337]]

     Telephone & Telegraph Company (``Carolina Telephone''). 
     Included within this system, among other things, was a 
     Meridian Voice Mail System, manufactured by NTI. Carolina 
     Telephone installed the phone system and entered into an 
     agreement with MRNC to provide maintenance for the system.
       Plaintiff AT & T Corporation (``AT & T'') provided certain 
     long distance services to *93 MRNC. AT & T has calculated 
     charges that MRNC allegedly owes for June 1992 in the amount 
     of $93,945.59. MRNC claims that unauthorized users gained 
     access to outside lines via the Meridian Voice Mail System 
     and placed long distance calls. MRNC contends these 
     unauthorized charges comprise part of the June 1992 bill.
       AT & T filed a complaint against MRNC to recover these 
     charges which were past-due. Subsequently, MRNC filed a 
     counterclaim against AT & T and a third-party complaint. As 
     part of its third-party complaint, MRNC alleges NTI, as the 
     manufacturer of the Meridian Voice Mail System, was negligent 
     and breached an implied warranty. MRNC seeks to recover of 
     NTI charges, interest, costs and expenses it may incur as a 
     result of the action brought by AT & T.

                             II. Discussion

       [1][2] Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), NTI has filed a 
     motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which 
     relief can be granted. With such a motion, ``the issue is not 
     whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the 
     claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the 
     claim.'' Revene v. Charles County Comm'rs, 882 F.2d 870, 872 
     (4th Cir.1989) citing Scheuer v. Rhodes (416 U.S. 232, 236, 
     94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974)). The complaint's 
     allegations are construed in favor of the pleader. Id.
       [3] MRNC contends North Carolina's Products Liability Act 
     pertains to its claims. This act applies to ``any action 
     brought for or on account of personal injury, death or 
     property damaged caused by or resulting from the manufacture 
     . . . of any product.'' N.C.Gen.Stat. Sec. 99B-1(3). Among 
     other things, the Act defines against whom a claimant may 
     bring an action. See id. Sec. 99B-2. ``The Act, however, does 
     not extensively redefine substantive law.'' Charles F. 
     Blanchard & Doug B. Abrams, North Carolina's New Products 
     Liability Act: A Critical Analysis, 16 Wake Forest L. Rev. 
     171, 173 (1980). When an action does not fall within the 
     scope of the Act, common law principles, such as negligence, 
     and the Uniform Commercial Code still apply; but, they apply 
     without any alteration by the Act, which might otherwise 
     occur had the Act applied. See Gregory v. Atrium Door and 
     Window Co., 106 N.C.App. 142, 415 S.E.2d 574 (1992); Cato 
     Equip. Co. v. Matthews, 91 N.C.App. 546, 372 S.E.2d 872 
     (1988).

                          A. Negligence Claim

       [4][5][6] In its first claim against NTI, MRNC alleges NTI 
     negligently failed ``to change the standard preset dialing 
     access code in the [system] prior to delivery and 
     installation at MRNC'' and negligently failed to give 
     appropriate instructions and warnings concerning alteration 
     of the standard preset dialing access code. The elements of a 
     products liability claim for negligence are ``(1) evidence of 
     a standard of care owed by the reasonably prudent person in 
     similar circumstances; (2) breach of that standard of care; 
     (3) injury caused directly or proximately by the breach; and 
     (4) loss because of the injury.'' Travelers Ins. Co. v. 
     Chrysler Corp., 845 F.Supp. 1122, 1125-26 (M.D.N.C. 1994) 
     (quoting McCollum v. Grove Mfg. Co., 58 N.C.App. 283, 286, 
     293 S.E.2d 632, 635 (1983)). Specifically, with respect to 
     what losses are recoverable in a products liability suit, 
     North Carolina follows the majority rule and does not allow 
     the recovery of purely economic losses in an action for 
     negligence. Chicopee, Inc. v. Sims Metal Works, Inc., 98 
     N.C.App. 423, 432, 391 S.E.2d 211, 217, review denied and 
     granted, 327 N.C. 426, 395, S.E.2d 674, and reconsideration 
     denied, 327 N.C. 632, 397 S.E.2d 76 (1990), and appeal 
     withdrawn, 328 N.C. 329, 402 S.E.2d 826 (1991). At issue in 
     this case is whether MRNC suffered economic loss. Central to 
     the resolution of this issue is what constitutes economic 
     loss.
       Before determining the nature of economic loss, examining 
     the reasoning behind the majority rule disallowing recovery 
     for such loss is instructive. The rule's rationale rests on 
     risk allocation. See 2000 Watermark Ass'n v. Celotex Corp., 
     784 F.2d 1183, 1185 (4th Cir.1986) (analyzing whether South 
     Carolina courts would adopt the majority position).
       Contract law permits the parties to negotiate the 
     allocation of risk. Even where the law acts to assign the 
     risk through implied warranties, it can easily be shifted *94 
     by the use of disclaimers. No such freedom is available under 
     tort law. Once assigned, the risk cannot be easily 
     disclaimed. This lack of freedom seems harsh in the context 
     of a commercial transaction, and thus the majority of courts 
     have required that there be injury to a person or property 
     before imposing tort liability.
       The distinction that the law makes between recovery in tort 
     for physical injuries and recovery in warranty for economic 
     loss is hardly arbitrary. It rests upon an understanding of 
     the nature of the responsibility a manufacturer must 
     undertake when he distributes his products. He can reasonably 
     be held liable for physical injuries caused by defects by 
     requiring his products to match a standard of safety defined 
     in terms of conditions that create unreasonable risks of harm 
     or arise from a lack of due care.
       Id. at 1185-86. The manufacturer can insure against tort 
     risks and spread the cost of such insurance among consumers 
     in its costs of goods. Id. at 1186.
       Some courts examining the nature of the claimant's loss 
     focus on whether the damages result from a failure of the 
     product to perform as intended or whether they result from 
     some peripheral hazard. See, e.g., Fireman's Fund Am. Ins. 
     Cos. v. Burns Elec. Sec. Servs. Inc., 93 Ill.App.3d 298, 48 
     Ill.Dec. 729, 417 N.E.2d 131 (1980); Arell's Fine Jewelers v. 
     Honeywell, Inc., 170 A.D.2d 1013, 566 N.Y.S.2d 505 (1991). 
     When some hazard occurs which the parties could not 
     reasonably be expected to have contemplated, the result is 
     noneconomic loss. Fireman's Fund Am. Ins. Cos., 48 Ill.Dec. 
     at 731, 417 N.E.2d at 133. Yet, when a product fails to 
     perform as intended, economic loss results. Id. Economic loss 
     is essentially ``the loss of the benefit of the user's 
     bargain.'' Id. ``[T]he distinguishing central feature of 
     economic loss is . . . its relation to what the product was 
     supposed to accomplish.'' Id.
       The Fourth Circuit apparently views physical harm as a 
     distinguishing factor between noneconomic and economic 
     losses. See 2000 Watermark Ass'n, Inc., 784 F.2d at 1186. 
     ``The UCC is generally regarded as the exclusive source for 
     ascertaining when the seller is subject to liability for 
     damages if the claim is based on intangible economic loss and 
     not attributable to physical injury to person or to a 
     tangible thing other than the defective product itself.'' Id. 
     (citing W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts 
     Sec. 95A, at 680 (5th ed. 1984))
       The application of either approach--the benefit of the 
     bargain approach or the physical harm approach--which North 
     Carolina might adopt would lead to the conclusion that MRNC 
     has suffered pure economic loss. MRNC alleges it suffered 
     harm as a result of NTI's failure to change the standard 
     preset dialing access code before delivery and installation 
     at MRNC and as a result of NTI's failure to provide 
     instructions and warnings concerning the alteration of the 
     access code. The harm is in the form of monetary loss, if 
     MRNC is required to pay AT & T. Clearly, MRNC's allegations 
     center on the product's failure to meet MRNC's expectations, 
     or in other words, failure to perform as intended. That 
     someone might gain access to the system and place 
     unauthorized calls could reasonably be expected to be within 
     the parties' minds. In addition, no physical injury has 
     occurred. The only injury MRNC asserts is damage to its 
     financial resources. Based on the foregoing reasons, MRNC 
     seeks to recover purely economic loss and such loss in not 
     recoverable under tort law in a products liability action in 
     North Carolina. North Carolina's Products Liability Act does 
     not change this result, and the applicability of the Act is 
     not at issue as to the claim. Therefore, NTI's motion to 
     dismiss the negligence claim is GRANTED.

                  B. Breach of Implied Warranty Claim

       [7] MRNC contends NTI breached an implied warranty by 
     failing to inform MRNC of the system's susceptibility to toll 
     fraud if certain precautionary measures, such as changing the 
     access code, were not taken. North Carolina's Product 
     Liability Act relaxes the privity requirement with respect to 
     a claim for breach of implied warranty. See Sharrard, McGee & 
     Co. v. Suz's Software, Inc., 100 N.C.App. 428, 432, 396 
     S.E.2d 815, 817-18 (1990).
       *95 A claimant who is a buyer, as defined in the Uniform 
     Commercial Code, of the product involved . . . may bring a 
     product liability action directly against the manufacturer of 
     the product involved for breach of implied warranty; and the 
     lack of privity shall not be grounds for dismissal of such 
     action.
       N.C.Gen. Stat. Sec. 99B-2(b). This section applies to a 
     ``product liability action'' as that term is defined in the 
     Product Liability Act, Chapter 99B. See id. As noted 
     previously, a ``product liability action'' is ``any action 
     brought for or on account of personal injury, death or 
     property damage caused by or resulting from the manufacture . 
     . . of any product.'' Id. Sec. 99B-1(3). In the instant case, 
     the issue is whether MRNC's breach of implied warranty claim 
     is a ``product liability action'' under the Act, thereby 
     abrogating the necessity of privity between MRNC and NTI.
       [8][9] The Act is inapplicable to claims ``where the 
     alleged defects of the product manufactured by the defendant 
     caused neither personal injury nor damage to property other 
     than to the manufactured product itself.'' Reece v. Homette 
     Corp., 110 N.C. App. 462, 465, 429 S.E.2d 768, 769 (1993); 
     see Cato Equip. Co., 91 N.C. App. at 549, 372 S.E.2d at 874. 
     When the claim does not fall within the Act, privity is still 
     required to assert a claim for breach of an implied warranty 
     where only economic loss is involved. Gregory, 106 N.C. App. 
     at 144, 415 S.E.2d at 575 (quoting Sharrard, McGee & Co., 100 
     N.C. App. at 432, 396 S.E.2d at 817-18 and questioning 
     whether this rule is still good policy); see Arell's Fine 
     Jewelers, Inc., 566 N.Y.S.2d at 507.
       Here, MRNC does not deny that privity does not exist 
     between itself and NTI. MRNC

[[Page 12338]]

     claims it is entitled to maintain an action under the 
     Products Liability Act and, thus, would fall within the 
     exception to the privity requirements in the context of 
     breach of implied warranty. However, MRNC does not allege the 
     defects in the Meridian Voice Mail System resulted in any 
     physical injury or property damage. It has only alleged 
     economic loss. See supra part II.A. In such a situation, the 
     general rule regarding privity remains intact. Without 
     privity, MRNC cannot maintain its breach of implied warranty 
     claim. Therefore, NTI's motion to dismiss the breach of 
     implied warranty claim in GRANTED.

                            III. Conclusion

       For the foregoing reasons, third-party defendant NTI's 
     motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to both claims, and as to 
     this party the action is DISMISSED. This ruling moots NTI's 
     motion to stay discovery proceedings and, thus, such motion 
     is DENIED.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand what the distinguished Senator 
from North Carolina is attempting to do. He is a very skilled lawyer, 
and a very good lawyer, and from my understanding primarily a 
plaintiffs' lawyer in the past. I have been both a defense and 
plaintiffs lawyer, and I presume maybe he has also, and I have a lot of 
respect for him and I understand what he is trying to do.
  The fact of the matter is, we have a 3-year bill here, that sunsets 
in 3 years, that is trying to solve all kinds of economic problems in 
our country that could cripple our country and cause a major, 
calamitous drop in everything if we do not have this bill, plus it 
could destroy our complete software and computer industry in a short 
period of time if we get everything tied up in litigation in this 
country because we are unwilling to pass this bill with this amendment 
on, that we have worked so hard, with Senator Dodd, to bring about.
  If we do not pass this bill with this amendment, as amended by this 
amendment, the Dodd-McCain-Hatch-Feinstein-Wyden amendment--and 
Sessions amendment--I apologize for leaving out Senator Sessions' name. 
He has worked hard on this bill. But if we don't pass this bill with 
this language in it, then I predict we will have undermined the very 
purposes we are here to try to enforce.
  This bill is an important bill. This bill assures every aggrieved 
party his day in court. It does not end the ability to seek 
compensation. What it does, however, is to create procedural incentives 
that for a short time delay litigation in order to give companies the 
ability to fix the problem without having to wait for a judgment from 
some court--which could take years. But in this particular case, I want 
to remind all that the bill sunsets in 3 years. It is limited in a way 
that prevents what would be catastrophic losses in this country, 
unnecessary losses if this bill is enacted. That is why we should quit 
playing around with this bill and get it passed.
  I don't care that the President of the United States says, he is not 
going to veto this bill. He would be nuts to veto it. This is a 
bipartisan bill. This amendment is a bipartisan amendment, and it has 
been worked out over a very long period of time and through a lot of 
contentious negotiations. We finally arrived at something here that can 
really solve these problems.
  Sincerely motivated as is the distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina, I hope our colleagues will vote this amendment down, because 
it will really undermine, at least in my opinion and I think in the 
opinion of many others, what we are trying to do here. What we are 
trying to do here is in the best interests of our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. If I can respond briefly to the comments of the 
distinguished Senator from Utah, first I say to Senator Hatch I am 
absolutely willing, and the people of North Carolina are willing, to 
live with the law in North Carolina. What my amendment does is leave 
all existing law in place in this very narrow area.
  The problem is that, for example, I know under North Carolina law, if 
a fraudulent misrepresentation--if a crime--is committed, if somebody 
makes a fraudulent misrepresentation and as a result somebody is put 
out of business, they are entitled to recover their economic losses, 
because there is an exception for intentional fraud, there is an 
exception for a criminal act.
  The McCain bill has no such exception. It has no exceptions at all.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, I will.
  Mr. HATCH. The McCain bill doesn't affect that. If fraud is committed 
consumers in most states will be able to recover even economic losses 
under state statutes. This is not altered by the Y2K Act. So, if there 
is fraud committed or a criminal act committed, you are going to be 
able to have all your rights, even in States like North Carolina, where 
they codify the economic loss rule. So that is not affected by this 
bill at all.
  The only thing that will be affected by this bill, if your amendment 
is adopted there will be an increase of wide open and aggressive 
litigation. Without your amendment, we will not have a uniformity of 
rule that will help us to get to the bottom of this matter. So with 
regard to the count on fraud, with regard to real fraud, or statutory 
fraud, with regard to criminal acts, the defendants will still be 
liable for what the distinguished Senator believes they should be 
liable for.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I say to Senator Hatch I respectfully disagree with 
that. If you look at the section, it has no exceptions of that nature 
in it at all. It has no exception. There is a powerful limitation on 
the recovery of economic loss, essentially eliminating the right to 
recover for economic loss. And there is no exception in that section 
for intentional, there is no exception for fraud and misrepresentation, 
there is no exception for egregious, reckless conduct. None of those 
things is excepted from the limitation on economic loss.
  I might add, to the extent we are looking for uniformity when we are 
going to enforce contracts--there has been a great deal of discussion 
about contract law--we are going to enforce contracts under State law. 
So whatever the State law is, in the various States across the country, 
is going to be enforced under State law.
  So what I respectfully disagree with the Senator about is what I 
believe my amendment does, which is, in a very narrow fashion, it works 
in concert with the section immediately preceding it, and the section 
immediately preceding it requires every court in this land to enforce 
any existing contract. So if there is a contract, that contract will be 
enforced. It cannot be subverted by any kind of tort claim.
  What my amendment does, is it allows a remedy to all those millions 
of people who could have been the victims of fraud, who could have been 
the victims of reckless conduct, who could have been the victims of 
carelessness and negligence, who have absolutely no remedy; they cannot 
recover any of their out-of-pocket losses or any of those things. What 
my amendment does is it creates no new torts, no causes of action, no 
anything. When you talk, at great length, about the economic loss rule, 
the Supreme Court, and how various States have adopted it, it simply 
leaves that law in place. That is all it does, and only for those folks 
who have no other remedy because they have no contract.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I will.
  Mr. HATCH. That is what the Senator's amendment does. But in this 
total, overall bill, there is a statutory compensation, statutory 
exemption.
  Most States--in fact, I think virtually all States--have consumer 
fraud statutes that provide for the right to sue that allow for 
economic loss if there is an intentional fraud or criminal violation.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Will the Senator yield for a question on that?
  Mr. HATCH. The underlying bill does not change that. It does provide 
for an exception for statutory law. Where a State has a statutory 
provision, this bill does not change that.
  The Senator's position that intentional torts and common law fraud 
would not be remedied under this bill is incorrect.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Only with respect to economic loss, which is what we are 
talking about.

[[Page 12339]]

  In any event, my belief is, what we are dealing with is a situation 
where anybody, any little guy in the country who has no contract 
basically has no remedy. They cannot do anything.
  To the extent we talk about this being just a 3-year bill, that 3-
year period, in the nature of the Y2K problem, is going to cover every 
single Y2K problem that exists in the country. This problem is going to 
erupt in the year 2000. Three years is plenty of time to cover every 
single problem that is going to occur in this country. To the extent 
the argument is made that it is a limited bill, it is going to cover 
every single Y2K loss that will occur in this country.
  What I am trying to do with this amendment, which is very narrowly 
drawn, is create no new claims, no new causes of action, to have a 
provision that works in concert with the requirement that contracts be 
enforced. But for all those folks who have no contract, if their State 
allows them to recover for out-of-pocket losses, then they would be 
allowed to do that. If they have been the victim of fraud, if they have 
been the subject of criminal conduct, if they have been the victim of 
simple recklessness or negligent conduct, only if their State allows 
that would they be allowed to recover that loss.
  Every other limitation in this bill stays in place: No joint and 
several, caps on punitive damages, duty to mitigate, 90-day waiting 
period, alternative dispute resolution, limitation on class action, 
specificity of pleadings and materiality--all those things stay in 
place.
  We are simply saying for those little guys across America who do not 
have a team of lawyers representing them drafting contracts, they ought 
to have a right to recover what they had to pay out of pocket as a 
result of somebody being irresponsible with respect to a Y2K problem.


                 Amendment No. 620 to Amendment No. 608

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask that the previous amendment be set 
aside and I send another amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Edwards] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 620 to amendment No. 608.

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

       On page 7 (7), line 12 (12), after ``capacity'' strike 
     ``.'' and insert:
     ``; and
       ``(D) does not include an action in which the plaintiff's 
     alleged harm resulted from an actual or potential Y2K failure 
     of a product placed without reasonable care into the stream 
     of commerce after January 1, 1999, or to a claim or defense 
     related to an actual or potential Y2K failure of a product 
     placed without reasonable care into the stream of commerce 
     after January 1, 1999. However, Section 7 of this Act shall 
     apply to such actions.''

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is very 
simple. It is to provide that this bill, which provides many 
protections to those people who sell computer products for Y2K 
problems, not apply after January 1 of 1999, after this bill began its 
process of consideration in the Congress, because it is absolutely 
obvious that everybody in the country has known about this problem for 
many years and has been documented. It has actually been known for a 
period of 40 years and intensely watched over the last few years. 
Certainly every computer company in the world knew about Y2K before the 
beginning of January 1, 1999, when we began consideration of this 
legislation. There is a reason that this amendment is needed and 
necessary. Let me give an example.
  There are 800 medical devices that are produced by manufacturers 
across this country that are date sensitive and critical to the health 
care of people in this country, because a malfunction can cause injury 
to people.
  Approximately 2,000 manufacturers sell these medical devices. About 
200 of those manufacturers, 10 percent, have yet to contact the FDA 
about whether their medical devices are Y2K compliant. After being 
asked numerous times by the FDA, they have given no response. These are 
people who have been on notice for a long time about this problem.
  It is really a very simple amendment. What the amendment says is, 
beginning in 1999, when everybody on the planet knew that this was a 
huge problem, if you kept selling non-Y2K-compliant products, you 
certainly should not have any of the protections of this bill, with one 
exception: We still keep in place the 90-day cooling off or waiting 
period because we think it is reasonable for the manufacturer or the 
seller to have that period of time to look at the problem and work with 
the purchaser to see if it can be resolved, even if they put a product 
in commerce unreasonably knowing that this problem existed.
  The amendment says that folks who kept selling, beginning in 1999, 
non-Y2K-compliant products, knowing full well that this problem 
existed, knowing that the Congress was about to consider legislation on 
this issue and knowing that they were acting irresponsibly, should not 
have the protection of the McCain bill. That is the purpose and reason 
for this amendment.
  The FDA example is a perfect example. We have 200 companies out there 
who are unwilling to tell the FDA they have even looked to determine 
whether their medical products that involve the safety and lives of 
people are Y2K compliant.
  There is nothing in the McCain bill that prevents companies from 
continuing--I mean through today--selling non-Y2K-compliant products. I 
know in the spirit in which this bill was offered and intended that my 
colleagues would not have intended that we continue to allow, as a 
nation and as a Congress, people to engage in reckless, irresponsible 
conduct without holding them accountable for that, even today, knowing 
full well this problem exists. It simply excises from protection of 
this bill all those folks who continue, even today, to sell non-Y2K-
compliant products unreasonably; that is, knowing that they are selling 
non-Y2K-compliant products.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Does this amendment 
modify the prior amendment; does it supersede the prior amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The previous amendment was set aside, and this 
is a separate amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this amendment basically is, in my opinion, 
too broad and too vague to provide guidance. It would cause more 
litigation, and what we are trying to do is prevent litigation that 
literally is unjustified.
  This amendment does not take into account the practical reality that 
the standard of care is determined as part of the case. Thus, how would 
a plaintiff know what the pleading requirements are under S. 96 for 
specificity? How would they know that? If it simply depends on the 
allegation of the plaintiff, then no plaintiff would fall under the 
requirements of this bill. This could result in tremendous abuse. Talk 
about loopholes, this would be the biggest loophole of all in the bill. 
The fact of the matter is, what we are trying to do in this bill is 
avoid litigation.
  The distinguished Senator from North Carolina talks about protecting 
the little guy out there, and the way that is done generally is through 
class actions, where the little guy gets relatively little, but those 
in the legal profession make a great deal. That is what we are trying 
to avoid, a pile of class actions that are unjustified under the 
circumstances where the manufacturers and all these other people go 
into the bunkers and get a bunker mentality rather than resolving these 
problems in advance. The whole purpose of this bill is to get problems 
resolved, to get our country through what could be one of the worst 
economic disasters in the country's history.
  The Y2K bill before us sets an important criteria for fixing the 
problems.

[[Page 12340]]

There needs to be specificity in plaintiffs' pleadings--in fact, both 
plaintiffs' and defendants' pleadings--so glitches can be fixed before 
litigation.
  This amendment would allow ``reasonable care standards,'' which must 
be shown in negligence cases. It does not have to be pleaded with 
specificity. This would defeat the very purpose of this act, which is 
trying to get us to be more specific so those who have problems will be 
able to rectify those problems and remediate those problems.
  The goal here is to solve problems, not allow any one side or the 
other to get litigation advantage. We are not trying to give the 
industries litigation advantage. We are not trying to give big 
corporations litigation advantage. We are trying to solve problems. I 
commend all of those on this bill who have worked so hard to do so.
  If we accept this amendment, my gosh, we will not only not solve 
problems, we will not have specificity in pleadings, we will never know 
what is really going on, and we will have massive class actions all 
over this country that will tie this country in knots over what really 
are glitches that possibly could be corrected in advance.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senator Hatch for his very important and 
persuasive input in this debate. I appreciate it very much.
  I did want to save a few minutes for Senator Sessions to make his 
remarks. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I associate myself with the excellent analysis by 
Senator Hatch. He chairs the Judiciary Committee. He has had hearings 
on this very problem. I think he has explained the situation very well.
  We need, in the course of dealing with computer Y2K problems, a 
uniform national rule. That is what we are attempting to do here. One 
of the great problems for the computer industry is that they are 
subject to 50 different State laws. The question is, Can they be 
unfairly abused in the process of massive litigation? I suggest that 
they could be, and actually that the entire industry could be placed in 
serious jeopardy.
  I recall the hearings we had in the Judiciary Committee on asbestos. 
There were 200,000 asbestos cases already concluded, and 200,000 more 
are pending. Some say another 200,000 may be filed. What we know, 
however, is that in that litigation 70 percent of the asbestos 
companies are now in bankruptcy. We do not have all the lawsuits 
completed yet.
  We also know that only 40 percent of the money they paid out actually 
got to the victims of this asbestos disease. That is not the way to do 
it, and that is what is going to happen in this case.
  What the Senator from North Carolina is basically arguing is for each 
State to keep its own economic loss rule, as I would understand his 
argument. But the problem with this is that a clever State could run 
out tomorrow and change its economic loss rule, or the court could rule 
and allow a few States to drain this industry, while other States are 
maintaining the national rule.
  First and foremost, the economic loss rule is a traditional rule of 
law. This statute basically says that. We will use a national rule for 
economic loss. It is a significant issue because we are blurring the 
differences between tort and contract.
  Alabama used to have common law pleading in which they were very 
careful about how you pled a case. You had to plead in contract or you 
had to plead in tort. If you pled in contract, you were entitled to 
certain damages. If you pled in tort, you were entitled to other 
damages. But you had to prove different elements under each one to get 
a recovery. The courts have said certain actions are not tort and 
certain action are not contract--they are only one.
  This legislation that is proposed would say, let's accept the 
national rule, the rule that has been clearly approved by the U.S. 
Supreme Court. Senator Hatch quoted from the U.S. Supreme Court in a 
unanimous verdict in approving this economic loss rule.
  I think it would be a big mistake for us to go back to the 50-State 
rule instead of the uniform rule so that we can get through this one 
problem, the Y2K problem, and limit liability and focus our attention 
on fixing the problem rather than lawsuits. If we have lawsuits in 
every single county in America, we are not going to have 200,000, we 
are going to have 400,000, or more. We have to end that. I know my time 
is up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time of the opponents has expired.
  The Senator from North Carolina has--
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the Senator from Connecticut is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. DODD. The Senator from Alabama said it. Look, this is one of 
those issues where we have legislators, as Senators, who are constantly 
trying to find compromise. Reaching a 100-vote consensus, I guess, is 
the ideal representation of that. But occasionally there is just a 
division here. You have to make a choice on where you are going to go 
with this.
  This is a 36-month bill to deal with a very specific, real problem. I 
just left a hearing this morning on the medical industry. We are not 
talking about personal injuries here, but to give you some idea, there 
are some serious problems in terms of compliance we are seeing across 
the country. You have to decide here whether or not you want to expand 
litigation, which is a legitimate point.
  There are those who think the only way to deal with this is to rush 
to court. I respect that. I disagree with it, but respect it. Or do you 
decide for 36 months we are going to try to fix the problem to try to 
reduce the race to the courthouse?
  Those of us who are in support of this bill come down on that side. 
The only way you are going to do it is to have some uniform standards 
across the country. We all know, as a practical matter--any first-year 
lawyer would tell you--you would run to the State that has the easiest 
laws and get into court.
  If you disagree, you ought to vote for the Edwards amendment. If you 
think we ought to fix the problem, we think you should reject it so we 
can solve this over the next 36 months.
  I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I say to my friend, Senator Dodd, he and I actually 
agree about the vast majority of what he just said. I think this bill 
in place, if it passes, will do all the things the computer industry 
wants to protect them against Y2K problems.
  Joint and several liability is gone. There is a cap on punitive 
damages. The duty to mitigate isn't present. There is a 90-day waiting 
period, cooling off period. We have the 36 months. We have class action 
limitations. We have specificity and materiality of pleading.
  This is a very narrow, simple thing that we are trying to accomplish 
with this first amendment. We will enforce contracts as they exist. 
That is what these folks have been talking about at great length, and 
that is exactly what we should do.
  The problem is with those folks who do not have a contract, which is 
going to be the vast majority of Americans. When Senator Sessions says 
that the economic loss rule is a traditional rule, he is right about 
that. What my amendment says is that traditional rule stays in place 
exactly as it is.
  The problem is, the provision in this bill, in the McCain bill, is 
not the traditional rule. It contains no exceptions of any kind--no 
exceptions for fraud, no exceptions for reckless conduct, no exceptions 
for irresponsibility. The result of that is, regular people who buy 
computers--small businessmen, small businesswomen, consumers, folks who 
do not have an army of lawyers who

[[Page 12341]]

went in and crafted contracts on their behalf--have no remedy. They 
simply have no remedy; they cannot get anything, not even their out-of-
pocket loss. That is what the McCain bill does.
  What I have done in the narrowest conceivable fashion is drawn an 
amendment that allows those folks to recover only what their State law 
permits them to recover. It is just that simple. That is on the first 
amendment.
  On the second amendment, I just can't imagine what the argument is 
against this, although I heard the distinguished Senator from Utah 
argue against it. The very idea that people who are today, in 1999, 
selling non-Y2K-compliant products irresponsibly--and that is what is 
required--if they sell it without knowing about it, then they are still 
covered by the bill. Under my amendment, if they sell it knowingly, if 
they sell it irresponsibly in 1999, today, it simply says: Surely the 
Congress of the United States is not going to protect you. You have 
known about this forever. We are not going to continue to protect you.
  It is not going to create a flood of litigation. I have to 
respectfully disagree with my friend, Senator Hatch. That makes no 
sense at all. If the consumer didn't buy the product in 1999, and they 
can't show the product was sold and put into the stream of commerce 
irresponsibly in 1999, then the McCain bill is going to apply to them. 
Surely my colleagues do not want to provide this Congress's, this 
Senate's protection, stamp of approval for people to keep selling 
noncompliant Y2K products, including, in my example, people who sell 
medical devices that can cause injury and death to people. I just don't 
believe my colleagues on either side of the aisle want their stamp on 
allowing people to keep doing this, even though they are fully aware of 
it.
  That is simply what my amendment addresses. It says if you are still 
selling this stuff, and you are selling it non-Y2K compliant, and you 
know what you are doing, you don't get the benefit of the McCain bill.
  It couldn't be any simpler than that. I respectfully suggest to my 
colleagues they do not want to put their stamp on people who have known 
about this problem forever and are doing nothing about it. Not only 
that, knowingly continuing to sell non-Y2K-compliant products that can 
cause injury to business, and, in the medical device fields, can cause 
injury to people, I just do not believe my colleagues on either side of 
the aisle would want to support that. This amendment cures that 
problem.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas 
and nays on both amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is 
there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered on both amendments.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 619

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
619. The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 161 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

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

                                NAYS--57

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     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
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Stevens
       
  The amendment (No. 619) was rejected.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 620

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 620.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

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

                                NAYS--62

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Stevens
       
  The amendment (No. 620) was rejected.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                 Amendment No. 621 To Amendment No. 608

 (Purpose: To ensure that manufacturers provide Y2K fixes if available)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 621 to amendment No. 608.

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

[[Page 12342]]

       (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.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before I start to explain the amendment, I 
wonder if I may engage in a colloquy with the managers of the bill to 
make sure we are on the same path.
  As I understand it, after conversing with Senators Hollings and 
McCain, there has been an agreement that we will have a vote at 2 
o'clock on this particular amendment--I want to make sure I am correct 
on that--and that we will come back at 10 to 2 and each side will have 
5 minutes at that time.
  Mr. GORTON. Unfortunately, we have been notified of an objection to 
that request on this side. We cannot agree to it right now. We are 
going to try to work it out.
  Mrs. BOXER. We will just start the debate and see how long it takes 
us.
  Mr. President, this bill is an important bill to the State of 
California. I want to put it in a certain perspective. I very much want 
to vote for a Y2K bill, and that is why I supported the Kerry 
alternative which I believe is a fair and balanced bill because, after 
all, what we are trying to do is get the problem fixed.
  A lot of times I listen to this debate and it gets very lawyerly, and 
that is fine. I am not an attorney. What I want to do is get the 
problem fixed. What I want to do is be a voice for the consumer, the 
person who wakes up in the morning and suddenly cannot operate his or 
her computer; the small businessperson who relies on this system, and, 
frankly, a big businessperson as well. I want to make sure what we do 
here does not exacerbate the problem. I want to make sure what we do 
here gets the problem fixed. That is what all the Senators are saying 
is their desire: to get the problem fixed.
  The reason I support the Kerry bill and think it is preferable to the 
underlying bill is that I believe it is more balanced. If you are a 
businessperson and, as Senator Hollings has pointed out, many times you 
make a decision based on the bottom line--most of the time--what you 
will do is weigh the costs and the benefits of taking a certain action. 
If you have a certain number of protections the Senate has given you, 
and those protections mean you have a better than even chance in court 
of turning back a lawsuit, you are apt to say: Maybe I will just gamble 
and not fix this problem, because I have a cooling off period.
  Frankly, in the underlying bill, the only thing that has to be done 
by the manufacturer involved is, he has to write to the person who 
thinks they may be damaged. That is all they have to do. They do not 
have to fix the problem. They do not even have to say they are going to 
fix the problem. They just have to say: Yes, I got your letter and I am 
looking at the situation.
  Then you look at the rest of the law, and the bar is set so high that 
I believe some businesspeople--certainly not all--will say: I am 
probably better off not fixing the problem.
  I go back to the original point. If your idea is to fix the problem, 
we ought to do something that encourages the problem to be fixed.
  I totally admit, each of us brings a certain set of eyes to the bill. 
When I look at the underlying bill, I see some problems. Others think 
it is terrific, that it will lead to a fix of the problem, and therein 
lies the debate.
  Every time I listen to this debate, I hear colleagues of mine who 
support this bill talk about how much they love the high-tech industry, 
how important the high-tech industry is to this country, how important 
it is that we do not do anything to reverse an economic recovery.
  All I can say is, no one can love the high-tech industry more than 
the Senator from California--I should say the Senators from 
California--because it is the heart and soul of our State. I do not 
have to extol Silicon Valley, the genius of the place, the fact that it 
is now being replicated in other parts of California, in San Diego, for 
example, in Los Angeles, where they have these high-tech corridors. It 
is wonderful to see what is happening.
  The last thing I want to do is hurt that kind of industry and hurt 
that kind of growth. But there is something a little condescending when 
my colleagues who support the underlying bill stand up and say: You are 
going to hurt the industry if you do not support the underlying bill. I 
think it is demeaning. I think it is demeaning to Silicon Valley.
  This is a strong industry. This is an ethical industry. These are 
good, decent people with good business sense and a sense of social 
justice, if you look at what they are doing in their local communities. 
To make it sound as if they need special protections and they need to 
be coddled is something that I do not ascribe to.
  I think it is a lack of respect. Yes, we have a problem here. Let's 
try to fix it. But to assume that this industry cannot stand up and fix 
a problem somehow troubles me. It is not respectful of the industry. It 
says there are some people who may need to have this special 
protection, and not fix the problem of the consumers.
  So when I look at the bill, I say, what really is in this bill that 
will lead to a fix of the problem? I have to tell you, in my heart of 
hearts, I really do not see it. I support a cooling off period. I think 
everybody does--most people do, because we do not know exactly what is 
going to hit us. Let's have a cooling off period. But something ought 
to be done in the cooling off period--more than just simply having a 
letter.
  If I write a letter to company X and say, ``I woke up this morning; 
my computer failed me; I'm a small businessperson; I'm in deep trouble; 
fix it,'' you know what the McCain bill says? I have a right to get a 
letter back within 30 days telling me what the company is going to do. 
What does that do for my business? What does that do for me? What does 
that do to help me get back on line? Nothing. As I read the bill, that 
is all that is required.
  So I want to fix the problem. I want to do it fairly. Under this 
underlying bill, suppose you bought the computer in 1998 or 1999. They 
could charge you more for the fix than the computer itself. You might 
just say: I am just getting rid of this computer. I am going to go out 
and buy a new one. You know what. You might then go to court; you would 
be so angry.
  So I don't see what we are doing in this bill that is real. I want to 
offer something that is real. That is what I do in this amendment.
  I want to tell you where I got the idea for this amendment, because I 
want you to know I did not think it up, as much as I wish I did. The 
consumer groups brought this to me--not the lawyers, not the high-tech 
people, the consumer groups. They said: We really don't want to have to 
go to court. We want to fight for a fix. We have this good idea. Guess 
where it was found, word for word, almost. Congressman Cox's and 
Congressman Dreier's original bill on Y2K contains this wonderful idea 
that, in the cooling off period in the bill, after you write to the 
company or companies involved, they must write back to you. And if they 
determine there is a fix available--and it is their determination, 
nobody else's--they have to fix the problem.
  What we have said in this amendment is, if the fix is on a system 
that is between 1990 and 1995, they can charge you the cost of the fix. 
So the company is out nothing, because we figure it may be a little 
more complicated than the later models. If it is after 1995, to 1999, 
then they have to do it for free, because--I have listened to Senator 
Hollings, and perhaps he can help me out with this point--most of the 
companies knew about this problem a long time ago. And, more than that, 
a vast majority of them are fixing the problem. They are doing it for 
nothing.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am delighted to.

[[Page 12343]]


  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am intrigued by the Senator's comments with respect 
to the industry itself. This Senator does not know of a lousy computer 
manufacturer. It is the most competitive industry in the world. You 
have to have the most brilliant talent around you. As they say, it 
changes every other year. Or every year, and so forth, it is outdated. 
So, that being the case, there are no real laggards or hangers-on.
  Right to the point, does the Senator realize, for example, that they 
have to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission what we call a 
10-Q report; namely, of the Y2K problem? Do they know of the problem? 
What is the potential risk under the problem? What is to be done in 
order to correct that particular problem, and otherwise? What is the 
cost to the company? The stockholders want to know this information.
  The Securities and Exchange Commission requires it. Just looking at 
the Boeing Company Y2K report under their 10-Q report: ``The State of 
Readiness. The company recognized the challenge early, and major 
business units started work in 1993.''
  Did the Senator realize that?
  Mrs. BOXER. I actually was not aware many of them started the fix 
that early.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Well, going further, does the Senator realize, for 
example--we are going to have lunch with the distinguished leader, Mr. 
Dell of Dell Computer--as of December 14 of last year, in their 10-Q 
report they state: ``All products shipped since January 1997 are Y2K-
certified. Upgrade utilities have been provided for earlier hardware 
products''?
  Mrs. BOXER. I was not aware of that, that the Dells were Y2K-
compliant as of 1997.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Does the distinguished Senator realize ``no 
material''--no material cost? So they are not looking for a bill.
  I hope we do not pass a bill. Then, when the world ends, as some of 
the Senators around here are saying, and the computer industry is 
ruined, Dell will be the only one left. I will be all for them. That is 
really the history of all of them. I have Yahoo. I have all the rest of 
them here listed.
  But I think that is the point the distinguished Senator from 
California is making, who would know better than any, that this is a 
most responsible industry. They are not trying to get rid of the old 
models.
  This particular legislation, the Senator's amendment makes sure they 
do not get rid of the old models. It is like a car company saying: We 
are going to bring out a new model come January 1, so all the old 
models that we sell all this year are going to have all kinds of 
gimmicks or glitches. But let's make them 90 days or let's let them get 
a letter back or something else of that kind. If the automobile 
industry came to Washington and asked for that, we would laugh them out 
of court.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to make a point. It is a very subtle point to 
make. But by discussing minute after minute these special protections 
that go beyond the fair protections that I believe are warranted--and, 
by the way, my friend from Oregon made this a much better bill; I give 
him tremendous credit for that--but in my view, they still have special 
protection that, frankly, the greatest business in the world does not 
really need to have, because they are good people, because they are 
making the fixes, because their future depends upon how the consumer 
rates them.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Certainly.
  Mrs. BOXER. What I am fearful of is that in the end we are protecting 
the bad apples. And I do not mean to use Apple Computer. Apple Computer 
got this a long time ago. They are all compliant. But we will wind up--
because so much of the industry cares about this, wants to make the 
fixes--protecting those few that are bad. I am very worried.
  Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator makes an excellent point. I ask the 
Senator if she will yield for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Because many people think this is a debate between the 
computer and software companies versus the trial lawyers; choose whose 
side you are going to be on. People forget we are talking about the 
consumers of the products, the people who buy computers and software. 
These are businesses, too. These are doctors and manufacturers and 
retail merchants who rely on computers to work.
  This bill basically says, if you bought a computer that, it turns 
out, stops working come January 1 in the year 2000, we are going to 
limit your ability to recover for wrongdoing by the person who sold it 
to you. We will limit it. Unlike any other category of defendants in 
American courts, save one that I can think of, we are going to say this 
is a special class of people; those who make computers and software are 
not going to be held accountable like the people who make automobiles, 
and the folks who make equipment, the folks who make virtually 
everything in the world, including all of us.
  Everybody gathered here in this Chamber can be held liable in court 
for our wrongdoing. If we make a mistake, we can be brought before a 
jury, and they can decide whether our mistake caused someone damage. 
This bill says: Wait a minute, special class of Americans here. 
American corporations that make computers and software shall not be 
held liable, or at least if they are going to be held liable, under 
limited circumstances. So the losers in this process are not trial 
lawyers. The losers are other businesses that say, January 2, wait a 
minute, this computer is not working. I can't make a profit. I have 
hundreds of employees who counted on this, and now what am I supposed 
to do?
  I say to the Senator from California, thank you for this amendment.
  A couple questions. You make a point here that if we are going to 
generalize and say, well, there may be some bad actors in this industry 
that sold defective products, that we are going to, in fact, absolve 
all manufacturers, it is a disservice to the companies which in good 
faith have been doing everything in their power to bring everything up 
to speed. Just to make this point, is it the Senator's point that we do 
not want to favor those bad actors at the expense of so many good 
actors from Silicon Valley and across the world?
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. I think this argument has not been made 
before. Something was troubling me, as I listened to the debate, 
because it seemed to me that the implied sense around here is that 
somehow this wonderful industry can't stand up to this test. This is an 
industry that has performed miracles for the people of this country, 
changing the nature of the way we do business, the way we live, the 
incredible communications revolution. I think they can meet this 
challenge. I do not think they need to have, as my friend puts it, this 
special carve-out, because I think in a way it is insulting to them.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will continue to yield, I can only think 
of two other groups in America that enjoy this special privilege from 
being sued: foreign diplomats----
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. --and health insurance companies, which happen to fall 
under the provision in Federal law which says--we are debating this, 
incidentally, on the Patients' Bill of Rights--if they denied coverage 
to you, they only have to pay for the cost of the procedure, as opposed 
to all the terrible things that might have happened to them. As I 
understand this bill, from the amendment by the Senator from North 
Carolina, there are strict limitations here on what a person whose 
business is damaged can recover.
  Mrs. BOXER. Correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I also ask the Senator, as I take a look at her 
amendment, she is suggesting, if I am not mistaken, that if you bought 
your computer back 10 years ago, which was light-years ago in terms of 
computer technology, for a 5-year period of time, 1990 to 1995, is that 
correct----
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. --if you bought it during that period of time and there 
is a problem, then the company, of course, can charge you for the cost 
of bringing your computer up to speed, making sure it works?

[[Page 12344]]


  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. But after 1995, the Senator is arguing, the industry knew 
what was going on. They knew what the challenge was. If they continued 
to sell computers they knew were going to crash or did not take the 
time to fix, then she is saying the customers, the businesses, the 
doctors and engineers that bought the computers shouldn't be left 
holding the bag; it should be the expense of the computer company to 
fix it. Is that the Senator's amendment?
  Mrs. BOXER. Exactly right. Under the underlying bill, if you bought a 
computer in 1999, and it fails you a few days later, you get nothing in 
terms of a fix. You get a letter. We hope the letter says we are going 
to fix it. But you do not have any commitment that it would be for 
free. You could get charged thousands of dollars. Our friend, Senator 
Hollings, who has been so articulate in the opening moments of the 
debate, talked about these doctors where the company said in order for 
them to get a fix, it costs them more than the original system. Am I 
right, I say to the Senator?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly. He bought an upgrade just the year before, 
guaranteed for at least 10 years, for $13,000. In order to fix it, the 
charge was $25,000. That is the testimony before a committee of the 
Congress. He had really not only written a letter and everything else, 
no response, he finally got a lawyer, but even that did not work. The 
lawyer was clever enough to put it on the Internet and, bam, there were 
20,000 similarly situated. Wonderful Internet. Immediately the company 
said: We will not only fix it, we will pay the lawyers' fees and 
everything. That is all he wanted. He wanted a fix. Otherwise, he was 
out of business.
  People don't rush to the courthouse. They have to do business. If I 
filed a claim for Senator Boxer this afternoon in the courts of 
California or South Carolina, I would be lucky to get into the 
courthouse before the year 2000. I mean, the dockets are backed up that 
way. We live in the real world.
  We are not looking for lawsuits. We are looking for results.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friends, that is so true. If you look at the 
number of lawsuits that are out there, the big explosion, and there has 
been one, has been business suing business. It is not the individual, 
and it is not the small guy, because it is cumbersome, and it is 
expensive. You don't get your problem fixed really.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield, I am curious. I ask the 
Senator for her reaction on this. What if we said, instead of 
computers, we are going to deal with airplanes this way. If we said we 
do not want people who make airplanes to be held liable if they fall 
out of the sky, America would say that is crazy, that is ridiculous. 
We, of course, want to hold the manufacturers of products where we have 
a lot at stake to a standard of care.
  If you were going to absolve them, insulate them, then, frankly, as a 
consumer I am going to have second thoughts about getting on the 
airplane.
  I think what the Senator is saying with her amendment is those 
companies that have done the right thing, have established their 
reputation for integrity by stepping forward and saying we are solving 
the Y2K problem, certified, as the gentleman from Dell Computer did 
with the SEC, these companies that have gone that extra mile and want 
to stand behind that reputation will actually be penalized by this 
bill, because, frankly, all their hard work is not only being ignored, 
it is being defied.
  They are saying: We have to carve out a special treatment here for 
those who didn't do a good job as businesspeople.
  Coming back to the point I made earlier, the victims here are not 
trial lawyers. The victims are businesses, small businesses as well as 
medium-size businesses, trying to keep their employees at work, 
worrying that January 2 of the year 2000, they are going to have to 
close down and send people home without a paycheck. Those are the folks 
disadvantaged by the broad sweep of this bill.
  I think the Senator from California is on the right track. The good 
actors, the ones that have worked hard to make this work, should be 
rewarded. Those that have not should not be protected by the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and all of 
the interests that have come in here and said, let us provide special 
treatment for those that have not met their responsibility.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friends for their comments, because as I 
listened to them, I become more and more convinced of the importance of 
this amendment. It levels the playing field between the good actors and 
the bad ones.
  Right now, if this bill passes without this amendment, nobody has to 
do anything. The people who already have taken the move to fix the 
problem are definitely at a disadvantage. Why? They spent money to do 
it. They worked hard to do it. Yet, we are protecting those who are 
sitting back and saying, wow, I can't believe this deal I am getting.
  They are changing the law. It is only for 3 years, but it is enough 
time. How many people are going to sit around and wait to get their 
computers fixed? They will throw them out, and that is hard for a lot 
of consumers. That is why the Consumers Union is so strongly behind 
this and Public Citizen is so strongly behind this.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I hold in my hand an Institutional Investor. This is 
the real official document, the investment industry. They had a survey 
of the Congressional Financial Officers Forum of all the large 
corporations in the country. To the question, Do you feel your 
company's internal computer systems are prepared to make the year 2000 
transition without problems, do you realize that 88.1 percent said yes, 
and only 6 percent said no? So that is 6 percent that have another 6 
months to take care of it. With respect to actually getting and working 
out with their suppliers, do you realize that 95.2 percent said they 
have worked with their suppliers and are ironing out all the problems?
  It really verifies exactly the astute nature of the computer 
industry, as described by the Senator from California. You are right on 
target, and it hasn't been said on the floor as you are saying it, with 
authority, too. I commend the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. I can't be more proud of the Silicon 
Valley. I can't be more proud of the high-tech industry that I see 
blossoming all throughout my State. I can't be more proud of them.
  The facts the Senator put into the Record make me even more proud, 
because what he is saying is the vast majority are good actors. The 
vast majority understand their good practice of fixing the Y2K problem 
will redound to their benefit as well as to the benefit of consumers. 
They have a business conscience. They are good corporate actors. They 
have a social conscience. They understand it.
  In many ways, when you talk to some of these executives, they are 
very democratic. And I don't mean in terms of their party affiliation; 
I mean democratic with a small ``d.'' They want to spread democracy. 
They want each individual, through the power of the Internet and the 
power of their computer, to have the information, to have the 
knowledge. That is what excites them.
  So they are good people making a wonderful product. They don't want 
it to fail. Yet, we have a bill here that essentially says to those who 
haven't moved aggressively on this problem--and by the way, this is 
taken from the Apple web site, I say to my friend. There is a great 
quote by Douglas Adams about the year 2000 readiness. His quote is:

       We may not have gotten everything right, but at least we 
     knew the century was going to end.

  Good point. They knew the century was going to end. They knew there 
might be some problems.
  So to sum up the argument I am making for this important amendment, 
it is the one amendment that I know of where the attorneys and the 
Silicon

[[Page 12345]]

Valley were not even entered into the discussion. It is a hard, 
straightforward, consumer rights amendment, brought to you by the 
consumer groups, the people who really care about the individual 
business and the individual. It was originally found in the Cox-Dreier 
legislation, which was introduced in 1998. We practically take it word 
for word. What does it require? It says in that remediation period, 
after you have notified the company of your problems, if they determine 
they have a fix to your problem, they have to fix it. It is as simple 
as that. Who decides if there is a fix? They decide. We are not having 
anybody come and look over their shoulder. If the company says we have 
a fix, they fix it.
  Guess what happens. Everybody is happy. The consumer is happy. They 
can go back to work on their computers. The company is going to be 
happy because they are going to have to satisfy the consumer. There 
will be no lawsuit. Why? We fixed the problem.
  In some very interesting way, the underlying bill, because it doesn't 
require any fix at all, even if your computer was bought 3 days before 
the millennium, encourages companies not to do it. I just hope there 
will be a unanimous vote for this amendment, and if there isn't, if we 
don't win this amendment, it says to me the consumer isn't important in 
this debate.
  I can't imagine we are being so fair--if it is a really old computer, 
before 1990, the company could charge anything they want because we 
admit maybe it is worthless. But if it is between 1990 and 1995, they 
can charge you the cost. If it costs them $500 to fix the problem, you 
will pay $500. If it is a newer computer, between 1995 and the year 
2000, they ought to do it for free because, as the Apple people said, 
``We may not have gotten everything right, but we knew the century was 
going to end.''
  I have to tell you that by 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, if people 
didn't know this was a problem, they had to be sleeping, because 
everybody knew this was a problem in the 1990s.
  I am very hopeful to get the support of the Senator from Oregon and 
to get the support of the Senator from Arizona. I think this will be 
something that would make this bill more consumer friendly, despite the 
other problems.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I came over to the floor because I am in 
sympathy with what the Senator from California is trying to do. But 
this bill has taken such a pasting in the last 15 or 20 minutes that I 
am going to take a couple of minutes to correct the Record before we 
actually get into the merits of what my colleague is trying to do.
  For example, I have heard repeatedly that if you pass this bipartisan 
legislation put together by the Senator from Arizona and the Democratic 
leader on technology issues, Senator Dodd, and myself, well, these 
companies won't have to do anything; they won't have to do anything at 
all.
  Well, if they don't do anything at all, they are going to get sued. 
That is what is going to happen to them. Then we heard that if they 
were big and bad, they were going to get a free ride. I heard that 
several times here on the floor of the Senate in the last 15 or 20 
minutes. If you are big and bad, you are going to get a free ride if we 
pass this bill. I will tell you what happens if you are big and if you 
engage in egregious activity, if you rip people off; what happens is 
you get stuck for punitive damages because there is absolutely no cap 
on those, and joint and several liability applies to those people as 
well. That is what happens to the people who are big and bad under our 
legislation.
  I think it is just as important that the Record be corrected. I also 
heard that businesses were going to be the victims and the like. Well, 
if that is the case, it is sort of hard to understand why hundreds and 
hundreds of business organizations are supporting this bill. I would be 
very interested in somebody showing me a list of some business groups 
that aren't supporting the bill because I would sure want to be 
responsive to those folks.
  Let me, if I might, talk specifically about the Boxer amendment. By 
the way, apart from the last 15 or 20 minutes of discussion, my friend 
from California has been very helpful on a lot of technology issues 
that this Senator has been involved in. I remember the Internet Tax 
Freedom Act that we worked on in the last session of the Congress, 
where the Senator from California was very helpful. I very much 
appreciated that.
  The question that I have--and maybe I can engage in a discussion with 
the Senator from California on this and try to see if I can get fixed 
in my mind how to make what the Senator from California is talking 
about workable, because I think the Senator from California wants to do 
what is right. I am now just going to focus on her amendment and sort 
of put aside some of these other comments that I have heard in the last 
15, 20 minutes, which I so vehemently take exception to, and see if I 
can figure out with the Senator from California how we can make this 
workable. I want to tell her exactly what my concerns are. I come from 
a consumer movement, and she comes from that movement, and I know what 
she is trying to do is the right thing.
  Let us say that you have a system where one chip out of thousands is 
out of whack. My colleague says it ought to be repaired or replaced, 
and the question that we have heard as we have tried to talk to people 
is: Does this mean replacing just a chip? Does it mean replacing the 
operating system? Who is responsible for the fix? Is it Circuit City, 
where you bought it? Is it Compaq Computer? Is it the chip maker?
  What we have found in our discussions with people is that it wasn't 
just chips, but it was the software situation as well. Is it going to 
be Lotus or Novell or the retired computer programmer who put the code 
together a few years ago? As far as I can tell, the responsible 
companies--and I think the Senator from California has been absolutely 
right in making the point that there are an awful lot of responsible 
people out there. We are trying to do the right thing. The responsible 
people seem to want to do the kinds of things that the Senator from 
California is talking about. I know I saw an EDS advertisement 
essentially in support of our bill that talked about how they have a 
system to try to do this.
  If we can figure out a way, with the Senator from California, to do 
the kinds of things she is talking about so as to not again produce 
more litigation at a time when we are trying to constrict litigation, I 
want to do it.
  I have already had my staff put a lot of time into this. We are 
willing to spend a lot more time, because I think the motivations of 
the Senator from California are absolutely right. The question is how 
to deal with the kinds of bits, bytes, and chips, and all of the 
various technological aspects that go into this.
  I would be happy to yield to my colleague and hear her thoughts on 
it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my friend. I know it 
is hard, when you put so much work into the bill, when there is a 
disagreement. I just want to say to my friend, in terms of my 
particular bill, it focuses on that so-called remediation period. That 
is what I am focusing on, because, in my opinion, there is nothing that 
requires any action to fix in that period. It requires communication 
back and forth. That was my only point.
  This amendment--I am happy my friend is sympathetic to it, and I hope 
we can work out our differences on it--actually says to the 
manufacturer--the retailer is not involved in this. I say to my friend, 
if he reads my amendment, it just says if the manufacturer determines 
that there is a fix, then they must make the fix.
  In that 10-year period, we prescribe that if it is a newer part and a 
newer system, he does it for nothing, because in 1995 he should have 
known it, and prior to 1995, 1990 to 1995, we say at cost.
  Again, I want to make sure my friend knows, we do not change one 
piece of the underlying bill in terms of the rest of the bill. The rest 
of the bill stands.

[[Page 12346]]

We don't add any other court suits. We don't change any damages. All we 
say is fix it if you can. And if you cannot, the underlying bill will 
apply. That is really all we are doing.
  I think this sends a clear message to those manufacturers that have 
been lax to follow the lead of the good manufacturers that have been 
wonderful. And those are the ones I know and love from my State who 
have said we are going to make the consumer whole, we are going to make 
the consumer happy.
  I want my friend to know that we add no new cause of action--nothing. 
In the underlying bill, we just say remediation, period, instead of 
just saying it is a time for people to write bureaucratic lawyers a 
letter to each other, which is better than nothing. It is a cooling-off 
period. We say if you have a fix, make it work, because under the 
underlying bill there is no such requirement. You could charge people 
more than they even pay for the machine, et cetera, even if they got 
the machine 3 days before the millennium.
  I am happy to work with my friend. If she wants to put a quorum call 
in, perhaps, and sit down together to see if we can come up with 
something, Senator McCain said to me through staff that he thought we 
could do this as a policy.
  Frankly, we are writing legislation, and I think it is deserving of 
being included. But I would be delighted to work with my friend.
  Mr. WYDEN. My colleague is constructive, as always. Here is the kind 
of concern I think the high-technology sector would have to focus on 
the manufacturer. That deals with this issue of interoperability where, 
in effect, if you have one system or product that is Y2K compliant but, 
as a result of it being installed in a system that isn't already Y2K 
ready, you may have in fact failures, or bugs, or defects, the Y2K-
ready product may get infected and not properly function. Then the 
question is, Who is responsible? Can you, in effect, have somebody take 
responsibility for fixing a problem that isn't under their control?
  If the Senator from California would like to put in a quorum call and 
get into the issue of interoperability and how to deal with these 
various issues, and sort of have all of the people talking at once, I 
think that is very constructive. I am anxious to do it.
  I think this is a discrete and important concept. Again, without 
going back to all the things that were said in the last 20 or 25 
minutes, if you are a consumer, or a business, and you are getting 
stiffed, you can go out and sue immediately. You can go out and sue and 
get an injunction immediately. You don't have to wait 30 or 60 days, or 
whatever. You can go immediately.
  I would like to spend the time during the quorum call to try to focus 
on what I think is a very sincere effort of the Senator from California 
to try to do something to help people who need a remedy, and need it 
quickly. We are going to have to get into some of these 
interoperability questions and some of the questions of what happens 
when you have a problem that essentially gets into your system after it 
leaves your hands. I am anxious to try to do it. We can put it in the 
context of the kind of discrete, specific idea that the Senator from 
California was talking about rather than what I heard during the last 
20 or 25 minutes about how big and bad actors are going to get a free 
ride, when in fact on page 13 of the bill it says that you are liable 
for the problem that you cause. That is what is on page 13 of the bill. 
Proportionate liability--you are liable for the portion of the problem 
you caused. If you engage in intentional misconduct, if you rip people 
off, you are going to be stuck for the whole thing--joint and several, 
punitive damages, the works.
  I would prefer to do what the Senator from California is now 
suggesting, which is to put in a quorum call, bring the good people 
from Chairman McCain's office and from the office of the Senator from 
California and myself, along with Senator Dodd's, into a discussion to 
see if we can figure out a way to make this workable.
  I am happy to yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to engage with my friend. I thank him for his 
usual willingness.
  I want to make a point that I want my friend to understand. This is a 
very business-friendly amendment, because this amendment says the 
manufacturer has to determine if a fix is available.
  In all the issues my friend raises--well, there is a part over here 
from that company, and a part over there--the question is, it has 
nothing to do with liability; it has to do with a fix available for the 
consumer. If the manufacturer determines there is no fix, because there 
is little product in inside, and a company is out of business and they 
can't replace the part, the manufacturer simply says there is no fix 
available, and then the rest of the bill applies.
  Again, I say to my friend, as he said, as he described the fact, of 
course, the bad actors will be called into court later. We want to 
avoid that--both my friend and I.
  I believe we have so many good actors out there, and my friend cited 
one of the companies that has really taken care of this problem. I 
think that is what the Senator from Oregon was talking to me about 
before when he said you know some of these companies are doing this. 
Absolutely, they are. We ought to make that the model. We ought to say 
that is wonderful, you take care of it, and everybody is happy, and 
there is no lawsuit.
  I am hopeful, because I don't see this as complicated. We worked very 
hard to make it simple. We didn't want to tell the manufacturer, ``You 
can make the fix,'' if in fact they can't. If they in good faith say, 
``There is a part inside this mother board, and we can't fix it,'' then 
they simply say, ``I am sorry, there is no fix available in this 
circumstance,'' and then the underlying bill applies.
  But we think the leadership by the really good people in this high-
tech community ought to be followed. We believe if we don't put this 
amendment in the bill that those who already have acted in such good 
faith, in such good business behavior, and such good corporate 
responsibility to fix the problem and are seriously at a disadvantage, 
because they scratch their head and say, ``You know, I should have 
waited, maybe I didn't have to do all of this, and people would have 
decided it is too much of a hassle, I will just throw out my computer 
and get a new one,'' I can tell my friend, I bet a lot of people will 
wind up doing that. That would be unfortunate, if a fix is available.
  Whenever the Senator wishes to put in a quorum call, actually our 
friend from Delaware has been waiting to speak on another very 
important topic.
  Mr. WYDEN. I believe I have the time. I am going to wrap up in 2 
minutes, maximum.
  Mrs. BOXER. When the Senator yields the floor, the Senator from 
Delaware will take over, and the Senator from Oregon, Senator McCain, 
Senator Dodd, and I can meet.
  Mr. WYDEN. We are going to have to look at some of these.
  The question is, Is a fix available? If we are not careful, that 
could be a lawyer's full employment program.
  My colleague is absolutely right. In Oregon and California, we have 
access to some of the best minds and most dedicated and thoughtful 
people on the planet in this area. We should spend some time making 
sure we can get at this concept the Senator from California wishes to 
address in a workable way so we don't have more litigation, rather than 
less. I know the Senator from California shares that goal.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for 
15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________



                            PEACE AGREEMENT

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak of the military 
technical agreement signed by NATO and Yugoslavia. That is a fancy way 
for saying that we accepted the surrender of Slobodan Milosevic.
  I just got off the phone with the Secretary of State who called me 
from Germany with another piece of very positive news. She indicated 
that because the G-8 was meeting in Germany,

[[Page 12347]]

they put together a group of Europeans to flesh out in detail a 
Southeastern Europe Stability Pact, which is an idea generated by the 
German Government.
  The objective of that pact is to encourage democratic processes in 
southeastern Europe, in the Balkans, and to reduce tensions in the 
area. They have set up a very elaborate but clear timetable, and what 
they call ``regional'' tables, to promote democracy, economic 
reconstruction, and security. They have involved as the lead group the 
European Union, plus the OSCE, the United Nations, NATO, and to a 
lesser extent, the United States.
  The reason I bother to mention this is that the hard part is about to 
come. I hope we will have the patience that we did not show on this 
floor to win the peace. We have won the war, notwithstanding the fact 
many thought somehow we should be able to do this in less than 78 days.
  I think it is astounding that we talked about how this ``dragged 
on.'' We will probably find that close to 10,000 paramilitary and 
Serbian troops were killed. Only 2 Americans were lost in a training 
exercise--as bad as that is. Yet, we began to lose patience, because it 
wasn't done in a matter of 24 hours.
  If we have the patience, we can win the peace, because unlike 
pursuing the war, the bulk of the financial responsibility, 
organizational effort, and guidance will come from the Europeans. The 
European Union will take on the major portion of the responsibility for 
rebuilding the region, reconstructing the area.
  The American people should know that the President of the United 
States has tasked the Secretary of State to see to it--we will hear 
phrases such as ``mini Marshall Plan''--that the United States of 
America is not going to bear the brunt of the financial burden in 
reconstructing southeastern Europe. It is fully within the capacity of 
the Europeans. It is their responsibility. It is in their interest, and 
they are prepared to do it.
  On the military side, the first part is in place. The Yugoslav 
Government has capitulated on every single point NATO has demanded. The 
last several days of discussions between NATO and Yugoslav military 
commanders were not about negotiation. They were about the modalities 
of meeting the concessions made by Milosevic's government on every 
single point NATO demanded. It took some time to work that out.
  ``Modalities'' is a fancy foreign policy word. Translated, it means: 
How in the devil are they going to leave the country? In what order are 
they going to leave the country? What unit goes first? When do NATO 
forces, KFOR, move in so that no vacuum is created? By ``vacuum,'' I 
mean when there are no Yugoslav forces in Kosovo.
  That is what was going on. I got sick of hearing commentators on the 
air talking about how negotiations were going on between NATO and 
Milosevic. There were no negotiations. It was a total, complete 
surrender by the Yugoslavs, as it should have been.
  There is now a firm, verifiable timetable for withdrawal of all 
Yugoslav and Serbian military, and all special police--those thugs who 
have roamed the countryside in black masks, raping women, executing 
men, and wreaking havoc on a civilian population. Those thugs--half of 
whom are war criminals themselves, and should be indicted as such, like 
Milosevic--are required to leave. The worst of all are the 
paramilitaries. They all are also required to leave. If they do not 
leave, they will be killed or forcibly expelled.
  As I speak, this withdrawal has begun, although I trust Mr. Milosevic 
and the Serbian military about as far as I could throw the marble 
podium behind which the Presiding Officer sits. I am not worried, 
because even if they default, I am convinced of the resolve of NATO. We 
will pursue them. General Clark said 78 days ago that we would pursue 
them and hunt them down. And we did. And we will again, if necessary.
  The fundamental goal of NATO's air campaign has been achieved, 
notwithstanding all the naysayers on this floor, all the talking heads 
on television, and all the columnists.
  There has been an agreement for the return of all internally 
displaced persons and all Kosovar refugees who fled abroad. This is a 
monumental achievement, as it involves well over 1 million people. Some 
commentators have hesitated to call it a victory, but I do not. I 
understand why they hesitate to call it a victory. They called it a 
mistake up to now. So why would they call it a victory now?
  It is a victory--a victory for NATO, a victory for the United States 
of America, a victory for Western values, a victory for human rights, 
and a victory for the rule of law. In personal terms, it is a victory 
for President Clinton and his administration, which, despite 
unrelenting and often uninformed criticism that began almost 
immediately, stayed the course.
  I had some tactical disagreements with the way the administration 
proceeded. I don't think the President should have said at the outset 
that ground forces were off the table. He had to move back on that and 
make it clear that everything was on the table. That is susceptible to 
criticism.
  I point out, however, that the President of the United States of 
America never once wavered on his commitment to do whatever it took to 
end this ethnic cleansing.
  But, above all, it is a victory for the brave fighting men and women 
of NATO who carried out this air campaign, a majority of whom were 
Americans. Conversely, it is an unmitigated defeat for an indicted war 
criminal, the Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic.
  Just in case anyone wonders, he did not just become a war criminal. 
He was already a war criminal in 1993 when I spoke to him. He was a war 
criminal for his actions in Krajina. He was a war criminal for his 
actions in Bosnia. He is a war criminal for his actions in Kosovo. Had 
he not been stopped, he would have continued his vile ethnic cleansing.
  By the way, I encourage my colleagues to read the Genocide 
Convention. I will not take the time now to recount it, but what has 
been perpetrated by Milosevic in Kosovo is genocide.
  Our victory, I suggest, shows that patience and resolve can pay off. 
It should leave no doubt in the minds of the people throughout Europe 
and elsewhere in the world of the ability of a unified NATO to achieve 
its objectives. Now we have to move more swiftly to the second stage of 
the Kosovo campaign--peace implementation.
  I read with some dismay today in the major newspapers that the House 
of Representatives is considering denying the funds to allow any U.S. 
participation in the implementation of peace. They seem determined to 
compound the mistake they made just several weeks ago. The 
reconstruction of Kosovo, as I said, and confirmed by my conversation 
with the Secretary of State from Germany a half-hour ago, is primarily 
the responsibility of the European Union.
  I met with Helmut Kohl, the former Chancellor of Germany, just before 
the 50th anniversary summit of NATO. We met over at the Library of 
Congress for the better part of an hour and had a lengthy discussion. 
He is a very knowledgeable man and until last fall was the longest 
serving leader in Europe. He pointed out that there were 12 million 
refugees in Europe after World War II, and that the Europeans were able 
to handle the problem. He pointed out that the fifteen countries of the 
European Union have a combined gross domestic product larger than that 
of the United States of America. Anything remotely approaching a mini 
Marshall Plan is fully, totally, completely within the financial 
capability of our European friends, and it is primarily their 
responsibility. We should and must and will participate. But as I said 
to the President of the EU, as well as to the chancellor, and as well 
to every front-line state leader and every leader of the NATO alliance 
with whom I met, the sharing of the reconstruction burden in 
southeastern Europe should not be as it is in NATO, roughly 75-25. It 
should be more like 90-10. It is primarily their responsibility, and 
they understand they will greatly benefit from a reconstructed and more 
unified

[[Page 12348]]

southeastern Europe. I wish them well and hope their initiative will 
succeed.
  This ratio, as I said, should be juxtaposed with the heavy 
responsibility we bore militarily in the Yugoslav campaign. The 
overwhelming majority of airstrikes when ordinance was dropped was 
carried out by our forces, and we have footed the lion's share of the 
bill. We have done this as the leader of NATO and as the only military 
power in the alliance capable of shouldering the burden. I do not 
complain about America's shouldering more of the burden when no one 
else is capable. But I do and will complain when others are equally or 
more capable than we are, and they do not take the lion's share of the 
responsibility. But in this case there is no argument, because the 
Europeans understand their obligation in economic reconstruction, and 
they are able and willing to carry it out. As I mentioned, they have 
already demonstrated the willingness to take the lead by proposing a 
Stability Pact for southeastern Europe, which at a later date I will 
discuss in detail. The European Union plan, in my view, should be 
coordinated with our own ongoing SEED program, which has already 
accomplished much in economic and democratic reconstruction in the 
former Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
  But the key question is the reconstruction of Serbia. There should be 
no reconstruction of Serbia as long as an indicted war criminal is 
Yugoslavia's President, as long as he is on the political scene. Once 
the Serbian people remove him, the Western World will be ready, 
willing, and able to come to the aid of Serbia and do it gladly. I hope 
that we will have the nerve to arrest Milosevic, send him to the 
International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague, and God willing, see him 
convicted. Only then, only when Serb people understand the extent of 
the atrocities Milosevic is responsible for, will they face up to the 
harsh reality of what they, quite possibility unintentionally, but 
nonetheless enabled to happen. It is time to end the perpetuation of 
the myth that Serbia is a victim.
  I do not propose to be able to say exactly when and how Milosevic 
will leave office, but I predict there will be no Milosevic in power at 
this time next year. I think his days are numbered for three reasons.
  First of all, most Serbian citizens realize if Milosevic had accepted 
the Rambouillet accords last February, they would have had 
substantially the same result but without having their country crippled 
by 11 weeks of bombing.
  Second, as the troops return from Kosovo, the word will spread of the 
horrible casualties the Serbian troops have suffered. They do not know 
that yet because of the repressive Milosevic regime that manipulates 
the news. The number of Serbian military, paramilitary and police 
casualties will, I predict, total nearly 10,000. When the Serbian 
people learn of this carnage, I predict they will be angry, not merely 
at NATO but at Milosevic for bringing this upon them. Ten thousand 
Serbian soldiers and special police were killed, many of them 
slaughtered in B-52 raids in the last days of the war when Milosevic 
was stalling on signing the military technical agreement. When the 
extent of Serbian combat losses sinks in, there will be fury against 
Milosevic and his cronies.
  Third, as KFOR--that is the acronym for the NATO implementation 
force--occupies Kosovo, I am convinced that every prediction I made 
here about the atrocities that were taking place will unfortunately be 
proven correct. You will be stunned at the evidence that will be 
uncovered of the brutality and the atrocities committed by the Serbians 
on a mass scale, far greater than the horrible massacres we already 
know about. These revelations, I believe, will further alienate the 
many decent Serbs who rallied behind Milosevic as their patriotic duty 
during the bombing campaign.
  We know that KFOR's task will be a daunting one. Millions of mines 
must be removed. All booby traps must be found and disposed of. And--I 
do not know how it can be avoided--surely some NATO forces will be 
killed. I pray to God that this will not happen. I pray to God that 
KFOR turns out as successful in that category as the military campaign 
has, but I do not think we can count on that.
  All armed locals and irregulars in Kosovo must be intimidated into 
submission. The KLA must be turned into a demilitarized police force 
under civilian control.
  All these will be difficult tasks, but I am confident that they can 
be accomplished if we maintain resolve. Nothing, however, that happens 
from this point on can detract from the magnitude of the victory we 
have achieved.
  Had President Clinton heeded the call to negotiate with Milosevic, it 
would have been a disaster.
  Had President Clinton heeded the call to stop the bombing, it would 
have been a disaster.
  Had President Clinton heeded the call to run roughshod over our NATO 
allies and disregard their wishes, the alliance would have fractured 
and that, too, would have been a disaster. This place, including 
Democrats, would have run out from under him faster than I can walk 
from here to the door of the Chamber. It is remarkable how he was able 
to keep the alliance together. Most importantly, had President Clinton 
not stayed the course and achieved this victory, our geopolitical 
position in North Korea, in Iraq, and in many other parts of the world 
would have suffered grievously. I ask my colleagues to think about what 
at this moment Saddam Hussein is thinking. Had we listened to those who 
said: Cease and desist, partition, stop bombing, negotiate with 
Milosevic, cut a deal--what do you think would be happening in Baghdad 
now?
  But the President did stay the course, and our magnificent fighting 
men and women performed in an exemplary way. Because we have succeeded 
in the military campaign, and because we have the ability to succeed in 
the civilian reconstruction that will follow, the world has seen that 
the President of the United States, the American people,, and a united 
NATO have the will to respond to crises and successfully defend Western 
values and interests.
  I will be taking the floor again many more times in the following 
weeks on this issue. I know my colleagues are probably tired of my 
speaking on this. It has been something I have been discussing since 
1990. But we are finally finding our sea legs.
  I will conclude by saying that in the case of Kosovo and Yugoslavia, 
American interests are at stake, the cause is just, the means are 
available, and the will was present. For Lord's sake, let's not now, 
out of some misguided sense of isolationism or partisanship, do 
anything other than finalize this victory and secure our interests.
  Think about it: the removal from Kosovo of the Serbian troops means, 
at a minimum, that Slobodan Milosevic's goons will no longer be able to 
harass, rob, rape, expel, or kill over a million Kosovars. I believe he 
has lost his ability to overthrow the Montenegrin Government, and 
certainly to overthrow Macedonia's government and to fundamentally 
destabilize Albania, Romania, and Bulgaria. This is a significant 
accomplishment, but most importantly, it demonstrates that not only 
this President, but also the next President, whether he or she is a 
Republican or a Democrat, is going to be faced with very hard choices. 
I respectfully suggest that he or she should not underestimate the 
will, the grit, the patience, or the common sense of the American 
people. They know what we did was right.
  I was in Macedonia. I have been in the region a half a dozen times. I 
have also had the displeasure of meeting alone for almost 3 hours with 
Slobodan Milosevic, at which meeting, in early 1993, he asked what I 
thought of him. I told him then that I thought he was a damn war 
criminal and should be tried as such. He looked at me as if I had said, 
``Lots of luck in your senior year.'' It did not phase him a bit. Even 
some of my staff said as we were leaving: You said that to a President 
of a country.
  I said: I don't care. He is a war criminal.

[[Page 12349]]

  The justification of what we did was best summed up on my last trip a 
few weeks ago. I was sitting in the airfield outside of Skopje in 
Macedonia. I walked into a tent where there were about 15 young 
Americans ranging in age from 18 to 30, all noncommissioned officers. 
They were the crew that was gathered together from all over the world 
to make that airfield compatible for our Apache helicopters and for the 
large C-130s that were flying in with food deliveries.
  I walked in, and we started talking. They were taking a break. We 
were sitting on cots. I thanked them for what they were doing. I said: 
You know, I am getting a lot of heat back home. Some of my colleagues, 
including some of my seatmates, refer to this as ``Biden's war.'' Some 
of my friends are telling me this is another Vietnam. What are you 
guys--there was actually one woman--what do you all think about that? 
Do you think this is another Vietnam?
  One, I believe a sergeant about 24 years old, looked at me and 
answered: Senator, let me ask you a question. When you were 24 years 
old, if they had called you up and sent you here, would you have had 
any doubt about the justice of what you were doing?
  All of a sudden it became clear to me. They had no doubt. Our young 
fighters have no doubt about the justness of what they have undertaken. 
They knew it was right. We did the right thing.
  I pray to God that we have the courage and the patience and the 
ability to resist our partisan instincts on both sides and stay the 
course. Because if we do, we can bend history just a little, but bend 
it in a way that my grandchildren will not have to wonder about whether 
or not they will have to fight in Europe in the year 2020 or the year 
2025.
  I congratulate the Senate for, at the end of the day, every day, 
having done the right thing in this war. I congratulate the President 
and his administration for having had the political courage to stay the 
course. I plead with my colleagues in the House to do the right thing.
  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. 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.

                          ____________________



                                Y2K ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have to rise to express my frustration 
with our current circumstances. I have been doing all I could to assure 
that we could bring this bill to closure.
  We agreed to a limited number of amendments. We agreed to time limits 
on those amendments. We have agreed to try to accelerate the 
consideration of this bill in every way, shape, and form. Now we are 
told we cannot have a vote on final passage until Tuesday.
  That is totally inexplicable. We have been told over and over and 
over again this bill is so important and time-sensitive. We have been 
told it cannot wait. We have been told we cannot take up other 
legislation because we do not have time.
  We have been on this bill for a couple of days. We have addressed 
every concern Senators have raised. We have offered amendments. We have 
no reason this bill could not be completed today--no reason at all.
  It is very hard for me to understand why, after all of this effort to 
bring us to this point, to have completed our work on the bill, we 
cannot bring this bill to closure, we cannot move on to other 
legislation. There is just no reason for it.
  I am very disappointed. It is very hard to ask my colleagues day 
after day to cooperate, day after day to try to figure out a way to 
complete work on bills, and then be told: Well, we have changed our 
mind. We don't want to complete work on a bill. We are going to bump 
this bill into next week. And, by the way, we are going to make up 
reasons to have votes.
  That is not the way to run the Senate. It is not the way to do 
business. It makes it very difficult to go back to colleagues and say: 
Now we have changed our mind again. We are going to try to finish this 
bill in 2 days. We are going to try to take something else up and work 
it through, but we want your cooperation.
  That is unacceptable. I do not know why we cannot have the final 
vote. I do not know why we cannot finish the legislation. I do not know 
why we cannot find a way to resolve all the other outstanding issues 
there are with regard to this bill this afternoon. We can do it this 
afternoon. It is only 2 o'clock.
  I am told that all we have left only two or three. That is all we 
have. We are told by the Republicans that there is no more time, that 
we will not be allowed to go to final passage today.
  As I say, it leaves me mystified. I am absolutely puzzled, 
exasperated. I do not understand. I just wish we had been told, because 
there have been a lot of other amendments we could have offered on our 
side had we known we would have all this time. We were told: No. We 
don't have time. Let's get this bill done, and let's get it to 
conference.
  We are now not going to get to conference--not now, not tomorrow, not 
until next week.
  There is no excuse.
  Mr. REID. Will the leader yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding that we have been pressed on getting 
this bill to the floor for weeks and weeks; is that not true?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The deputy Democratic leader is right. There are 
absolutely as many references to that in the Record as any legislation 
I know of this year, especially from the other side. The Senator from 
Connecticut has been so diligent and so arduous in recognizing how 
important this bill is and urging us to move through this and get it 
done. He is on the floor. I am sure he would be more than happy to vote 
on final passage this afternoon, but that will not happen.
  Mr. REID. I also ask this question of the leader. We did not oppose 
the motion to proceed; the minority did not oppose the motion to 
proceed. But I am of the impression and belief that there are a lot of 
other things due. The Patients' Bill of Rights, for example, isn't that 
something that we need to move forward on?
  Mr. DASCHLE. We certainly do need to move forward on that. We have 
suggested 20 amendments on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Recognizing 
that there could be 60 or 70 amendments, given the way many Senators 
feel about that important piece of legislation, we have said not 60, 
not 50, not 40, but 20 amendments, and time limits on those amendments. 
The answer was, well, there may not be time to do 20 amendments.
  Here we are today. We were told that there wasn't time to do 15 
amendments on this bill.
  I have to give great credit to our ranking member, the manager on our 
side. He could have filibustered this legislation. I know how he feels 
about it. He could have been out here making the Senate go through all 
the hoops. We have talked about this. In the interest of expediting the 
legislation, moving this through, the Senator graciously has 
acknowledged that there will be another day. We will work through this 
in conference. The Senator has said that more than anybody. Ironically, 
the one man who could have held this thing up for weeks, if not months, 
is sitting here ready to vote. It is really an irony, it seems to me, 
that in spite of all the attention about expediting this bill, in spite 
of all the pressure and all the effort made to express the urgency of 
getting this done, we sit here this afternoon, at 2 o'clock, waiting 
for final passage.
  Mr. REID. One final question to the leader. We have, as I understand 
it, about 203 days left until the Y2K date arrives. If we wait now 
until Tuesday to vote on this, we are going to have less than 200 days 
to get this legislation passed, to get it to conference, to get it to 
the President. Each day that goes by, it seems to me, is very critical 
to the passage of this legislation. Is that not true?

[[Page 12350]]


  Mr. DASCHLE. That was the whole reason we agreed to be as expeditious 
as possible. I am going to vote against final passage. I hope a number 
of my colleagues will join me in doing that. But that doesn't mean I do 
not want a bill. I have said repeatedly on the Senate floor I want a 
bill, but I want the right bill. The only way we are going to get to 
the right bill is to continue to work on it. We are not going to do 
that this afternoon. We are not going to do that tomorrow. We are not 
going to do that Monday. We are now going to have to wait until 
Tuesday. So that just delays for another week the prospects of 
meaningful compromise and meaningful resolution of the outstanding 
questions.
  Mr. REID. But the leader and other Senators voted for a version of 
this bill yesterday; is that not true?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Absolutely. We voted for a version the President can 
sign yesterday. He said he would sign it. I am very hopeful he will 
sign a bill. We can't go through the rest of this year without some 
resolution to this issue. But it is disappointing to me that we are not 
in a position to resolve this matter today, this afternoon, so that he 
can sign the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished leader is manifestly 
correct.
  I was told, let's not even have a cloture vote, because looking at 
this measure, there could be three more cloture votes. And viscerally, 
not next Tuesday, I hope we do not vote until Tuesday 2001, the way I 
feel about it. But I entered public service to get some things done. 
You win some; you lose some. You have to go along.
  This is embarrassing to the body. Here we are, the Senate, talking 
about all the important things to get done and everything else of that 
kind. So we yield. We talk Senators into not offering their amendments. 
We finally get time agreements on all of the amendments on this side so 
no one has been in a proliferation or stretchout or extended debate. We 
were even forced to vote early last night to make sure we cleared the 
way to finish this afternoon.
  All we have is Senator Sessions' amendment and Senator Gregg's 
amendment, two amendments that could be disposed of in the next hour. 
In fact, the manager and our chairman, Senator McCain, has been 
yielding back his time and ready to vote. So it could be less than an 
hour. By 2:30 this afternoon, we could be finished with the bill.
  My question is, why do we want to wait and palaver and waste time and 
not go on to some of these important measures this afternoon? We are 
here and we are ready to go.
  I thank the minority leader and the whip for their particular 
comments, because we have been riding all the Senators pretty hard to 
limit the amendments and to have time agreements. Let's get moving. 
Senator McCain wanted to move the bill. We said so. I know the 
Republican screen all week long said they are going to finish this 
afternoon. I can't understand the change of pace now, to do nothing but 
talk to each other all afternoon. What a distressing situation this is, 
and no votes tomorrow and on Monday and just wait until Tuesday.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we continue to attempt to negotiate a way 
in which to deal with the Boxer amendment in a way that we hope can be 
worked out, Senators Gregg and Sessions then be recognized to offer 
those amendments, and that the bill be advanced to third reading, 
substitute the House bill for it and then vote on final passage at 2:15 
on Tuesday. We will then begin on Monday, as I have been given to 
understand it, to do the energy and water appropriations bill, which we 
may very well be able to complete on Monday.
  I do find it interesting that the Senator from South Carolina, who 
successfully, on two occasions, prevented this current bill from coming 
up at all by filibusters and saw to it that cloture could not be 
invoked, is now so anxious to finish it.
  We think this is a very good bill. I said yesterday I hoped that it 
was stronger, but it is the result of negotiations that have involved 
Members of both parties. To let the country and the industry look at it 
over the weekend and to allow both sides on the outside of the Senate 
to communicate their desires to Senators is a highly appropriate method 
of dealing with the bill. We will soon propound a unanimous consent 
proposal to the end that I have just described, and we hope that that 
unanimous consent will be granted.
  We will finish most of the debate, I suspect, the debate on all of 
the amendments to this bill, before this evening, and then go forward 
with final passage on Tuesday.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as I understand the Senator from 
Washington, he has not propounded the request. Listening to the 
request, this Senator is perfectly willing to go along with every 
element of it, save and excepting right after the disposition of the 
Sessions and Gregg amendments, we then vote on final passage.
  I don't understand the delay, because those two amendments can easily 
be handled within the hour. So we can vote early this afternoon and go 
on with the business of the Senate. We have very important work to do. 
Yes, I was the one who held it up, but it didn't hold up any 
consideration of other things, I can tell you that. They immediately 
kept filing cloture, as they will to other measures. I don't feel badly 
about that, because it wasn't really a holdup.
  When they finally persuaded me they had the votes and they were going 
to really move with this thing, then I got into a movement disposition 
and persuaded our colleagues on this side of the aisle to limit their 
amendments, to give time agreements. Now we are ready to go, and here 
at the last minute, for no good reason at all, other than the 
bemusement of the distinguished Senator from Washington, he won't agree 
to vote when we get through with all amendments, which will be the 
Sessions and the Gregg amendments. Once they are disposed of, let's go 
right ahead to final passage.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

                          ____________________



                     SENATOR STEVENS' 12,000TH VOTE

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last afternoon, Senator Stevens cast his 
12,000th rollcall vote. Many of my colleagues joined in commending 
Senator Stevens on this very worthwhile and considerable 
accomplishment. I was not on the floor at that time. Today, I join in 
commending Senator Stevens on having cast his 12,000th vote.
  Since arriving in the U.S. Senate on December 24, 1968, Senator 
Stevens has worked tirelessly on matters relating to defense and 
national security. Having served in World War II, as a pilot in the 
China-Burma-India theater, Senator Stevens was awarded the 
Distinguished Flying Cross twice, two air medals, and the Yuan Hai 
medal awarded by the Republic of China.
  He joined the Appropriations Committee on February 23, 1972, and 3 
years later he began service on the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, where he has served continuously since that time, and 
served with great distinction. Since he became chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee in 1981, Senator Stevens has served either 
as chairman or ranking member of that vitally important subcommittee. 
As of January 1997, Senator Stevens assumed additional responsibilities 
that come with being named chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  I have worked by his side on many, many occasions on subcommittees, 
particularly on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. I have served 
with him on matters that have come before the Committee on 
Appropriations, where I now serve as his ranking

[[Page 12351]]

member. In addition, for many years, I have been privileged to have the 
honor of serving with Senator Stevens on the Arms Control Observer 
Group, as well as on the British-American Parliamentary Group.
  Senator Stevens works indefatigably to ensure that his State of 
Alaska receives appropriate consideration in all matters that come 
before the Senate. He does that work and does it well. The people of 
Alaska can be preeminently proud of the service that their Senator, the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, performs. He 
works for Alaska every day, and he works for the Nation every day.
  Not only do I consider him one of the most distinguished and one of 
the most capable Senators with whom I have served in more than 41 years 
now, I also count him as a dear and trusted friend. I was in the Middle 
East when Ted Stevens was in the airplane crash in which he lost his 
wife, and I called him from the plane in which I was flying in the 
Middle East on that occasion. He was in the hospital. I talked with him 
and, of course, I was glad that he had survived the tragic accident.
  Ted Stevens is a friend who can be always trusted. A handshake with 
Ted Stevens is his bond, and his word is his bond. I have always found 
him to be very trustworthy. I have always found him to be very fair, 
very considerate. He is a gentleman. I think all of my colleagues on my 
side on the Appropriations Committee treasure their friendship with Ted 
Stevens. So I congratulate him on his new milestone and what has been 
and continues to be a most remarkable career in public service.
  There are many things about Ted Stevens that we can admire. I admire 
his spunk. I was saying to someone on my staff today that he would be 
one whale of a baseball team manager. He would take on all of the 
umpires if he thought they didn't call the plays right. He sticks up 
for what he believes. He has the courage of his convictions, and I 
certainly would not want to be a player on his team in the locker room 
if I lost a ball game through some error on my part.
  He is a hard driver. He works hard every day. He represents his 
people in the Senate, and he reverences the Senate and, perhaps best of 
all, he is, as I have already said, a gentleman. He thinks, as I do, 
that there are some things more important than political party. The 
U.S. Senate happens to be one of them, as far as I am concerned, and, I 
believe, as far as he is concerned.
  Let me now say that I am extremely proud of Ted Stevens. He is a 
wonderful family man. He loves his family; he loves his daughter, Lily, 
and his other children.
  Let me close by what I think is an appropriate bit of verse written 
by William Wordsworth. The title of it is, ``Character of the Happy 
Warrior.'' I will not read the entire poem, but extracts from it I 
think will be useful in this regard:

     Who is the happy Warrior? Who is he
     That every man in arms should wish to be?

                           *   *   *   *   *

     'Tis he whose law is reason; who depends
     Upon that law as on the best of friends;
     Whence, in a state where men are tempted still
     To evil for a guard against worse ill,
     And what in quality or act is best
     Doth seldom on a right foundation rest,
     He labors good on good to fix, and owes
     To virtue every triumph that he knows:
     --Who, if he rise to station of command,
     Rises by open means; and there will stand
     On honorable terms, or else retire,
     And in himself possess his own desire;
     Who comprehends his trust, and to the same
     Keeps faithful with a singleness of aim;
     And therefore does not stoop, nor lie in wait
     For wealth, or honors, or for worldly state;

                           *   *   *   *   *

     And, through the heat of conflict, keeps the law
     In calmness made, and sees what he foresaw;
     Or if an unexpected call succeed,
     Come when it will, is equal to the need:

                           *   *   *   *   *

     `Tis, finally, the Man, who, lifted high,
     Conspicuous object in a Nation's eye,
     Or left unthought-of in obscurity--
     Who, with a toward or untoward lot,
     Prosperous or adverse, to his wish or not--
     Plays, in the many games of life, that one
     Where what be most doth value must be won:
     Whom neither shape of danger can dismay,
     Nor thought of tender happiness betray;
     Who, not content that former worth stand fast,
     Looks forward, preserving to the last,
     From well to better, daily self-surpassed:
     Who, whether praise of him must walk the earth
     Forever, and to noble deeds give birth,
     Or he must fall, to sleep without his fame,
     And leave a dead unprofitable name--
     Finds comfort in himself and in his cause;
     And, while the mortal mist is gathering, draws
     His breath in confidence of Heaven's applause:
     This is the happy Warrior; this is He
     That every Man in arms should wish to be.

  That, Mr. President, in my judgment, is Ted Stevens, ``The Happy 
Warrior.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is his misfortune, the Senator from 
Alaska, to not be here on the floor to listen to those eloquent and 
gracious remarks of the Senator from West Virginia. So I think it falls 
to me, inadequate as I am, to thank the Senator from West Virginia for 
those thoughts and to say that it reminds those of us who have not been 
here quite so long of the magnificence of the personal relationships 
that are created here by broad-minded Members like the Senator from 
West Virginia and the Senator from Alaska over the years, even though I 
suspect that during many of those 12,000 rollcalls--literally thousands 
of them--they voted on opposite sides, sometimes with views that were 
very strongly held.
  I think it is only the Senator from West Virginia and perhaps the 
President pro tempore who will cast more votes than Senator Stevens, 
who I note now is here, and I would rather he speak for himself.
  But I say, Mr. President, through you to the Senator from Alaska, 
that I was privileged to hear the eloquent remarks about the Senator 
from Alaska on this occasion that the Senator from West Virginia made. 
They do great credit to him, and they do equal credit to the Senator 
who made them.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Washington for his very gracious remarks.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am embarrassed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. My daughter just graduated from high school. We had a 
little event. They called to tell me that my good friend, the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, was making remarks about my 
having followed him to this floor for 12,000 times. We have been 
partners for a long time. I am grateful to the Senator from West 
Virginia for his comments. I look forward to reading them. I am sad 
that I was not here to listen to them. But knowing the Senator, I know 
they were eloquent, and I am proud to be the recipient of his comments.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank and join in with the 
comments made by our distinguished leader, Senator Byrd from West 
Virginia.
  No one knows the history and appreciates the history of the Senate 
better than Senator Byrd and the compliment thereof. He reminded me, 
when he talked about the fatal crash that Senator Stevens was involved 
in, I had just traveled with Senator Stevens and his first wife, Annie. 
We were in Cairo, Egypt, out on the Nile to a conference with Anwar 
Sadat. We stopped in Madrid. I will never forget it. My wife and Annie 
took a quick trip, as we were being briefed. There was the purchase of 
a cut-glass bowl, and Annie Stevens had that in her lap, and that plane 
went head over heels. It broke Senator Stevens' arm, and it cost her 
life, but there was not a crack in the bowl.
  I can tell you from the early days when I first got up here in 1966 
that I used to hold the hearings for Senator Bob Bartlett up there in 
Seattle with Dixie Lee Ray and John Lindberg and all on oceanography 
and what have you, and then go up to Alaska to Point Barrow.
  There is no closer friend in the Senate to me than Ted Stevens of 
Alaska. I am his admirer. I like his fights. Senator Byrd was more 
tactful about describing it, but I am telling you right

[[Page 12352]]

now, when he gets worked up, get out of the way right now, because he 
is going to get it done one way or the other, and he is not yielding. 
He has that conviction of conscience that really guides all of us in 
our service up here.
  Over the many years, we visited, we traveled, we worked together, and 
we have been identified both on the Appropriations Committee and on the 
Commerce Space Science Transportation Committee. Senator Stevens long 
since could have been chairman of that Commerce Space Science 
Transportation Committee, but he elected to take over at the 
appropriations level. As a result, Alaska is well served. I can tell 
you that. It is filled up.
  They used to say about my backyard with Mendel Rivers that if he got 
one more facility, Charleston, SC, was going to sink below the sea. I 
think second in line for that kind of result would be Alaska as a 
result of the diligence for the local folks.
  I will never forget; we traveled up to Point Barrow. The Natives had 
erected a cross and a statue to Annie Stevens who was lost in that 
wreck.
  I want to emphasize that more than anything else--of course, his 
wonderful wife, Catherine, and his daughter, Lily--that he might make 
12,000 votes, but he will miss votes, I can tell you, to be there with 
Lily. In fact, we had planned during the August break to take another 
survey trip, and he said: Oh no. Lily goes to Stanford then. We have to 
put it off until later.
  You have to admire that about an individual, as busy as we get and as 
wound up as we get with the important affairs of state, to never forget 
the personal responsibilities, and the love and that Ted has for his 
family, and, of course, for each of us in the Senate. He is most 
respectful. He works both sides of the aisle. As a result of that, he 
is most effective.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________



                                Y2K ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from California 
is now back on the floor, and we are dealing with her amendment.
  There was an extensive effort to reach agreement on a form of that 
amendment. Regrettably those efforts were not successful. There simply 
is a significant difference of opinion on the policies that it 
propounds. I intend to speak for a relatively short period of time in 
opposition to the amendment. I am certain that the Senator from 
California would like to speak for her amendment. I know the Senator 
from Connecticut is here, and I know the Senator from California wishes 
to speak.
  Shortly after that succession is completed, if there is no one else 
who wishes to participate in the debate, there will be a motion to 
table the Boxer amendment.
  The Boxer amendment requires, as a part of the remediation, that a 
manufacturer make available to a plaintiff a repair or replacement at 
cost for any product first introduced after January 1, 1990, and at no 
charge under the same circumstances for a product first introduced for 
sale after the end of 1994.
  The amendment is overwhelmingly too broad. For example, the Internal 
Revenue Service allows, at most, 5, and in many cases only 3, years in 
which to write off the cost of products of this nature, determining 
that is their useful life. If they are used in a business, therefore, 
they have been depreciated to a zero value in every case--not every 
case covered by this matter, but in the vast majority of the cases 
covered by this amendment.
  In many of these cases, under the second subsection, it simply means 
that the plaintiff is entitled to absolutely free replacement. That 
computer, if it is a home computer, may long since have been relegated 
to the attic, unused. Yet the original manufacturer would have to 
replace it. In many cases, the new parts would not work. A 1990 
computer is not very readily upgradeable. It does not have the speed or 
the memory of a 1999 computer. Y2K problems are probably the least of 
the problems with which such a manufacturer is faced.
  I spoke yesterday on the bill as a whole, the tremendous way in which 
our lives and technology have been changed by this revolution; 1990 is 
several generations ago with respect both to hardware and to software. 
How do we go about doing this? Precisely what products are covered?
  We simply have a situation in which the amendment is too broad and 
missing in specificity. We have an attempt to amend a bill that is 
designed to discourage litigation and to limit litigation that, if 
adopted, will significantly increase the amount of litigation and the 
number of causes of action that would take place without any 
legislation at all.
  In other words, this amendment would create new causes of action that 
probably do not exist anywhere under present law. Under those 
circumstances, while we should certainly encourage remediation and 
fixes, this might well have exactly the opposite impact. We have all 
kinds of duties listed in here with respect to manufacturers--and to 
others, for that matter. It is not only unnecessary to add this new 
duty and this new potential for causes of action, this proposal is 180 
degrees in opposition.
  Therefore, with regret and sorrow that we were not able to work it 
out, I must for myself, and I suspect for a majority of the Senate, 
object to the amendment and trust we will soon have a vote on that 
subject.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
not moving to table at this time so I have an opportunity to respond to 
his comments.
  I want the Senate to understand those who are supporting this bill 
came back to this Senator with a suggestion on how I could change the 
amendment so it would be agreeable to them. We agreed with their 
changes. We said fine, we are willing to back off a little bit.
  Guess what happened? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
still would not accept it.
  It is not the Senator from California who was unwilling to make the 
amendment more workable to the other side. It was the other side who 
recommended a change. When we said OK, they decided it was still 
unacceptable.
  I don't quite understand it. Now there is going to be a motion to 
table this amendment.
  I see the Senator from Illinois is on the floor. I wanted to make 
sure he understood we were negotiating to try to reach an agreement. We 
were offered some changes. Even though we did not think they were 
perfect, we accepted them. The other side, however, continues to 
resist.
  I don't know whom they checked with, but it was not the consumers, 
because this is the only proconsumer amendment that I thought had a 
chance to make it into this bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. Did I understand the Senator from California to say this 
was part of the original legislation on this subject, the idea that the 
businesses which bought the computers and the software that didn't work 
would at least have some help in repairing it so they could keep their 
businesses going and not shut down and cost jobs? Is it correct that 
this was originally part of the proposal?
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator is exactly right.
  The proposal I had in the form of this amendment was taken almost 
verbatim from a bill that was offered by two Republican House Members, 
Chris Cox and David Dreier, very good friends of the business 
community. The concept for my amendment was essentially taken from that 
bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the gentlelady yield?
  I think the Senator makes a very good point. The Senator said at 
various times this is a consumer amendment, this is a probusiness 
amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. No question.
  Mr. DURBIN. We are talking about small and medium-sized businesses, 
dependent on computers, that discover,

[[Page 12353]]

January 2, the year 2000, they have a serious problem.
  What the Senator from California is suggesting is, if it is an old 
computer, one that goes back over 5 years, they would have to pay the 
cost of whatever the repair; if it has been purchased in the last 5 
years--a period of time when everyone generally sensed this problem was 
coming--the computer company would fix it without charge.
  A lot of businesses would retain the ability to keep going, making 
their products and keeping their people working.
  This is not just proconsumer, this is probusiness. It troubles me to 
see so many business groups lined up against this amendment. It seems 
to me counterintuitive.
  I think what the Senator from California is doing is showing 
sensitivity that virtually all friends of business should show in this 
legislation.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.
  I think the amendment pending--which, unfortunately, the other side 
is going to move to table--is a proconsumer, probusiness, pro-ordinary 
person amendment. It is a commonsense amendment.
  It simply says to the manufacturer, if you have a fix available and 
you determine you do, then fix the problem. We are only talking about 
computers that were made in the last 10 years. We are exempting all the 
rest.
  We are not adding an undue burden. There are a lot of good people out 
there who are making the fixes. We are saying to the rest of business, 
emulate that, fix the problem, and there will be no lawsuits, no 
waiting at the courthouse door; you will be able to get your computer 
back in operation, you will be able to keep your business going and 
growing.
  For some reason, the other side cannot see their way clear to 
accepting this.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield?
  I want to credit Senator Durbin for educating this Senator. These 
fellows have to come over from the House and tell Senators how to act. 
I never heard ``gentlelady,'' but now I like it.
  If the distinguished gentlelady will yield, I have been here since, 
of course, the beginning of the debate. It has been what they call 
predatory legalistic, predatory legal practices, lawsuits, racing to 
the courthouse, running to the courthouse, picking out someone down the 
line with deep pockets.
  The distinguished Senator, as I understand it, is only asking for a 
fix. The amendment is not asking to race to the courthouse, but to race 
away from the courthouse.
  Mrs. BOXER. Exactly.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Just get a fix.
  And now they don't even want to agree on fixing the thing.
  Mrs. BOXER. Right.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Maybe if we keep to this debate long enough, they, on 
the other side of the aisle, will ask us to send money to the poor 
computer industry. We ought to take up contributions. We have to change 
the laws for them. All we want to do is get the computer fixed, but now 
they even oppose that.
  Is that the case? Isn't that the amendment, really--to get it fixed? 
It has nothing to do with bringing a legal proceeding or economic loss 
or any of that?
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend is so right. We do not touch one thing in the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I see. I thank the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. As it relates to lawsuits, it has the same exact 
provisions. All we say is, if a manufacturer has a fix available, do 
the fix. Be a good actor. Be good corporate citizens. Do what most of 
the fine companies are doing up and down the State of California and 
throughout the country. They knew this problem was coming, and the good 
ones have done something about it. This amendment, frankly, was brought 
to me by the consumer groups. They said: You know, no one is really 
talking about fixing the problem. They are all talking about legalisms 
here. It made so much sense to me.
  It was brought to me by the consumer groups, taken straight out of 
the Chris Cox-David Dreier original Y2K legislation. But we cannot even 
get ourselves here to support this very simple matter.
  As a matter of fact, Cox-Dreier went even further than my amendment. 
Let me tell you what they said. They said, if you do not do the fix and 
you had the fix, you do not get the protections of the underlying bill. 
Imagine. David Dreier and Chris Cox. And when I looked at that, I said, 
that is a little tough on my computer people; I am not going to go that 
far. All we say is, if you have a fix and you do not do it, then if you 
do sue, the judge has to consider all these facts when he or she 
determines the damages to be awarded, if any.
  So here we have a proconsumer amendment. My friends on the other side 
come back with some changes to it. I say: Fine, I am willing to do it. 
And they say: Oh, never mind, never mind.
  If we vote down this amendment, I say to my friends, there is nothing 
in this bill, that I see, that does anything for consumers. There is 
nothing in this bill that helps them. There is nothing in this bill 
that helps, by the way, the good corporate actors out there who are 
already doing the right thing. All this is about is protecting the bad 
actors, the bad folks who are not doing the right thing, who, if they 
are listening to this debate and if they are smart--and believe me, 
they are smart--what are they hearing? Hey, if you are really fixing 
matters now, cool it. Why do it? Why spend any money? Under this 
underlying bill, you do not have to do a thing.
  I am just a normal person here, not a lawyer, OK? Maybe that is part 
of my problem. They call it a remediation period: 30-day notice. You 
notify the manufacturer that you have a problem. They have to write 
back. Good, that is the McCain bill. They have to write back.
  Then you have a 60-day remediation period, but nothing is required of 
you. What are you remediating? We say, if there is a remediation 
period, let's make that terminology mean something: Remediate. It is a 
60-day period. We ought to fix the problem.
  The Boxer amendment, supported by Senators Durbin and Hollings and 
Torricelli and others, simply says let's make the remediation period 
true to its name.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to.
  Mr. DURBIN. As I look at this legislation which we are considering, 
the underlying bill, it is hard to argue with it. It starts out saying:
  The majority of responsible business enterprises in the United States 
are committed to working in cooperation with their contracting partners 
towards the timely and cost-effective resolution of the many 
technological, business and legal issues associated with the Y2K date 
change.
  That is the first paragraph of this bill. It is a perfect description 
of the Senator's amendment, because it says responsible businesses will 
be working to solve problems. In my colleague's situation, she is 
providing a means of resolving the problem short of going to court. 
That is what this is all about.
  Mrs. BOXER. Exactly.
  Mr. DURBIN. So those who are truly interested in the damage done to 
businesses must really step back and say the Boxer amendment is one 
that really addresses the damage that businesses will face--repeating, 
again: These are businesses depending on computers that may shut down 
because the computer they purchased is not proper, is not ready to deal 
with the new century.
  That is what this legislation, the amendment, is all about: Find a 
way to help these people stay in business. Responsible businesses 
dealing with responsible businesses, not racing off to court, not 
playing with lawyers. I am stunned that at this point the amendment by 
the Senator from California just has not been adopted. It troubles me 
when I think about it in the context of the underlying bill.
  If the people who are bringing this bill to the floor do not care 
that much about small and medium-sized businesses that will face the 
delays, face

[[Page 12354]]

the layoffs, because of Y2K problems, this is not a probusiness bill. 
This is for an elite group of bad actors in an industry who have not 
done their homework and do not want to be held responsible for their 
bad conduct. That, to me, is not what we should be doing on the floor 
of the Senate.
  I think the Senator from California, when you take a look at the 
first paragraph of this bill, really has an amendment that addresses 
the bottom line.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.
  As we pointed out earlier in this debate, when I hear people get up 
and talk about the high-tech industry and how great the high-tech 
industry is, I know it firsthand because I come from Silicon Valley 
country. I meet these people. I am in awe of them. And they are good. 
They are good at what they do. The vast majority of them are taking 
care of this problem. They ought to be encouraged to continue taking 
care of this problem. We should not reward those who are not taking 
care of the problem, who are riding along as if they did not know.
  I just love that quote from the Apple people. I do not have it here 
in front of me, but it is something like:
  We may not know a lot of things, but we knew the century was ending.
  At some point people said, ``Whoops, there is going to be a 
problem.'' I guarantee it was well before 1990. But I think we are 
being very careful in this amendment not to place an undue burden on 
these people. We are saying you can recover your costs from 1990 to 
1995; prior to that, you can charge anything you want. We really are 
being fair in this amendment.
  I am stunned we did not get this amendment accepted. I cannot tell 
you the feeling I have. I am amazed, because when I think about the 
beginnings of this bill--I remember being excited I was going to be the 
Chair on the Y2K problem, because I was in line to take that. I asked 
Senator Dodd if he could do it, because it was a tough time for me; I 
had an election, and I had my regular job. I knew I could not do it 
justice. I knew this was going to be a problem, and I wanted to make 
sure we could help consumers fix the problem and we could do it in a 
way that was fair to business.
  The 90-day cooling off period is a good idea, in my opinion. That is 
why I supported the Kerry bill, and I hope eventually that will be the 
bill that will become law. But the 90-day cooling off period does not 
mean you sit there with a fan. That is not my idea of a 90-day cooling 
off period.
  A 90-day cooling off period should be a time for everyone to sit 
back, see what the problem is, fix it, and remediate the problem.
  I have to ask my friend, Senator Hollings, who knows this bill like 
the back of his hand far better than I do, I keep reading to see what 
the requirement is in this cooling off period for the businesses. All I 
come up with, and please correct me if I am mistaken, is that once a 
company is notified that a consumer has a problem, under this bill, to 
get the protections of this bill, all that company has to do is write 
back to the consumer and say: Yes, I got your letter; I am looking at 
the problem; I don't know what I am going to do, but I will stay in 
touch with you.
  That is my understanding of what you have to do to meet the 
requirements to be protected by this, essentially, rewrite of the laws 
of our land. I want to know if I am correct or incorrect.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The distinguished Senator from California is manifestly 
correct. We all live in a real world, and then what really happens, as 
we learned from Rosemary Woods, if you want to get rid of evidence, if 
you want to lay the blame--I am the lawyer for the computer company, 
and when I am notified about this particular claim and it comes across 
my desk, let's find out now why this thing really occurred, and if we 
can put it off and save the company some money on that part made in 
India, then we will get on to that or we will move it around here.
  What that does is it gives them 60 days to prepare all the defenses 
and even engage in interrogatories and depositions, which you are not 
allowed to do because you are the one required under this bill to stand 
back and cool off; whereas, I can come immediately then with my 
interrogatories and my depositions and pretty well have the case lined 
up during that 3-month period. Then I will know whether it pays for the 
company, because I am the lawyer, and I want to stay on it as a lawyer, 
my game is to save the company money. I say: Look, don't worry about 
that; we are going to send them to India to try that case and let them 
keep on making motions, because it is going to cost you $30,000 to fix 
it.
  They just sent a doctor in New Jersey $25,000 as a fix for a purchase 
he made the year before for only $13,000. That is why it is silent. 
Everybody knows how they draw up these bills and what really occurs. 
The company is allowed to engage in all kinds of shenanigans--
depositions, interrogatories, prepare defenses--and the poor plaintiff, 
the injured party, is going out of business; he is losing his 
customers. He tells his employees: I cannot make this monthly payment. 
I am not getting any money. I am closing down.
  The employees are angry. What the Senator from California has in her 
bill is just perfect: a fix. That is all we want. Out with the lawyers, 
in with the fix. That is the Boxer amendment. The way the bill reads, 
the Senator has it analyzed correctly.
  Mrs. BOXER. Basically, what we are saying is the amendment is: 
Remediate and you will not need to litigate. That is basically this 
amendment. Remediate and you will not have to litigate. Just fix the 
problem, and let's get on with our lives.
  I want to ask my friend another question. Let's say in this year, 
today, I am a small businessperson. I run a small travel agency, say, 
out of my home. I am very computer dependent. I go to a store. I buy a 
computer. They say it is Y2K compliant; it is not going to be a 
problem. I have it just a few months, say, 6 months. I wake up on that 
day and it is down, and it is down the next day, and it is down the 
next day.
  I want to talk about what happens under the McCain bill. What do I 
do? As I understand it, I write to the company, and I say: I am 
stunned. I bought it 6 months ago. I spent $15,000 for it, and it isn't 
working.
  Under this bill, as I understand it, if they do not accept this Boxer 
amendment, which clearly they are not, and if it is not adopted, which 
it probably will not be, as I understand it, all the company has to do 
is write back and say: We got your notification; we will stay in touch 
with you.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly.
  Mrs. BOXER. Right? Now they qualify for the special protections under 
this law. They do not have to fix it. They certainly do not have to fix 
it for free.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly.
  Mrs. BOXER. If they fix it, they can charge more than what the 
computer costs. My friend has proof of that; does he not?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is exactly right. That came out at the hearings. 
Witnesses have attested to it.
  Mrs. BOXER. The bottom line is, if we do not adopt this Boxer 
amendment, then what is in this bill to encourage fixing the problem? 
This is ironic, because the idea is to stop the litigation, fix the 
problem, have a cooling off period where we remediate the problem.
  David Dreier and Chris Cox in 1998 understood it. They put it in 
their bill. My friends on the other side, having indicated they would 
be inclined to take this amendment with some changes, I agreed to those 
changes. Yet, we were still unable to reach an agreement.
  I am perplexed, I say to my friend. What are we doing here anyway? 
What is this about? Is this about protecting the consumer? Is this 
about getting things fixed? Is this about standing proud of the good 
computer companies that are making the fix?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The last thing a computer purchaser, a user wants to 
get involved with is law. That is the last thing. That is what they are 
saying in the bill. The intent of the McCain measure provides you do 
not get into racing to the courthouse.
  The answer to the Senator's question is, that is exactly what is 
required;

[[Page 12355]]

namely, I am a computer purchaser and user and it goes on the blink. I 
am trying to get in touch with them, and they know the laws. I never 
heard of the law. They will not hear of it, whatever it is. I have 
written a letter, and I keep calling, and like the doctor from New 
Jersey who testified before the Commerce Committee said, he called at 2 
weeks, 3 weeks and nothing happened. They like that, because the 
computer operator and purchaser do not know anything about these 
special laws and provisions of the McCain measure.
  What happens is, it puts them into a bunch of legal loopholes. It 
actually engages a consumer in a bunch of laws that are unique only to 
him, and he never has heard of and he is going to have to learn the 
hard way about putting a letter in, certain days to cool off, then do 
this, and all these other measures.
  Heaven's above, it is so clearly brought out in Senator Boxer's 
amendment that all we want to do is get the blooming thing fixed and 
get away. Out with the lawyers and in with the fix. That is what the 
Senator is saying, but they do not even accept it.
  Mrs. BOXER. I know, and I am just completely astounded. I have to 
believe the people who vote against this amendment may not want to be 
around here on January 3, or whenever it is we get back. People are 
going to be calling. They are going to say: We heard all about this Y2K 
bill; didn't you fix our problem?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No, we created a problem.
  Mrs. BOXER. Right. They are going to call up their Senator: Senator 
so and so, you were proud to stand here for that Y2K bill. What did it 
do?
  I view it as an insult to the good people in the Silicon Valley, to 
the good people in San Diego, to the good people in Los Angeles who 
work at this night and day, who knew the century was going to end and 
took steps to prepare for this day, who are making fixes.
  Now what happens? The people who were irresponsible are getting a 
loud message from this Senate, particularly when they vote down this 
Boxer amendment: Oh, boy, we did the right thing by not fixing 
anybody's computer. We did the right thing just to sit back and see 
what happens. We have been protected by the most deliberative body in 
the world; they protected us from not doing the right thing.
  I just do not get it around here. Sometimes I wonder for whom we are 
here. I do not get it, because to not have this amendment accepted, the 
only people you are helping are the people who do not want to make the 
fix. It is outrageous to me. This amendment is probusiness, it is pro 
the good businesspeople, the good corporate citizens. I just do not get 
it. It would reward those who have not done the fixes.
  I have run out of arguments. I have a hunch that minds are made up. I 
don't know how I get that feeling. But I have a feeling that minds are 
made up on this, that this is going to be tabled. We will have a bill, 
then, that has not one thing in it for the consumers of this country. I 
have news for the people who are not going to vote for this: Every 
single American is a consumer, bottom line. I hope they rethink their 
position. I was willing to compromise and get a good amendment through, 
but, unfortunately, the other side could not agree to that. Let's get 
on with the vote. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it constantly amazes me, whether the 
subject is education or business regulation or computer software, that 
Members in this Chamber know much more about the subject than do those 
who are in the business. It is the very companies the Senator from 
California so praises is doing things right that have felt, in order to 
concentrate on fixing Y2K problems, rather than having run the gauntlet 
set for them by trial lawyers, that this legislation is necessary.
  It is simply because they prefer to fix the problem in the real world 
than to face endless litigation that we are here today. That same group 
of highly responsible organizations thinks this amendment will actually 
create more litigation, that it ought to be entitled ``The Free 
Computer Act of 1999,'' because really the only way to make sure you 
are not sued will be to replace the computer lock, stock, and barrel, 
even if it is three generations out of date, even if it is in the 
attic.
  So the reasons to oppose this amendment are quite easy to determine. 
They are that we want the problem fixed, we want the problem fixed in 
the real world, not for years and years thereafter, after expensive 
litigation, punitive damages, consequential damages, everything that 
afflicts our legal system today.
  I had hoped we would complete the debate and begin the vote at this 
point. We have, however, taken too much time. There is now a markup of 
the Senate Appropriations Committee that involves both me and two of 
the three other Senators on the floor at the present time. In order to 
not disrupt that markup, I announce that a motion to table will be made 
immediately after that Appropriations Committee markup has been 
concluded.
  With that, 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. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 
10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________



                        THE SETTLEMENT IN KOSOVO

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to very briefly speak about the 
settlement in Kosovo. I speak with a sense of relief that we now have 
moved toward a diplomatic settlement. At the very beginning, I think it 
was a very difficult vote for all of us as to whether or not to 
authorize airstrikes. We had pretty close to an equal division of 
opinion. I voted to do so.
  I had hoped that we would be able to stop the slaughter. I thought 
that it was a certainty that Milosevic would move into Kosovo and 
people would be slaughtered. We were not able to really do that with 
airstrikes, not in any way that I had hoped we would be able to, but I 
do think--and I want to give some credit where credit is due--there are 
two things that have happened that are very important for the world.
  One of them is that Milosevic has been indicted as a war criminal. 
That is a huge step forward for human rights in the world.
  The second thing that has happened is our actions have made it clear 
that a Milosevic or someone like a Milosevic should not be able to 
murder people with impunity.
  There are many challenges ahead, but I want to just say that as a 
Senator from Minnesota, I am very pleased that we did put such a focus 
on trying to reach a diplomatic solution. I would like to especially 
thank Strobe Talbott for his work. I think it is extremely important 
now that we meet a number of really tough challenges.
  I am not the expert in the Balkans; I do not pretend to be, but I do 
know this: It is very important that we continue to keep our focus on 
the humanitarian crisis and make sure the Kosovars can, indeed, go 
home, the sooner the better.
  I think an all-out effort ought to be made to make sure they can go 
back to their homes. If we are going to do the weatherizing and all the 
things in the infrastructure for people to have a home to live in, then 
it is better to do it back in their own country. I hope we can do so. I 
hope we can move as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.
  Second, I think it is going to be real important that all parties to 
this settlement live up to their word. I think that includes the KLA. 
There will be an understanding, kind of determination on the part of 
Kosovars and the KLA for vengeance. Who can blame them? But I do think 
we have to make sure that we do put an end to this conflict and that 
the Serbs who live in Kosovo will also be protected and that

[[Page 12356]]

somehow we will be able to make sure there is some peace in this 
region.
  Finally, I want to say, as a Senator who supported airstrikes but who 
worried about some of the focus of our airstrikes, in particular, I 
thought there was too much of a focus on the civilian infrastructure. I 
thought and still believe there were opportunities to move forward with 
diplomacy at an earlier point in time. I always believe that is the 
first option, always the first option, with military conflict being the 
last option. I do want to say that I think the President and the 
administration should be proud of the fact that they have now been able 
to effect a diplomatic solution and that this solution, indeed, will 
mean that the Kosovars will be able to go home.
  It will mean there will be an international force. It will be a 
militarized force. There will be a chain of command that makes sense. 
It is a huge challenge ahead for us. My guess is that we are going to 
be committed to the Balkans for quite some period of time. I think we 
should be very realistic about that. I think that we owe that to the 
Kosovars. We owe it to these people. I think that is part of what our 
country is about. It looks as if the European countries are going to 
take up most of the challenge of the economic aid for reconstruction, 
and I think that is as it should be. I think our part of this 
international militarized force would be somewhere at 14, 15 percent. 
But certainly it won't be the United States carrying this alone.
  I worry about the landmines. I worry about our military and, for that 
matter, the men and women from other countries who are trying to do the 
right thing now, being in harm's way. But to now no longer be involved 
in airstrikes, to see the Serbs leaving, the slaughter being stopped, 
the Kosovars now having a chance to go back to their homes and to be 
protected, I think we are at a much better place than we were. Now I 
hope and I pray that our country will be able to make a very positive 
difference in the lives of the Kosovars.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



                                Y2K ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I just was trying my best to give 
colleagues a summary of State action on Y2K problems. This is pretty 
well up to date. Seven States have passed Y2K government immunity 
legislation; that is, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Nevada, Virginia, 
Oklahoma and Wyoming. Twelve States have killed Y2K government immunity 
problems: Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas, 
Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and 
West Virginia. One State has passed the Y2K business immunity bill; 
that is Texas. Whereas 10 States have killed Y2K business immunity 
bills: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 
Oklahoma, West Virginia and Washington. Two States have killed the 
bankers immunity bill, originally the year 2000 computer problem: 
Arizona and Indiana. Two States have killed the Computer Vendors 
Immunity Bill; that is California and Georgia. One State has killed the 
bill to limit class action suits; that is Illinois, the distinguished 
Presiding Officer's State. And 38 States have miscellaneous pending Y2K 
bills at this time.
  I think the distinguished Senator from California wanted to point out 
an interesting provision in the State of Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend for yielding. I thank 
his staff for doing just a tremendous job of ferreting out all these 
various laws.
  I have something to tell the Senate that I hope will sway them in 
favor of the Boxer amendment. In the research that was done by Senator 
Hollings' staff, we find out that the law in Arizona, which was signed 
on April 26, Senate bill 1294, includes in it stronger language than 
the Boxer amendment. I repeat: The Senator from Arizona, whose bill we 
are debating, cannot agree to the Boxer amendment which simply says if 
you have a way to fix the problem for the consumer, be they individual 
or business, then do it. He can't accept that. But in his own State, 
the law says if you want to take advantage of a particular new set of 
laws that they have passed to protect these businesses, here is what 
you have to do. You have to unconditionally offer at no additional cost 
to the buyer either a repair or remedial measures. If you do not do 
that, you cannot take advantage of these new laws that will protect 
business.
  Let me put that in a more direct fashion. In the State of Arizona, 
the State of Senator McCain, who has the underlying bill, a company 
cannot take advantage of the new Y2K laws, which will help them, unless 
they have offered to fix the problem. They have to prove that they 
unconditionally offered at no additional cost to the buyer a repair or 
other remedial measures.
  I want to engage my friend from South Carolina in a little discussion 
here, ask him a question. Does it not astound the Senator that we have 
an amendment before us that will not be accepted by the Senator whose 
own State has a tougher provision than the Boxer provision, that we 
can't go even halfway toward the State of Arizona law which says in 
order to take advantage of the new legal system you have to 
unconditionally offer to fix the problem?
  I ask my friend, who is very knowledgeable in this, if this doesn't 
strike him as being very strange?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. This is astounding, because in getting this information 
up and looking at the glossary of State action, we all say: After all, 
don't you remember in 1994, the Contract with America, we got the tenth 
amendment, the best government is that government closest to the 
people, let us respect the States on down the line. They had all these 
particular provisions. Here comes an assault with respect to actually 
killing all the State action and everything else, when they probably 
had a more deliberate debate than we have had at the local level, and 
they have all acted.
  Here you put in a provision which responds, generally speaking, to 
the action taken by all the States, and yet they say, no, we know 
better than the States now and that we are not going to have a fix.
  It is astounding to this particular Senator the course this bill has 
taken. Here I am trying to get a vote. I know my distinguished 
chairman, Senator McCain, worked like a dog here in the well. He said: 
I want to make sure we get rid of this thing, and I am working on 
Senator Sessions and Senator Gregg to get these amendments up and have 
them considered so we can dispose of the bill. So I know he is not the 
holdup.
  The press listens, and they are sending the word down to me that they 
have a computer software conference or something at the beginning of 
the week, and they would like to have this as sort of part of the 
computer software program. You cannot even intelligently debate the 
thing. It has gotten to be on message so that you have to have the 
message at the right time.
  This is disgraceful conduct on the part of the Senate, if that is the 
case. I like to cooperate. I went right over to my distinguished friend 
from Alaska and I said, look, I am trying to get a vote, but I know 
they are headed to the Paris airshow. If your plane is leaving or 
whatever it is, I understand. I will yield and let's go ahead then and 
we will have a Tuesday vote. I was trying to find a reason, a good 
logical reason. It was logical to me to indulge the needs of my friend 
from Alaska, because it is an important conference they are going to. 
He said, no, we don't leave until late this evening. So it wasn't that. 
Then I asked over here, and it isn't this. It isn't Senator

[[Page 12357]]

McCain. I keep going around trying to find out, and here we are trying 
to agree in order to get the bill passed and they won't agree to agree.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, I have been on my feet since I think 
12:30--about 12, I think.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I asked the Senator to only take 10 minutes, does she 
remember that?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. When the Senator came to the floor, I said, ``Senator, 
Senator McCain wants to get rid of it, and I do. Will you agree to 20 
minutes, 10 to a side? Senator McCain is ready to yield back his 10 
minutes.''
  Now, that is the way it was at noontime today. Here now, at quarter 
past 3, we are running around like a dog chasing his tail trying to 
find out why in the world, when they are having an ice cream party all 
over the grounds around here, you and I are trying to get the work of 
the Senate done, and they can't give us a good excuse. When you say, 
``All right, I will amend it,'' and you are bound to agree, so we can 
move on, they say, ``No, no, we don't want to agree to agree.''
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, I remember that the Democrats were being criticized 
and they were saying: You are not letting us get this Y2K bill up for a 
vote, because we wanted to do--I remember this very clearly--some 
sensible gun amendment. We were told we were holding up Y2K. We said: 
We can get those things done. And, thanks to the majority leader, we 
moved to the juvenile justice bill, and with bipartisan help we got 
some good, sensible gun amendments through, and we went right to Y2K.
  I want to say to my friend, the ranking member on the committee, who 
has some real problems with the bill--more problems than this Senator 
has--didn't object to proceeding to the bill. He said: OK, we will 
proceed. He asked me to please make my case. I said: I will settle for 
any time agreement. I said I didn't need a vote. I said: Take my 
amendment. I agreed to the other side's recommendations. Then they 
said: Oh, we can't do it.
  I don't understand why they can't take this amendment. I keep coming 
back to that. Every time I work my way into my best closing argument, 
because I think there is going to be a vote--I had my best closing 
argument at 1:55, because I thought we were voting at 2. Then I had to 
rev up again at 2:30, and I got another good closing argument. Now they 
say we are going to have a vote at 3:30. I don't see anybody here yet. 
I hope they come here, because I think it is important.
  The amendment pending before the Senate is a consumer amendment, 
because it says fix the problem. It is weaker than the consumer 
amendment that is included in the Arizona law. This is incredible. In 
the Arizona law, which is a beautiful law, which passed overwhelmingly, 
they say--and this is important; it defines the affirmative defenses 
that will be established if you do certain things. You have to do 
certain things to help people. If you do these things in good faith, 
you get a little more protection at the courthouse. What are they?

       The defendant has to notify the buyer of the product that 
     the product may manifest a Y2K failure. And the notice shall 
     be supplied by the defendant explaining how the buyer may 
     obtain remedial measures, or providing information on how to 
     repair, replace, upgrade, or update the product. The 
     defendant [meaning the company] has to unconditionally offer, 
     at no additional cost to the buyer, to provide the buyer the 
     repair or the remedial measures.

  All we say in the Boxer amendment is, you don't even have to do it 
for free--only for free if it is the last 5 years. Prior to that, from 
1990 to 1995, at cost; before that, you can charge whatever you can 
get. The Boxer amendment doesn't even say you have to do this to avail 
yourself of these new laws. It simply says if you don't do it, the 
judge--if there is a court case--has to take into consideration the 
fact of these cases. I cannot believe this wasn't accepted in a 
heartbeat. It is weaker than the Arizona law.
  What has become of us here? I don't know. I cannot figure it out. I 
love high-tech companies, software companies. They are the heart and 
soul of my State. They are good people. They are good corporate 
citizens. Most of them--the vast majority--are doing the right thing. 
They are doing these things already. So whom do we protect in this bill 
that was so important that we were supposed to rush to it, and now they 
are not going to vote on it until next week? What happened to all the 
rhetoric that this is an urgent problem? If we went to the 
Congressional Record, it would be embarrassing for people who were 
saying, ``Vote next week,'' just a couple of weeks ago, who said, 
``This is urgent.'' I heard one of my colleagues on the other side say 
this is an emergency. I am baffled by it.
  So I think what I will do is yield the floor, because I don't know 
what else I can say to convince my colleagues, who I am sure are 
listening to every word from their offices, that this amendment is the 
right thing to do for the people we represent, the people who vote for 
us.
  I am going to tell my friends in the Senate, if you don't vote for 
this amendment, the phone calls will start coming in on January 1, 2, 
3, 4, and 5, saying, ``I thought you took care of Y2K. You had so much 
fanfare about the bill. What can I do now?''
  There will be nothing they can do, because without this Boxer 
amendment there is no requirement to fix the problem during the 
remediation period, or ``cooling-off period.'' The only thing required, 
to repeat myself, is a letter: Oh, yes, I got your letter. I know you 
have a problem. I will get back to you. That is it. You don't have to 
do the fix. It doesn't have to be for free. You can do whatever the 
market will bear, and you get the protections of the bill.
  It is not right, my friends. It is not right. We can make it better.
  When I go back home and talk to my friends in Silicon Valley and they 
say, ``Senator why didn't you support the underlying bill?'' I am going 
to be honest and say, ``This bill is an insult to you; it is an insult 
to you. It is assuming you are too weak to do the right thing. It is 
assuming you are a bad corporate actor.''
  I can't do that to the people I represent. They are too good, too 
important, too successful to have this kind of treatment. That is how I 
see it.
  So, again, hope against hope that we will have a change of heart 
here, and maybe they will take this amendment or try to go back to the 
offer they gave us a little while ago. Otherwise, I guess we will just 
have to wait for the motion to table.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you learn to study these things. You 
look closely, and you finally realize what is happening.
  I remember an old-time story about the poll tax days and the literacy 
testing of minorities in order to vote. In South Carolina, a minority 
came to the poll prepared to vote, and a man presented him with a 
Chinese newspaper. He says, ``Here, read that.'' He takes the paper and 
turns it around all kinds of ways, and he says, ``I reads it.'' The man 
asks him, ``What does it say?'' The minority says, ``It says ain't no 
poor minority going to vote in South Carolina today.''
  They know how to get the message. In turn, I can get this message. 
This goes right to what is really abused as an expression, ``Kill all 
the lawyers.'' To Henry VI, Dick Butcher said, ``We have to kill all 
the lawyers.'' What they were trying to do was foster tyranny, and they 
knew they could not do it as long as they had lawyers available to look 
out for the individual and individual rights.
  Say I am the lawyer and I have a lot of work. Generally speaking, I 
am a successful lawyer. And someone comes to me in January or February 
with a Y2K problem, and I am saying I am not handling those cases, you 
ought to try to see so-and-so, wherever we can find somebody, because 
the entire thrust is in order to really get anything done and get a 
result I know that I am limited. I can't take care of the poor small 
businessman and the lost customers. I can't take that small businessman 
and his employees that have had to take temporary leave because his 
business is down. I can't take care of the other economic damage like 
the lost advertising which has come about while his

[[Page 12358]]

competition takes over. I have to tell him it is the crazy law that 
they passed up there in Washington. But that is how things are getting 
controlled whereby you just come in.
  So I have to write a letter on your behalf, and after I write that 
letter, 30 days, then another 60 days is the so-called cooling-off 
period. Then, if nothing happens, which apparently you tried to get it 
fixed and nothing has happened, I have to draw pleadings and file and 
everything else. It all comes down to $5,000 or $10,000 for a computer. 
I have spent $5,000 of my time and costs, unless you are rich enough to 
start paying me billable hours. I spend $5,000 for much of my costs and 
staff and hours of work myself. The most I can do is get you back half 
of a computer.
  It is a no-win situation. They have passed a law in essence not just 
for rushing to the courtroom or courthouse, as they talk about, but to 
make sure that nobody wants to handle a case of that kind because there 
is no way to make an honest recovery to make it partially whole. You 
just totally lose out.
  They know what they are doing when they oppose the bill to get the 
thing fixed.
  That is what I was thinking.
  I know with all the State action and the moving forces behind it 
because I saw it last year. All you have to do is run for reelection 
and go from town to town and meeting to meeting all over your State. 
You learn your State. You learn the issues. You learn the opposition. 
You learn the movements afoot --or the NRA with respect to rifles. You 
learn about the abortion crowd. You learn about the other groups that 
have come in now with respect to any and every phase of lawyers.
  It is sort of ``kill all the lawyers''--take away, holding up the 
lawyers for everybody to vote against. But the consumers are the ones 
who suffer.
  The distinguished Senator from California ought to really be 
commended for finally bringing--after 3 days of debate--this into sharp 
focus. Lawyers, one way or the other, are not going to be handling 
these cases. Trial lawyers have bigger cases to handle.
  But I can tell you here and now that consumers and small business are 
going to suffer tremendously.
  Almost since I opposed the bill I have felt that it serves them 
right. Maybe I will prove I was right in the first instance, and maybe 
they will start sobering up with this intense messianic drive that they 
have on foot to ``kill all the lawyers.''
  That looks good in the polls. That is why we don't do anything about 
Social Security or campaign finance or budgets or deficits or Patients' 
Bill of Rights and the important things. But if we can get that poll--
and if that poll will show something about the lawyers--then we can get 
a bill up here, take the time to amend it, and then when we want to cut 
it off and argue everybody into doing so, and then finally agree that 
we can all agree and get rid of it, they say no way.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for just a moment?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am glad to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate it. I wanted to talk to him about it.
  Mr. President, I wonder if I can now send a modified amendment to the 
desk.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the floor.


                     Amendment No. 621, As Modified

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send a modified amendment to the desk to 
replace my own amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 621), as modified, is 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 a reasonable effort to make available to the 
     plaintiff a repair or replacement, if available, at the 
     actual cost to the manufacturer, for a material defect in a 
     device or other product that was first introduced for sale 
     after January 1, 1990 and before January 1, 1997; and
       (ii) make a reasonable effort to make available at no 
     charge to the plaintiff a repair or replacement, if 
     available, for a material defect in a device or other product 
     that was first introduced for sale after December 31, 1996.
       (B) Damages.--If a defendant knowingly and purposefully 
     fails to comply with this paragraph, the court shall consider 
     that failure in the award of any damages, including economic 
     loss and punitive damages.

  Mrs. BOXER. Is it necessary that the clerk read it, or can I just 
proceed to explain it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not necessary to have the clerk report.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
  I wanted to explain to my friend what I have done to make this even 
more palatable to the Senate. We are now saying the fix only has to be 
made to small businesses and individuals.
  So we have narrowed the scope of the repair. Now it becomes even 
easier for the companies to make these repairs. I say to my friend when 
he talks about this attack on lawyers that I find it very interesting, 
because I read when Newt Gingrich was in power on the other side of the 
aisle that they had a poll done. They had a document prepared which 
everyone was able to see at some point or other. Their pollsters said 
in order to divert attention from an issue, attack the lawyers. Just 
take the attention away from what it is about.
  In other words, if there is a dangerous product--let's say a crib--we 
had these before where the slats in the cribs are made in such a way 
that a child could die because they could fit their head through those 
cracks and choke to death--divert attention from the product, and say 
look at that greedy lawyer, he made X million dollars.
  What they do not understand is that all of these kinds of cases--we 
are not talking about personal injuries, because this bill doesn't 
involve personal injuries. But I am just making the point here that 
when a lawyer takes on such a case--I want to ask my friend to talk 
about this because he knows this for a fact--they don't get paid unless 
there is a recovery in the suit. They put out maybe sometimes years of 
work and much expense, and they take a chance because they know the 
company is powerful and big and strong, and by the way, it has many 
lawyers. So they go to the people to divert attention from the tragedy 
that occurred. This is what a lot of politicians do, and they say it is 
all about the lawyers in Washington.
  I hope the people of the United States of America know that there is 
a rule against frivolous lawsuits and that you can't bring a frivolous 
lawsuit because a judge can throw it out.
  In addition, what lawyer would bring a frivolous lawsuit knowing that 
he or she is going to be out of pocket for all of these expenses and 
know that they only get paid if it was really an important lawsuit?
  There are many lawyers out there who are not good citizens, who are 
not good corporate citizens, who do not have social conscience, because 
it is just like any other profession--just like we are talking about 
the software industry, or in the computer hardware industry. Most of 
the people are wonderful, and there are some bad actors.
  But let us not get to the floor of the Senate and turn these debates 
into lawyers versus everybody else, because that is not what it is 
about. It is about making sure that people have their problems 
resolved. If we start talking about lawyers, it isn't really relevant 
to real people who are going to deal with this real problem on January 
1; they wake up, go to their computer and try to conduct business, and 
find themselves in deep trouble.
  I ask my friend if he would comment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, commenting with respect to the attention 
that the Senator from California gives to consumers, and the comments 
made about frivolous lawsuits, I am an expert witness on frivolous 
lawsuits. I can tell you categorically that the

[[Page 12359]]

courts will take care of frivolous lawsuits quickly. You can see it. I 
could mention some that have been in the news with respect to the 
computer people very recently.
  But the reason I say an expert witness is because I used to bring 
individual injury suits with respect to the citizenry around my 
hometown and sometimes in bus cases. I had a good friend who was a 
professor at the law school when I was there, and thereupon the 
chairman of the board of the South Carolina Electric and Gas, which 
operated the city bus transit system, an event I said I had not been 
involved with, but that is wrong.
  These corporate lawyers get really lazy. They get too used to the 
mahogany walls, the oriental rugs, somebody with a silver pitcher and 
some young lady to run in and give them a drink of water.
  Rushing to the courtroom and trying cases is work. I remember saying 
to a man named Arthur Williams: I could save you at least $1 million if 
I were your lawyer. Later on he retained me.
  Right to the point: The first or middle of the month of November, 
what I call the Christmas Club started to develop. Nobody could get on 
the transit bus who didn't slip on a green pea, get their arm caught on 
a door, or the door didn't jerk open and they fell and hurt their back.
  This is back in the late 1950s when we were trying these cases.
  I said we should try these cases. The claims were around $5,000 to 
$10,000. The settlements were half, $2,500 or $5,000. The lawyers 
thought they were too important to go to court to try cases.
  Let me tell about a lawyer who was willing to try cases. His name was 
Judge Sirica. He wrote a book. While he was writing that book, he was 
being driven around Hilton Head by myself.
  He looked at me and said: Senator, don't ever appoint a district 
judge to the Federal bench who hasn't been in the pitch.
  I said: Judge, you mean trying cases?
  He said: That is right.
  He said when he got out of law school he flunked the bar exam three 
times. When he finally passed that bar exam, he didn't have any 
clients, he had to go to magistrate court and take what trials he could 
pick up. He said he got pretty good at it. He said after a few years, 
Hogan and Hartson asked: Will you come on board and start trying our 
cases?
  It is work. Frivolous cases--they are small cases, some of them 
without foundation, a lot of them with foundation--but lawyers with 
this billable hour nonsense have gotten awfully lazy as a profession.
  Talk about delays. When lawyers have billable hours, the opposition 
wants to play golf in the afternoon. We don't have to go to the judge, 
I will give you a continuance.
  You agree, and the poor client is sitting there paying for the 
billable hours.
  In any event, Judge Sirica said when he walked in the first day and 
listened to the witness, he told counsel to meet him in chambers. This 
is the first day of trial. When he got them back in chambers, he said: 
You are lying, and I'm not going to put up with this nonsense in my 
courtroom. He said: I could tell it from my trial experience. You are 
starting tomorrow morning, and you are going to bring out the truth, 
and you are not going to put up with these kinds of witnesses. It is 
not going to be just a citation and dock your pay. I will put you in 
jail if you all don't straighten up and start trying the cases in the 
proper manner.
  He said that broke Watergate. To this practitioner, that goes right 
around to the so-called frivolous cases that all the politicians are 
running around about. It is work. You don't run to the courthouse.
  As I pointed out earlier today, if you filed a case this afternoon, 
you would be lucky to get a trial in that courtroom in the year 1999, I 
can tell you that. The civil docket is backed up that much. I don't 
know of any court that can actually get to trial.
  Who uses that? Not the fellow making the motions and paying the 
expenses and time and the depositions and interrogatories. The 
corporate billable hour lawyer, he likes that. He keeps a backup. It is 
to his interest you don't dispose of justice too quickly. All during 
the year, he has money coming in. He knows he is a winner regardless of 
what happens to his client.
  They are engaged in predatory practices, frivolous lawsuits, and are 
running to the courthouse.
  The Senator from California is rendering a wonderful service. This is 
about consumers. The amendment of the Senator from California seeks to 
get us away from the courthouse, get us away from lawyers, get us away 
from law, get away from legal loopholes, hurdles, and jumps.
  The businesses say: Just give me a fix. I have to do business, and I 
don't want to lose my customers, service, and reputation. So she 
requires a fix--all for the consumer.
  That is what the Senate and the entire Congress has heard.
  There is no question, looking at the results at the State level, how 
they have turned back all of these things, that is why they are coming 
to Washington after the ``turn backs.'' Look at all of the States that 
have debated this issue. The only State in the glossary of State action 
that passed a Y2K business immunities bill, the only State, is the 
State of Texas.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I seek recognition at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is 3:50. The Senator from Washington 
was on the floor and said he would be here at 3:30 to table this 
amendment.
  I wonder if the ranking member knows what is going on around here. I 
was told originally, when I offered my amendment at around the noon 
hour, we would have a vote at 2 o'clock. Then it was 2:30. Then my 
friend from Washington State gave me the courtesy of announcing he was 
not going to allow an up-or-down vote on my amendment; he was going to 
move to table at 3:30. It is 10 to 4. Have they sent my friend any 
word?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. They have not sent me any word. The press sent me word 
about the software alliance.
  I know the Senator from Arizona, the chairman of our committee, that 
distinguished Senator, was intent on getting rid of this bill. He told 
me that early this morning. We got the witnesses lined up, we talked 
down the witnesses, we made them get the time agreements, and he had an 
important commitment he made to leave around 12. He tried to extend it 
to 12:30.
  During that half hour he said: I got us down to two amendments. I 
said: All I know of is the Boxer amendment.
  I have now talked Senator Torricelli into not presenting his. I 
hasten to add, I am glad I did not talk Senator Boxer out of her 
amendment, because it is the only amendment that really brings into 
issue the matter of consumers we are trying to defend today.
  He said: Don't worry. He came back to me twice and said: I have it; I 
think I worked that out; you go right ahead.
  I said: I don't want to vote with you not here.
  He said: Go ahead; these commitments have been made.
  Everybody knows Senator McCain's position on the bill. We will have 
to have a conference when it passes. There will be a conference report.
  I pressured Senator Boxer and told my colleagues we can vote. Several 
said: No; we have a lunch hour; let's vote at 2 o'clock. And then 2 
o'clock became 2:30, and 2:30 became 3 o'clock, and 3 o'clock became 
3:30. Now it is 10 minutes to 4.
  I have tried to be diligent in managing the bill and moving the 
business of the Senate. There is nothing more I can say. I am waiting 
on the leadership. This is above my pay grade.
  We can go ahead and call the roll. I am sure the distinguished 
staffer on the other side of the aisle is ready to call the roll. He 
has worked hard. We are all ready.
  This is above our pay grade.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if it is against the pay grade of one of 
the most senior respected Members in the Senate, the ranking member on 
the

[[Page 12360]]

committee of jurisdiction, clearly it is way above my pay grade.
  I get paid to do a job here, and the job is to represent the people 
of California. Make life better for them, make life easier for them, 
give them a chance at the American dream, keep their environment 
beautiful and clean, give them opportunity, fairness. What I am trying 
to do is take that set of values and apply it to this bill. I do not 
want them waking up on the morning of January 1, 2000, and finding that 
their small business just crashed before them and they have no remedy 
when, in fact, a remedy exists and the manufacturer simply has to make 
a simple fix.
  Again, my breath is taken away when I read the law in Arizona--I 
might say a Republican State--which says that before any manufacturer 
could take advantage of the easier rules of the law to defend himself 
or herself against a claim, they have to do certain things 
affirmatively, including offering to fix at no cost. In other words, 
what you say in Arizona is: We are happy to help you, Mr. and Mrs. 
Businessperson, but it has to be after you have affirmatively tried to 
fix the Y2K problem.
  In the underlying bill, we require very little of a business before 
they can get to the ``safe harbor,'' if I might use that term broadly, 
of this bill. What do they have to do? Write a letter:

       Dear Friend: I got your letter. I know you have a Y2K 
     problem. I am studying it. I'll get back to you.

  Then they qualify for the rest of the benefits of this law. Who does 
it help? It helps the bad actors. Who does it hurt? The consumers. Why 
are we doing it? God knows.
  We could have done a good bill on this. The amendment I put before 
you comes from a House bill that was proposed in 1998 by David Dreier 
and Chris Cox. This is not some provision written by a liberal Member 
of Congress. It was written by two Members with 100 percent business 
records. Why did they put it in the bill? Because I think when they sat 
down to write the bill that was the object of the original Y2K 
proposal--a cooling off period, remediation period, get the fix done, 
stay out of court. I think, if this amendment is taken, if it is 
approved, I think that will be a good step forward for consumers. If it 
is not, there is nothing in this bill, in my opinion, that does one 
thing to cure the problem.
  So, it is now 5 minutes to 4. Senator Gorton said he would be back at 
3:30 to table the Boxer amendment. I am perplexed at what our plans are 
here, whether we are just going to not have any more votes today or 
whether we are just whiling away the time or some Members had to go to 
some other obligation. I do not know what is happening because I do not 
have word. All I know is I have been here since 12 o'clock on this 
amendment. It is a good amendment. I am hoping perhaps no news is good 
news, I say to my friend. Maybe they are so excited about this 
amendment they are trying to work it out somehow.
  I see Senator Lieberman is here to make some remarks. I am happy to 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                Amendment (No. 621) As Further Modified

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield for just one 
more minute, I send a modification to the desk to replace the other one 
that was sent in error.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is further 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 621), as further modified, is 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 any small business or noncommercial 
     consumer 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.
       (C) With respect to this section, a small business is 
     defined as any person whose net worth does not exceed 
     $500,000, or that is an unincorporated business, a 
     partnership, corporation, association, unit of local 
     government, or organization with fewer than 25 full-time 
     employees.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I see an opportunity here to make a few 
general comments about the bill as we await the next procedural step. 
With the Chair's permission, I will proceed with that, which is to say 
to add my strong support to the underlying bill.
  Mr. President, Congress really needs to act to address the probable 
explosion of litigation over the Y2K problem. It needs to act quickly. 
This is a problem that has an activating date. It is nothing that will 
wait for Congress to act. It will be self-starting, self-arriving. 
Therefore, we must act in preparation for it.
  Obviously we are now familiar, if we had not been before this 
extended debate, with the problem caused by the Y2K bug. Although no 
one can predict with certainty what will happen at the turning of the 
year into the new century and the new millennium, there is little doubt 
that there will be Y2K-caused failures, possibly on a large scale, and 
that those failures could bring both minor inconveniences and 
significant disruptions in our lives. This could pose a serious problem 
for our economy, and if there are widespread failures, it will surely 
be in all of our interests for American businesses to focus on how they 
can continue providing the goods and services we all rely on in the 
face of those disruptions rather than fretting over and financing 
defense of lawsuits.
  Perhaps just as important as the challenge to our economy, the Y2K 
problem will present a unique challenge to our court system, unique 
because of the possible volume of litigation throughout the country 
that will likely result and because that litigation will commence 
within a span of a few months, potentially flooding the courts with 
cases and inundating American companies with lawsuits at precisely the 
time they need to devote their resources to fixing the problem.
  So I think it is appropriate for Congress to act now to ensure that 
our legal system is prepared to deal fairly, efficiently, and 
effectively with the Y2K problem, to make sure those problems that can 
be solved short of litigation will be solved that way, to make sure 
that companies that should be held liable for their actions will be 
held liable, but to also make sure that the Y2K problem does not just 
become an opportunity for a few enterprising individuals to profit from 
what is ultimately frivolous litigation, unfairly wasting the resources 
of companies that have done nothing wrong, companies large and small, 
or diverting the resources of companies that should be devoting 
themselves to keeping our economy going to fixing the problem.
  To that end, I was privileged to work with the leadership of the 
Commerce Committee and the sponsors of this legislation, particularly 
Senators McCain, Wyden and Dodd, to try to craft a more targeted 
response to this Y2K problem.
  Like many others here, I was actually uncomfortable with the scope, 
the breadth, and the contents of the initial draft of this legislation 
because I thought it went beyond dealing with our concerns about the 
Y2K potential litigation explosion and became a general effort to adopt 
tort reform. I took those concerns to the bill's sponsors, as others 
did. Together I found them to be responsive and we worked out those 
concerns. I am very grateful to them for that.
  With the addition of the amendments offered by Senators Dodd, Wyden 
and others, we have a package now before us that I think we can really 
be proud

[[Page 12361]]

of and with which we can be comfortable because it is one that will 
help us fairly manage the Y2K litigation while protecting legal rights 
and due process.
  Provisions like the one requiring notice before filing a lawsuit will 
help save the resources of our court system while giving parties the 
opportunity to work out their problems before incurring the costs of 
litigation and the hardening of positions the filing of a lawsuit often 
brings.
  The requirement that defects be material for a class action to be 
brought will allow recovery for those defects that are of consequence 
while keeping those with no real injury from using the court system to 
extort settlements out of companies that have done them no real harm. 
And the provision in this bill keeping plaintiffs with contractual 
relationships with defendants from seeking, through tort actions, 
damages that their contracts do not allow them to get, will make sure 
that settled business expectations, as expressed in duly negotiated and 
executed contracts, are honored and that plaintiffs get precisely but 
not more than the damages they are entitled to under those contracts.
  I also think it is important for everyone to recognize that the bill 
we have before us today is not the bill that was originally introduced, 
not even the bill that was reported out of the Commerce Committee. 
Because of the cooperative efforts of Senators McCain, Dodd, Wyden, 
Gorton, and so many others who are interested in seeing this 
legislation move forward, this bill has been significantly tailored to 
meet the urgent problems we may face.
  I will conclude by saying that this legislation will not protect 
wrongdoers or deprive those deserving of compensation. What it will do 
is make sure that what we have in place is a fair and effective way to 
resolve Y2K disputes, one that will help make sure we do not compound 
any problems caused by the Y2K bug, even larger problems caused by 
unnecessary litigation.
  This is good legislation, and I am optimistic that it will soon pass 
the Senate and that we will, thereby, have dealt with a problem which 
otherwise would be much larger than it should be.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to make a brief 
statement about the Kosovo situation. I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be laid aside so I can speak as in morning business 
for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



                                 KOSOVO

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, like many Americans, I am very pleased 
with the recent agreement within the United Nations Security Council on 
a plan that will end the conflict in Kosovo and achieve NATO's primary 
objective of returning the people of Kosovo to their homes.
  I take this opportunity to join with many others who have spoken on 
this subject to thank the aircrews and the support personnel of our Air 
Force, our Navy, and our Marine Corps. These men and women have 
demonstrated that American airpower can bring change in the course of 
history. Their dedication to duty and professionalism makes all of us 
proud.
  We have just recently passed the defense appropriations bill, and I 
had hoped to come to the floor, especially to speak to Nebraskans, who 
have a big stake in this bill, not just because we are beneficiaries of 
the security provided to us by the men and women who will benefit from 
these appropriations, but also because we have significant numbers of 
people in my State who are part of the effort to keep the United States 
of America safe.
  These laws that we pass--the defense appropriations bill and the 
defense authorization bill--are not merely words on a piece of paper; 
these laws are converted into human action. While it is true that men 
and women have to be well-trained, they need to be patriotic in order 
to be willing to give up their freedoms to serve the cause of peace and 
freedom throughout the world. It is also true that the beginning point 
is the kind of dream that we have in this Senate and in this Congress 
about the way we want our Nation and our world to be.
  Operation Allied Force was very dangerous and very expensive. It is 
natural for us, at the moment, to want to celebrate a victory. However, 
I believe we must recognize the hard work is just beginning.
  Two immense tasks now confront NATO. The first is to restore a 
refugee people to their homeland, and the second is to make the Balkan 
region a modern, democratic, and humane environment in which ethnic 
cleansing can never again occur. The first task may take a year, given 
the destruction of homes and farms in Kosovo. The second will take 
generations and will never occur without democratic change in the 
Yugoslavian Government.
  At the outset of the NATO military action, I expressed my concern 
about the effect the U.S. commitment to this operation would have on 
our ability to meet our global security obligations. Only the United 
States of America has the ability to counter the threats that are posed 
by Iraq, North Korea, or the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction. The stability of this planet depends on the readiness of 
the U.S. military, and thus we must avoid squandering our capabilities 
on missions not vital to U.S. national security.
  NATO has committed itself to provide a peace implementation force of 
50,000 troops. Of this force, the United States will supply about 7,000 
marines and soldiers. While I have concerns about the overcommitment of 
United States military forces, I am pleased our European allies have 
stepped forward and pledged to provide the vast majority of the 
implementation force. We should work to lessen the United States 
military involvement, with the goal of creating an all-European ground 
force in Kosovo within a year.
  In the meantime, we must be straightforward with the American people. 
There are risks associated with this mission. This force will be 
responsible for assisting the Kosovar refugees' return home, disarming 
the Kosovo Liberation Army, and coping with the myriad issues, such as 
landmines and booby traps, that will be left behind by the departing 
Serbian military. American casualties remain a very real possibility.
  Out of this conflict, I see reason for us to be optimistic. First, 
our allies in Europe, led primarily by Britain and Germany, have played 
a leading role in finding a solution to the conflict. It is in the 
interest of the Europeans to build a peaceful and stable Balkans. Their 
effort to find a diplomatic agreement and to provide the majority of 
the troops to enforce this agreement is a positive sign for the future.
  Second, I am pleased with the constructive role that has been played 
by the Russians. There will not be a lasting Balkan peace without the 
active participation of Russia. It is my hope the positive atmosphere 
that has been created between Russia and the West will be carried 
forward and will reignite the relationship that has suffered over the 
past few months.
  Finally, I hope we have begun to see the future of Balkan stability 
in a larger context. We cannot continue to fight individual Balkan 
fires. We must begin to look for preventive measures to avoid the next 
Balkan conflict before it begins.
  The United States and our European allies have not done enough to 
bring the Balkans into the political and economic structures of Europe. 
We have not done enough to support the latent forces of democracy that 
exist in the region.
  Our challenge today is to extend to the Balkans the peace and 
stability that comes from a society based on democratic principles 
where the rights of all people are protected, a society based on the 
rule of law where legitimate grievances among people are honestly 
adjudicated, a society based on free enterprise where commerce is 
unleashed to create jobs and prosperity.

[[Page 12362]]

  More than failed diplomacy, Kosovo should have taught us the 
consequences of failed states. Multiethnic Balkan States are not 
impossible, but to succeed, they must be free-market democracies.
  I believe peace and stability is an achievable goal. First, we must 
work with prodemocracy forces within the various Balkan States to 
strengthen the emerging democracies and encourage the transition to 
democracy.
  Second, we must begin a massive reconstruction effort. This project, 
led by the Europeans, should restore infrastructure damaged in the war, 
create opportunities for economic development, and establish conditions 
that will allow for eventual membership in the European Union.
  Finally, we should convene a conference of concerned nations that 
will work together to address the long-term security needs of the 
Balkans.
  Let me state that the objective of building a peaceful and stable 
Balkans will not be achieved as long as Slobodan Milosevic remains the 
President of Yugoslavia. A man who has started four wars in this 
decade, killed and ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of 
civilians, crushed democratic opposition, and presided over the 
ruination of his country can never guide the kind of political, 
economic, and social change that will be necessary to rebuild Serbia.
  As long as Milosevic remains in power, he is a threat to peace. As 
long as Milosevic remains in power, the politics of racism and ethnic 
hatred will prevail. As long as Milosevic remains in power, the West 
should not prop up his regime by rebuilding Serbia.
  In 1996, we missed our opportunity to help prodemocracy forces that 
gathered in the streets of Belgrade. When the protests began, we 
hesitated, and Milosevic used the opportunity to consolidate his 
control by brutally repressing the opposition. Rather than seeing 
Milosevic as a tyrant and a threat to peace, we saw him as a partner in 
Bosnia. We should no longer suffer the illusion that Milosevic can be a 
partner in peace. We should work with the people of Serbia to ensure a 
quick end to the Milosevic regime.
  I believe the end could be near. Over 70 days of NATO airstrikes have 
loosened Milosevic's grasp on the instruments he uses to control his 
people. It is my hope the democratic forces in Serbia--with Western 
assistance--will seize this opportunity to remove him. Only with a new 
democratic leadership will Serbia begin the process of rejoining the 
community of nations.
  At the end of a military conflict, it is natural to look back and to 
assess ways in which the use of force could have been avoided. While 
many will find fault with U.S. diplomacy in the days and months leading 
up to the initiation of airstrikes, I believe our failure starts a 
decade before by not working to extend to the Balkans the peaceful 
democratic revolutions that swept through Eastern Europe.
  We must address the problems facing the Balkans by extending the 
benefits of democracy, or face the prospect of continual ethnic 
conflict and instability.
  In addition to praising the men and women of the aircrews of the Air 
Force and the Navy and the Marine Corps who fought and flew bravely 
into great danger, and who deserve a great deal of credit for 
delivering this success, I offer as well my congratulations and praise 
to the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, who held 
the NATO alliance together, who persevered when there was considerable 
doubt and criticism not only at home but abroad as well, and who must 
be given great credit for delivering this successful agreement.
  We have just begun the hard work of rebuilding democracy in this 
region of the world. We should not forget, as I have said in my 
statement, we have arrived here because we were complacent. We have 
arrived here because we ignored the call for freedom inside of Serbia, 
to our eventual peril as a consequence.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Washington.

                          ____________________



                                Y2K ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                 Amendment No. 621, As Further Modified

  Mr. GORTON. What is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the question on the 
amendment by the Senator from California, as further modified.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to table the Boxer amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 621, as further modified. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

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

                                NAYS--32

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Thomas
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only 
remaining amendments in order to S. 96 be those by Senators Sessions, 
Gregg, and Inhofe, and that following those amendments the bill be 
advanced to third reading.
  I further ask consent that all debate must be concluded today on the 
Sessions, Gregg, and Inhofe amendments, and if any votes are ordered, 
they occur in stacked sequence just prior to the passage vote on 
Tuesday, with 2 minutes for explanation prior to the votes if stacked 
votes occur.
  I further ask that following the reading of the bill for the third 
time, the Senate then proceed to the House companion bill, H.R. 775, 
and all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 96 be 
inserted, H.R. 775 be read for a third time, and final passage occur at 
2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, June 15, or immediately after votes on any of the 
above amendments if such votes are ordered, with paragraph 4 of rule 
XII being waived.
  I further ask that following the third reading of S. 96, the bill be 
placed back on the calendar.
  Finally, I ask consent that at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, June 15, there be 
2 hours equally divided for closing arguments,

[[Page 12363]]

and following those remarks the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. 
for the weekly party conferences to meet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. I want to make a further announcement by direction of the 
majority leader. There will be no further votes today, and there will 
be no votes tomorrow. The next vote will take place not earlier than 
5:30 p.m. on Monday, and there may, if appropriate at that time, be a 
vote on final passage of the energy and water appropriations bill.


                 Amendment No. 622 to Amendment No. 608

   (Purpose: To provide regulatory amnesty for defendants, including 
    States and local governments, that are unable to comply with a 
 federally enforceable measurement or reporting requirement because of 
                factors related to a Y2K system failure)

  Mr. GORTON. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Inhofe and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Inhofe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 622.

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

       On page 11, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
       (6) 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 15 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.
       (7) Expiration of defense.--The Y2K upset defense may not 
     be asserted for a Y2K upset occurring after June 30, 2000.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . CREDIT PROTECTION FROM YEAR 2000 FAILURES.

       (a) In General.--No person who transacts business on 
     matters directly or indirectly affecting mortgage, credit 
     accounts, banking, or other financial transactions shall 
     cause or permit a foreclosure, default, or other adverse 
     action against any other person as a result of the improper 
     or incorrect transmission or inability to cause transaction 
     to occur, which is caused directly or indirectly by an actual 
     or potential Y2K failure that results in an inability to 
     accurately or timely process any information or data, 
     including data regarding payments and transfers.
       (b) Scope.--The prohibition of such adverse action to 
     enforce obligations referred to in subsection (a) includes 
     but is not limited to mortgages, contracts, landlord-tenant 
     agreements, consumer credit obligations, utilities, and 
     banking transactions.
       (c) Adverse Credit Information.--The prohibition on adverse 
     action in subsection (a) includes the entry of any negative 
     credit information to any credit reporting agency, if the 
     negative credit information is due directly or indirectly by 
     an actual or potential disruption of the proper processing of 
     financial responsibilities and information, or the inability 
     of the consumer to cause payments to be made to creditors 
     where such inability is due directly or indirectly to an 
     actual or potential Y2K failure.
       (d) Actions May Resume After Problem Is Fixed.--No 
     enforcement or other adverse action prohibited by subsection 
     (a) shall resume until the obligor has a reasonable time 
     after the full restoration of the ability to regularly 
     receive and dispense data necessary to perform the financial 
     transaction required to fulfill the obligation.
       (e) Section Does Not Apply to Non-Y2K-Related Problems.--
     This section shall not affect transactions upon which a 
     default has occurred prior to a Y2K failure that disrupts 
     financial or data transfer operations of either party.
       (f) Enforcement of Obligations Merely Tolled.--This section 
     delays but does not prevent the enforcement of financial 
     obligations.
  Mr. GORTON. This is the Inhofe amendment referred to in my unanimous 
consent request. It has to do with amnesty for certain regulatory 
activities in its first part. The second part was suggested by the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina and is designed to assure 
that no one lose a home through a mortgage or any other similar kind of 
loss as a result of a Y2K failure or glitch.
  The amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 622) was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 623 to Amendment No. 608

 (Purpose: To permit evidence of communications with state and federal 
         regulators to be admissible in class action lawsuits)

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 623.

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

       At an appropriate place, add the following section:

     SEC.   . ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE ULTIMATE ISSUE IN STATE COURTS.

       Any party to a Y2K action in a State court in a State that 
     has not adopted a rule of evidence substantially similar to 
     Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence may introduce in 
     such action evidence that would be admissible if Rule 704 
     applied in that jurisdiction.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this amendment simply provides that rule

[[Page 12364]]

704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which most States have adopted--
as a matter of fact, I think no more than a handful have not adopted 
Federal Rules of Evidence, and most of those have adopted 704; it 
happens that the State of Alabama did not adopt rule 704. Particularly 
with regard to these Y2K cases, I think rule 704 would be an 
appropriate rule of evidence.
  It allows the introductions of analyses and reports by parties to the 
litigation that would indicate whether or not the entity that is 
involved had or had not taken adequate steps toward curing the Y2K 
problem, whether or not they actually have moved in that direction in a 
sufficient way. It could be the defense or, on the other side, assist 
the plaintiff.
  I think this would be a good amendment and bring Alabama's law and 
perhaps a handful of other State laws into compliance, into uniformity 
in this Y2K bill.
  We worked hard to have support across the aisle. I thank my 
colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, for their courtesy and 
interest in dealing with this problem. I think we have developed 
language, after a number of changes, that will leave most people happy. 
I hope this amendment will be accepted.
  I know some Members will want to review this amendment before next 
week when we have a final vote.
  Mr. GORTON. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama 
certainly seems highly reasonable to me.
  He is, however, correct; a number of proponents and opponents have 
asked for an opportunity to examine the amendment in a little more 
detail. That is why the unanimous consent agreement deferred final 
consideration until Monday.
  I am reasonably confident it will be accepted by voice vote, and I 
certainly hope it will.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Washington, and I thank him 
for his leadership on this important issue dealing with an economic 
problem that could place one of America's greatest industries in 
jeopardy. I believe this is an important piece of legislation.
  I thank Senator Gorton for his leadership.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 624 to Amendment No. 608

 (Purpose: To provide for the suspension of penalties for certain year 
               2000 failures by small business concerns)

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself and 
     Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 624.

  Mr. GREGG. 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. __. 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 a violation by 
     a small business concern of a Federal rule or regulation 
     resulting from a Y2K failure if that Federal rule or 
     regulation had not been violated by that small business 
     concern within the preceding 3 years; 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--
       (1) establish a 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; and
       (2) publish the name and phone number of the point of 
     contact for the agency in the Federal Register.
       (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 affected the small business concern's ability to comply 
     with a federal rule or 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 harm to life or property;
       (4) upon identification of a first-time violation, the 
     small business concern initiated reasonable and timely 
     measures to remediate the violation; and
       (5) the small business concern submitted notice to the 
     appropriate agency of the first-time violation 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 money 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.

  Mr. GREGG. I offer an amendment that ensures that small businesses 
which are hit with Y2K problems will not be penalized by the Federal 
Government for activities they are unable to deal with as a result of 
the Y2K problem.
  An overzealous Federal Government bearing down on a small business 
can be a very serious problem. I know all Members have constituents who 
have had small businesses that have found the Federal Government to be 
overbearing.
  It would therefore be uniquely ironic and inappropriate if the 
overzealousness of the Federal Government were to be thrown on top of a 
situation which a small business had no control over, which would be 
the failure of their computer system as a result of a Y2K problem. This 
does not get into the issue of liability, which may be the underlying 
question in this bill. It doesn't raise the question of whether or not 
the computer company should be exempt from liability, which I know has 
been a genuine concern of the Senator from South Carolina. Rather, it 
simply addresses the need for equity and fairness when we are dealing 
with small businesses which, through no fault of their own, have 
suddenly been hit with a Y2K problem and therefore fail to comply with 
a Federal requirement or Federal regulation and end up getting hit with 
a huge fine, all of which they had no control over.
  This amendment is tightly drafted so a small business cannot use it 
as an excuse not to meet a Federal obligation or Federal regulation. It 
does not allow a small business to take the Y2K issue and use it to 
bootstrap into avoiding an obligation which it has in the area of some 
Federal regulatory regime. Rather, it is very specific. It says, first 
off, this must be an incident of a first-time regulatory violation, so 
no small business which has any sort of track record of violating that 
Federal regulation could qualify for this exemption. So it has to be a 
first-time event.
  Second, the small business has to prove it made a good-faith effort 
to remedy the Y2K problem before it got hit with it. So it cannot be a 
situation where the small business said: I have this Y2K problem coming 
at me, I have this Federal regulation problem coming at me, I am going 
to let the Y2K problem occur and then I will say that is my reason for 
not complying. Small business must have made a good-faith attempt to 
remedy the Y2K problem.
  Third, the Y2K problem cannot be used if the violation was to avoid 
or resulted from efforts to prevent disruption of a critical function 
or service.
  Fourth, the small business has to demonstrate the actions to 
remediate the violation were begun when the violation was discovered. 
So the small business has to show it attempted to address the problem 
as soon as it realized it had a Y2K problem, and it cannot allow the 
fact it has a Y2K problem, again, to go unabated and use that

[[Page 12365]]

lack of correction of a problem as an excuse for not meeting the 
obligations of the Federal regulation.
  Fifth, that notice was submitted to the appropriate agency when the 
small business became aware of the violation and therefore knew it had 
a Y2K problem.
  The practical effect of this will be small businesses throughout this 
country, which are inadvertently and beyond their own capacity to 
control a hit with a Y2K problem, will not be doubled up with a penalty 
for not meeting a Federal regulatory requirement that they could not 
meet as a result of the Y2K problem kicking in.
  It is a simple amendment. It is a reasonable amendment. It really 
does not get into the overall contest that has been generated around 
this bill which is: Should there be an exemption of liability for 
manufacturers of the product which creates the Y2K problem? Rather, it 
is trying to address the innocent bystander who gets hit, that small 
businessperson who suddenly wakes up, realizes he has a Y2K problem, 
tries to correct the Y2K problem, can't correct the Y2K problem, and as 
a result fails to comply with a Federal regulation, and then the 
Federal Government comes down and hits him with a big fine and there 
was nothing the small business could do. It gets hit with a double 
whammy: Its systems go down and they get hit with a fine.
  This just goes to civil remedy, to remedies which involve monetary 
activity, so it does not address issues where a business would be 
required to remedy through action. An example here might be OSHA. If 
they had to correct a workplace problem, they would still have to 
correct the workplace problem whether or not they had the Y2K failure. 
If they had an environmental problem which required remedial action, 
such as a change in their water discharge activities, again they would 
have to meet the remedial action.
  All this amendment does, it is very limited in scope, it just goes to 
the financial liability the company might incur as a result of failing 
to meet a regulation. It is a proposal which is strongly supported by 
the small business community. The NFIB is a supporter of this proposal 
and will be scoring this vote as one of its primary votes as it puts 
together its assessment of Members of Congress, and their support for 
small business.
  It is a reasonable proposal. I certainly hope it will end up being 
accepted. In any event, I understand under the unanimous consent 
agreement which has been generated there will be a vote on it Tuesday.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to address the amendment to the 
Y2K Act sponsored by Senator Gregg and which cosponsored. This is an 
important amendment that will waive Federal civil money penalties for 
blameless small businesses that have in good faith attempted to correct 
their Y2K problems, but find themselves inadvertently in violation of a 
Federal regulation or rule despite such efforts. Most experts that have 
studied the Y2K problem agree that regardless of how diligent a 
business is at fixing its Y2K problems, unknowable difficulties are 
still likely to arise that may place the operations of such businesses 
at risk. This amendment will ensure that the government does not 
further punish small businesses that have attempted to fix their Y2K 
problems, but are nevertheless placed in financial peril because of 
these problems.
  As chairman of the Senate Committee on small Business, I have paid 
particular attention to the problems that small businesses are facing 
regarding the Y2K problem. Small businesses are trying to become Y2K 
complaint, but face many obstacles in doing so. One of the major 
obstacles is capital. Small businesses are the most vulnerable sector 
of our business community, as many of them do not have a significant 
amount of excess cash flow. Yet, a great number of small businesses are 
already incurring significant costs to become Y2K compliant. Earlier 
this year, Congress passed Y2K legislation that I authored to provide 
small businesses with the means to fix their own computer systems. Even 
small businesses that take advantage of that program, however, will see 
decreased cash flow from their efforts to correct Y2K problems.
  The last thing, therefore, this government should do is levy civil 
money penalties on small businesses that find themselves inadvertently 
confronted with Y2K problems. Many of these businesses will already 
have had their operations disrupted and may be in danger of going out 
of business entirely. The Federal Government should not push them over 
the edge.
  This amendment has been carefully crafted so that only those small 
businesses that are subject to civil money penalties through no fault 
of their own are granted a waiver. Under this amendment, a small 
business would only be eligible for a waiver of civil money penalties 
if it had not violated the applicable rule or regulation in the last 3 
years. This provision will help to ensure that businesses that have 
continuing violations or that have a history of violating Federal rules 
and regulations will not be let off the hook.
  Small businesses must also demonstrate to the government agency 
levying the penalties that the business had previously made a good 
faith effort to correct its Y2K problems. We must not provide 
disincentives to businesses so that they do not fix their Y2K problems 
now. This amendment does not provide such a disincentive. In addition, 
to receive relief, a small business must show that the violation of the 
Federal rule or regulation was unavoidable or occurred as a result of 
efforts to prevent the disruption of critical functions or services 
that could result in harm to life or property. The amendment also 
provides that, upon identification of a violation, the small business 
concern must have initiated reasonable and timely efforts to correct 
it. Finally, in order to receive the relief provided by this amendment, 
a small business must have submitted notice, within seven business 
days, to the appropriate Federal agency.
  What is clear from these requirements is that the amendment will only 
apply to conscientious small businesses that have tried in good faith 
to prepare for the Y2K problem and that promptly correct inadvertent 
violations of a Federal rule or regulation that nevertheless occur as a 
result of such problem. It is critically important that these innocent 
victims not be punished by the Federal Government for a problem that 
confronts us all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is correct. 
He has explained his amendment with great clarity. It may or may not be 
seriously contested. We simply are not going to know that until early 
next week, so I thank him for his graciousness in waiting for a final 
decision until then.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. 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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today there are 204 days left before 
the Y2K problem becomes a concrete reality for any entity throughout 
the world that has a computer system.
  The Y2K issue has been publicized across this nation; sometimes to a 
greater degree than necessary. Some Americans have even resorted to 
hoarding food and planning for the end of the world. While no one has a 
magic answer as to what will happen on the first of the year, enough 
effort has been made by the public and private sector to ensure that 
Americans are aware of this issue.
  However, I am concerned that under the current version of S. 96, 
companies may continue sales of non-Y2K compliant products even after 
enactment of this act without disclosing non-Y2K compliance to 
consumers. While I strongly support this important piece of 
legislation, I am concerned that unscrupulous marketers may attempt to 
deceive consumers by continuing to

[[Page 12366]]

sell non-Y2K compliant products. A computer given for a Christmas gift 
isn't much of a gift when it stops working 7 days later.
  Thus I planned to offer an amendment to section 5(b)(3) that would 
lift the cap on punitive damages for products sold after the date of 
enactment of this act if the plaintiff could have established by clear 
and convincing evidence that the defendant knowingly sold non-Y2K 
compliant products absent a signed waiver from the plaintiff. However, 
I have agreed to defer to the chairman so that this issue can be best 
addressed in conference.
  Mr. McCAIN. If I could inquire of my colleague from Alaska how his 
original amendment would have applied if, for example, a company bought 
a Y2K-compliant computer server in November 1999, and that server has 
to interact with other software and networked hardware manufactured by 
other companies that may or may not be Y2K compliant.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend for his question. My amendment would 
have imposed liability only if the manufacturer sold a server that was 
non-Y2K compliant by itself after the date of enactment of this act. My 
amendment would not apply to a Y2K compliant server that failed due to 
the non-Y2K compliance of installed software or attached hardware 
manufactured by other companies.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague for his clarification and will be 
pleased to address his concerns in conference.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Arizona for his attention to 
this issue.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate all the hard work that has 
been done on this legislation by my colleagues. I know they are sincere 
in their concern about the effect of Y2K computer failures and in their 
desire to do something to encourage solutions to those problems in 
advance of the end of the year. But this bill is ill-considered and 
ill-advised. As the Justice Department has noted with respect to 
original version of this bill, and I think the judgment remains 
accurate: this bill would be ``by far the most sweeping litigation 
reform measure ever enacted if it were approved in its current form. 
The bill makes extraordinarily dramatic changes in both federal 
procedural and substantive law and in state procedural and substantive 
law.''
  For all the heated rhetoric we have heard on this floor over the past 
few days, I have not seen evidence that legislation is needed to create 
incentives for businesses to correct Y2K problems. More importantly, I 
do not agree that this bill actually creates those incentives. Indeed, 
I think that in many ways it does just the opposite. It rewards the 
worst actors with its damages caps and its prohibition of recovery for 
economic loss, and it may even give incentives to delay corrective 
action with the cooling off period and the changes in class action 
rules.
  A major concern that I have about this bill is the breathtakingly 
broad and unprecedented preemption of state law that it contains. I 
simply do not agree that we should overrule the judgment of state 
legislatures and judges who have defined the law in their states for 
traditional contract and tort cases. This bill benefits one class of 
businesses, those who sell products that may cause Y2K problems, over 
another class of business, those who buy such products, and individual 
consumers. It completely disregards whether state lawmakers and judges 
would reach the same conclusions. I see no reason why Congress should 
dictate tort and contract law to the states. Protections for injured 
parties that have been developed through decades of experience are 
being summarily wiped out by the Congress, on the basis of a very thin 
record. Mr. President, that is not right.
  Another serious problem with this bill has to do with the elimination 
of joint and several liability in the vast majority of Y2K cases. Mr. 
Chairman, we all have heard many times the horror story of a poor deep 
pocket defendant found to be only 1% liable who ends up on the hook for 
the entire judgment in a tort case. Frankly, I am aware of few actual 
examples of this phenomenon, but I know it is theoretically possible. A 
far more frequent occurrence, however, is a case where two or three 
defendants are found equally liable, but one or more of them is 
financially insolvent. The real question raised by joint and several 
versus proportionate liability is who should bear the risk that the 
full share of damages cannot be collected from one defendant. Who 
should have the responsibility to identify all potentially liable 
parties and bring them into the suit? Who should bear the risk that one 
of the defendants has gone bankrupt? Should it be the innocent 
plaintiff who the law is supposed to make whole, or a culpable 
defendant? Mr. President, to me that question is easy to answer. 
Someone who has done wrong should bear that risk. But states have 
reached different balances on this question, based on their own 
experience of decades and decades of tort cases. How is it that we in 
the Congress all of the sudden became experts on this issue? Where do 
we get off overriding the judgment of state legislatures on this 
crucial question of public policy?
  Now I recognize that changes to the bill obtained by Senator Dodd 
would limit the effect of the abrogation of joint and several liability 
in a narrow set of cases involving egregious conduct by defendants or 
particularly poor plaintiffs. But I don't think this change goes far 
enough in protecting innocent victims from the harsh reality that 
sometimes the worst offenders have the least money. Section 6 of this 
bill eliminates joint and several liability in virtually every Y2K 
case, and that is wrong.
  Let me quote one of the bill's stated purposes from Section 2(b) of 
the bill--``to establish uniform legal standards that give all 
businesses and users of technology reasonable incentives to solve Y2K 
computer date-change problems before they develop.'' But Mr. President, 
this bill doesn't establish uniform standards. It preempts state law 
only in one direction--always in favor of defendants and against the 
interests of the injured party.
  As I stated before, I don't agree that uniform standards are needed. 
I think our state legislatures and judges are due more respect than 
this bill gives them. But if there is truly a compelling interest in 
uniformity, then I do not understand why this bill preempts state laws 
that offer more protection to injured plaintiffs but not those state 
laws that are less generous to the injured party. Yesterday, we even 
adopted, without debate, an amendment offered by Senator Allard that 
says specifically that any state law that provides more protection for 
defendants in Y2K cases than this bill does is not preempted. So 
preemption is a one-way street here. If you're in a state where the law 
is moving in the same direction as this bill and cutting back on the 
damages that can be recovered in a Y2K suit, you're fine, but if your 
state is going in the wrong direction, you get run over.
  Mr. President, that is not fair. And it certainly is not consistent 
with the bill's stated purpose of providing uniform national standards.
  Let me give you one example. About 30 states have no caps on punitive 
damages. Three other states have caps that are more generous than the 
caps in this bill. In Y2K cases involving defendants who are small 
businesses as defined in this bill, those state laws would be 
preempted. About a dozen states have higher caps on some kind of cases 
and lower caps on others. This bill would partially preempt those state 
laws, overriding the balance that the duly elected state legislatures 
in question decided was fair and just.
  Six states do not allow punitive damages in tort cases, and one has 
caps that are lower than those permitted under this bill. Those states 
would be allowed to continue to apply the judgments of their 
legislatures and courts in Y2K cases.
  My state of Wisconsin has generally rejected imposing arbitrary caps 
on punitive damages, instead trusting judges and juries to determine an 
appropriate punishment for defendants who act in a particularly harmful 
and intentional or malicious way. The state of Washington, to take an 
example, has eliminated punitive damages. Why should

[[Page 12367]]

the policy decisions of the state of Washington be respected by this 
Congress more than the policy decisions of Wisconsin--or Pennsylvania, 
or Arizona, or New York, or the majority of states.
  The one-sided tilt of this bill is very troubling. Punitive damages 
caps of any kind are bad ideas I believe. Remember that in every state 
punitive damages can be awarded only in cases of intentional or 
outrageous misconduct. So the protection offered by these caps goes to 
the very worst Y2K offenders--those who have acted intentionally or 
maliciously to avoid fixing their Y2K problems. Where is the justice 
and balance in that?
  Mr. President, because I think it's important for the Senate to take 
every aspect of legislation into account in our debate here on the 
floor, I have a few more facts I'd like to add--facts about how much 
money has been donated to the political parties and to candidates by a 
couple of powerful groups that have a huge stake in this bill.
  Now the dollar figures I'm about to cite, keep in mind, are only for 
the last election cycle, 1997 to 1998. First there's the computer and 
electronics industry, which gave close to $6 million in PAC and soft 
money during the last election cycle--$5,772,146 to be exact. And 
there's also the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, which gave 
$2,836,350 in PAC and soft money contributions to parties and 
candidates in 1997 and 1998.
  As I said, I cite these figures so that as my colleagues weigh the 
pros and cons of this bill, they, and the public, are aware of the 
financial interests that have been brought to bear on the legislation. 
The lobbying efforts, as we know, have been significant, and so have 
the campaign contributions. And the public can be excused if it wonders 
if those contributions have distorted the process by which this bill 
was crafted.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that the Administration has indicated it 
will veto this bill in its current form. I will support that veto as 
well as voting against the bill. We need to encourage problem solving 
and remediation to avoid a disaster on January 1 in the Year 2000. But 
we don't need to enact this bill. Indeed, while trying to address a 
supposed litigation explosion, we may well have created an explosion of 
unfairness to people and businesses who are injured by the negligent or 
reckless behavior of those who sell non-Y2K compliant products.

                          ____________________



                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now go 
to a period for morning business with Senators being allowed to speak 
therein for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



              ASSISTANCE TO THE KOSOVAR ALBANIAN REFUGEES

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today both to pay tribute to and 
to thank the Government of the Republic of China on Taiwan (ROC) for 
their recent announcement to provide economic assistance to the Kosovar 
Albanian refugees. These funds, some $300 million, represent a very 
generous gift and will prove invaluable to the displaced people of 
Kosovo by helping them receive the food, shelter and clothing they need 
to survive in the refugee camps and later, when they return to their 
homes in Kosovo. Furthermore, the aid from Taiwan will provide 
emergency medical assistance to the refugees, educational materials for 
the displaced children and job training for those that need it. The 
government of the ROC is even making it possible for some refugees to 
receive short term accommodations and job training in Taiwan while they 
await the rebuilding of their homes, businesses, schools, and 
hospitals.
  The generosity of the government of the ROC is a tribute to the 
thoughtfulness and caring of the Taiwanese people and serves as a 
wonderful example for the entire international community. The current 
president of Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui, typifies this compassion and I would 
like to personally thank him and his foreign minister, Jason Hu, who is 
a good friend of mine, for all they have done not only for the people 
of Taiwan but not for the people of Kosovo. Only through such 
generosity and compassion can the people of the Balkans begin to move 
past the horrors they have experienced over the past few months and 
build a better future for themselves and their communities.

                          ____________________



                       THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, 
Wednesday, June 10, 1999, the federal debt stood at 
$5,604,848,624,148.74 (Five trillion, six hundred four billion, eight 
hundred forty-eight million, six hundred twenty-four thousand, one 
hundred forty-eight dollars and seventy-four cents).
  One year ago, June 10, 1998, the federal debt stood at 
$5,493,570,000,000 (Five trillion, four hundred ninety-three billion, 
five hundred seventy million).
  Five years ago, June 10, 1994, the federal debt stood at 
$4,601,856,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred one billion, eight 
hundred fifty-six million).
  Ten years ago, June 10, 1989, the federal debt stood at 
$2,783,892,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred eighty-three billion, 
eight hundred ninety-two million) which reflects a doubling of the 
debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,820,956,624,148.74 (Two 
trillion, eight hundred twenty billion, nine hundred fifty-six million, 
six hundred twenty-four thousand, one hundred forty-eight dollars and 
seventy-four cents) during the past 10 years.

                          ____________________



                      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

  Al 5:15 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered 
by Mr. Hanrahan, one of its reading clerks, announced that it has 
agreed to the following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the 
concurrence of the Senate:

       H. Con. Res. 127. Concurrent resolution permitting the use 
     of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to present a 
     gold medal on behalf of Congress to Rosa Parks.

                          ____________________



                     MEASURE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

  The following bill was read twice and ordered placed on the calendar:

       H.R. 1259. An act to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 to protect Social Security surpluses through 
     strengthened budgetary enforcement mechanisms.

                          ____________________



                   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-3601. A communication from the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual 
     report of the Maternal and Child Health Program for fiscal 
     year 1996; to the Committee on Finance.
       EC-3602. A communication from the Fiscal Assistant 
     Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant 
     to law, the March 1999 issue of the ``Treasury Bulletin'' 
     which contains various annual reports; to the Committee on 
     Finance.
       EC-3603. A communication from the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual 
     report for 1998 relative to extra billing in the Medicare 
     program; to the Committee on Finance.
       EC-3604. A communication from the Administrator, Department 
     of Health and

[[Page 12368]]

     Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report 
     relative to the Rural Health Care Transition grant program; 
     to the Committee on Finance.
       EC-3605. A communication from the Commissioner, General 
     Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report of the status of the National Laboratory Center and 
     the Fire Investigation Research and Education facility; to 
     the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
       EC-3606. A communication from the Director, Office of 
     Thrift Supervision, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, the 1998 annual report on the Preservation 
     of Minority Savings Institutions; to the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-3607. A communication from the Chairman, Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, the annual report for calendar year 1998; to 
     the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-3608. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of 
     the Army (Civil Works), transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report relative to the Upper Guadalupe River; to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works.
       EC-3609. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 13-77, ``Children's Defense Fund Equitable 
     Real Property Tax Relief Act of 1999'', to the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3610. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 13-76, ``Apostolic Church of Washington, 
     D.C., Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 1999''; to 
     the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3611. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 13-70, ``Ben Ali Way Act of 1999''; to the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3612. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 13-69, ``Criminal Code and Clarifying 
     Technical Amendments Act of 1999''; to the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3613. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 13-75, ``Bethea-Welch Post 7284, Veterans 
     of Foreign Wars, Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 
     1999''; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3614. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 13-78, ``General Obligation Bonds and Bond 
     Anticipation Notes for Fiscal Years 1999-2004 Authorization 
     Act of 1999''; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3615. A communication from the Commissioner, Social 
     Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the 
     Office of Inspector General for the period October 1, 1998, 
     through March 31, 1999; to the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs.
       EC-3616. A communication from the Chairman, National 
     Endowmment for the Arts, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 
     report of the Office of Inspector General for the period 
     October 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999; to the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3617. A communication from the Chairman, Federal Housing 
     Finance Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     the Office of Inspector General for the period October 1, 
     1998, through March 31, 1999; to the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3618. A communication from the Chairman, National Credit 
     Union Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 
     report of the Office of Inspector General for the period 
     October 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999; to the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3619. A communication from the Chairman, National 
     Science Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     the Office of Inspector General for the period October 1, 
     1998, through March 31, 1999; to the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3620. A communication from the Executive Director, 
     Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the Office of 
     Inspector General for the period October 1, 1997, through 
     September 30, 1998; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3621. A communication from the Chairman, Securities and 
     Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 
     report of the Office of Inspector General for the period of 
     October 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999; to the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3622. A communication from the Chairman, Board of 
     Directors, Panama Canal Commission, transmitting, pursuant to 
     law, the report of the Office of Inspector General for the 
     period of October 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999; to the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3623. A communication from the Administrator, General 
     Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 
     report of the Office of Inspector General for the period of 
     October 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999; to the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3624. A communication from the Secretary of Education, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the Office of 
     Inspector General for the period of October 1, 1998, through 
     March 31, 1999; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3625. A communication from the Director of the Peace 
     Corps, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the 
     Office of Inspector General for the period of October 1, 
     1998, through March 31, 1999; to the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3626. A communication from the Attorney General, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the Office of 
     Inspector General for the period of October 1, 1998, through 
     March 31, 1999; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3627. A communication from the Chief Executive Officer, 
     Corporation for National Service, transmitting, pursuant to 
     law, the report of the Office of Inspector General for the 
     period of October 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999; to the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3628. A communication from the Chairman, Consumer 
     Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 
     report of the Office of Inspector General for the period of 
     October 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999; to the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3629. A communication from the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the Office of 
     Inspector General for the period of October 1, 1998, through 
     March 31, 1999; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

                          ____________________



                        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-186. A petition from a citizen of the State of Florida 
     relative to Social Security; to the Committee on Finance.

                          ____________________



                         REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

  The following reports of committees were submitted:

       By Mr. BURNS, from the Committee on Appropriations, without 
     amendment:
       S. 1205. An original bill making appropriations for 
     military construction, family housing, and base realignment 
     and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 
     106-74).
       By Mr. BENNETT, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
     without amendment:
       S. 1206. An original bill making appropriations for the 
     legislative branch excluding House items for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 
     106-75).
       By Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an 
     amendment and an amendment to the title and with a preamble:
       S. Res. 34. A resolution designating the week beginning 
     April 30, 1999, as ``National Youth Fitness Week.''
       By Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without 
     amendment and with a preamble:
       S. Res. 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.
       S. Res. 98. A resolution designating the week beginning 
     October 17, 1999, and the week beginning October 15, 2000, as 
     ``National Character Counts Week.''
       S. Res. 114. A resolution designating June 22, 1999, as 
     ``National Pediatric AIDS Awareness Day.''
       By Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute:
       S. 606. A bill for the relief of Global Exploration and 
     Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-
     McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical 
     Corporation), and for other purposes.
       By Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without 
     amendment and with a preamble:
       S.J. Res. 21. A joint resolution to designate September 29, 
     1999, as ``Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 
     Day.''

                          ____________________



              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 Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. 
             Shelby, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Burns, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. 
             Specter):
       S. 1199. A bill to require the Secretary of State to report 
     on United States citizens injured or killed by certain 
     terrorist groups; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
           By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
             Torricelli, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Chafee, 
             Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
             Specter,

[[Page 12369]]

             Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
             Schumer, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Cleland, 
             Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
             Daschle, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Inouye, 
             Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Wellstone, 
             and Mr. Bryan):
       S. 1200. A bill to require equitable coverage of 
     prescription contraceptive drugs and devices, and 
     contraceptive services under health plans; to the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. SCHUMER:
       S. 1201. A bill to prohibit law enforcement agencies from 
     imposing a waiting period before accepting reports of missing 
     persons between the ages of 18 and 21; to the Committee on 
     the Judiciary.
           By Mr. CAMPBELL:
       S. 1202. A bill to require a warrant of consent before an 
     inspection of land may be carried out to enforce any law 
     administered by the Secretary of the Interior; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
           By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Dodd, 
             Mrs. Murray, and Mrs. Lincoln) (by request):
       S. 1203. A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to 
     extend authorizations of appropriations for programs under 
     the Act through fiscal year 2004, to establish a National 
     Family Caregiver Support Program, to modernize aging programs 
     and services, to address the need to engage in life course 
     planning, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. GRAHAM:
       S. 1204. A bill to promote general and applied research for 
     health promotion and disease prevention among the elderly, to 
     amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to add 
     preventitive benefits, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. BURNS:
       S. 1205. An original bill making appropriations for 
     military construction, family housing, and base realignment 
     and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes; from the 
     Committee on Appropriations; placed on the calendar.
           By Mr. BENNETT:
       S. 1206. An original bill making appropriations for the 
     legislative branch excluding House items for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes; from the 
     Committee on Appropriations; placed on the calendar.
           By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Hagel):
       S. 1207. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to ensure that income averaging for farmers not increase a 
     farmer's liability for the alternative minimum tax; to the 
     Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
       S. 1208. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to provide that reimbursements for costs of using passenger 
     automobiles for charitable and other organizations are 
     excluded from gross income; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. 
             Santorum):
       S. 1209. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to restore pension limits to equitable levels, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. CHAFEE:
       S. 1210. A bill to assist in the conservation of endangered 
     and threatened species of fauna and flora found throughout 
     the world; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
           By Mr. BENNETT:
       S. 1211. A bill to amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
     Control Act to authorize additional measures to carry out the 
     control of salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-
     effective manner; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources.
           By Mr. CAMPBELL:
       S. 1212. A bill to restrict United States assistance for 
     certain reconstruction efforts in the Balkans region of 
     Europe to United States-produced articles and services; to 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations.
           By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. 
             Domenici):
       S. 1213. A bill to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act of 
     1978, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian 
     Affairs.
           By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Voinovich, 
             Mr. Robb, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Enzi, Mr. 
             Breaux, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Bayh):
       S. 1214. A bill to ensure the liberties of the people by 
     promoting federalism, to protect the reserved powers of the 
     States, to impose accountability for Federal preemption of 
     State and local laws, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, 
     with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other 
     Committee have thirty days to report or be discharged.
           By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Leahy):
       S. 1215. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to 
     authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish 
     headstones or markers for marked graves of, or to otherwise 
     commemorate, certain individuals; to the Committee on 
     Veterans Affairs.
           By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
       S. 1216. A bill to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
     of 1972 to establish a Marine Mammal Rescue Grant Program, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation.

                          ____________________



            SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

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

           By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Schumer, 
             Mr. Burns, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Specter):
       S. Res. 115. A resolution expressing the sense of the 
     Senate regarding United States citizens killed in terrorist 
     attacks in Israel; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
           By Mr. FITZGERALD:
       S. Res. 116. A resolution condemning the arrest and 
     detention of 13 Iranian Jews accused of espionage; to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations..
           By Mr. CAMPBELL:
       S. Res. 117. A resolution expressing the sense of the 
     Senate regarding the United States share of any 
     reconstruction measures undertaken in the Balkans region of 
     Europe on account of the armed conflict and atrocities that 
     have occurred in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since 
     March 24, 1999; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

                          ____________________



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mr. Burns, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 1199. A bill to require the Secretary of State to report on United 
States citizens injured or killed by certain terrorist groups; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. 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. 1199

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

     SECTION 1. REPORT ON TERRORIST ACTIVITY IN WHICH UNITED 
                   STATES CITIZENS WERE KILLED AND RELATED 
                   MATTERS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than October 1, 1999, and every 
     6 months thereafter, the Secretary of State shall prepare and 
     submit a report, with a classified annex as necessary, to the 
     appropriate congressional committees regarding terrorist 
     attacks in Israel, in territory administered by Israel, and 
     in territory administered by the Palestinian Authority. The 
     report shall contain the following information:
       (1) A list of formal commitments the Palestinian Authority 
     has made to combat terrorism.
       (2) A list of terrorist attacks, occurring between October 
     1, 1992 and the date of the report, against Israeli or United 
     States citizens in Israel, in territory administered by 
     Israel, or in territory administered by the Palestinian 
     Authority, including--
       (A) a list of all citizens of the United States killed or 
     injured in such attacks;
       (B) a list of all citizens of Israel killed or injured in 
     such attacks;
       (C) the date of each attack, the total number of people 
     killed or injured in each attack, and the name and 
     nationality of each victim;
       (D) the person or group claiming responsibility for the 
     attack and where such person or group has found refuge or 
     support;
       (E) a list of suspects implicated in each attack and the 
     nationality of each suspect, including information on--
       (i) which suspects are in the custody of the Palestinian 
     Authority and which suspects are in the custody of Israel;
       (ii) which suspects are still at large in areas controlled 
     by the Palestinian Authority or Israel; and
       (iii) the whereabouts (or suspected whereabouts) of 
     suspects implicated in each attack.
       (3) Of the suspects implicated in the attacks described in 
     paragraph (2) and detained by Palestinian or Israeli 
     authorities, information on--
       (A) the date each suspect was incarcerated;
       (B) whether any suspects have been released, the date of 
     such release, whether the Secretary considers the release 
     justified based on the evidence against the suspect, and 
     whether any released suspect was implicated in subsequent 
     acts of terrorism; and
       (C) the status of each case pending against a suspect, 
     including information on whether the suspect has been 
     indicted, prosecuted, or convicted by the Palestinian 
     Authority or Israel.
       (4) Statistics on the release by the Palestinian Authority 
     of terrorist suspects compared to the release of suspects in 
     other violent crimes.

[[Page 12370]]

       (5) The policy of the Department of State with respect to 
     offering rewards for information on terrorist suspects, 
     including any determination by the Department of State as to 
     whether a reward should be posted for suspects involved in 
     terrorist attacks in which United States citizens were either 
     killed or injured, and, if not, an explanation of why a 
     reward should not or has not been posted for a particular 
     suspect.
       (6) A list of each request by the United States for 
     assistance in investigating terrorist attacks against United 
     States citizens, a list of each request by the United States 
     for the transfer of terrorist suspects from the Palestinian 
     Authority and Israel, and the response to each request from 
     the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
       (7) A list of meetings and trips made by United States 
     officials to the Middle East to investigate cases of 
     terrorist attacks in the 7 years preceding the date of the 
     report.
       (8) A list of any terrorist suspects or those aiding 
     terrorists who are members of Palestinian police or security 
     forces, the Palestine Liberation Organization, or any 
     Palestinian governing body.
       (9) A list of all United States citizens killed or injured 
     in terrorist attacks in Israel or in territory administered 
     by Israel between 1948 and October 1, 1992, and a 
     comprehensive list of all suspects involved in such attacks 
     and their whereabouts.
       (10) The amount of compensation the United States has 
     requested for United States citizens, or their families, 
     injured or killed in attacks by terrorists in Israel, in 
     territory administered by Israel, or in territory 
     administered by the Palestine Authority, and, if no 
     compensation has been requested, an explanation of why such 
     requests have not been made.
       (b) Consultation With Other Departments.--The Secretary of 
     State shall, in preparing the report required by this 
     section, consult and coordinate with all other Government 
     officials who have information necessary to complete the 
     report.
       (c) Initial Report.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (a)(9), the initial report filed under this section shall 
     cover the 7 years preceding October 1, 1999.
       (d) Appropriate Congressional Committees.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``appropriate congressional 
     Committee'' means the Committees on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Warner, Mr. Torricelli, 
        Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Chafee, Ms. Milulski, Mr. Smith 
        of Oregon, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Specter, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Robb, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Mr. Cleland, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Daschle, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Akaka, 
        Mr. Bayh, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 1200. A bill to require equitable coverage of prescription 
contraceptive drugs and devices, and contraceptive services under 
health plans; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


    Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Nevada, Senator Harry Reid, to reintroduce the Equity in Prescription 
Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act. We are back today, with the 
support of 30 Members of the Senate, to finish the work we began in the 
last Congress.
  Why are we back again this year? Because the need behind the Equity 
in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act has not 
abated. There are three million unintended pregnancies every year--half 
of all pregnancies that occur every year in this country. And 
frighteningly, approximately half of all unintended pregnancies end in 
abortion.
  I am firmly pro-choice and I believe in a woman's right to a safe and 
legal abortion when she needs this procedure. But I want abortion to be 
an option that a woman rarely needs. So how do we prevent this? How do 
we reduce the number of unintended pregnancies?
  The safest and most effective means of preventing unintended 
pregnancies are with prescription contraceptives. And while the vast 
majority of insurers cover prescription drugs, they treat prescription 
contraceptives very differently. In fact, half of large group plans 
exclude coverage of contraceptives. And only one-third cover oral 
contraceptives--the most popular form of reversible birth control.
  When one realizes the insurance ``carve-out'' for these prescriptions 
and related outpatient treatments, it is no longer a mystery why women 
spend 68 percent more than men in out-of-pocket health care costs. No 
woman should have to forgo or rely on inexpensive and less effective 
contraceptives for purely economic reasons, knowing that she risks an 
unintended pregnancy.
  In last year's Omnibus Appropriations Bill, Congress instructed the 
health plans participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefit 
Plan--the largest employer-sponsored health insurance plan in the 
world--to provide prescription contraceptive coverage if they cover 
prescription drugs as a part of their benefits package. The protections 
we afford to Members of Congress, their staff, other federal employees 
and annuitants, and to the approximately two million women of 
reproductive age who are participating in FEHBP need to be extended to 
the rest of the country.
  Unfortunately, the lack of contraceptive coverage in health insurance 
is not news to most women. Countless American women have been shocked 
to learn that their insurance does not cover contraceptives, one of 
their most basic health care needs, even though other prescription 
drugs which are equally valuable to their lives are routinely covered. 
Less than half--49 percent --of all large-group health care plans cover 
any contraceptive method at all and only 15 percent cover the five most 
common reversible birth control methods. HMOs are more likely to cover 
contraceptives, but only 39 percent cover all five reversible methods. 
And ironically, 86 percent of large group plans, preferred provider 
organizations, and HMOs cover sterilization and between 66 and 70 
percent of these different plans do cover abortion.
  The concept underlying EPICC is simple. This legislation says that if 
insurers cover prescription drugs and devices, they must also cover 
FDA-approved prescription contraceptives. And in conjunction with this, 
EPICC requires health plans which already cover basic health care 
services to also cover outpatient services related to prescription 
contraceptives.
  The bill does not require insurance companies to cover prescription 
drugs. What the bill does say is that if insurers cover prescription 
drugs, they cannot carve prescription contraceptives out of their 
formularies. And it says that insurers which cover outpatient health 
care services cannot limit or exclude coverage of the medical and 
counseling services necessary for effective contraceptive use.
  This bill is good health policy. By helping families to adequately 
space their pregnancies, contraceptives contribute to healthy 
pregnancies and healthy births, reduce rates of maternal complications, 
and reduces the possibility of low-birthweight births.
  Furthermore, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive 
Coverage Act makes good economic sense. We know that contraceptives are 
cost-effective: in the public sector, for every dollar invested in 
family planning, $4 to $14 is saved in health care and related costs. 
And all methods of reversible contraceptives are cost-effective when 
compared to the cost of unintended pregnancy. A sexually active woman 
who uses no contraception costs the health care provider an average of 
$3,225 in a given year. The average cost of an uncomplicated vaginal 
delivery in 1993 was approximately $6,400. And for every 100 women who 
do not use contraceptives in a given year, 85 percent will become 
pregnant.
  Why do insurance companies exclude prescription contraceptive 
coverage from their list of covered benefits--especially when they 
cover other prescription drugs? The tendency of insurance plans to 
cover sterilization and abortion reflects, in part, their long-standing 
tendency to cover surgery and treatment over prevention. Sterilization 
and abortion is also cheaper. But insurers do not feel compelled to 
cover prescription contraceptives because they know that most women who 
lack contraceptive coverage will simply pay for them out of pocket. And 
in order to prevent an unintended pregnancy, a

[[Page 12371]]

woman needs to be on some form of birth control for almost 30 years of 
her life.
  The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act 
tells insurance companies that we can no longer tolerate policies that 
disadvantage women and disadvantage our nation. When our bill is 
passed, women will finally be assured of equity in prescription drug 
coverage and health care services. And America's unacceptably high 
rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions will be reduced in the 
process.
  The philosophy behind the bill is that contraceptives should be 
treated no differently than any other prescription drug or device. It 
does not give contraceptives any type of special insurance coverage, 
but instead seeks to achieve equity of treatment and parity of 
coverage. For that reason, the bill specifies that if a plan imposes a 
deductible or cost-sharing requirement on prescription drugs or 
devices, it can impose the same deductible or cost-sharing requirement 
on prescription contraception. But it cannot charge a higher cost-
sharing requirement or deductible on contraceptives. Outpatient 
contraceptive services must also be treated similarly to general 
outpatient health care services.
  Time and time again Americans have expressed the desire for their 
leaders to come together to work on the problems that face us. This 
bill exemplifies that spirit of cooperation. It crosses some very wide 
gulfs and makes some very meaningful changes in policy that will 
benefit countless Americans.
  As someone who is pro-choice, I firmly believe that abortions should 
be safe, legal, and rare. Through this bill, I invite both my pro-
choice and pro-life colleagues to join with me in emphasizing the 
rare.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today, with Senator 
Snowe, the Equity in Prescription and Contraception Coverage Act of 
1999. Senator Snowe and I first introduced this bill in 1997.
  The legislation we introduce today would require insurers, HMO's and 
employee health benefit plans that offer prescription drug benefits to 
cover contraceptive drugs and devices approved by the FDA. Further, it 
would require these insurers to cover outpatient contraceptive services 
if a plan covers other outpatient services. Lastly, it would prohibit 
the imposition of copays and deductibles for prescription 
contraceptives or outpatient services that are greater than those for 
other prescription drugs.
  I hope that we have the success this year that we had last year in 
directing the Federal Health Benefit Plans to cover contraception. As 
many of you recall, after a tough fight, Congresswoman Lowey and I were 
able to amend the Treasury Postal Appropriations bill so that Federal 
Health Plans must cover FDA approved contraceptives.
  EPICC is about equality for women, healthy mothers and babies, and 
reducing the number of abortions that are performed in this country 
each year. For all the advances women have made, they still earn 74 
cents for every dollar a man makes and on top of that, they pay 68 
percent more in out of pocket costs for health care than men. 
Reproductive health care services account for much of this 68 percent 
difference. You can be sure, if men had to pay for contraceptive drugs 
and devices, the insurance industry would cover them.
  The health industry has done a poor job of responding to women's 
health needs. According to a study done by the Alan Guttmacher 
Institute, 49 percent of all large-group health care plans do not 
routinely cover any contraceptive method at all, and only 15 percent 
cover all five of the most common contraceptive methods.
  Women are forced to use disposable income to pay for family planning 
services not covered by their health insurance--``the pill'' one of the 
most common birth control methods, can cost over $300 a year. Women who 
lack disposable income are forced to use less reliable methods of 
contraception and risk an unintended pregnancy.
  If our bill was only about equality in health care coverage between 
men and women, that would be reason enough to pass it. But our 
legislation also provides the means to reduce abortions, and have 
healthier mothers and babies. Each year approximately 3 million 
pregnancies, or 50 percent of all pregnancies, in this country are 
unintended. Of these unintended pregnancies, about half end in 
abortion.
  Reliable family planning methods must be made available if we wish to 
reduce this disturbing number.
  Ironically, abortion is routinely covered by 66 percent of indemnity 
plans, 67 percent of preferred provider organizations, and 70 percent 
of HMO's. Sterilization and tubal ligation are also routinely covered. 
It does not make sense financially for insurance companies to cover 
these more expensive services, rather than contraception. But insurance 
companies know that women will bear the costs of contraception 
themselves--and if they can not afford their method of choice, there 
are always less expensive means to turn to. Of course less expensive 
also means less reliable.
  This just seems like bad business to me. If a woman can not afford 
effective contraception, and she turns to a less effective method and 
gets pregnant, that pregnancy will cost the insurance company much more 
than it would cost them to prevent it. According to one recent study in 
the American Journal of Public Health, by increasing the number of 
women who use oral contraceptives by 15 percent, health plans would 
accrue enough savings in pregnancy care costs to cover oral 
contraceptives for all users under the plan. Studies indicate that for 
every dollar of public funds invested in family planning, four to 
fourteen dollars of public funds is saved in pregnancy and health care-
related costs. Not only will a reduction in unintended pregnancies 
reduce abortion rates, it will also lead to a reduction in low-birth 
weight, infant mortality and maternal morbidity.
  Low birth weight refers to babies who weigh less than 5.5 pounds at 
birth. How much a baby weighs at birth is directly related to the 
baby's survival, health and development. In Nevada, during the past 
decade, the percent of low birth weight babies has increased by 7 
percent. These figures are important because women who use 
contraception and plan for the birth of their baby are more likely to 
get prenatal care and lead a healthier life style. The infant mortality 
rate measures the number of babies who die during their first year of 
life. In Nevada, between the years of 1995 and 1997, the infant 
mortality rate was 5.9, this means that of the 77,871 babies born 
during this period, 459 infants died before they reached their first 
birthday. The National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality 
determined that ``infant mortality could be reduced by 10 percent if 
all women not desiring pregnancy used contraception.''
  It is vitally important to the health of our country that quality 
contraception is not beyond the financial reach of women. Providing 
access to contraception will bring down the unintended pregnancy rate, 
insure good reproductive health for women, and reduce the number of 
abortions. It is a significant step, in my opinion, to have support 
from both pro-life and pro-choice Senators for this bill. Prevention is 
the common ground on which we can all stand. Let's begin to attack the 
problem of unintended pregnancies at its root.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER:
  S. 1201. A bill to prohibit law enforcement agencies from imposing a 
waiting period before accepting reports of missing persons between the 
ages of 18 and 21; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                             suzanne's law

 Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today 
to remedy what I believe is a significant shortcoming in federal law 
relating to missing person reports. My bill is entitled ``Suzanne's 
Law,'' to serve as a continuing reminder of the plight of Suzanne 
Lyall. Suzanne, a resident of Ballston Spa, New York, disappeared last 
year at age 19 during the course of her senior year at the State 
University of New York at Albany. All indications are that her 
disappearance was due to

[[Page 12372]]

foul play. She has never been found, despite investigations by campus 
security, the local police, and the FBI. Suzanne's family, friends and 
relatives dearly miss her and have undertaken admirable efforts to 
secure improvements in campus security and in missing person reporting.
  The Lyall family has brought it to my attention that federal law 
currently prohibits state and local law enforcement officials from 
imposing a 24-hour waiting period before accepting a report regarding 
the disappearance of a person under the age of 18, yet it does not 
extend similar protection for reports of missing persons between the 
ages of 18 and 21. This is an oversight that must be remedied. Prompt 
action on the part of law enforcement authorities is of the essence in 
missing person cases. Thus, my bill would prohibit state and local law 
enforcement officials from imposing a 24-hour waiting period before 
accepting ``missing youth'' reports--defined as reports indicating that 
a person of at least 18 years of age and less than 21 years of age was 
missing under suspicious circumstances. Enactment of this legislation 
would enhance the prospects for family reunification in missing person 
cases and may spare other families the pain and sacrifice experienced 
by the Lyalls.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1202. A bill to require a warrant of consent before an inspection 
of land may be carried out to enforce any law administered by the 
Secretary of the Interior; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


                private property protection act of 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Private Property 
Protection Act of 1999.
  This bill would require that Interior Department personnel obtain 
either the property owner's permission or a properly attained and legal 
search warrant before they enter someone's private property.
  America's law abiding private property owners, especially our 
ranchers and farmers, should not be subject to unwarranted trespassing 
and egregious random searches by federal bureaucrats. They deserve to 
be treated fairly and according to the law, just like other Americans. 
They deserve the same private property rights that other Americans 
enjoy.
  Under our legal system, if appropriate sworn law enforcement officers 
can demonstrate to a judge that there is probable cause to believe that 
a person has broken the law, and that there is a justified need to 
enter a property, then those law enforcement officials can obtain a 
search warrant to enter and search a private property. This is 
reasonable, just and how it should be. I have a firsthand understanding 
of this from the time I served as a Deputy Sheriff.
  However, all too often our ranchers, farmers and other private 
property owners are being denied these same basic legal property rights 
when it comes to federal employees operating under endangered species 
laws. Interior Department employees are trespassing on private property 
without the owner's permission or a search warrant. Many of these 
Interior Department employees who are trespassing have no sworn legal 
authority whatsoever.
  Disturbing incidents of federal agency personnel operating outside of 
the law, and willfully trespassing on private property without any 
legal just cause, threatens to erode our fundamental property rights. 
One particular case that occurred in El Paso County, in my home state 
of Colorado, stands as a prime example.
  A February 5th, 1999 article entitled ``Federal employee pleads no 
contest to trespassing'' in the AG JOURNAL illustrates this El Paso 
County case. Last fall, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist 
pleaded no contest to a charge of second degree criminal trespassing. 
This individual is one of the many thousands employed by the Interior 
Department, and had no legal basis to be on a private ranch located 
near Colorado Springs. His sentence included a $138 fine and 30 hours 
of community service.
  I applaud the El Paso County District Attorney's Office for standing 
up to federal lawyers and pursuing this case to its rightful 
conclusion. It is a small but important victory for American private 
property owners. It also illustrates a disturbing ability of some 
federal employees to act as though they are above the law.
  Furthermore, the American taxpayers are picking up the tab for the 
legal defense of these trespassers. When I inquired with both the 
Interior Department and the Justice Department as to how much taxpayer 
money was spent to defend the convicted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
trespasser, they did not disclose the specific dollar amount. These 
agencies seem to be sending federal personnel the message: ``Go ahead 
and trespass on private property. If you get caught, we'll go ahead and 
fix it because we think that the benefits of trespassing outweigh the 
costs of getting caught.'' This is not acceptable.
  Unfortunately, the El Paso County incident is far from isolated. It 
is certain that every year, hundreds of private property owners, 
ranchers and farmers are subject to trespassing by federal employees. 
We will never know how many trespassing cases go unreported because 
Americans feel that they can not beat the federal government's 
bureaucrats and lawyers, and fear that if they do, there may be 
retribution.
  The Colorado Cattlemen's Association has written a letter of support 
for the Private Property Protection Act of 1999. I appreciate their 
support for this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill and letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1202

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

     SECTION 1. INSPECTIONS OF LAND TO ENFORCE LAWS ADMINISTERED 
                   BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

       (a) In General.--During fiscal year 2000 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter, notwithstanding any law that authorizes any 
     officer or employee of the Department of the Interior to 
     enter private land for the purpose of conducting an 
     inspection or search and seizure for the purpose of enforcing 
     the law, any such officer or employee shall not enter any 
     private land without first obtaining--
       (1) a warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction; 
     or
       (2) the consent of the owner of the land.
       (b) Violation and Emergency Exception.--An officer or 
     employee of the Department of the Interior may enter private 
     land without meeting the conditions described in subsection 
     (a)--
       (1) for the purpose of enforcing the law, if the officer or 
     employee has reason to believe that a violation of law is 
     being committed; or
       (2) as required as part of an emergency response being 
     conducted by the Department of the Interior.
                                  ____



                             Colorado Cattlemen's Association,

                                         Arvada, CO, May 10, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: The Colorado Cattlemen's Association 
     (CCA) supports your efforts to amend the Endangered Species 
     Act which limits access to private property by federal 
     government employees or agents thereof, unless by court-
     issued warrant or the consent of the landowner.
       CCA is aware of documented instances in Colorado where 
     Department of Interior employees repeatedly trespassed onto 
     private lands to conduct endangered species surveys. CCA 
     needs your help to halt this practice! We would appreciate 
     your assistance in ensuring that private property rights and 
     trespass laws are obeyed. Thank you for your time and 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Freeman Lester,
     President.
                                  ____



                                         Colorado Farm Bureau,

                                      Englewood, CO, May 24, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: Colorado Farm Bureau strongly 
     supports legislation to require officers or employees of the 
     Department of the Interior to obtain a warrant or consent of 
     the landowner before conducting inspections or search and 
     seizure of private property. While our Bill of Rights 
     contains protection for property owners, the provision is 
     largely ignored in regard to the regulatory actions of the 
     Department of the Interior.
       Farm Bureau policy opposes allowing public access to or 
     through private property

[[Page 12373]]

     without permission of the property owner or authorized agent. 
     We support legislation that requires federal officials to 
     notify property owners and obtain permission before going 
     onto private lands.
       Property rights protection for farmers and ranchers is 
     critical to the success of their operations and future well 
     being. Farm Bureau supports your efforts to protect 
     landowners from the Interior Department entering their land 
     without permission or a warrant.
       Thank you for your continued support of agriculture.
           Sincerely,
                                              Roger Bill Mitchell,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. 
        Murray, and Mrs. Lincoln) (by request):
  S. 1203. A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to extend 
authorizations of appropriations for programs under the Act through 
fiscal year 2004, to establish a National Family Caregiver Support 
Program, to modernize aging programs and services, to address the need 
to engage in life course planning, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                 older americans act amendments of 1999

 Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Administration's proposal to reauthorize the Older Americans Act (OAA). 
The Older Americans Act is a vital program that meets the day-to-day 
needs of our nation's seniors. Through an aging network that involves 
57 state agencies on aging, 660 area agencies on aging, and 27,000 
service providers, the OAA provides countless services to our country's 
older Americans. The OAA was last reauthorized in 1992 and its 
authorization expired in 1995. The time is long overdue for Congress to 
reauthorize this program. That is why, as the Ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Aging, I am working with the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee to introduce a bipartisan bill in the Senate to 
reauthorize the OAA. That's why I am here today to introduce the 
Administration's plan to reauthorize the Act as a courtesy and to 
remind my fellow colleagues about the importance of passing an OAA 
reauthorization bill.
  Many Americans have not heard of the Older Americans Act. They've 
probably heard of Meals on Wheels and maybe they know about the senior 
center down the street. But our country's seniors who count on the 
services provided under the Act couldn't do without them. Whether it's 
congregate or home delivered meals programs, legal assistance, the 
long-term care ombudsman, information and assistance, or part-time 
community service jobs for low-income seniors. This Act covers 
everything from transportation to a doctor's appointment to a hot meal 
and companionship at a local senior center to elder abuse prevention.
  But we're not going to just settle for the status quo. We must make 
the most of this opportunity to modernize and improve the OAA to meet 
the needs of seniors. That's why I'm including the National Family 
Caregiver Support Program in this bill I'm introducing today. Through a 
partnership between states and area agencies on aging, this program 
will provide information about resources available to family 
caregivers; assistance to families in locating services; caregiver 
counseling, training, and peer support to help them deal with the 
emotional and physical stresses of caregiving; and respite care. We 
must get behind our nation's caregivers by helping those who practice 
self-help. Caregivers often put in a 36 hour day: taking care of the 
family, pursuing a career, caring for the senior who needs care, and 
finding the information on care and putting together a support system. 
We need to support those who are providing this invaluable care.
  I want to reauthorize the OAA this year before the new millennium 
when our population over age 65 will more than double. I'm pleased that 
our colleagues in the House are moving in this direction as well. I 
urge my colleagues here in the Senate to act promptly once a bill is 
voted out of committee and support our nation's seniors by 
reauthorizing the Older Americans Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM:
  S. 1204. A bill to promote general and applied research for health 
promotion and disease prevention among the elderly, to amend title 
XVIII of the Social Security Act to add preventative benefits, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                 healthy seniors promotion act of 1999

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction 
of the Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999.
  This bill has a clear, simple, yet profoundly important message. That 
message is, ``Preventive health care for the elderly works.''
  Regardless of your age, preventive health care improves quality of 
life. And despite common misperceptions, declines in health status are 
not inevitable with age. a healthier lifestyle, even one adopted later 
in life, can increase active life expectancy and decrease disability.
  The Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999 has a broad base of support 
from across the health care and aging communities, including the 
National Council on Aging, the American Geriatrics Society, the 
American Heart Association, the American Council of the Blind, the 
American College of Preventive Medicine, the National Osteoporosis 
Foundation, and the Partnership for Prevention.
  This bill goes a long way toward changing the fundamental focus of 
the Medicare program from one that continues to focus on the treatment 
of illness and disability--a function which is reactionary--to one that 
is proactive and increases the attention paid to prevention for 
Medicare beneficiaries.
  This bill has 4 main components: First, the bill establishes the 
healthy Seniors Promotion Program. This program will be spearheaded by 
an interagency workgroup within the Department of Health and Human 
Services, including the Health Care Financing Administration, the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Health Care 
Policy Research, the National Institute on Aging, and the 
Administration on Aging.
  This working group, first and foremost, will bring together all the 
agencies within HHS that address the social, medical, and behavioral 
health issues affecting the elderly, and instructs them to undertake a 
series of actions which will serve to increase prevention-related 
services among the elderly.
  A major function of this working group will be to oversee the 
development, monitoring, and evaluation of an applied research 
initiative whose main goals will be to study: (1) The effectiveness of 
using different types of providers of care, as well as looking at 
alternative delivery settings, when delivering health promotion and 
disease prevention services, and (2) the most effective means of 
educating Medicare beneficiaries and providers regarding the importance 
of prevention and to examine ways to improve utilization of existing 
and future prevention-related services.
  Mr. President, this latter point is critical. The fact is that there 
are a number of prevention-related services available to Medicare 
beneficiaries today, including mammograms and colorectal cancer 
screening. But those services are seriously underutilized.
  In a study published by Dartmouth University this spring--The 
Dartmouth Atlas of health Care 1999--it was found that only 28 percent 
of women age 65-69 receive mammograms and only 12 percent of 
beneficiaries were screened for colorectal cancer.
  These are disturbing figures and they clearly demonstrate the need to 
find new and better ways to increase the rates of utilization of 
proven, demonstrated prevention services. Our bill would get us the 
information we need to increase rates of utilization for these 
services.
  A second major portion of this bill is the coverage of additional 
preventive services for the Medicare program. The services that I am 
including focus on some of the most prominent, underlying risk factors 
for illness that face all Medicare beneficiaries. This bill would 
include screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, 
screening for glaucoma, and

[[Page 12374]]

counseling for hormone replacement therapy. Attacking these prominent 
risk factors would reduce Medicare beneficiaries' risk for health 
problems such as stroke, osteoporosis, heart disease, and blindness.
  How did we choose these risk factors? We turned to the experts. Based 
on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 
these prevention services represent the recommendations of the Task 
Force which is the nationally recognized body in the area of clinical 
prevention services.
  But simply screening or counseling for a preventive benefit is not 
enough. For example, to tell a 68-year-old woman that she ought to 
receive hormone replacement therapy in order to reduce her risk or 
osteoporosis and bone fractures from falls, and then to tell her you 
won't pay for the treatment makes no sense.
  Since falls and the resulting injuries are among the most serious and 
common medical problems suffered by the elderly--with nearly 80-90 
percent of hip fractures and 60-90 percent of forearm and spine 
fractures among women 65 and older estimated to be osteoporosis-
related--to sit idly by and not take the extra steps needed would be 
irresponsible.
  That is why, Mr. President, we are going the extra mile. The third 
major section of our bill includes a limited, prevention-related 
outpatient prescription drug benefit. This benefit directly mirrors the 
services I just described, plus it provides coverage of outpatient 
prescription drugs for the preventive services added to the Medicare 
program as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997--e.g., mammograms, 
diabetes, colorectal cancer.
  For example, if a 70-year-old smoker is counseled by his physician to 
stop smoking, that individual will now have access to all necessary and 
appropriate outpatient prescription drugs used as part of an approved 
tobacco cessation program.
  By linking counseling and drug treatment, we increase the chances of 
success tremendously. For example, there is a 60 percent higher 
survival rate among individuals who quit smoking compared to smokers of 
all ages. And because the number of older people at risk for cancer and 
heart disease is higher, tobacco cessation has the potential to have a 
larger aggregate benefit among older persons.
  Our bill also provides outpatient drugs for the treatment of 
hypertension, hormone replacement therapy, osteoporosis and heart 
disease, and glaucoma. It also provides coverage of drugs stemming from 
the preventive services added by the Balanced Budget Act.
  While many of my colleagues would prefer to see a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit that is comprehensive in nature, the facts 
are that such a benefit is simply not affordable--$20+ billion per 
year--at this point in time. This bill is a down payment to current and 
future Medicare beneficiaries and provides them access to prescription 
drugs that will make a profound impact in their lives.
  Important to note, this bill also states that if the Administration 
moves forward with and prevails in its efforts to sue the tobacco 
industry for the recovery of funds paid by Federal programs such as 
Medicare for tobacco-related illness, that half of those funds would be 
used to add additional categories of drugs to this limited benefit.
  This bill would also instruct the Institute of Medicine to conduct a 
study that would, in part, create a prioritized list of prescription 
drugs that would be used to add new categories of drugs to the program, 
if and when, tobacco settlement funds become a reality in the future.
  Finally, the bill contains two important studies that will be 
conducted on a routine, periodic basis.
  The first study would require MedPAC to report to Congress every two 
years on how the Medicare program is, or is not, remaining competitive 
and modern in relationship to private sector health programs. This will 
give the Congress [information it doesn't now have] the ability to 
assess, on an ongoing basis, how Medicare is faring in its efforts to 
modernize over time.
  The second study will again be conducted by the Institute of 
Medicine. The Institute of Medicine, with input from new, original 
research on prevention and the elderly that we will be funding through 
the National Institute on Aging, will conduct a study every 5 years to 
assess the preventive benefit package, including prescription drugs. 
The study will determine whether or not the preventive benefit package 
needs to be modified or changed based on the most current science. A 
critical component of this study will be the manner in which it is 
presented to Congress.
  To this end, I have borrowed a page from our Nation's international 
trade laws (The Trade Act of 1974) and developed a fast track proposal 
for the Institute of Medicine's recommendations. This is a deliberate 
effort, Mr. President, to finally get Congress out of the business of 
micro-managing the Medicare program and the medical and health care 
decisions within it. While limited to the preventive benefits package, 
this will offer a litmus test on a new and creative approach to future 
Medicare decision making. This provision would put the substantive 
decision making authority where it belongs, in the hands of the real 
experts, not the politicians and not the lobbyists who come to our 
offices every day. Congress, after some deliberation, would either have 
to accept or reject the Institute of Medicine's recommendations. A 
change, in my view, that would be a major, positive change in how we do 
business in this body.
  A few final thoughts. There are many here in Congress who argue that 
at a time when Medicare faces an uncertain financial future, this is 
the last time to be adding benefits to a program that can ill afford 
the benefits it currently offers. Normally I would agree with this 
assertion. But the issue of prevention is different. The old adage of 
``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'' is very relevant 
here. Do preventive benefits ``cost'' money in terms of making them 
available? Sure they do. But the return on the investment, the 
avoidance of the pound of cure and the related improvement in quality 
of life is unmistakable.
  Along these lines, a longstanding problem facing lawmakers and 
advocates of prevention has been the position taken by the 
Congressional Budget Office, as they evaluate the budgetary impact of 
all legislative proposals, that only costs incurred by the Federal 
government over the next ten years can be considered in weighing the 
``cost'' of adding new benefits. From a public health and quality of 
life standpoint, this premise is unacceptable.
  Among the problems with this practice is that ``savings'' incurred by 
increasing the availability and utilization of preventive benefits 
often occur over a period of time greater than 10 years. And with the 
average lifespan of individuals whom are 65 being nearly 20 years--and 
individuals 85 and older are the fastest growing segment of the elder 
population--it only makes sense to look at services and benefits that 
improve the quality of their lives and reduce the costs to the Federal 
government for that 20-year lifespan and beyond.
  In addition to increased lifespan, a ten-year budget scoring window 
doesn't factor into consideration the impact of such services on the 
private sector, such as productivity and absenteeism, for the many 
seniors that continue working beyond age 65.
  The bottom line is, the most important reason to cover preventive 
services is to improve health. As the end of the century nears, 
children born now are living nearly 30 years longer than children born 
in 1900. While prevention services in isolation won't reduce costs, 
they will moderate increases in the utilization and spending on more 
expensive acute and chronic treatment services.
  I want to leave you with these last thoughts, Mr. President. As 
Congress considers different ways to reform Medicare, several basic 
questions regarding preventive services and the elderly must be part of 
the debate.
  (1) Is the value of improve quality of life worth the expenditure?
  (2) How important is it for the Medicare population to be able to 
maintain

[[Page 12375]]

healthy, functional and productive lives?
  (3) Do we, as a Nation, accept the premise that quality of life for 
our elderly is as important as any other measure of health?
  (4) If we can, in fact, delay the onset of disease for the Medicare 
population by improving access to preventive services and compliance 
with these services, how important is it to ensure that there is an 
overall saving to the system?
  These are just some of the questions we must answer in the coming 
debate over Medicare reform. While improving Medicare's financial 
outlook for future generations is imperative, we must do it in a way 
that gives our seniors the ability to live longer, healthier and valued 
lives. I believe that by pursuing a prevention strategy that addresses 
some of the most fundamental risk factors for chronic illness and 
disability that face seniors, we will make an invaluable contribution 
to the Medicare reform debate and, more importantly, to current and 
future generations of Medicare beneficiaries.
  I urge colleagues to support the Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 
1999.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                   Partnership for Prevention,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I am writing on behalf of Partnership 
     for Prevention to express support for ``The Healthy Seniors 
     Promotion Act of 1999.'' Partnership is a national non-profit 
     organization committed to increasing the visibility and 
     priority for prevention within national health policy and 
     practice. Its diverse membership includes leading groups in 
     health, business and industry, professional and trade 
     associations.
       We believe prevention does work for all ages--a decline in 
     health status is not inevitable with age. A healthier 
     lifestyle adopted later in life can increase active life 
     expectancy and decrease disability. This is the time for 
     greater emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention 
     among older Americans. By delaying the onset of disease, we 
     expect to have a healthier elderly population living longer 
     lives and ultimately embracing Medicare's financial 
     stability.
       In this bill, your focus on specific prevention measures is 
     well supported by the existing literature. For individuals 
     over 65, the United States Preventive Services Task Force 
     recommends tobacco cessation counseling with access to 
     appropriate nicotine replacement or other appropriate 
     products to help the individual combat nicotine addiction; 
     hormone replacement therapy and hypertension screening with 
     access to the appropriate drug therapy for both conditions.
        A case can be made that dollar for dollar, prevention 
     services offer an invaluable return on the investment for the 
     Medicare eligible population especially when compared to 
     treatment costs. We need more information on these issues and 
     hope to work closely with the Institute of Medicine to 
     determine additional changes to the Medicare system in the 
     future.
       I would like to highlight one additional issue. Partnership 
     for Prevention supports using a significant portion of any 
     funds recouped by the Federal Government from the tobacco 
     industry for tobacco control and prevention. Public and 
     private direct expenditures to treat health problems caused 
     by tobacco use total more than $70 billion annually and 
     Medicare pays more than $10 billion of that amount.
       Applying a significant portion of this money will decrease 
     tobacco use and reduce the cost to the Medicare program in 
     the future.
       Prevention services may moderate increases in health care 
     use and spending. We believe this country should be able to 
     reach a consensus around the importance of maintaining the 
     quality of life and social contribution of our seniors and we 
     applaud your initiative in moving this issue forward.
           Sincerely,
                                        William L. Roper, MD, MPH,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                       American Heart Association,


                        Office of Communications and Advocacy,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: The American Heart Association 
     applauds your efforts in the ``Healthy Seniors Promotion 
     Act'' to modernize the Medicare system by addressing both 
     coverage for preventative screening and counseling, as well 
     as access to prescription drugs for senior citizens.
       Science continues to demonstrate the effectiveness of 
     preventative care. Because it has not kept pace with the 
     changing science, Medicare is an antiquated system to treat 
     the sick, rather than a modern healthcare system to maintain 
     the health of the elderly. Counseling and drug therapy for 
     smoking cessation, hypertension screening and drug treatment 
     and counseling for hormone replacement therapy are important 
     services that the American Heart Association believes ought 
     to be included in a modern healthcare benefits plan. The 
     association believes that hormone replacement therapy 
     counseling is important because the science related to HRT 
     and cardiovascular risk is still evolving.
       As you know, the American Heart Association is dedicated to 
     reducing death and disability from heart disease and stroke. 
     Each year, cardiovascular disease claims more than 950,000 
     lives. In 1999, the health care and lost productivity costs 
     associated with cardiovascular disease are estimated to total 
     $286.5 billion.
       To achieve our mission of reducing the burden of this 
     devastating disease, we are committed to ensuring that 
     patients have access to quality health care, including the 
     medical treatment necessary to effectively prevent and 
     control disease. For too long, senior citizens have had to 
     work with an outdated healthcare delivery system.
       Thank you for your leadership in the fight to modernize 
     Medicare. The American Heart Association looks forward to 
     continuing to work with you to ensure that senior citizens 
     have access to preventive services and affordable 
     prescription drugs.
           Sincerely,
                                               Diane Canova, Esq.,
     Vice President, Advocacy.
                                  ____



                              The American Geriatrics Society,

                                       New York, NY, June 9, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) 
     strongly supports your bill, the Healthy Seniors Promotion 
     Act of 1999. The AGS thanks you for introducing this 
     important legislation that will provide comprehensive 
     preventive health benefits to the elderly.
       The AGS is comprised of more than 6,000 physicians and 
     other health professionals that treat frail elderly patients 
     with chronic diseases and complex health needs.
       As you know, preventive health care for the elderly can 
     improve quality of life and delay functional decline. 
     However, the current Medicare program does not cover 
     substantive preventive health services. Your bill authorizes 
     Medicare coverage of new preventive services as well as a 
     prevention-related outpatient drug benefit. In this way, your 
     bill would change the Medicare program from one that treats 
     illness and disability to one that focuses on health 
     promotion and disease prevention for Medicare beneficiaries. 
     As the organization that represents physicians that treat 
     only the elderly, we believe that this is a long overdue and 
     critical program reform.
       We applaud your long interest in Medicare prevention and we 
     look forward to working with you on legislation that will 
     enable the elderly to live longer, more productive, and 
     healthier lives.
           Sincerely,
                                          Jospeh G. Ouslander, MD,
     President.
                                  ____



                            The National Council on the Aging,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     Hart Senate Office Building
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the National Council on 
     the Aging (NCOA), I write to express our organization's 
     support for the Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999.
       NCOA strongly believes that increased attention must be 
     focused on actions and techniques intended to prevent illness 
     or disability. It is easier to prevent disease than it is to 
     cure it. The time has come to take action that would broaden 
     and further coordinate federal programs such as Medicare 
     related to health promotion.
       Disease prevention, including access to health promotion 
     activities, protocols, and regimens for older and disabled 
     persons--should be included as an essential component 
     throughout the continuum of care.
       NCOA supports expanding the Medicare program to include 
     coverage of a full range of preventive services, prevention 
     education, and counseling, as well as prescription drugs. 
     Your proposal is a significant step in achieving these 
     objectives on a cost effective basis, in a manner which will 
     dramatically improve the quality of the lives of millions of 
     older Americans.
       We deeply appreciate your strong leadership in the area of 
     preventive care. NCOA looks forward to working with you and 
     your staff to pass the Healthy Seniors Promotion Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Howard Bedlin,
                       Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy.

[[Page 12376]]

     
                                  ____
                                American Council of the Blind,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1999.
     Senator Robert Graham,
     Hart Senate Office Building
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham. The American Council of the Blind is 
     pleased to have the opportunity to support the Healthy 
     Seniors Promotion Act. This legislation contains provisions 
     for expanded Medicare coverage that are needed by a large 
     number of visually impaired persons in this country, namely, 
     coverage for glaucoma screening and medications.
       The American Council of the Blind is a national 
     organization of persons who are blind and visually impaired. 
     Many of our members are seniors who have lost their vision 
     due to glaucoma, diabetes or macular degeneration. In fact, 
     this is the fastest growing segment of our membership. The 
     expansion of Medicare coverage proposed in this bill would 
     benefit these individuals by alleviating some of the 
     financial burdens faced by those who have already developed 
     conditions that cause vision loss, and giving peace of mind 
     to those who can still take measures to prevent the onset of 
     vision loss. We congratulate you for your foresight in 
     proposing these measures and look forward to working with you 
     to see that this legislation is approved by both houses of 
     congress and signed into law by the president.
       Thank you very much.
           Respectfully,
                                                  Melanie Brunson,
     Director of Advocacy and Governmental Affairs.
                                  ____



                             National Osteoporosis Foundation,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: The National Osteoporosis Foundation 
     is pleased to offer its support for ``The Healthy Seniors 
     Promotion Act of 1999''. We applaud your foresight regarding 
     preventive health care and support your efforts to reduce, 
     for example, stroke, osteoporosis, heart disease, and 
     blindness.
           Sincerely,
                                             Bente E. Cooney, MSW,
     Director of Public Policy.
                                  ____

                                               American College of


                                          Preventive Medicine,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1999.
     Senator Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: The American College of Preventive 
     Medicine is pleased to express its enthusiastic support for 
     the ``Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999.'' Your 
     introduction of this bill underscores what preventive 
     medicine professionals have known for many years, namely, 
     that the benefits of preventive services for older Americans 
     are just as great as for younger Americans. For many seniors, 
     access to high quality preventive services can add years to 
     life and life to years.
       Your bill adds to the list of services covered by Medicare 
     several services that we know to be effective in preventing 
     serious disease. After an exhaustive and rigorous review of 
     the scientific literature, the U.S. Preventive Services Task 
     Force--considered by many to be the gold standard in 
     determining the effectiveness of clinical preventive 
     services--has identified a number of services for older 
     Americans that are effective in preventing disease. These 
     include tobacco cessation counseling, hypertension screening, 
     and counseling on the benefits and risks of hormone 
     replacement therapy--all of which would be covered under the 
     ``Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999.''
       Your bill also helps ensure that important research gaps 
     concerning preventive services for seniors are filled. It is 
     incumbent upon the Congress to ensure that Medicare's 
     preventive benefit package reflects the latest scientific 
     research on the effectiveness of preventive services.
       Basing coverage decisions on what the science tells us is 
     effective is sound national health care policy. The American 
     College of Preventive Medicine, which represents physicians 
     concerned with health promotion and disease prevention, 
     stands ready to assist you in working toward passage of this 
     forward-looking and important bill.
           Sincerely,
                                      George K. Anderson, MD, MPH,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 1207. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure 
that income averaging for farmers not increase a farmer's liability for 
the alternative minimum tax; to the Committee on Finance.


                      the farmer tax fairness act

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Farmer Tax 
Fairness Act, along with my farm state colleagues, Senators Burns and 
Hagel. This legislation is a targeted provision that will help ensure 
that farmers have access to tax benefits rightfully owed to them.
  As you know, farmers' income often fluctuates from year to year based 
on unforeseen weather or market conditions. Income averaging allows 
farmers to ride out these unpredictable circumstances by spreading out 
their income over a period of years. Last year, we acted in a 
bipartisan manner to make income averaging a permanent provision of the 
tax code. Unfortunately, since that time, we have learned that, due to 
interaction with another tax code provision, the Alternative Minimum 
Tax (AMT), many of our nation's farmers have been unfairly denied the 
benefits of this important accounting tool.
  As you know, the AMT was originally designed to ensure that all 
taxpayers, particularly those eligible for certain tax preferences, 
paid a minimum level of taxes. Due to inflation and the enactment of 
other tax provisions, more and more Americans are now subject to the 
AMT. While other reforms are required to keep the AMT focused on its 
original mission, our legislation addresses the specific concern of 
farmers relying on income averaging. Under our legislation, if a 
farmer's AMT liability is greater than taxes due under the income 
averaging calculation, that farmer would disregard the AMT and pay 
taxes according to the averaging calculation. In this way, farmers 
would still pay tax, but would also have access to tools designed to 
alleviate the inevitable ups and downs of the agricultural economy.
  This provision is a modest and reasonable measure designed to ensure 
farmers are treated fairly when it comes time to file their taxes. I 
urge my colleague to lend their support. 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. 1207

       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 ``Farmer Tax Fairness Act''.

     SEC. 2. INCOME AVERAGING FOR FARMERS NOT TO INCREASE 
                   ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 55(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (defining regular tax) is amended by redesignating 
     paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and by inserting after 
     paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Coordination with income averaging for farmers.--
     Solely for purposes of this section, section 1301 (relating 
     to averaging of farm income) shall not apply in computing the 
     regular tax.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1208. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that reimbursements for costs of using passenger automobiles for 
charitable and other organizations are excluded from gross income; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                           CHARITABLE MILEAGE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce modest legislation 
that will eliminate controversy between the IRS and people who use 
their automobiles to perform charitable work.
  Two years, ago I was successful in convincing my colleagues that the 
standard mileage rate for charitable activities should be raised to 14 
cents a mile. I would have preferred that the mileage rate would have 
been set higher, but at least this was a step in the right direction.
  It has recently come to my attention that if a charity reimburses a 
volunteer at a rate higher than 14 cents a mile, the volunteer must 
include such higher reimbursement in income. Thus, for example, if a 
person uses his car for a voluntary food delivery program or for 
patient transportation and the charity reimburses the volunteer 25 
cents a mile, the individual would have 11 cents of income. That is 
absurd, Mr. President, especially when one considers that if a person 
was performing the same service as an employee of a company, the person 
could be reimbursed tax-free at the rate of 31 cents a mile.

[[Page 12377]]

  I understand that there have been cases where volunteer drivers have 
been audited and subjected to back taxes, penalties, and interest 
because of unreported volunteer mileage reimbursement, even though that 
reimbursement did not exceed the allowable business rate and the dollar 
amounts were quite small. Does IRS have nothing better to do than audit 
such individuals?
  My bill would eliminate this problem. It provides that all charitable 
volunteer mileage reimbursement is non-taxable income to the extent 
that it does not exceed the standard business mileage rate and 
appropriate records are kept. It is important to note that my bill does 
not increase the allowable deduction claimed by volunteers who are not 
reimbursed by a charity.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1208

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

     SECTION 1. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE VOLUNTEERS 
                   EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating 
     section 139 as section 140 and by inserting after section 138 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 139. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE VOLUNTEERS.

       ``(a) In General.--Gross income of an individual does not 
     include amounts received, from an organization described in 
     section 170(c), as reimbursement of operating expenses with 
     respect to use of a passenger automobile for the benefit of 
     such organization. The preceding sentence shall apply only to 
     the extent that such reimbursement would be deductible under 
     this chapter if section 274(d) were applied--
       ``(1) by using the standard business mileage rate 
     established under such section, and
       ``(2) as if the individual were an employee of an 
     organization not described in section 170(c).
       ``(b) No Double Benefit.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
     with respect to any expenses if the individual claims a 
     deduction or credit for such expenses under any other 
     provision of this title.
       ``(c) Exemption From Reporting Requirements.--Section 6041 
     shall not apply with respect to reimbursements excluded from 
     income under subsection (a).''
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 139 and inserting the 
     following new items:

``Sec. 139. Reimbursement for use of passenger automobile for charity.
``Sec. 140. Cross reference to other Acts.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 1209. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore 
pension limits to equitable levels, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                Modifications to the Section 415 Limits

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
on behalf of workers who have responsibly saved for retirement through 
collectively bargained, multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. I 
am pleased to be joined by Senators Stevens and Santorum in sponsoring 
this bill. This legislation would raise the Section 415 limits and 
ensure that workers are not unfairly penalized in the amount they may 
receive when they retire.
  Under the current rules, for some workers, benefit cutbacks resulting 
from the current rules means that they will not be able to retire when 
they wanted or needed to. For other workers, it means retirement with 
less income to live on.
  The bill that I am introducing today will give all of these workers 
relief from the most confiscatory provisions of Section 415 and enable 
them to receive the full measure of their retirement savings.
  Congress has recognized and corrected the adverse effects of Section 
415 on government employee pension plans. Most recently, as part of the 
Tax Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) and the Small Business Jobs 
Protection Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-188), we exempted government 
employee pension plans from the compensation-based limit, from certain 
early retirement limits, and from other provisions of Section 415. 
Other relief for government employee plans was included in earlier 
legislation amending Section 415.
  Section 415 was enacted more then two decades ago when the pension 
world was quite different than it is today. The Section 415 limits were 
designed to place limits on pensions that could be received by highly 
paid executives. The passage of time and Congressional action has stood 
this original design on its head. The limits are forcing cutbacks in 
the pensions of middle income workers.
  Section 415 limits the benefits payable to a worker in a defined 
benefit pension plans to the lessor of: (1) the worker's average annual 
compensation for the three consecutive years when his compensation was 
the highest [the ``compensation-based limit'']; and (2) a dollar limit 
that is sharply reduced for retirement before the worker's Social 
Security normal retirement age.
  The compensation-based limit assumes that the pension earned under a 
plan is linked to each worker's salary, as is typical in corporate 
pension plans. Unfortunately, that formula does not work properly when 
applied to multiemployer pension plans. Multiemployer plans, which 
cover more than ten million individuals, have long based their benefits 
on the collectively bargained contribution rates and years of covered 
employment with one or more of the multiple employers which contribute 
to the plan. In other words, benefits earned under a multiemployer plan 
have no relationship to the wages received by a worker form the 
contributing employers. The same benefits level is paid to all workers 
with the same contribution and covered employment records regardless of 
their individual wage histories.
  A second assumption underlying the compensation-based limit is that 
workers' salaries increase steadily over the course of their careers so 
that the three highest salary years will be the last three consecutive 
years. While this salary history may be the norm in the corporate 
world, it is unusual in the multiemployer plan world. In multiemployer 
plan industries like building and construction, workers' wage earnings 
typically fluctuate from year-to-year according to several variables, 
including the availability of covered work and whether the worker is 
unable to work due to illness or disability. An individual worker's 
wage history may include many dramatic ups-and-downs. Because of these 
fluctuations, the three highest years of compensation for many 
multiemployer plan participants are not consecutive. Consequently, the 
Section 415 compensation-based limit for the workers is artificially 
low; lower than it would be if they were covered by corporate plans.
  Thus, the premises on which the compensation-based limit is founded 
do not fit the reality of workers covered by multiemployer plans. And, 
the limit should not apply.
  This bill would exempt workers covered by multiemployer plans from 
the compensation-based limit, just as government employees are now 
exempt.
  Section 415's dollar limits have also been forcing severe cutbacks in 
the earned pensions of workers who retire under multiemployer pension 
plans before they reach age 65.
  Construction work is physically hard, and is often performed under 
harsh climatic conditions. Workers are worn down sooner than in most 
other industries. Often, early retirement is a must. Multiemployer 
pension plans accommodate these needs of their covered workers by 
providing for early retirement, disability, and service pensions that 
provide a subsidized, partial or full pension benefit.
  Section 415 is forcing cutbacks in these pensions because the dollar 
limit is severely reduced for each year younger than the Social 
Security normal retirement age that a worker is when he retires. For a 
worker who retires at age 50, the reduced dollar limit is now about 
$40,000 per year.
  This reduced limit applies regardless of the circumstances under 
which the

[[Page 12378]]

worker retires and regardless of his plan's rules regarding retirement 
age. A multiemployer plan participant worn out after years of physical 
challenge who is forced into early retirement is nonetheless subject to 
a reduced limit. A construction worker who, after 30 years of demanding 
labor, has well earned a 30-and-out service pension at age 50 is 
nonetheless subject to the reduced limit.
  This bill will ease this early retirement benefit cutback by 
extending to workers covered by multiemployer plans some of the more 
favorable early retirement rules that now apply to government employee 
pension plans and other retirement plans. These rules still provide for 
a reduced dollar limit for retirements earlier than age 62, but the 
reduction is less severe than under the current rules that apply to 
multiemployer plans.
  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. 1209

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. GENERAL RETIREMENT PLAN LIMITS.

       (a) Defined Benefit Plans.--
       (1) Dollar limit.--
       (A) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 415(b)(1) 
     (relating to limitation for defined benefit plans) is amended 
     by striking ``$90,000'' and inserting ``$180,000''.
       (B) Age adjustments.--Subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 
     415(b)(2) are each amended by striking ``$90,000'' each place 
     it appears in the headings and the text and inserting 
     ``$180,000''.
       (C) Collectively bargained plans.--Paragraph (7) of section 
     415(b) (relating to benefits under certain collectively 
     bargained plans) is amended by striking ``the greater of 
     $68,212 or one-half the amount otherwise applicable for such 
     year under paragraph (1)(A) for `$90,000' '' and inserting 
     ``one-half the amount otherwise applicable for such year 
     under paragraph (1)(A) for `$180,000' ''.
       (2) Limit reduced when benefit begins before age 62.--
     Subparagraph (C) of section 415(b)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``the social security retirement age'' each place it appears 
     in the heading and text and inserting ``age 62''.
       (3) Limit increased when benefit begins after age 65.--
     Subparagraph (D) of section 415(b)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``the social security retirement age'' each place it appears 
     in the heading and text and inserting ``age 65''.
       (4) Multiemployer plans and plans maintained by governments 
     and tax exempt organizations.--Subparagraph (F) of section 
     415(b)(2) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(F) Multiemployer plans and plans maintained by 
     governments and tax exempt organizations.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a governmental plan 
     (within the meaning of section 414(d)), a plan maintained by 
     an organization (other than a governmental unit) exempt from 
     tax under this subtitle, a multiemployer plan (as defined in 
     section 414(f)), or a qualified merchant marine plan, 
     subparagraph (C) shall be applied as if the last sentence 
     thereof read as follows: `The reduction under this 
     subparagraph shall not reduce the limitation of paragraph 
     (1)(A) below (i) $130,000 if the benefit begins at or after 
     age 55, or (ii) if the benefit begins before age 55, the 
     equivalent of the $130,000 limitation for age 55.'.
       ``(ii) Definitions.--For purposes of this subparagraph--

       ``(I) Qualified merchant marine plan.--The term `qualified 
     merchant marine plan' means a plan in existence on January 1, 
     1986, the participants in which are merchant marine officers 
     holding licenses issued by the Secretary of Transportation 
     under title 46, United States Code.
       ``(II) Exempt organization plan covering 50 percent of its 
     employees.--A plan shall be treated as a plan maintained by 
     an organization (other than a governmental unit) exempt from 
     tax under this subtitle if at least 50 percent of the 
     employees benefiting under the plan are employees of an 
     organization (other than a governmental unit) exempt from tax 
     under this subtitle. If less than 50 percent of the employees 
     benefiting under a plan are employees of an organization 
     (other than a governmental unit) exempt from tax under this 
     subtitle, the plan shall be treated as a plan maintained by 
     an organization (other than a governmental unit) exempt from 
     tax under this subtitle only with respect to employees of 
     such an organization.''

       (5) Cost-of-living adjustments.--Subsection (d) of section 
     415 (related to cost-of-living adjustments) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``$90,000'' and 
     inserting ``$180,000'', and
       (B) in paragraph (3)(A)--
       (i) by striking ``$90,000'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``$180,000'', and
       (ii) by striking ``October 1, 1986'' and inserting ``July 
     1, 1999''.
       (b) Defined Contribution Plans.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 415(c)(1) 
     (relating to limitation for defined contribution plans) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) the participants' compensation.''
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 415(n)(2)(B) is amended 
     by striking ``percentage''.
       (c) Cost-of-Living Adjustments.--
       (1) Plans maintained by governments and tax exempt 
     organizations.--Paragraph (1) of section 415(d) (as amended 
     by subsection (a)) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end 
     of subparagraph (B), by redesignating subparagraph (C) as 
     subparagraph (D), and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) the $130,000 amount in subsection (b)(2)(F), and''
       (2) Base period.--Paragraph (3) of section 415(d) (as 
     amended by subsection (a)) is amended by redesignating 
     subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E) and by inserting after 
     subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) $130,000 amount.--The base period taken into account 
     for purposes of paragraph (1)(C) is the calendar quarter 
     beginning July 1, 1999.''
       (3) Rounding rule relating to defined benefit plans.--
     Paragraph (4) of section 415(d) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(4) Rounding.--
       ``(A) $180,000 amount.--Any increase under subparagraph (A) 
     or (D) of paragraph (1) which is not a multiple of $5,000 
     shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $5,000.
       ``(B) $130,000 amount.--Any increase under subparagraph (C) 
     of paragraph (1) which is not a multiple of $1,000 shall be 
     rounded to the next lowest multiple of $1,000.''
       (4) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (D) of section 
     415(d)(3) (as amended by paragraph (2)) is amended by 
     striking ``paragraph (1)(C)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (1)(D)''.

     SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS UNDER SECTION 415.

       (a) Compensation Limit.--Paragraph (11) of section 415(b) 
     (relating to limitation for defined benefit plans) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(11) Special limitation rule for governmental and 
     multiemployer plans.--In the case of a governmental plan (as 
     defined in section 414(d)) or a multiemployer plan (as 
     defined in section 414(f)), subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply.''
       (b) Combining and Aggregation of Plans.--
       (1) Combining of plans.--Subsection (f) of section 415 
     (relating to combining of plans) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) Exception for multiemployer plans.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1) and subsection (g), a multiemployer plan (as 
     defined in section 414(f)) shall not be combined or 
     aggregated with any other plan maintained by an employer for 
     purposes of applying the limitations established in this 
     section, except that such plan shall be combined or 
     aggregated with another plan which is not such a 
     multiemployer plan solely for purposes of determining whether 
     such other plan meets the requirements of subsection 
     (b)(1)(A).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment for aggregation of plans.--
     Subsection (g) of section 415 (relating to aggregation of 
     plans) is amended by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in subsection (f)(3), the Secretary''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to years 
     beginning after December 31, 1999.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I join Senator Murkowski in 
introducing a measure that will fix a problem with the pension limits 
in section 415 of the tax code as they relate to multiemployer pension 
plans.
  This is a problem I have been trying to fix for years, and I hope we 
can resolve this issue during this Congress.
  Section 415, as it currently stands, deprives workers of the pensions 
they deserve.
  In 1996, Congress addressed part of the problem by relieving public 
employees from the limits of section 415.
  It is only proper that Congress does the same for private workers 
covered by multiemployer plans.
  Section 415 negatively impacts workers who have various employers.
  Currently, the pension level is set at the employee's highest 
consecutive 3-year average salary.
  With fluctuations in industry, sometimes employees have up and down 
years rather than steady increases in their wages.

[[Page 12379]]

  This can skew the 3-year salary average for the employee, resulting 
in a lower pension when the worker retires.
  I would like to offer an example of section 415's impact to 
illustrate how unfairly the current law treats workers in multiemployer 
plans.
  Assume we are talking about a worker employed for 15 years by a local 
union and her highest annual salary was $15,600.
  The worker retires and applies for pension benefits from the two 
plans by which she was covered by virtue of her previous employment.
  The worker had earned a monthly benefit of $1,000 from one plan and a 
monthly benefit of $474 from the second plan for a total monthly income 
of $1,474, or $17,688 per year.
  The worker looked forward to receiving this full amount throughout 
her retirement.
  However, the benefits had to be reduced by $202 per month, or about 
$2,400 per year to match her highest annual salary of $15,600.
  The so-called ``compensation based limit'' of section 415 of the Tax 
Code did not take into account disparate benefits, but intended only to 
address workers with a single employer likely to receive steady 
increases in salary.
  Currently section 415 limits a worker's pension to an equal amount of 
the worker's average salary for the three consecutive years when the 
worker's salary was the highest.
  Instead of receiving the $17,688 per year pension that the worker had 
earned under the pension plans' rules, the worker can receive only 
$15,253 per year.
  If the worker were a public employee covered by a public plan, her 
pension would not be cut.
  This is because public pension plans are not restricted by the 
compensation-based limit language of section 415.
  This robs employees of the money they have earned simply because they 
were not a public employee.
  We are always looking for ways to encourage people to save for 
retirement and we try to educate people of the fact that relying on 
Social Security alone will not be enough.
  Yet we penalize many private sector employees in multiemployer plans 
by arbitrarily limiting the amount of pension benefits they can 
receive.
  It is wrong, and it should be fixed.
  In addition, by changing the law to allow workers to receive the full 
pension benefits they are entitled to, we will see more money flowing 
to the treasury.
  This is because greater pensions to retirees means greater retirement 
income, much of which is subject to taxes.
  I urge my colleagues to support us in fixing this problem once and 
for all and I thank Senator Murkowski for working with me on this 
issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE:
  S. 1210. A bill to assist in the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species of fauna and flora found throughout the world; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.


          foreign endangered species conservation act of 1999

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today 
that will offer a new tool for the conservation of imperiled species 
throughout the world. This legislation would establish a fund to 
provide financial assistance for conservation projects for these 
species, which often receive little, if any, help.
  The primary Federal law protecting imperiled species is the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Of the 1700 species that are endangered 
or threatened under the ESA, more than 560--approximately one-third--
are foreign species residing outside the United States. However, the 
general protections of the ESA do not apply overseas, nor does the 
Administration prepare recovery plans for foreign species.
  The primary multilateral treaty protecting endangered and threatened 
species is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 
of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES identifies more than 30,000 
species to be protected through restrictions on trade in their parts 
and products. It does not address other threats facing these species.
  Consequently, the vast majority of endangered or threatened species 
throughout the world receive little, if any, funding by the United 
States. Presently, three grants programs exist for specific species--
African elephants, Asian elephants, rhinos, and tigers. In FY 1999, 
they received an aggregate of $1.9 million. Other small conservation 
programs exist in India, Mexico, China, and Russia under agreements 
with those countries. However, no program addresses the general need to 
conserve imperiled species in foreign countries.
  This need could not be greater. Recently, much deserved attention has 
been given to the decline of primate populations in both Africa and 
Asia as a result of habitat loss and poaching to supply a trade of 
bushmeat. These species vitally need funding to arrest their serious 
declines.
  Numerous other species in the same rainforests across Africa and 
Asia, as well as the rainforests of the Americas, also face threats 
relating to habitat loss. Habitats as varied as the alpine reaches of 
the Himalayas, the bamboo forests of China, and tropical coral reef 
systems are all home to species facing the threat of extinction, such 
as the snow leopard, the panda and sea turtles. While the charismatic 
mega-fauna receive the most public attention, the vast multitude of 
species continue to slip steadily towards extinction without even any 
public awareness.
  A new grants program would be a powerful tool to begin to address the 
critical needs of these species, and would fill a significant gap in 
existing efforts. Such a program would be similar to the programs for 
elephants, rhinos and tigers, but would apply to any imperiled species. 
The existing programs have proven tremendously successful, particularly 
in creating local, long-term capacity within the foreign country to 
protect these species. The bill that I introduce today would build on 
these successful programs.
  Specifically, the bill establishes a fund to support projects to 
conserve endangered and threatened species in foreign countries. The 
projects must be approved by the Secretary in cooperation with the 
Agency for International Development. Priority is to be given to 
projects that enhance conservation of the most imperiled species, that 
provide the greatest conservation benefit, that receive the greatest 
level of non-Federal funding, and that enhance local capacity for 
conservation efforts. The bill authorizes appropriations of $16 million 
annually for 4 years, 2001 to 2005, with $12 million authorized for the 
Fish and Wildlife Service, and $4 million for the National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this worthwhile initiative. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1210

       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 ``Foreign Endangered Species 
     Conservation Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) numerous species of fauna and flora in foreign 
     countries have continued to decline to the point that the 
     long-term survival of those species in the wild is in serious 
     jeopardy;
       (2) many of those species are listed as endangered species 
     or threatened species under section 4 of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) or in Appendix I, II, or 
     III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
     Species of Wild Fauna and Flora;
       (3) there are insufficient resources available for 
     addressing the threats facing those species, which will 
     require the joint commitment and effort of foreign countries 
     within the range of those species, the United States and 
     other countries, and the private sector;
       (4) the grant programs established by Congress for tigers, 
     rhinoceroses, Asian elephants, and African elephants have 
     proven to be extremely successful programs that provide 
     Federal funds for conservation projects in an efficient and 
     expeditious manner and that encourage additional support for 
     conservation in the foreign countries where those species 
     exist in the wild; and
       (5) a new grant program modeled on the existing programs 
     for tigers, rhinoceroses, and

[[Page 12380]]

     elephants would provide an effective means to assist in the 
     conservation of foreign endangered species for which there 
     are no existing grant programs.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to conserve 
     endangered and threatened species of fauna and flora in 
     foreign countries, and the ecosystems on which the species 
     depend, by supporting the conservation programs for those 
     species of foreign countries and the CITES Secretariat, 
     promoting partnerships between the public and private 
     sectors, and providing financial resources for those programs 
     and partnerships.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Account.--The term ``Account'' means the Foreign 
     Endangered and Threatened Species Conservation Account 
     established by section 6.
       (2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Agency for International Development.
       (3) CITES.--The term ``CITES'' means the Convention on 
     International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 
     Flora, done at Washington March 3, 1973 (27 UST 1087; TIAS 
     8249), including its appendices and amendments.
       (4) Conservation.--The term ``conservation'' means the use 
     of methods and procedures necessary to bring a species to the 
     point at which there are sufficient populations in the wild 
     to ensure the long-term viability of the species, including--
       (A) protection and management of populations of foreign 
     endangered or threatened species;
       (B) maintenance, management, protection, restoration, and 
     acquisition of habitat;
       (C) research and monitoring;
       (D) law enforcement;
       (E) conflict resolution initiatives; and
       (F) community outreach and education.
       (5) Foreign endangered or threatened species.--The term 
     ``foreign endangered or threatened species'' means a species 
     of fauna or flora--
       (A) that is listed as an endangered or threatened species 
     under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533) or that is listed in Appendix I, II, or III of 
     CITES; and
       (B) whose range is partially or wholly located in a foreign 
     country.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as program 
     responsibilities are vested under Reorganization Plan No. 4 
     of 1970 (5 U.S.C. App.).

     SEC. 4. FOREIGN SPECIES CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of funds, the 
     Secretary shall use amounts in the Account to provide 
     financial assistance for projects for the conservation of 
     foreign endangered or threatened species in foreign countries 
     for which project proposals are approved by the Secretary in 
     accordance with this section.
       (b) Project Proposals.--
       (1) Eligible applicants.--A proposal for a project for the 
     conservation of foreign endangered or threatened species may 
     be submitted to the Secretary by--
       (A) any agency of a foreign country that has within its 
     boundaries any part of the range of the foreign endangered or 
     threatened species if the agency has authority over fauna or 
     flora and the activities of the agency directly or indirectly 
     affect the species;
       (B) the CITES Secretariat; or
       (C) any person with demonstrated expertise in the 
     conservation of the foreign endangered or threatened species.
       (2) Required information.--A project proposal shall 
     include--
       (A) the name of the individual responsible for conducting 
     the project, and a description of the qualifications of each 
     individual who will conduct the project;
       (B) the name of the foreign endangered or threatened 
     species to benefit from the project;
       (C) a succinct statement of the purposes of the project and 
     the methodology for implementing the project, including an 
     assessment of the status of the species and how the project 
     will benefit the species;
       (D) an estimate of the funds and time required to complete 
     the project;
       (E) evidence of support for the project by appropriate 
     governmental agencies of the foreign countries in which the 
     project will be conducted, if the Secretary determines that 
     such support is required for the success of the project;
       (F) information regarding the source and amount of non-
     Federal funds available for the project; and
       (G) any other information that the Secretary considers to 
     be necessary for evaluating the eligibility of the project 
     for funding under this Act.
       (c) Proposal Review and Approval.--
       (1) Request for additional information.--If, after 
     receiving a project proposal, the Secretary determines that 
     the project proposal is not complete, the Secretary may 
     request further information from the person or entity that 
     submitted the proposal before complying with the other 
     provisions of this subsection.
       (2) Request for comments.--The Secretary shall request 
     written comments, and provide an opportunity of not less than 
     30 days for comments, on the proposal from the appropriate 
     governmental agencies of each foreign country in which the 
     project is to be conducted.
       (3) Submission to administrator.--The Secretary shall 
     provide to the Administrator a copy of the proposal and a 
     copy of any comments received under paragraph (2). The 
     Administrator may provide comments to the Secretary within 30 
     days after receipt of the copy of the proposal and any 
     comments.
       (4) Decision by the secretary.--After taking into 
     consideration any comments received in a timely manner from 
     the governmental agencies under paragraph (2) and the 
     Administrator under paragraph (3), the Secretary may approve 
     the proposal if the Secretary determines that the project 
     promotes the conservation of foreign endangered or threatened 
     species in foreign countries.
       (5) Notification.--Not later than 180 days after receiving 
     a completed project proposal, the Secretary shall provide 
     written notification of the Secretary's approval or 
     disapproval under paragraph (4) to the person or entity that 
     submitted the proposal and the Administrator.
       (d) Priority Guidance.--In funding approved project 
     proposals, the Secretary shall give priority to the following 
     types of projects:
       (1) Projects that will enhance programs for the 
     conservation of foreign endangered and threatened species 
     that are most imperiled.
       (2) Projects that will provide the greatest conservation 
     benefit for a foreign endangered or threatened species.
       (3) Projects that receive the greatest level of assistance, 
     in cash or in-kind, from non-Federal sources.
       (4) Projects that will enhance local capacity for the 
     conservation of foreign endangered and threatened species.
       (e) Project Reporting.--Each person or entity that receives 
     assistance under this section for a project shall submit to 
     the Secretary and the Administrator periodic reports (at such 
     intervals as the Secretary considers necessary) that include 
     all information required by the Secretary, after consultation 
     with the Administrator, for evaluating the progress and 
     success of the project.
       (f) Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, after providing public notice and 
     opportunity for comment, the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the Secretary of Commerce shall each develop guidelines to 
     carry out this section.
       (2) Priorities and criteria.--The guidelines shall 
     specify--
       (A) how the priorities for funding approved projects are to 
     be determined; and
       (B) criteria for determining which species are most 
     imperiled and which projects provide the greatest 
     conservation benefit.

     SEC. 5. MULTILATERAL COLLABORATION.

       The Secretary, in collaboration with the Secretary of State 
     and the Administrator, shall--
       (1) coordinate efforts to conserve foreign endangered and 
     threatened species with the relevant agencies of foreign 
     countries; and
       (2) subject to the availability of appropriations, provide 
     technical assistance to those agencies to further the 
     agencies' conservation efforts.

     SEC. 6. FOREIGN ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES 
                   CONSERVATION ACCOUNT.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the 
     Multinational Species Conservation Fund of the Treasury a 
     separate account to be known as the ``Foreign Endangered and 
     Threatened Species Conservation Account'', consisting of--
       (1) amounts donated to the Account;
       (2) amounts appropriated to the Account under section 7; 
     and
       (3) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the 
     Account under subsection (c).
       (b) Expenditures From Account.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     may expend from the Account, without further Act of 
     appropriation, such amounts as are necessary to carry out 
     section 4.
       (2) Administrative expenses.--An amount not to exceed 6 
     percent of the amounts in the Account--
       (A) shall be available for each fiscal year to pay the 
     administrative expenses necessary to carry out this Act; and
       (B) shall be divided between the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Secretary of Commerce in the same proportion as the 
     amounts made available under section 7 are divided between 
     the Secretaries.
       (c) Investment of Amounts.--The Secretary shall invest such 
     portion of the Account as is not required to meet current 
     withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States.
       (d) Acceptance and Use of Donations.--The Secretary may 
     accept and use donations to carry out this Act. Amounts 
     received by the Secretary in the form of donations shall be 
     available until expended, without further Act of 
     appropriation.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Account for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005--
       (1) $12,000,000 for use by the Secretary of the Interior; 
     and

[[Page 12381]]

       (2) $4,000,000 for use by the Secretary of Commerce.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 1211. A bill to amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 
Act to authorize additional measures to carry out the control of 
salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-effective manner; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


   COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL REAUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce 
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Reauthorization Act of 1999. 
This legislation will reauthorize the funding of this program to a 
level of $175 million and will permit these important projects to 
continue forward for several years.
  I do this because the Colorado River is the life link for more than 
23 million people. It provides irrigation water for more than 4 million 
acres of land in the United States. Therefore, the quality of the water 
is crucial.
  Salinity is one of the major problems affecting the quality of the 
water. Salinity damages range between $500 million and $750 million and 
could exceed $1.5 billion per year if future increases in salinity are 
not controlled. In an effort to limit future damages, the Basin States 
(Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) 
and the Federal Government enacted the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
Control Act in 1974. Because the lengthy Congressional authorization 
process for Bureau of Reclamation projects was impeding the 
implementation of cost-effective measures, Congress authorized the 
Bureau in 1995 to implement a competitive, basin-wide approach for 
salinity control.
  Under the new approach, termed the Basinwide Program salinity control 
projects were no longer built by the Federal Government. They were, for 
the most part, to be built by the private sector and local and state 
governments. Funds would be awarded to projects on a competitive bid 
basis. Since this was a pilot program, Congress originally limited 
funds to a $75 million ceiling.
  Indeed, the Basinwide Salinity Program has far exceeded original 
expectations by proving to be both cost effective and successful. It 
has an average cost of $27 per ton of salt controlled, as compared to 
original authority program projects that averaged $76 per ton. One of 
the greatest advantages of the new program comes from the integration 
of Reclamation's program with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
program. By integrating the USDA's on-farm irrigation improvements with 
the Bureau's off-farm improvements, very high efficiency rates can be 
obtained.
  Because the cost sharing partners (private organizations and states 
and federal agencies) often have funds available at specific times, the 
new program allows the Bureau of Reclamation to quickly respond to 
opportunities that are time sensitive. Another significant advantage of 
the Basinwide program is that completed projects are ``owned'' by the 
local entity, and not the Bureau. The entity is responsible for 
performing under the proposal negotiated with the Bureau.
  In 1998, Bureau of Reclamation received a record number of proposals. 
While still working through the 1998 proposals, the Bureau also sought 
out 1999 proposals which are just now being received and evaluated. 
Although, not all proposals will be fully funded and constructed, 
funding requirements for even the most favorable projects surpasses the 
original $75 million funding authority. In fact, if all proposals go to 
completion and are fully funded, the Bureau might find itself in the 
position that no future requests for proposals can be considered until 
Congress raises the authorization ceiling. In an effort to prevent that 
from occurring, I am introducing this legislation today. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in this effort and I look forward to working on 
this legislation with them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1212. A bill to restrict United States assistance for certain 
reconstruction efforts in the Balkans region of Europe to United 
States-produced articles and services; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


              kosovo reconstruction investment act of 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Kosovo 
Reconstruction Investment Act of 1999.
  This legislation would require that the United States foreign aid 
funds committed to the reconstruction of Kosovo and other parts of the 
Balkans in the wake of the Kosovo conflict will be used to purchase 
American-made goods and services whenever possible.
  This legislation provides a win-win approach to reconstruction by 
helping the people of Kosovo and others who live in the Balkans who 
have suffered as a result of the Kosovo conflict while also looking out 
for American workers.
  The people of Kosovo and the Balkans will win by having new homes, 
hospitals, factories, bridges, and much more rebuilt. They will have 
roofs over their heads, places to go for health care and to work, and 
the roads and bridges needed to get there.
  The American people will win as a sizable portion of their hard-
earned taxpayer dollars will come back to the United States in the form 
of new orders for American-made goods and services. New jobs will be 
created. With this legislation we can make the best out of a looming, 
costly, and long-term burden on our Nation's budget.
  This will be especially important for some of our key industries, 
such as agriculture and steel, that are facing hard times here at home. 
Other hard-working Americans from industries like manufacturing, 
engineering, construction, and telecommunications will also enjoy new 
opportunities to produce goods and services for the people of 
Southeastern Europe.
  For example, our ranchers and farmers, many of whom are being 
severely harmed by a combination of toughcompetition at home, cheap 
imports and closed markets overseas will benefit. This bill will help 
provide them with the opportunity to strengthen their share in Europe's 
Southeastern markets.
  Our steel workers, many of whom are also in a tough situation, will 
benefit as U.S. made steel is used to reconstruct homes, hospitals, 
factories, and bridges. American engineers, contractors, and other 
service providers will play a key role in rebuilding telecommunications 
and other necessary infrastructure projects.
  To ensure that the Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act does not 
unduly hinder the reconstruction effort, it allows for American foreign 
aid funds to be used to buy goods and services produced by other 
parties in cases where U.S. made goods and services are deemed to be 
``prohibitively expensive.''
  The American taxpayers are already bearing the lion's share of waging 
the war in Kosovo. To date, our nation's military has spent about $3 
billion Kosovo war effort. Our pilots flew the vast majority of the 
combat sorties. In addition, the Foreign Operations supplemental 
appropriations bill that passed last month provided $819 million for 
humanitarian and refugee aid for Kosovo and surrounding countries. It 
has been estimated that peace keeping operations will cost an 
additional $3 billion in the first year alone. This is just the 
beginning. In the future, American taxpayers will be spending many tens 
of billions of dollars more as we participate in the apparently open-
ended peacekeeping effort.
  Without this legislation, those countries who largely sat on the 
sidelines while we fought will be allowed to sweep in and clean up. The 
American taxpayers' dollars should not be used as a windfall profits 
program to boost Western European conglomerates. The American people 
deserve better. The Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act of 1999 would 
remedy this situation.
  Yet another problem this bill would help alleviate is our exploding 
trade deficit which is on track to an all time high of approximately 
$250 billion by the end of this year. In March of this year alone, the 
United States posted a record 1 month trade deficit of $19.7 billion.
  Furthermore, many of the other industrialized countries that 
regularly distribute foreign aid do not distribute

[[Page 12382]]

it with no strings attached. For many years now, countries like Japan 
have also required that the foreign aid funds they distribute be used 
to buy products produced by their domestic companies.
  We also must face the reality that there is much more to rebuilding 
this region than money can buy. The various ethnic groups residing 
throughout the Balkans must realize that they have to change their 
hearts and ways if there is to be any lasting peace and prosperity. We 
cannot do this for them. They have to do it for themselves, as 
communities, families, and individuals.
  If they commit themselves to rule of law, freedom of speech, free and 
open markets, the primacy of the ballot box over bullets and a live and 
let live tolerance of others, they will be well on their way as they 
head into the new millennium.
  Once again, here we are reconstructing a part of Europe. Once again, 
we did not start the war, but we had to finish it and then were called 
on to come in, pick up the pieces, and put them back together again.
  If America's airmen, sailors, marines, and soldiers are good enough 
to win a war, then America's hard-working taxpayers, including farmers, 
steel workers, and engineers are good enough to help rebuild shattered 
countries. If we are called on to put the Balkans back together, we 
should do it with a fair share of goods and services made in America.
  The Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act will help make sure that 
both the victims of the Kosovo conflict and the American people win. I 
urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1212

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

     SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   CERTAIN RECONSTRUCTION EFFORTS IN THE BALKANS 
                   REGION.

       (a) Prohibition.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     part of any United States assistance furnished for 
     reconstruction efforts in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 
     or any contiguous country, on account of the armed conflict 
     or atrocities that have occurred in the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia since March 24, 1999, may consist of, or be used 
     for the procurement of, any article produced outside the 
     United States or any service provided by a foreign person.
       (2) Determinations of foreign produced articles.--In the 
     application of paragraph (1), determinations of whether an 
     article is produced outside the United States or whether a 
     service is provided by a foreign person should be made 
     consistent with the standards utilized by the Bureau of 
     Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce in its United 
     States balance of payments statistical summary with respect 
     to comparable determinations.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if doing so 
     would require the procurement of any article or service that 
     is prohibitively expensive or unavailable.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Article.--The term ``article'' includes any 
     agricultural commodity, steel, construction material, 
     communications equipment, construction machinery, farm 
     machinery, or petrochemical refinery equipment.
       (2) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.--The term ``Federal 
     Republic of Yugoslavia'' means the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and includes Kosovo.
       (3) Foreign person.--The term ``foreign person'' means any 
     foreign national, including any foreign corporation, 
     partnership, other legal entity, organization, or association 
     that is beneficially owned by foreign nationals or controlled 
     in fact by foreign nationals.
       (4) Produced.--The term ``produced'', with respect to an 
     item, includes any item mined, manufactured, made, assembled, 
     grown, or extracted.
       (5) Service.--The term ``service'' includes any 
     engineering, construction, telecommunications, or financial 
     service.
       (6) Steel.--The term ``steel'' includes the following 
     categories of steel products: semifinished, plates, sheets 
     and strips, wire rods, wire and wire products, rail type 
     products, bars, structural shapes and units, pipes and tubes, 
     iron ore, and coke products.
       (7) United states assistance.--The term ``United States 
     assistance'' means any grant, loan, financing, in-kind 
     assistance, or any other assistance of any kind.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 1213. A bill to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


              indian child welfare act amendments of 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
amend the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 to ensure stricter 
enforcement of timelines and fairness in Indian adoption proceedings. 
The primary intent of this legislation is to make the process that 
applies to voluntary Indian child custody and adoption proceedings more 
consistent, predictable, and certain. The provisions of this 
legislation would further advance the best interests of Indian children 
without eroding tribal sovereignty and the fundamental principles of 
Federal-Indian law.
  I thank the principal cosponsors, Senators Campbell and Domenici, for 
their continued support of this much-needed legislation. Let me also 
point out that this bill is identical to legislation which passed the 
Senate by unanimous consent in 1996. It is the result of nearly two 
years of discussion and debate among representatives of the adoption 
community, Indian tribal governments, and the Congress that aimed to 
address some of the problems with the implementation of ICWA since its 
enactment in 1978.
  Mr. President, ICWA was originally enacted to provide for procedural 
and substantive protection for Indian children and families and to 
recognize and formalize a substantial role for Indian tribes in cases 
involving involuntary and voluntary child custody proceedings, whether 
on or off the Indian reservation. It was also supposed to reduce 
uncertainties about which court had jurisdiction over an Indian child 
and who had what authority to influence child placement decisions. 
Although implementation of ICWA has been less than perfect, in the vast 
majority of cases ICWA has effectively provided the necessary 
protections. It has encouraged State and private adoption agencies and 
State courts to make extra efforts before removing Indian children from 
their homes and communities. It has required recognition byeveryone 
involved that an Indian child has a vital, long-term interest in 
keeping a connection with his or her Indian tribe.
  Nonetheless, particularly in the voluntary adoption context, there 
have been occasional, high-profile cases which have resulted in 
lengthy, protracted litigation causing great anguish for the children, 
their adoptive families, their birth families, and their Indian tribes. 
This bill takes a measured and limited approach, crafted by 
representatives of tribal governments and the adoption community, to 
address these problems.
  This legislation would achieve greater certainty and speed in the 
adoption process for Indian children by providing new guarantees of 
early and effective notice in all cases involving Indian children. The 
bill also establishes new, strict time restrictions on both the right 
of Indian tribes and birth families to intervene and the right of 
Indian birth parents to revoke their consent to an adoptive placement. 
Finally, the bill includes a provision which would encourage early 
identification of the relatively few cases involving controversy and 
promote the settlement of cases by making visitation agreements 
enforceable.
  Mr. President, nothing is more sacred and more important to our 
future than our children. The issues surrounding Indian child welfare 
stir deep emotions. I am thankful that, in formulating the compromise 
that led to the introduction of this bill, the representatives of both 
the adoption community and tribal governments were able to put aside 
their individual desires and focus on the best interests of Indian 
children.
  This bill represents an appropriate and fair-minded compromise 
proposal which would enhance the best interests of Indian children by 
guaranteeing speed, certainty, and stability in the adoption process. 
At the same time, the provisions of this bill preserve fundamental 
principles of Federal-Tribal law by recognizing the appropriate role of 
tribal governments in the lives of Indian children.

[[Page 12383]]

  Mr. President, I believe these amendments would have been enacted 
several years ago had we been better able to dispel several 
misconceptions about the bill's purpose. I want to directly address one 
of these misplaced concerns--that the adoptive placement preferences in 
the underlying law, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, would somehow 
lead an expectant mother seeking privacy to prefer abortion over 
adoption.
  I want to be very clear when I say that it is my judgment, concurred 
in by Indian tribes, adoption advocates and many others involved with 
implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act, that this bill has 
everything to do with promoting adoption opportunities for Indian 
children and nothing to do with promoting abortion. It is a terrible 
injustice that such a misunderstanding has clouded the efforts of so 
many who wish to simply improve the chances for Indian children to 
enjoy a stable family life.
  Over the years, I have had a consistently pro-life record and have 
actively worked with many pro-life groups to try to reduce and 
eliminate abortions at every possible opportunity. I firmly believe 
that this bill would make adoption, rather than abortion, a more 
compelling choice for an expectant birth mother. What could be more 
pro-life and pro-family than to change the law in ways which both 
Indian tribes and non-Indian adoptive families have asked to improve 
the adoption process? I strongly believe this bill, and the amendments 
it makes to the ICWA law, will work to the advantage of Indian children 
and adoptive families. It will encourage adoptions and discourage 
choices which lead to the tragedy of abortion.
  A recent editorial by George F. Will in the Washington Post (``For 
Right-to-Life Realists'') underscores the importance of promoting 
legislative efforts, such as this bill, as good policy for protecting 
children and promoting families. He wrote:

       Temperate people on both sides of the abortion divide can 
     support a requirement for parental notification, less as 
     abortion policy than as sound family policy.
       . . . Republicans will be the party of adoption, removing 
     all laws and other impediments, sparing no expense, to 
     achieving a goal more noble even than landing on the moon--
     adoptive parents for every unwanted unborn baby.

  Mr. President, this bill has been thoroughly analyzed and debated in 
the Senate, as well as among the adoption community and Indian tribal 
governments. I believe it is time for the Congress to act in the best 
interests of Indian children by enacting these amendments to the 
voluntary adoption procedures in the 1978 ICWA law. I urge my 
colleagues to once again pass these amendments and invite the House to 
do the same this year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1213

       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 ``Indian Child Welfare Act 
     Amendments of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

       Section 101(a) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1911(a)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
       (2) by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) An Indian tribe shall retain exclusive jurisdiction 
     over any child custody proceeding that involves an Indian 
     child, notwithstanding any subsequent change in the residence 
     or domicile of the Indian child, in any case in which the 
     Indian child--
       ``(A) resides or is domiciled within the reservation of 
     that Indian tribe and is made a ward of a tribal court of 
     that Indian tribe; or
       ``(B) after a transfer of jurisdiction is carried out under 
     subsection (b), becomes a ward of a tribal court of that 
     Indian tribe.''.

     SEC. 3. INTERVENTION IN STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS.

       Section 101(c) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1911(c)) is amended by striking ``In any State court 
     proceeding'' and inserting ``Except as provided in section 
     103(e), in any State court proceeding''.

     SEC. 4. VOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS.

       Section 103(a) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1913(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a)(1) Where any parent or Indian custodian voluntarily 
     consents to foster care or preadoptive or adoptive placement 
     or to termination of parental rights, such consent shall not 
     be valid unless--
       ``(A) executed in writing;
       ``(B) recorded before a judge of a court of competent 
     jurisdiction; and
       ``(C) accompanied by the presiding judge's certificate 
     that--
       ``(i) the terms and consequences of the consent were fully 
     explained in detail and were fully understood by the parent 
     or Indian custodian; and
       ``(ii) any attorney or public or private agency that 
     facilitates the voluntary termination of parental rights or 
     preadoptive or adoptive placement has--
       ``(I) informed the natural parents of the placement options 
     with respect to the child involved;
       ``(II) informed those parents of the applicable provisions 
     of this Act; and
       ``(III) certified that the natural parents will be notified 
     within 10 days after any change in the adoptive placement.'';
       (2) by striking ``The court shall also certify'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) The court shall also certify'';
       (3) by striking ``Any consent given prior to,'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Any consent given prior to,''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) An Indian custodian who has the legal authority to 
     consent to an adoptive placement shall be treated as a parent 
     for the purposes of the notice and consent to adoption 
     provisions of this Act.''.

     SEC. 5. WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT.

       Section 103(b) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1913(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Any''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (4), a consent to 
     adoption of an Indian child or voluntary termination of 
     parental rights to an Indian child may be revoked, only if--
       ``(A) no final decree of adoption has been entered; and
       ``(B)(i) the adoptive placement specified by the parent 
     terminates; or
       ``(ii) the revocation occurs before the later of the end 
     of--
       ``(I) the 180-day period beginning on the date on which the 
     tribe of the Indian child receives written notice of the 
     adoptive placement provided in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsections (c) and (d); or
       ``(II) the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the 
     parent who revokes consent receives notice of the 
     commencement of the adoption proceeding that includes an 
     explanation of the revocation period specified in this 
     subclause.
       ``(3 Immediately upon an effective revocation under 
     paragraph (2), the Indian child who is the subject of that 
     revocation shall be returned to the parent who revokes 
     consent.
       ``(4) Subject to paragraph (6), if, by the end of the 
     applicable period determined under subclause (I) or (II) of 
     paragraph (2)(B)(ii), aconsent to adoption or voluntary 
     termination of parental rights has not been revoked, a parent 
     may revoke such consent after that date only--
       ``(A) pursuant to applicable State law; or
       ``(B) if the parent of the Indian child involved petitions 
     a court of competent jurisdiction, and the court finds that 
     the consent to adoption or voluntary termination of parental 
     rights was obtained through fraud or duress.
       ``(5) Subject to paragraph (6), if a consent to adoption or 
     voluntary termination of parental rights is revoked under 
     paragraph (4)(B), with respect to the Indian child involved--
       ``(A) in a manner consistent with paragraph (3), the child 
     shall be returned immediately to the parent who revokes 
     consent; and
       ``(B) if a final decree of adoption has been entered, that 
     final decree shall be vacated.
       ``(6) Except as otherwise provided under applicable State 
     law, no adoption that has been in effect for a period longer 
     than or equal to 2 years may be invalidated under this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 6. NOTICE TO INDIAN TRIBES

       Section 103(c) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1913(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c)(1) A party that seeks the voluntary placement of an 
     Indian child or the voluntary termination of the parental 
     rights of a parent of an Indian child shall provide written 
     notice of the placement or proceeding to the tribe of that 
     Indian child. A notice under this subsection shall be sent by 
     registered mail (return receipt requested) to the tribe of 
     the Indian child, not later than the applicable date 
     specified in paragraph (2) or (3).
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (3), notice shall 
     be provided under paragraph (1) by the applicable date 
     specified in each of the following cases:
       ``(i) Not later than 100 days after any foster care 
     placement of an Indian child occurs.
       ``(ii) Not later than 5 days after any preadoptive or 
     adoptive placement of an Indian child.

[[Page 12384]]

       ``(iii) Not later than 10 days after the commencement of 
     any proceeding for a termination of parental rights to an 
     Indian child.
       ``(iv) Not later than 10 days after the commencement of any 
     adoption proceeding concerning an Indian child.
       ``(B) A notice described in subparagraph (A)(ii) may be 
     provided before the birth of an Indian child if a party 
     referred to in paragraph (1) contemplates a specific adoptive 
     or preadoptive placement.
       ``(3) If, after the expiration of the applicable period 
     specified in paragraph (2), a party referred to in paragraph 
     (1) discovers that the child involved may be an Indian 
     child--
       ``(A) the party shall provide notice under paragraph (1) 
     not later than 10 days after the discovery; and
       ``(B) any applicable time limit specified in subsection (e) 
     shall apply to the notice provided under subparagraph (A) 
     only if the party referred to in paragraph (1) has, on or 
     before commencement of the placement, made reasonable inquiry 
     concerning whether the child involved may be an Indian 
     child.''.

     SEC. 7. CONTENT OF NOTICE.

       Section 103(d) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1913(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Each written notice provided under subsection (c) 
     shall be based on a good faith investigation and contain the 
     following:
       ``(1) The name of the Indian child involved, and the actual 
     or anticipated date and place of birth of the Indian child.
       ``(2) A list containing the name, address, date of birth, 
     and (if applicable) the maiden name of each Indian parent and 
     grandparent of the Indian child, if--
       ``(A) known after inquiry of--
       ``(i) the birth parent placing the child or relinquishing 
     parental rights; and
       ``(ii) the other birth parent (if available); or
       ``(B) otherwise ascertainable through other reasonable 
     inquiry.
       ``(3) A list containing the name and address of each known 
     extended family member (if any), that has priority in 
     placement under section 105.
       ``(4) A statement of the reasons why the child involved may 
     be an Indian child.
       ``(5) The names and addresses of the parties involved in 
     any applicable proceeding in a State court.
       ``(6)(A) The name and address of the State court in which a 
     proceeding referred to in paragraph (5) is pending, or will 
     be filed; and
       ``(B) the date and time of any related court proceeding 
     that is scheduled as of the date on which the notice is 
     provided under this subsection.
       ``(7) If any, the tribal affiliation of the prospective 
     adoptive parents.
       ``(8) The name and address of any public or private social 
     service agency or adoption agency involved.
       ``(9) An identification of any Indian tribe with respect to 
     which the Indian child or parent may be a member.
       ``(10) A statement that each Indian tribe identified under 
     paragraph (9) may have the right to intervene in the 
     proceeding referred to in paragraph (5).
       ``(11) An inquiry concerning whether the Indian tribe that 
     receives notice under subsection (c) intends to intervene 
     under subsection (e) or waive any such right to intervention.
       ``(12) A statement that, if the Indian tribe that receives 
     notice under subsection (c) fails to respond in accordance 
     with subsection (e) by the applicable date specified in that 
     subsection, the right of that Indian tribe to intervene in 
     the proceeding involved shall be considered to have been 
     waived by that Indian tribe.''.

     SEC. 8. INTERVENTION BY INDIAN TRIBE.

       Section 103 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1913) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e)(1) The tribe of the Indian child involved shall have 
     the right to intervene at any time in a voluntary child 
     custody proceeding in a State court only if--
       ``(A) in the case of a voluntary proceeding to terminate 
     parental rights, the Indian tribe sent a notice of intent to 
     intervene or a written objection to the adoptive placement to 
     the court or to the party that is seeking the voluntary 
     placement of the Indian child, not later than 30 days after 
     receiving notice that was provided in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsections (c) and (d); or
       ``(B) in the case of a voluntary adoption proceeding, the 
     Indian tribe sent a notice of intent to intervene or a 
     written objection to the adoptive placement to the court or 
     to the party that is seeking the voluntary placement of the 
     Indian child, not later than the later of--
       ``(i) 90 days after receiving notice of the adoptive 
     placement that was provided in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsections (c) and (d); or
       ``(ii) 30 days after receiving a notice of the voluntary 
     adoption proceeding that was provided in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsections (c) and (d).
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the tribe 
     of the Indian child involved shall have the right to 
     intervene at any time in a voluntary child custody proceeding 
     in a State court in any case in which the Indian tribe did 
     not receive written notice provided in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsections (c) and (d).
       ``(B) An Indian tribe may not intervene in any voluntary 
     child custody proceeding in a State court if the Indian tribe 
     gives written notice to the State court or any party involved 
     of--
       ``(i) the intent of the Indian tribe not to intervene in 
     the proceeding; or
       ``(ii) the determination by the Indian tribe that--
       ``(I) the child involved is not a member of, or is not 
     eligible for membership in, the Indian tribe, or
       ``(II) neither parent of the child is a member of the 
     Indian tribe.
       ``(3) If an Indian tribe files a motion for intervention in 
     a State court under this subsection, the Indian tribe shall 
     submit to the court, at the same time as the Indian tribe 
     files that motion, a tribal certification that includes a 
     statement that documents, with respect to the Indian child 
     involved, the membership or eligibility for membership of 
     that Indian child in the Indian tribe under applicable tribal 
     law.
       ``(f) Any act or failure to act of an Indian tribe under 
     subsection (e) shall not--
       ``(1) affect any placement preference or other right of any 
     individual under this Act;
       ``(2) preclude the Indian tribe of the Indian child that is 
     the subject of an action taken by the Indian tribe under 
     subsection (e) from intervening in a proceeding concerning 
     that Indian child if a proposed adoptive placement of that 
     Indian child is changed after that action is taken; or
       ``(3) except as specifically provided in subsection (e), 
     affect the applicability of this Act.
       ``(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     proceeding for a voluntary termination of parental rights or 
     adoption of an Indian child may be conducted under applicable 
     State law before the date that is 30 days after the tribe of 
     the Indian child receives notice of that proceeding that was 
     provided in accordance with the requirements of subsections 
     (c) and (d).
       ``(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including 
     any State law)--
       ``(1) a court may approve, if in the best interests of an 
     Indian child, as part of an adoption decree of that Indian 
     child, an agreement that states that a birth parent, an 
     extended family member, or the tribe of the Indian child 
     shall have an enforceable right of visitation or continued 
     contact with the Indian child after the entry of a final 
     decree of adoption; and
       ``(2) the failure to comply with any provision of a court 
     order concerning the continued visitation or contact referred 
     to in paragraph (1) shall not be considered to be grounds for 
     setting aside a final decree of adoption.''.

     SEC. 9. PLACEMENT OF INDIAN CHILDREN.

       Section 105(c) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1915(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence--
       (A) by striking ``Indian child or parent'' and inserting 
     ``parent or Indian child''; and
       (B) by striking the colon after ``considered'' and 
     inserting a period;
       (2) by striking ``Provided, That where'' and inserting: 
     ``In any case in which''; and
       (3) by inserting after the second sentence the following: 
     ``In any case in which a court determines that it is 
     appropriate to consider the preference of a parent or Indian 
     child, for purposes of subsection (a), that preference may be 
     considered to constitute good cause.''.

     SEC. 10. FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION.

       Title I of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 
     1911 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 114. FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION.

       ``(a) In General.--With respect to any proceeding subject 
     to this Act involving an Indian child or a child who may be 
     considered to be an Indian child for purposes of this Act, a 
     person, other than a birth parent of the child, shall, upon 
     conviction, be subject to a criminal sanction under 
     subsection (b) if that person knowingly and willfully--
       ``(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, 
     scheme, or device, a material fact concerning whether, for 
     purposes of this Act--
       ``(A) a child is an Indian child; or
       ``(B) a parent is an Indian;
       ``(2)(A) makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
     statement, omission, or representation; or
       ``(B) falsifies a written document knowing that the 
     document contains a false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
     statement or entry relating to a material fact described in 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(3) assists any person in physically removing a child 
     from the United States in order to obstruct the application 
     of this Act.
       ``(b) Criminal Sanctions.--The criminal sanctions for a 
     violation referred to in subsection (a) are as follows:
       ``(1) For an initial violation, a person shall be fined in 
     accordance with section 3571 of title 18, United States Code, 
     or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       ``(2) For any subsequent violation, a person shall be fined 
     in accordance with section 3571 of title 18, United States 
     Code, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Voinovich, Mr.

[[Page 12385]]

        Robb, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Breaux, Mr. 
        Roth, and Mr. Bayh):
  S. 1214. A bill to ensure the liberties of the people by promoting 
federalism, to protect the reserved powers of the States, to impose 
accountability for Federal preemption of State and local laws, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, 
with instructions that if one committee reports, the other committee 
has 30 days to report or be discharged.


               THE FEDERALISM ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1999

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the 
``Federalism Accountability Act,'' a bill to promote and preserve 
principles of federalism. Federalism raises two fundamental questions 
that policy makers should answer: What should government be doing? And 
what level of government should do it? Everything else flows from them. 
That's why federalism is at the heart of our Democracy.
  The Founders created a dual system of governance for America, 
dividing power between the Federal Government and the States. The Tenth 
Amendment makes clear that States retain all governmental power not 
granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution. The Founders 
intended that the State and Federal governments would check each 
other's encroachment on individual rights. As Alexander Hamilton stated 
in the Federalist Papers, No. 28:

       Power being almost always the rival of power, the general 
     government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations 
     of the state governments, and these will have the same 
     disposition towards the general government. The people, by 
     throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make 
     it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they 
     can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.

  The structure of our constitutional system assumes that the states 
will maintain a sovereign status independent of the national 
government. At the same time, the Supremacy Clause states that Federal 
laws made pursuant to the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the 
land. The ``Federalism Accountability Act'' is intended to require 
careful thought and accountability when we reconcile the competing 
principles embodied in the Tenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. 
Congress and the Executive Branch should not lightly exercise the 
powers conferred by the Supremacy Clause without also shouldering 
responsibility. As the Supreme Court has been signaling in recent 
decisions, where the authority exists, the democratic branches of the 
Federal Government should make the primary decisions whether or not to 
limit state power, and they ought to exercise this power unambiguously.
  We need to face the fact that Congress and the Executive Branch too 
often have acted as if they have a general police power to engage in 
any issue, no matter how local. Both Congress and the Executive Branch 
have neglected to consider prudential and constitutional limits on 
their powers. We should not forget that even where the Federal 
Government has the constitutional authority to act, state governments 
may be better suited to address certain matters. Congress has a habit 
of preempting State and local law on a large scale, with little thought 
to the consequences. Congress and the White House are ever eager to 
pass federal criminal laws to appear responsive to highly publicized 
events. We are now finding that this often is not only unnecessary and 
unwise, but it also has harmful implications for crime control.
  Too often, federalism principles have been ignored. The General 
Accounting Office reported to our Committee that there has been gross 
noncompliance by the agencies with the executive order on federalism 
that has been law since it was issued by President Reagan in 1987. In a 
review of over 11,000 Federal rules recently issued during a 3-year 
period, GAO found that the agencies had prepared only 5 federalism 
assessments under the federalism order. It is time for legislation to 
ensure that the agencies take such requirements more seriously.
  To be sure, we have made some inroads on federalism. The Supreme 
Court has recently revived federalist doctrines. Congress passed the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to help discourage the wholesale passage 
of new legislative unfunded mandates. Congress also gave the States the 
Safe Drinking Water Act, reduced agency micro-management, and provided 
block grants in welfare, transportation, drug prevention, and--just 
recently--education flexibility. Much of the innovation that has 
improved the country began at the State and local level.
  But unless we really understand that federalism is the foundation of 
our governmental system, these bright achievements will fade. As we 
cross into the 21st century, federalism must constantly illuminate our 
path. Our governmental structure is based on an optimistic belief in 
the power of people and their communities. I share that view. It is my 
hope that the Federalism Accountability Act give a greater voice to 
State and local governments and the people they serve and reinvigorate 
the debate on federalism.
  The ``Federalism Accountability Act'' will promote restraint in the 
exercise of federal power. It establishes a rule of construction 
requiring an explicit statement of congressional or agency intent to 
preempt. Congress would be required to make explicit statements on the 
extent to which bills or joint resolutions are intended to preempt 
State or local law, and if so, an explanation of the reasons for such 
preemption.
  Agencies would designate a federalism officer to implement the 
requirements of this legislation and to serve as a liaison to State and 
local officials. Early in the process of developing rules, Federal 
agencies would be required to notify, consult with, and provide an 
opportunity for meaningful participation by public officials of State 
and local governments. The agency would prepare a federalism assessment 
for rules that have federalism impacts. Each federalism assessment 
would include an analysis of: whether, why, and to what degree the 
Federal rule preempts state law; other significant impacts on State and 
local governments; measures taken by the agency, including the 
consideration of regulatory alternatives, to minimize the impact on 
State and local governments; and the extent of the agency's prior 
consultation with public officials, the nature of their concerns, and 
the extent to which those concerns have been met.
  The legislation also will require the Congressional Budget Office, 
with the help of the Office of Management and Budget and the 
Congressional Research Service, to compile a report on preemptions by 
Federal rules, court decisions, and legislation. I hope this report 
will lead to an informed debate on the appropriate use of preemption to 
reach policy goals.
  Finally, the legislation amends two existing laws to promote 
federalism. First, it amends the Government Performance and Results Act 
of 1993 to clarify that performance measures for State-administered 
grant programs are to be determined in cooperation with public 
officials. Second, it amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995to 
clarify that major new requirements imposed on States under entitlement 
authority are to be scored by CBO as unfunded mandates. It also 
requires that where Congress has capped the Federal share of an 
entitlement program, then the Committee report and the accompanying CBO 
report must analyze whether the legislation includes new flexibility or 
whether there is existing flexibility to offset additional costs.
  Mr. President, this legislation was developed with representatives of 
the ``Big 7'' organizations representing State and local government, 
including the National Governors' Association, the National Conference 
of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National 
League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management 
Association. I am pleased that this legislation is supported by 
Senators Levin, Voinovich, Robb, Cochran, Lincoln, Enzi, Breaux, Roth, 
and

[[Page 12386]]

Bayh. I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1214

       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 ``Federalism Accountability 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Constitution created a strong Federal system, 
     reserving to the States all powers not delegated to the 
     Federal Government;
       (2) preemptive statutes and regulations have at times been 
     an appropriate exercise of Federal powers, and at other times 
     have been an inappropriate infringement on State and local 
     government authority;
       (3) on numerous occasions, Congress has enacted statutes 
     and the agencies have promulgated rules that explicitly 
     preempt State and local government authority and describe the 
     scope of the preemption;
       (4) in addition to statutes and rules that explicitly 
     preempt State and local government authority, many other 
     statutes and rules that lack an explicit statement by 
     Congress or the agencies of their intent to preempt and a 
     clear description of the scope of the preemption have been 
     construed to preempt State and local government authority;
       (5) in the past, the lack of clear congressional intent 
     regarding preemption has resulted in too much discretion for 
     Federal agencies and uncertainty for State and local 
     governments, leaving the presence or scope of preemption to 
     be litigated and determined by the judiciary and sometimes 
     producing results contrary to or beyond the intent of 
     Congress; and
       (6) State and local governments are full partners in all 
     Federal programs administered by those governments.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) promote and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of 
     our Federal system of government;
       (2) set forth principles governing the interpretation of 
     congressional and agency intent regarding preemption of State 
     and local government authority by Federal laws and rules;
       (3) establish an information collection system designed to 
     monitor the incidence of Federal statutory, regulatory, and 
     judicial preemption; and
       (4) recognize the partnership between the Federal 
     Government and State and local governments in the 
     implementation of certain Federal programs.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act the definitions under section 551 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall apply and the term--
       (1) ``local government'' means a county, city, town, 
     borough, township, village, school district, special 
     district, or other political subdivision of a State;
       (2) ``public officials'' means elected State and local 
     government officials and their representative organizations;
       (3) ``State''--
       (A) means a State of the United States and an agency or 
     instrumentality of a State;
       (B) includes the District of Columbia and any territory of 
     the United States, and an agency or instrumentality of the 
     District of Columbia or such territory;
       (C) includes any tribal government and an agency or 
     instrumentality of such government; and
       (D) does not include a local government of a State; and
       (4) ``tribal government'' means an Indian tribe as that 
     term is defined under section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).

     SEC. 5. COMMITTEE OR CONFERENCE REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--The report accompanying any bill or joint 
     resolution of a public character reported from a committee of 
     the Senate or House of Representatives or from a conference 
     between the Senate and the House of Representatives shall 
     contain an explicit statement on the extent to which the bill 
     or joint resolution preempts State or local government law, 
     ordinance, or regulation and, if so, an explanation of the 
     reasons for such preemption. In the absence of a committee or 
     conference report, the committee or conference shall report 
     to the Senate and the House of Representatives a statement 
     containing the information described in this section before 
     consideration of the bill, joint resolution, or conference 
     report.
       (b) Content.--The statement under subsection (a) shall 
     include an analysis of--
       (1) the extent to which the bill or joint resolution 
     legislates in an area of traditional State authority; and
       (2) the extent to which State or local government authority 
     will be maintained if the bill or joint resolution is enacted 
     by Congress.

     SEC. 6. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO PREEMPTION.

       (a) Statutes.--No statute enacted after the effective date 
     of this Act shall be construed to preempt, in whole or in 
     part, any State or local government law, ordinance, or 
     regulation, unless--
       (1) the statute explicitly states that such preemption is 
     intended; or
       (2) there is a direct conflict between such statute and a 
     State or local law, ordinance, or regulation so that the two 
     cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.
       (b) Rules.--No rule promulgated after the effective date of 
     this Act shall be construed to preempt, in whole or in part, 
     any State or local government law, ordinance, or regulation, 
     unless--
       (1)(A) such preemption is authorized by the statute under 
     which the rule is promulgated; and
       (B) the rule, in compliance with section 7, explicitly 
     states that such preemption is intended; or
       (2) there is a direct conflict between such rule and a 
     State or local law, ordinance, or regulation so that the two 
     cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.
       (c) Favorable Construction.--Any ambiguities in this Act, 
     or in any other law of the United States, shall be construed 
     in favor of preserving the authority of the States and the 
     people.

     SEC. 7. AGENCY FEDERALISM ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The head of each agency shall--
       (1) be responsible for implementing this Act; and
       (2) designate an officer (to be known as the federalism 
     officer) to--
       (A) manage the implementation of this Act; and
       (B) serve as a liaison to State and local officials and 
     their designated representatives.
       (b) Notice and Consultation With Potentially Affected State 
     and Local Government.--Early in the process of developing a 
     rule and before the publication of a notice of proposed 
     rulemaking, the agency shall notify, consult with, and 
     provide an opportunity for meaningful participation by public 
     officials of governments that may potentially be affected by 
     the rule for the purpose of identifying any preemption of 
     State or local government authority or other significant 
     federalism impacts that may result from issuance of the rule. 
     If no notice of proposed rulemaking is published, 
     consultation shall occur sufficiently in advance of 
     publication of an interim final rule or final rule to provide 
     an opportunity for meaningful participation.
       (c) Federalism Assessments.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to whatever other actions the 
     federalism officer may take to manage the implementation of 
     this Act, such officer shall identify each proposed, interim 
     final, and final rule having a federalism impact, including 
     each rule with a federalism impact identified under 
     subsection (b), that warrants the preparation of a federalism 
     assessment.
       (2) Preparation.--With respect to each such rule identified 
     by the federalism officer, a federalism assessment, as 
     described in subsection (d), shall be prepared and published 
     in the Federal Register at the time the proposed, interim 
     final, and final rule is published.
       (3) Consideration of assessment.--The agency head shall 
     consider any such assessment in all decisions involved in 
     promulgating, implementing, and interpreting the rule.
       (4) Submission to the office of management and budget.--
     Each federalism assessment shall be included in any 
     submission made to the Office of Management and Budget by an 
     agency for review of a rule.
       (d) Contents.--Each federalism assessment shall include--
       (1) a statement on the extent to which the rule preempts 
     State or local government law, ordinance, or regulation and, 
     if so, an explanation of the reasons for such preemption;
       (2) an analysis of--
       (A) the extent to which the rule regulates in an area of 
     traditional State authority; and
       (B) the extent to which State or local authority will be 
     maintained if the rule takes effect;
       (3) a description of the significant impacts of the rule on 
     State and local governments;
       (4) any measures taken by the agency, including the 
     consideration of regulatory alternatives, to minimize the 
     impact on State and local governments; and
       (5) the extent of the agency's prior consultation with 
     public officials, the nature of their concerns, and the 
     extent to which those concerns have been met.
       (e) Publication.--For any applicable rule, the agency shall 
     include a summary of the federalism assessment prepared under 
     this section in a separately identified part of the statement 
     of basis and purpose for the rule as it is to be published in 
     the Federal Register. The summary shall include a list of the 
     public officials consulted and briefly describe the views of 
     such officials and the agency's response to such views.

     SEC. 8. PERFORMANCE MEASURES.

       Section 1115 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) The head of an agency may not include in any 
     performance plan under this

[[Page 12387]]

     section any agency activity that is a State-administered 
     Federal grant program, unless the performance measures for 
     the activity are determined in cooperation with public 
     officials as defined under section 4 of the Federalism 
     Accountability Act of 1999.''.

     SEC. 9. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PREEMPTION REPORT.

       (a) Office of Management and Budget Information.--Not later 
     than the expiration of the calendar year beginning after the 
     effective date of this Act, and every year thereafter, the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit 
     to the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     information describing interim final rules and final rules 
     issued during the preceding calendar year that preempt State 
     or local government authority.
       (b) Congressional Research Service Information.--Not later 
     than the expiration of the calendar year beginning after the 
     effective date of this Act, and every year thereafter, the 
     Director of the Congressional Research Service shall submit 
     to the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     information describing court decisions issued during the 
     preceding calendar year that preempt State or local 
     government authority.
       (c) Congressional Budget Office Report.--
       (1) In general.--After each session of Congress, the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall prepare a report on the 
     extent of Federal preemption of State or local government 
     authority enacted into law or adopted through judicial or 
     agency interpretation of Federal statutes during the previous 
     session of Congress.
       (2) Content.--The report under paragraph (1) shall 
     contain--
       (A) a list of Federal statutes preempting, in whole or in 
     part, State or local government authority;
       (B) a summary of legislation reported from committee 
     preempting, in whole or in part, State or local government 
     authority;
       (C) a summary of rules of agencies preempting, in whole or 
     in part, State and local government authority; and
       (D) a summary of Federal court decisions on preemption.
       (3) Availability.--The report under this section shall be 
     made available to--
       (A) each committee of Congress;
       (B) each Governor of a State;
       (C) the presiding officer of each chamber of the 
     legislature of each State; and
       (D) other public officials and the public on the Internet.

     SEC. 10. FLEXIBILITY AND FEDERAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATES.

       (a) Definition.--Section 421(5)(B) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(i)(I) would'' and inserting ``(i) 
     would'';
       (2) by striking ``(II) would'' and inserting ``(ii)(I) 
     would''; and
       (3) by striking ``(ii) the'' and inserting ``(II) the''.
       (b) Committee Reports.--Section 423(d) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658b(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(C) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) if the bill or joint resolution would make the 
     reduction specified in section 421(5)(B)(ii)(I), a statement 
     of how the committee specifically intends the States to 
     implement the reduction and to what extent the legislation 
     provides additional flexibility, if any, to offset the 
     reduction.''.
       (c) Congressional Budget Office Estimates.--Section 424(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Additional flexibility information.--The Director 
     shall include in the statement submitted under this 
     subsection, in the case of legislation that makes changes as 
     described in section 421(5)(B)(ii)(I)--
       ``(A) if no additional flexibility is provided in the 
     legislation, a description of whether and how the States can 
     offset the reduction under existing law; or
       ``(B) if additional flexibility is provided in the 
     legislation, whether the resulting savings would offset the 
     reductions in that program assuming the States fully 
     implement that additional flexibility.''.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am happy to join Senators Thompson and 
Voinovich and a bipartisan group of our colleagues in introducing the 
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999. The bill would require an 
explicit statement of Federal preemption in Federal legislation in 
order for such preemption to occur unless there exists a direct 
conflict between the Federal law and a State or local law which cannot 
be reconciled. Enactment of this bill would close the back door of 
implied Federal preemption and put the responsibility for determining 
whether or not State or local governments should be preempted back in 
Congress, where it belongs. The bill would also institute procedures to 
ensure that, in issuing new regulations, federal agencies respect State 
and local authority.
  Mr. President, we want to ensure that the federal government works in 
partnership with our State and local government colleagues. One way of 
making sure this happens is that preemption occurs only when Congress 
makes a conscious decision to preempt and it is amply clear to all 
parties that preemption will occur. In 1991, I sponsored a bill, S. 
2080, to clarify when preemption does and does not occur. I have since 
sponsored two similar bills. When I introduced S. 2080, I noted that 
``state and local officials have become increasingly concerned with the 
number of instances in which State and local laws have been preempted 
by Federal law--not because Congress has done so explicitly, but 
because the courts have implied such preemption. Since 1789, Congress 
has enacted approximately 350 laws specifically preempting State and 
local authority. Half of these laws have been enacted in the last 20 
years. These figures, however, do not touch upon the extensive Federal 
preemption of State and local authority which has occurred as a result 
of judicial interpretation of congressional intent, when Congress' 
intention to preempt has not been explicitly stated in law. When 
Congress is unclear about its intent to preempt, the courts must then 
decide whether or not preemption was intended and, if so, to what 
extent.''
  In the ensuing time, there have been some changes, such as the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which have strengthened the partnership 
between the federal, state and local governments. Unfortunately, in the 
big picture, there has been little or no evidence of a change in the 
trends that I attempted to address when I introduced S. 2080 in 1991. 
Sometimes we enact a law and it is clear as to the scope of the 
intended preemption. Just as often, we are not clear, or a court takes 
language that appeared to be clear and decides that it is not, and 
construes it in favor of preemption. Similarly, agencies take actions 
that are determined to be preemptive whether their language is clear or 
not.
  Article VI of the Constitution, the supremacy clause, states that 
Federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution ``shall be the supreme 
law of the land.'' In its most basic sense, this clause means that a 
State law is negated or preempted when it is in conflict with a 
constitutionally enacted Federal law. A significant body of case law 
has been developed to arrive at standards by which to judge whether or 
not Congress intended to preempt State or local authority--standards 
which are subjective and have not resulted in a consistent and 
predictable doctrine in resolving preemption questions.
  If we in Congress want Federal law to prevail, we should be clear 
about that. If we want the States to have discretion to go beyond 
Federal requirements, we should be clear about that. If, for example, 
we set a floor in a Federal statute, but are silent on actions which 
meet but then go beyond the Federal requirement, State and local 
governments should be able to act as they deem appropriate. State and 
local governments should not have to wait to see what they can and 
cannot do. Our bill would allow tougher State and local laws given 
congressional silence.
  In addition, the bill contains a requirement that agencies notify, 
and consult with, state and local governments and their representative 
organizations during the development of rules, and publish proposed and 
final federalism assessments along with proposed and final rules. Mr. 
President, itshould not be necessary to enact legislation to accomplish 
these things. Federal agencies should never issue rules without having 
the best and most complete information possible. Our State and local 
governments are ready, willing, and able to provide their expertise on 
how Federal rules will impact those governments' ability to get

[[Page 12388]]

their jobs done. Common sense dictates that they be notified and 
consulted before the federal government regulates in a way that weakens 
or eliminates the ability of State and local governments to do their 
jobs, or duplicates their efforts.
  The current Administration and previous ones have recognized the 
value of having federal agencies consult with State and local 
governments. However, as was amply demonstrated by a recent GAO report, 
Executive Order requirements for federalism assessments have been 
ignored. The bill would correct this noncompliance by the Executive 
Branch, and ensure that independent agencies, as well, will engage in 
such consultation and publish assessments along with rules.
  Not only will the compilation and issuance of federalism assessments 
force the agencies to think through what they are doing, they will 
bolster the confidence of the public and regulated entities in the 
regulatory process by assuring them that their governments are acting 
in concert and avoiding conflicting or duplicative requirements.
  Our legislation also requires the Congressional Budget Office, with 
the assistance of the Congressional Research Service, at the end of 
each Congress, to compile a report on the number of statutory and 
judicially interpreted preemptions. This will constitute the first time 
such a complete report has been done, and the information will be 
valuable to the debate regarding the appropriate use of preemption to 
reach Federal goals.
  Mr. President, legislation to clarify when preemption occurs and 
otherwise strengthen the intergovernmental relationship has been 
endorsed by the major state and local government organizations. I would 
like to thank Senators Thompson and Voinovich and their staffs for 
their hard work in this area.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, 
the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999, along with my colleagues 
Senator Fred Thompson and Senator Carl Levin. Our legislation is the 
culmination of months of bipartisan effort that we believe will restore 
the fundamental principles of federalism.
  In my 33 years of public service, at every level of government, I 
have seen first hand the relationship of the federal government with 
respect to state and local government. The nature of that relationship 
has molded my passion for the issue of federalism and the need to 
spell-out the appropriate role of the federal government with respect 
to our state and local governments. It is why I vowed that when I was 
elected to the Senate, I would work to find ways in which the federal 
government can be a better partner with these levels of government.
  I have long been concerned with the federal government becoming 
involved in matters and issues which I believe are best handled by 
state and local governments. I also have been concerned about the 
tendency of the federal government to preempt our state and local 
governments and mandate new responsibilities without the funding to pay 
for them.
  In a speech before the Volunteers of the National Archives in 1986 
regarding thee relationship of the Constitution with America's cities 
and the evolution of federalism, I brought to the attention of the 
audience my observations since my early days in government regarding 
the course American government had been taking:

       We have seen the expansion of the federal government into 
     new, non-traditional domestic policy areas. We have 
     experienced a tremendous increase in the proclivity of 
     Washington both to preempt state and local authority and to 
     mandate actions on state and local governments. The 
     cumulative effect of a series of actions by the Congress, the 
     Executive Branch and the U.S. Supreme Court have caused some 
     legal scholars to observe that while constitutional 
     federalism is alive in scholarly treatises, it has expired as 
     a practical political reality.

  We have made great progress since I gave that speech more than a 
dozen years go.
  An outstanding article last year written by Carl Tubbesing, the 
deputy executive director of the National Council of State 
Legislatures, in State Legislatures magazine, outlined what he called 
the five ``hallmarks of devolution''--legislation in the 1990's that 
changed the face of the federal-state-local government partnership and 
reversed the decades long trend toward federal centralization.
  These bills are the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Safe Drinking 
Water Reform Act Amendments, Welfare Reform, Medicaid reforms such as 
elimination of the Boren amendment, and the establishment of the 
Children's Health Insurance Program.
  Also, just this year, Congress has passed and the President has 
signed into law two important pieces of legislation which enhance the 
state, local and federal partnership. Those initiatives are the 
Education Flexibility Act, which gives our states and school districts 
the freedom to use their federal funds for identified education 
priorities, and the Anti-Tobacco Recoupment provision in the 
Supplemental Appropriations bill that prevents the federal government 
from taking any portion of the $246 billion in tobacco settlement funds 
from the states.
  Although these achievements have helped revive federalism, it is 
clear that state and local governments still need protection from 
federal encroachment in state and local affairs. It is equally clear 
that the federal government needs to do more to be better partners with 
our state and local governments. As Congress is less eager to impose 
unfunded mandates, largely because of the commitments we won through 
the Unfunded Mandates law, there is a growing interest in imposing 
policy preemptions. The proposed federal moratorium on all state and 
local taxes on Internet commerce is just one striking example that 
could have a devastating effect on the ability of States and localities 
to serve their citizens.
  The danger of this growing trend toward federal preemption is the 
reason the Federalism Accountability Act is so important. The 
legislation makes Congress and federal agencies clear and accountable 
when enacting laws and rules that preempt State and local authority. It 
also directs the courts to err on the side of state sovereignty when 
interpreting vague Federal rules and statutes where the intent to 
preempt state authority is unclear.
  I am particularly gratified that this legislation addresses a 
misinterpretation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act as it applies to 
large entitlement programs. The Federalism Accountability Act clarifies 
that major new requirements imposed on States under entitlement 
authority are to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office as 
unfunded mandates. It also requires that where Congress has capped the 
Federal share of an entitlement program, the accompanying committee and 
CBO reports must analyze whether the legislation includes new 
flexibility or whether there is existing flexibility to offset 
additional costs incurred by the States. This important ``fix'' to the 
Unfunded Mandates law is long overdue and I am pleased we are including 
it in our federalism bill.
  The Federalism Accountability Act is a welcome and needed step toward 
protecting our States and communities against interference from 
Washington. It builds upon the gains we have already made in restoring 
the balance between the Federal Government and the States envisioned by 
the Framers of our Constitution. I am proud to have played a role in 
crafting it, and I hope all my colleagues will lend their support to 
this worthy legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1215. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish headstones or markers for 
marked graves of, or to otherwise commemorate, certain individuals; to 
the Committee on Veterans Affairs.


                    veterans headstones and markers

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will 
entitle each deceased veteran to an official headstone or grave marker 
in recognition of that veteran's contribution to this nation. Currently 
the VA provides

[[Page 12389]]

a headstone or grave marker upon request only if the veteran's grave is 
unmarked. This provision dates back tothe Civil War when this nation 
wanted to ensure that none of its soldiers was buried in an unmarked 
grave. Of course, in this day and age, a grave rarely goes unmarked, 
and the official headstone or marker instead serves specifically to 
recognize a deceased veteran's service.
  Unfortunately, this provision has not changed with the times. When 
families go ahead and purchase a private headstone, as nearly every 
family does these days, they bar themselves from receiving the 
government headstone or marker. On the other hand, some families who 
happen to be aware of this provision request the official headstone or 
marker prior to placing a private marker. As a result, the grave of 
their veteran bears both the private marker and the government marker.
  All deceased veterans deserve to have their service recognized, not 
just those whose families make their requests prior to purchasing a 
private marker. The Department of Veterans Affairs is well aware of 
this anomaly. VA officials receive thousands of complaints each year 
from families who are upset about this law's arbitrary effect.
  A constituent of mine, Thomas Guzzo, first brought this matter to my 
attention last year. His late father, Agostino Guzzo, served in the 
Philippines and was honorably discharged from the Army in 1947. Today, 
Agostino Guzzo is interred in a mausoleum at Cedar Hill Cemetery in 
Hartford, but the mausoleum bears no reference to his service because 
of the current law. Like so many families, the Guzzo family bought its 
own marker and subsequently found that it could not request an official 
VA marker.
  Thomas Guzzo then contacted me, and I attempted to straighten out 
what I thought to be a bureaucratic mix-up. I was surprised to realize 
that Thomas Guzzo's difficulties resulted not from some glitch in the 
system, but rather from the law itself. In the end, I wrote to the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding Thomas Guzzo's very reasonable 
request. The Secretary responded that his hands were tied as a result 
of the obscure law. Furthermore, the Secretary's response indicated 
that, even if a grave marker could be provided for Thomas Guzzo, that 
marker could not be placed on a cemetery bench or tree that would be 
dedicated to the elder Guzzo. The law prevented the Department from 
providing a marker for placement anywhere but the grave site and thus 
prevents families from recognizing their veteran's service as they 
wish.
  This bill is a modest means of solving a massive problem. It has been 
scored by the Congressional Budget Office at less than three million 
dollars per year. That is a small price to pay to recognize our 
deceased veterans and put their families at ease. If a family wishes to 
dedicate a tree or bench to their deceased veteran, this bill allows 
the family to place the marker on those memorials. We should give these 
markers to the families when they request them, and we should allow 
each family to recognize their deceased veteran in their own way.
  This bill allows the Department of Veterans Affairs to better serve 
veterans and their families. I stand with thousands of veterans' 
families and look forward to the day when this bill's changes will be 
written into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 1216. A bill to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to 
establish a Marine Mammal Rescue Grant Program, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                       MARINE MAMMAL RESCUE FUND

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to establish the Marine Mammal Rescue Fund. This legislation will amend 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 by establishing a grant 
program that Marine Mammal Stranding Centers and Networks can use to 
support the important work they do in responding to marine mammal 
strandings and mortality events.
  Since the enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, 47 
facilities nationally have been authorized to handle the rehabilitation 
of stranded marine mammals and over 400 individuals and facilities 
across the country are part of an authorized National Stranding Network 
that responds to strandings and deaths.
  Mr. President, these facilities and individuals provide our country 
with a variety of critical services, including rescue, housing, care, 
rehabilitation, transport, and tracking of marine mammals and sea 
turtles, as well as assistance in investigating mortality events, 
tissue sampling, and removal of carcasses. They also work very closely 
with the National Marine Fisheries Service, a variety of environmental 
groups, and with state and local officials in rescuing, tracking and 
protecting marine mammals and sea turtles on the Endangered Species 
List. Yet they rely primarily on private donations, fundraisers, and 
foundation grants for their operating budgets. They receive no federal 
assistance, and a very few of them get some financial assistance from 
their states.
  As an example, Mr. President, the Marine Mammal Stranding Center 
located in Brigantine in my home state of New Jersey was formed in 
1978. To date, it has responded to over 1,500 calls for stranded 
whales, dolphins, seals and sea turtles that have washed ashore on New 
Jersey's beaches. It has also been called on to assist in strandings as 
far away as Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Yet, their operating 
budget for the past year was just under $300,000, with less than 6 
percent ($17,000) coming from the state. Although the Stranding Center 
in Brigantine has never turned down a request for assistance with a 
stranding, trying to maintain that level of responsiveness and service 
becomes increasingly more difficult each year.
  Virtually all the money raised by the Center, Mr. President, goes to 
pay for the feeding, care, and transportation of rescued marine 
mammals, rehabilitation (including medical care), insurance, day-to-day 
operation of the Center, and staff payroll. Too many times the staff 
are called upon to pay out-of-pocket expenses in travel, subsistence, 
and quarters while responding to strandings or mortality events.
  Mr. President, this should not happen. These people are performing a 
great service to Americans across the country, and they are being asked 
to pay their own way as well. And when responding to mortality events, 
Mr. President, they are performing work that protects public health and 
helps assess the potential danger to human life and to other marine 
mammals.
  I feel very strongly that we should be providing some support to the 
people who are doing this work. To that end, Mr. President, the 
legislation I am introducing would create the Marine Mammal Rescue Fund 
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It would authorize funding at 
$5,000,000.00, annually, over the next five years, for grants to Marine 
Mammal Stranding Centers and Stranding Network Members authorized by 
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Grants would not exceed 
$100,000.00 per year, and would require a 25 percent non-federal 
funding matching requirement.
  I am proud to offer this legislation on behalf of the Stranding 
Centers across the country, and look forward to working with my 
colleagues to ensure its passage. 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. 1216

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

     SECTION 1. MARINE MAMMAL RESCUE GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title IV of the Marine Mammal Protection 
     Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1421a et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 408 and 409 as sections 409 
     and 410, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 407 the following:

     ``SEC. 408. MARINE MAMMAL RESCUE GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:

[[Page 12390]]

       ``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the 
     Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration.
       ``(2) Chief.--The term `Chief' means the Chief of the 
     Office.
       ``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.
       ``(4) Stranding center.--The term `stranding center' means 
     a center with respect to which the Secretary has entered into 
     an agreement referred to in section 403 to take marine 
     mammals under section 109(h)(1) in response to a stranding.
       ``(b) Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary, acting through the Chief, 
     shall conduct a grant program to be known as the Marine 
     Mammal Rescue Grant Program, to provide grants to eligible 
     stranding centers and eligible stranding network participants 
     for the recovery or treatment of marine mammals and the 
     collection of health information relating to marine mammals.
       ``(2) Application.--In order to receive a grant under this 
     section, a stranding center or stranding network participant 
     shall submit an application in such form and manner as the 
     Secretary, acting through the Chief, may prescribe.
       ``(3) Eligibility criteria.--The Secretary, acting through 
     the Chief and in consultation with stranding network 
     participants, shall establish criteria for eligibility for 
     participation in the grant program under this section.
       ``(4) Limitation.--The amount of a grant awarded under this 
     section shall not exceed $100,000.
       ``(5) Matching requirement.--The non-Federal share for an 
     activity conducted by a grant recipient under the grant 
     program under this section shall be 25 percent of the cost of 
     that activity.
       ``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Commerce 
     to carry out the grant program under this section, $5,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first 
     section of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 
     1027) is amended by striking the items relating to sections 
     408 and 409 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 408. Marine Mammal Rescue Grant Program.
``Sec. 409. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 410. Definitions.''.

                          ____________________



                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 14

  At the request of Mr. Coverdell, the name of the Senator from Arizona 
[Mr. McCain] was added as a cosponsor of S. 14, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the use of education individual 
retirement accounts, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 87

  At the request of Mr. Bunning, the name of the Senator from Kentucky 
[Mr. McConnell] was added as a cosponsor of S. 87, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the exclusion from gross 
income for foster care payments shall also apply to payments by 
qualifying placement agencies, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 216

  At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the name of the Senator from New York 
[Mr. Schumer] was added as a cosponsor of S. 216, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on the use of 
foreign tax credits under the alternative minimum tax.


                                 S. 281

  At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Vermont 
[Mr. Jeffords] was added as a cosponsor of S. 281, a bill to amend the 
Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify that forced or indentured labor includes 
forced or indentured child labor.


                                 S. 285

  At the request of Mr. McCain, the names of the Senator from 
Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] and the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] 
were added as cosponsors of S. 285, a bill to amend title II of the 
Social Security Act to restore the link between the maximum amount of 
earnings by blind individuals permitted without demonstrating ability 
to engage in substantial gainful activity and the exempt amount 
permitted in determining excess earnings under the earnings test.


                                 S. 296

  At the request of Mr. Frist, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota [Mr. Daschle] was added as a cosponsor of S. 296, a bill to 
provide for continuation of the Federal research investment in a 
fiscally sustainable way, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 343

  At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
Inouye] 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 
Colorado [Mr. Allard] 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. 459

  At the request of Mr. Breaux, the names of the Senator from Nevada 
[Mr. Bryan] and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] were added 
as cosponsors of S. 459, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to increase the State ceiling on private activity bonds.


                                 S. 484

  At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Illinois 
[Mr. Fitzgerald] was added as a cosponsor of S. 484, a bill to provide 
for the granting of refugee status in the United States to nationals of 
certain foreign countries in which American Vietnam War POW/MIAs or 
American Korean War POW/MIAs may be present, if those nationals assist 
in the return to the United States of those POW/MIAs alive.


                                 S. 566

  At the request of Mr. Lugar, the names of the Senator from Oregon 
(Mr. Smith) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) 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. 600

  At the request of Mr. Wellstone, the name of the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) was added as a cosponsor of S. 600, a bill to 
combat the crime of international trafficking and to protect the rights 
of victims.


                                 S. 632

  At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr. 
Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 632, a bill to provide 
assistance for poison prevention and to stabilize the funding of 
regional poison control centers.


                                 S. 654

  At the request of Mr. Wellstone, the name of the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 654, a bill 
to strengthen the rights of workers to associate, organize and strike, 
and for other purposes.


                                 S. 659

  At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the name of the Senator from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Chafee) was added as a cosponsor of S. 659, a bill to amend 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require pension plans to provide 
adequate notice to individuals whose future benefit accruals are being 
significantly reduced, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 670

  At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 670, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the exclusion from gross 
income for foster care payments shall also apply to payments by 
qualifying placement agencies, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 864

  At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from West 
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) were 
added as cosponsors of S. 864, a bill to designate April 22 as Earth 
Day.


                                 S. 866

  At the request of Mr. Conrad, the names of the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Edwards) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) were 
added as cosponsors of S. 866, a bill to direct

[[Page 12391]]

the Secretary of Health and Human Services to revise existing 
regulations concerning the conditions of participation for hospitals 
and ambulatory surgical centers under the medicare program relating to 
certified registered nurse anesthetists' services to make the 
regulations consistent with State supervision requirements.


                                 S. 872

  At the request of Mr. Voinovich, the name of the Senator from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 872, a bill 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, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 897

  At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Daschle) was added as a cosponsor of S. 897, a bill to 
providematching grants for the construction, renovation and repair of 
school facilities in areas affected by Federal activities, and for 
other purposes.


                                 S. 980

  At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Montana 
[Mr. Burns] was added as a cosponsor of S. 980, a bill to promote 
access to health care services in rural areas.


                                S. 1010

  At the request of Mr. Jeffords, the name of the Senator from 
Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1010, a bill 
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a medical 
innovation tax credit for clinical testing research expenses 
attributable to academic medical centers and other qualified hospital 
research organizations.


                                S. 1053

  At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from North 
Carolina [Mr. Helms] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1053, a bill to 
amend the Clean Air Act to incorporate certain provisions of the 
transportation conformity regulations, as in effect on March 1, 1999.


                                S. 1070

  At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. 
Lugar] 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. 1084

  At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota [Mr. Johnson] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1084, a bill to 
amend the Communications Act of 1934 to protect consumers from the 
unauthorized switching of their long-distance service.


                                S. 1150

  At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Mississippi 
[Mr. Cochran] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1150, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to more accurately codify the depreciable 
life of semiconductor manufacturing equipment.


                                S. 1166

  At the request of Mr. Nickles, the name of the Senator from Alaska 
[Mr. Murkowski] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1166, a bill to amend 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that natural gas gathering 
lines are 7-year property for purposes of depreciation.


                                S. 1194

  At the request of Mr. Hutchinson, the name of the Senator from 
Colorado [Mr. Allard] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1194, a bill to 
prohibit discrimination in contracting on federally funded projects on 
the basis of certain labor policies of potential contractors.


                          Senate Resolution 59

  At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the names of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack], and 
the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] were added as cosponsors of Senate 
Resolution 59, a bill designating both July 2, 1999, and July 2, 2000, 
as ``National Literacy Day.''

                          ____________________



  SENATE RESOLUTION 115--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING 
      UNITED STATES CITIZENS KILLED IN TERRORIST ATTACKS IN ISRAEL

  Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
Kyl, and Mr. Specter) submitted the following resolution; which was 
referred to the committee on foreign relations:

                              S. Res. 115

       Whereas the Palestinian Authority, in formal commitments 
     made under the Oslo peace process, repeatedly has pledged to 
     wage a relentless campaign against terrorism;
       Whereas at least 12 United States citizens have been killed 
     in terrorist attacks in Israel since the Oslo process began 
     in 1993, and full cooperation from the Palestinian Authority 
     regarding these cases has not been forthcoming;
       Whereas at least 280 Israeli citizens have died in 
     terrorist attacks since the Oslo process began, a greater 
     loss of life than in the 15 years prior to 1993;
       Whereas the Palestinian Authority has released terrorist 
     suspects repeatedly, and suspects implicated in the murder of 
     United States citizens have found shelter in the Palestinian 
     Authority, even serving in the Palestinian police force;
       Whereas the Palestinian Authority uses official 
     institutions such as the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation 
     to train Palestinian children to hate the Jewish people; and
       Whereas terrorist violence likely will undermine a genuine 
     peace settlement and jeopardize the security of Israel and 
     United States citizens in that country as long as incitement 
     against the Jewish people and the State of Israel continues: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) it is the solemn duty of the United States and every 
     Administration to bring to justice those suspected of 
     murdering United States citizens in acts of terrorism;
       (2) the Palestinian Authority has not taken adequate steps 
     to undermine and eradicate terrorism and has not cooperated 
     fully in detaining and prosecuting suspects implicated in the 
     murder of United States citizens;
       (3) Yasser Arafat and senior Palestinian leadership 
     continue to create an environment conducive to terrorism by 
     releasing terrorist suspects and inciting violence against 
     Israel and the United States; and
       (4) United States assistance to the Palestinian Authority 
     should be conditioned on full cooperation in combating 
     terrorist violence and full cooperation in investigating and 
     prosecuting terrorist suspects involved in the murder of 
     United States citizens.

                          ____________________



   SENATE RESOLUTION 116--CONDEMNING THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF 13 
                   IRANIAN JEWS ACCUSED OF ESPIONAGE

  Mr. FITZGERALD submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

                              S. Res. 116

       Whereas 13 Iranian Jews were arrested on accusation of 
     espionage, and have been detained since April, 1999;
       Whereas the United States and Israel have dismissed the 
     charges as false, denying any connection to the detainees;
       Whereas Germany, as the current president of the European 
     Union, has expressed its deep concern at the arrest of the 13 
     Iranian Jews, and Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister, 
     has expressed his deep skepticism over the charges, and has 
     called for the release of the 13 detainees;
       Whereas the 13 detainees are rabbis and religious teachers, 
     living in a Jewish community in a southern province of Iran, 
     with no apparent ties to any type of espionage;
       Whereas more than half the Iranian Jews have been forced to 
     leave the country, and five Jews have been executed by 
     Iranian authorities over the past five years, without 
     receiving a trial;
       Whereas Iran hanged two people convicted of spying for 
     Israel and the U.S. in 1997, which implies impending danger 
     for these 13 prisoners;
       Whereas espionage is punishable by death in Iran:
       Now, therefore be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) condemns the arrest and detention of 13 Iranian Jews 
     accused of spying for the United States and Israel; and
       (2) calls upon the Iranian authorities to release these 
     individuals immediately and without harm.
       (3) calls upon the Iranian authorities to provide 
     internationally accepted legal protections to all its 
     citizens, regardless of their status or position.

 Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, today I rise to submit a 
resolution condemning the arrest and detention of 13 Iranian Jews 
accused of espionage.
  In April of this year, 13 rabbis and religious leaders were arrested 
at their

[[Page 12392]]

homes in the Iranian cities of Shiraz and Isfahan. According to the 
Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, the names of the detainees are David 
Tefilin, Doni Tefilin, Javid Beth Jacob, Farhad Seleh, Nasser Levi 
Haim, Asher Zadmehror, Navid Balazadeh, Nejat Beroukkhim, Aarash 
Beroukhim, Farzad Kashi, Faramaz Kashi, Shahrokh Pak Nahad, and Ramin 
(last name unknown). They have remained imprisoned since the time of 
their arrest, without charge, under accusation of spying for the United 
States and Israel, although they have no apparent ties to any type of 
espionage. Both the United States and Israel have dismissed the charges 
as false, denying any connection to the detainees. In addition to the 
United States, Israel, and Germany have denounced these arrests and 
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as well as Joschka Fischer, the 
German Foreign Minister, have called for their release.
  Iran's treatment of its Jewish residents in recent years has been 
deplorable, forcing half of its Jews to flee the country. In the past 
five years alone, five Jews have been executed by Iranian authorities, 
without the fundamental right of a trial. In 1997, Iran hanged two 
people convicted of spying,an event that emphasizes the extreme 
importance of timely action on the matter of these 13 detainees. 
Espionage is punishable by death in Iran, so the lives of these 13 
people need our support and protection. The Iranian government's 
actions are deplorable and fly in the face of justice. This resolution 
condemns the arrests and calls upon Iran to release these 13 people 
immediately and without harm.

                          ____________________



SENATE RESOLUTION 117--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE 
 UNITED STATES SHARE OF ANY RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES UNDERTAKEN IN THE 
     BALKANS REGION OF EUROPE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ARMED CONFLICT AND 
  ATROCITIES THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA 
                          SINCE MARCH 24, 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

                              S. Res. 117

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. SENSE OF SENATE ON UNITED STATES SHARE OF 
                   RECONSTRUCTION COSTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the United States share 
     of the total costs of reconstruction measures carried out in 
     the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or contiguous countries, 
     on account of the armed conflict and atrocities that have 
     occurred in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since March 
     24, 1999, should not exceed the United States percentage 
     share of the common-funded budgets of NATO.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this resolution:
       (1) Common-funded budgets of NATO.--The term ``common-
     funded budgets of NATO'' means--
       (A) the Military Budget, the Security Investment Program, 
     and the Civil Budget of NATO; and
       (B) any successor or additional account or program of NATO.
       (2) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.--The term ``Federal 
     Republic of Yugoslavia'' means the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and includes Kosovo.
       (3) United states percentage share of the common-funded 
     budgets of nato.--The term ``United States percentage share 
     of the common-funded budgets of NATO'' means the percentage 
     that the total of all United States payments during a fiscal 
     year to the common-funded budgets of NATO represent to the 
     total amounts payable by all NATO members to those budgets 
     during that fiscal year.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I submit the Kosovo Reconstruction 
Fair Share Resolution of 1999.
  This resolution's goal is to express the sense of the Senate that the 
United States should not end up paying more than its fair share of the 
Kosovo reconstruction effort.
  Specifically, the Kosovo Reconstruction Fair Share Resolution states 
that the United States' share of the costs of reconstructing Kosovo and 
the surrounding region following the conflict in the Balkans should not 
exceed the United States' portion of NATO's three ``Common Funds 
Burdensharing'' budgets.
  Our contributions to NATO come in two basic forms. The first and most 
significant portion by far comprises our direct deployment of troops 
and equipment. Over the years America has contributed the lion's share 
of the troops and equipment.
  America's disproportionally heavy burden has continued into the late 
1990s as the War in Kosovo clearly demonstrated. The vast majority of 
the fighting needed to wage the war in Kosovo was done in large part by 
American air power. We should not have to also carry the burden in the 
Kosovo reconstruction effort.
  That's why the Kosovo Reconstruction Fair Share Resolution states 
that America's portion of the reconstruction costs should not exceed 
the portion we contribute to NATO's three Common Fund Accounts, which 
is smaller than our contributions of troops and equipment.
  Factors considered when determining each country's portion includes 
its respective Gross Domestic Product and other considerations. Over 
the past three decades the U.S. portion has declined, as it should.
  For the years 1996 through 1998, America's contribution to these 
three NATO common funds averaged around 23 percent according to the 
Congressional Research Service. Accordingly, this resolution calls for 
capping our portion of the reconstruction costs at the same level of 23 
percent.
  In light of the fact that we carried the vast majority of the burden 
in ending the fighting I think that this is still too much. Perhaps 10 
percent is a fairer share. It is time for our European allies to do 
their fair share.
  Following World War Two, a war that would not have been won without 
America, the American people invested in the Marshall Plan. The 
Marshall Plan was vital in the effort to rebuild Europe from the ashes 
of WWII. Fifty years later we won the Cold War. Now, just yesterday, we 
put an end to the fighting in Kosovo. It is time for our NATO European 
allies to shoulder the financial burden to rebuild a region of their 
own continent that has been ravaged by war.
  The Kosovo Reconstruction Fair Share Resolution indicates that 
America will not pay more than our fair share. I urge my colleagues to 
support passage of this legislation.

                          ____________________



                          AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

                                 ______
                                 

                                Y2K ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       EDWARDS AMENDMENT NO. 619

  Mr. EDWARDS proposed an amendment to amendment No. 608 proposed by 
Mr. McCain 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 relating to processing data that 
includes a 2-digit expression of the year's date; as follows:

       Strike Section 12 and insert the following:

     ``SEC. 12. DAMAGES IN TORT CLAIMS.

       ``A party to a Y2K action making a tort claim may only 
     recover for economic losses to the extent allowed under 
     applicable state or federal law in effect on January 1, 
     1999.''.
                                 ______
                                 

                       EDWARDS AMENDMENT NO. 620

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

       On page 7, line 17, after ``capacity'' strike ``.'' and 
     insert:
       ``; and
       ``(D) does not include an action in which the plaintiff's 
     alleged harm resulted from an actual or potential Y2K failure 
     of a product placed without reasonable care into the stream 
     of commerce after January 1, 1999, or to a claim or defense 
     related to an actual or potential Y2K failure of a product 
     placed without reasonable care into the stream of commerce 
     after January 1, 1999. However, Section 7 of this Act shall 
     apply to such actions.''
                                 ______
                                 

                        BOXER AMENDMENT NO. 621

  Mrs. BOXER proposed an amendment to amendment No. 608 proposed by Mr.

[[Page 12393]]

McCain to the bill, S. 96, 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                        INHOFE AMENDMENT NO. 622

  Mr. GORTON (for Mr. Inhofe) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 96, 
supra; as follows:

       On page 11, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
       (6) Application to actions brought by a governmental 
     entity.--
       (1) In general.--To the extent provided in this subsection, 
     this Act shall apply to anaction 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 15 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.
       (7) Expiration of Defense.--The Y2K upset defense may not 
     be asserted for a Y2K upset occurring after June 30, 2000.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . CREDIT PROTECTION FROM YEAR 2000 FAILURES.

       (a) In General.--No person who transacts business on 
     matters directly or indirectly affecting mortgages, credit 
     accounts, banking, or other financial transactions shall 
     cause or permit a foreclosure, default, or other adverse 
     action against any other person as a result of the improper 
     or incorrect transmission or inability to cause transaction 
     to occur, which is caused directly or indirectly by an actual 
     or potential Y2K failure that results in an inability to 
     accurately or timely process any information or data, 
     including data regarding payments and transfers.
       (b) Scope.--The prohibition of such adverse action to 
     enforce obligations referred to in subsection (a) includes 
     but is not limited to mortgages, contracts, landlord-tenant 
     agreements, consumer credit obligations, utilities, and 
     banking transactions.
       (c) Adverse Credit Information.--The prohibition on adverse 
     action in subsection (a) includes the entry of any negative 
     credit information to any credit reporting agency, if the 
     negative credit information is due directly or indirectly by 
     an actual or potential disruption of the proper processing of 
     financial responsibilities and information, or the inability 
     of the consumer to cause payments to be made to creditors 
     where such inability is due directly or indirectly to an 
     actual or potential Y2K failure.
       (d) Actions May Resume After Problem Is Fixed.--No 
     enforcement or other adverse action prohibited by subsection 
     (a) shall resume until the obligor has a reasonable time 
     after the full restoration of the ability to regularly 
     receive and dispense data necessary to perform the financial 
     transaction required to fulfill the obligation.
       (e) Section Does Not Apply to Non-Y2K-Related Problems.--
     This section shall not affect transactions upon which a 
     default has occurred prior to a Y2K failure that disrupts 
     financial or data transfer operations of either party.
       (f) Enforcement of Obligations Merely Tolled.--This section 
     delays but does not prevent the enforcement of financial 
     obligations.
                                 ______
                                 

                       SESSIONS AMENDMENT NO. 623

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

       At an appropriate place, add the following section:

     SEC.  . ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE ULTIMATE ISSUE IN STATE COURTS.

       Any party to a Y2K action in a State court in a State that 
     has not adopted a rule of evidence substantially similar to 
     Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence may introduce in 
     such action evidence that would be admissible if Rule 704 
     applied in that jurisdiction.
                                 ______
                                 

                   GREGG (AND BOND) AMENDMENT NO. 624

  Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Bond) 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. __. 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 a violation by 
     a small business concern of a Federal rule or regulation 
     resulting from a Y2K failure if that Federal rule or 
     regulation had not been violated by that small business 
     concern within the preceding 3 years; 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--
       (1) establish a 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; and
       (2) publish the name and phone number of the point of 
     contact for the agency in the Federal Register.
       (c) General Rule.--Subject to subsections (d) and (e), no 
     agency shall impose any civil

[[Page 12394]]

     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 affected the small business concern's ability to comply 
     with a federal rule or 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 harm to life or property;
       (4) upon identification of a first-time violation, the 
     small business concern initiated reasonable and timely 
     measures to remediate the violation; and
       (5) the small business concern submitted notice to the 
     appropriate agency of the first-time violation 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 money 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.

                          ____________________



                           NOTICE OF HEARING


               committee on Energy and Natural Resources

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public 
that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Subcommittee on 
Forests and Public Land Management.
  The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 30, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. 
in SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.
  The purpose of this hearing is to conduct general oversight of the 
United States Forest Service Economic Action Programs.
  Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224-
6170.

                          ____________________



                    AUTHORITY OF COMMITTEES TO MEET


      committee on banking, house, and housing, and urban affairs

  Mr. GORTON. 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 Thursday, June 10, 1999, to conduct a hearing 
on ``Export Control Issues in the Cox Report.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



           committee on commerce, science and transportation

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet 
on Thursday, June 10, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. on S. 798-the PROTECT Act 
(Promote online transactions to encourage commerce and trade).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               committee on energy and natural resources

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during 
the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 10, for purposes of 
conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 
a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on 
the report of the National Recreation Lakes Study Commission.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          committee on finance

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous 
consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, June 10, 1999 beginning at 
10:00 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    committee on government affairs

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Government Affairs Committee be permitted to meet on Thursday, June 10, 
1999 at 10:00 a.m. for a hearing on Dual-Use and Munitions List Export 
Control Processes and Implementation at the Department of Energy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a 
hearing on ``ESEA: Special Populations'' during the session of the 
Senate on Thursday, June 10, 1999, at 10:00 a.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       committee on the judiciary

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet for a hearing re The Competitive 
Implications of the Proposed Goodrich/Coltec Merger, during the session 
of the Senate on Thursday, June 10, 1999, at 2:00 p.m., in SD226.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       committee on the judiciary

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet for an executive business 
meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 10, 1999.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    select committee on intelligence

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select 
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of 
the Senate on Thursday June 10, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a hearing on 
intelligence matters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     subcommittee on investigations

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Governmental Affairs Committee's Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations be permitted to meet on Thursday, June 10, 1999 at 2:00 
p.m. for a hearing on the topic of ``Home Health Care: Will the New 
Payment System & Regulatory Overkill Hurt Our Seniors?''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          subcommittee on near eastern and south asian affairs

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that subcommittee 
on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs authorized to meet during the 
session of the Senate on Thursday June 10, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a 
hearing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

          REGARDING HORATIO ALGER AWARD RECIPIENT LESLIE JONES

 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on March 9th of this year, 105 
students--out of 80,000 applicants nationwide--were selected to receive 
the prestigious Horatio Alger Award, an honor bestowed each year on 
students and adults who excel despite significant adversity.
  One of those recipients was Leslie Jones, a 16-year-old student from 
White Station High School in Memphis, Tennessee who, despite brain 
surgery to remove a tumor and medical complications that damaged her 
vision and rendered her facial muscles incapable of managing even a 
smile, will nevertheless graduate with her class this year--with 
honors. Her high school was also recognized as a Horatio Alger School 
of Excellence.
  Despite physical setbacks that kept her from attending classes, 
Leslie used a homebound teacher to keep up with her studies. When her 
eyes crossed and refused to cooperate, she--as her teacher described 
it--``just covered one eye with her palm and continued on.'' When asked 
if the homework was too much, Leslie never once said yes, even when 
some work had to be done over because faulty vision caused her to miss 
some lines on the page.

[[Page 12395]]

  In the essay which helped her win the competition over tens of 
thousands of others, Leslie wrote that despite the pity, the lack of 
understanding, and even the alienation of other people, she never once 
lost faith in her own ability to focus on her goals. ``In my heart,'' 
she said, ``I know my dreams are greater than the forces of adversity 
and I trust that, by the way of hope and fortitude, I shall make these 
dreams a reality.''
  And so she has. Yet, what is perhaps even more remarkable than the 
courage and determination with which she pursued her dreams, is the 
humility with which she has accepted her hard-earned reward.
  When 1,900 students gathered to honor her achievement, she down-
played her accomplishment saying instead that everyone possesses the 
same ability to rise above adversity. Rather than dwell on her medical 
problems, she insists that they don't define who she is.
  Emphasizing the power of positive thinking, the Italian author, Dr. 
Piero Ferrucci, once observed, ``How often--even before we begin--have 
we declared a task `impossible'? How often have we construed a picture 
of ourselves as inadequate? A great deal depends upon the thought 
patterns we choose and on the persistence with which we affirm them.''
  Mr. President, Leslie Jones stands as a testament to the truth of 
those words just as surely as White Station High School proves that 
public institutions committed to helping students achieve can be a 
major influence in helping them shape a positive future for themselves 
and others. Both the school, and especially the student, deserve our 
admiration, our praise, and our thanks--all of which I enthusiastically 
extend on behalf of all the people of Tennessee and, indeed, all 
Americans everywhere.

                          ____________________



                   TRIBUTE TO GOVERNOR JOHN McKEITHEN

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, last week Louisiana lost of one its 
most prominent sons. An era passed into history with the death of 
former Governor John McKeithen, who served his state with distinction 
as governor during the turbulent years of 1964 to 1972.
  When he died at the age of 81 in his hometown of Columbia, Louisiana, 
on the banks of the Ouachita River, John McKeithen left a legacy of 
accomplishment as governor that will likely not be matched in our 
lifetime. As one political leader observed last week, with John 
McKeithen's death ``we have witnessed the passing of a giant, both in 
physical stature and in character.''
  Indeed, McKeithen was not affectionately called ``Big John'' for 
nothing. Like most great leaders, he thought big and acted big.
  Louisiana was blessed with John McKeithen's strong, determined 
leadership at a time when a lesser man, with lesser convictions, might 
have exploited racial tensions for political gain.
  In fact, throughout the South, McKeithen had plenty of mentors had he 
wanted to follow such a course. But Governor McKeithen was decent 
enough, tolerant enough and principled enough to resist any urge for 
race baiting. In his own, unique way, to borrow a phrase from Robert 
Frost, he took the road less traveled and that made all the difference.
  John McKeithen's wise, moral leadership at a time of tremendous 
social and economic transformation in Louisiana stands as his greatest 
accomplishment in public life. Not only did he encourage the citizens 
of Louisiana to tolerate and observe the new civil rights laws passed 
by Congress in the mid-1960s, he worked proactively to bring black 
citizens into the mainstream of Louisiana's political and economic 
life.
  Hundreds of African-Americans will never forget the courageous way 
that National guardsmen under John McKeithen's command protected them 
from harm as they marched from Bogalusa to the State Capitol in the 
mid-1960s in support of civil rights. And generations of African-
American political leaders will always have John McKeithen to thank for 
the way he helped open door of opportunity to them and their 
predecessors.
  But racial harmony will not stand as Governor McKeithen's only 
legacy. All of Louisiana has ``Big John'' to thank for the way our 
state has become one of the world's top tourist destinations by virtue 
of the construction in the early 1970s of the Louisiana Superdome. To 
many--those who did not dream as big as ``Big John''--the idea of 
building the world's largest indoor arena seemed a folly, sure to fail. 
But like a modern-day Noah building his ark, McKeithen endured the 
taunts and jeers of his critics while he forged ahead--sure that his 
vision for the success of the Superdome was sound.
  And today, more than a quarter century later, the citizens of 
Louisiana, particularly those in New Orleans, are only beginning to 
understand the enormous economic benefits that Louisiana had reaped by 
virtue of the Superdome and the world-wide attention and notoriety it 
has brought to New Orleans.
  Even at that time, Louisiana's citizens recognized that there was 
something unique and very special about their governor. And so it was 
for that reason that they amended the state's Constitution to allow him 
to become the first man in the state's history to serve two consecutive 
terms in the Governor's Mansion.
  Senator Landrieu and I doubt that we will ever see the likes of John 
McKeithen again--a big man, with a big heart, who dreamed big dreams 
and left an enormous legacy in his wake. We know that all our 
colleagues join us in expressing their deepest sympathy to his wife, 
Marjorie, his children and his grandchildren.

                          ____________________



                       TRIBUTE TO ELLIOTT HAYNES

 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to 
Elliott Haynes, a great American and Vermonter, who passed away on May 
19, of this year. Elliott served his country and his community in so 
many ways, and I feel blessed to have known him.
  Elliot and I came from similar backgrounds: he lived in my home town 
of Shrewsbury, Vermont, where we both served on the volunteer fire 
department; we received our BA's at Yale; and we both served our 
country in the Navy.
  The list of contributions Elliott made to the International, 
National, and local arenas is impressive not only for its length, but 
also for its variety. This tribute can only touch on a few of them, but 
I hope the highlights will give the Senate an impression of how great a 
man we have lost. He began his career writing for the United Nations 
World Magazine. In 1954, Elliott co-founded the Business International 
Corporation in New York. Its purpose was to provide information and to 
help those who worked in the worldwide economic market. In addition to 
being the co-founder, he also served as the Director, Managing Editor, 
Editor-in-Chief, and as Chairman of the Board.
  In 1959, Elliott joined a group of executives called the ``Alliance 
for Progress,'' who advised then President-Elect Kennedy on US business 
policy towards Latin America. He then served as the President of the 
Council for the International Progress of Management and as the 
Chairman of the Board of the International Management Development 
Institute, a non-profit organization devoted to managerial training in 
Africa and Latin American.
  Elliott was also the manager of numerous International business round 
tables held throughout the years. While all of these activities would 
be enough work for two people, Elliott found time to create the US 
branch of the AIESEC-US, an International organization which gave 
university students the opportunity to train in businesses throughout 
the world. Later on in his life, he served as their International 
Chairman and was inducted into their Hall of Fame. Throughout all of 
this, he served as an advisor and occasional lecturer for various 
business schools, including Indiana University, Pace University, and 
Harvard Business School.
  Elliott Haynes was also very active in the State of Vermont. He was a 
member the Rutland Rotary, served on the Board of Directors of the 
Visiting

[[Page 12396]]

Nurses Association and was Chair of the Board of the Vermont 
Independence Fund, which provided seed money to organizations which 
helped the elderly and disabled lead more active and independent lives.
  And while Elliott's list of business accomplishments is phenomenal, 
it was his ability to turn a personal tragedy into an inspiration for 
others that is his greatest legacy. In 1994 he was diagnosed with 
Parkinson's Disease, and from that moment on, he devoted his life to 
improving the lives of others with the disease. In 1997, Elliott 
founded the Rutland Regional Parkinson's Support Group in 1997. He 
brought the needs and concerns of those with Parkinson's Disease to the 
attention of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee, which I chair. Elliott was essential in getting legislation 
passed which provides federal money for research into this crippling 
disease. I am so proud to have worked with him on this landmark 
legislation and I only wish he could have lived to see the fruits of 
his labor.
  Elliott Haynes was a wonderful and influential man who's life touched 
thousands of people in direct and indirect ways. He will be remembered 
as a man who gave wholly of himself and who was willing to go the extra 
mile for his friend and neighbor, regardless of whether it was a 
neighbor in Shrewsbury or a ``neighbor'' halfway around the world. 
Elliott Haynes will be deeply missed.

                          ____________________



                BOYCOTT THE ALTERNATIVE ICE CREAM PARTY

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to request a boycott by 
all Senators to the ``Alternative Ice Cream Party'' being sponsored by 
Senators from the Northeastern United States. The ``Party'' is designed 
to rally support for the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The dairy 
compact that was eliminated by the recently revised milk marketing 
orders has cost consumers in the Northeast over $60 million and cost 
child and nutrition programs an additional $9 million. If proposals to 
expand dairy compacts to 27 states this year are adopted, it will force 
60% of the consumers in the nation to pay an additional $2 billion, 
that's correct, $2 billion a year in higher milk prices. And while the 
Northeast's consumers are purchasing overpriced milk, Wisconsin is 
losing dairy farmers by the day--over 7,000 in the past few years.
  Mr. President, rather than ice cream, the Northeast Senators should 
give away cow manure instead: At leastthen the freebies would have some 
relation to the legislation they are pushing. There are many other 
areas of concern I have in regard to this issue, particularly why the 
hard-working cows in the Northeast are not seeing the money from the 
extra profits that the large processors are making. I am surprised that 
animal rights and labor activists have not raised issue with the long 
hours worked and extra milk that cows in the Northeast are forced to 
produce. I am doubly surprised that my good friends from the Northeast 
can sit in Washington eating free ice cream while poor children in New 
England end up paying more for their school lunch milk because of the 
dairy compact.
  If we as the United States can no longer expect to give a fair (milk) 
shake to dairy farmers and consumers across the country, then maybe it 
is time for the Northeast to secede from the Union. Maybe Canada would 
be willing to accept them. But then, of course, the North American Free 
Trade Agreement would require them to practice free trade and eliminate 
the dairy compact.

                          ____________________



                       TRIBUTE TO MICHAEL DROBAC

 Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to thank a 
departing member of my staff for his contributions to the State of 
Oregon. Michael Drobac, who currently serves as my legislative aide for 
defense, labor and judiciary issues, is a native of Eugene, Oregon. 
Michael received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from Stanford 
University and has been a highly valued aide in my office since my 
election to the United States Senate.
  In my short time in the Senate, I have grown to expect and receive 
unadorned direct advice from Michael on a variety of issues and 
projects helping Oregonians. He has worked tirelessly on drug control 
issues and judicial appointments. Michael has worked attentively with 
affected Oregon communities and the Department of the Army to resolve 
safety and economic issues surrounding the Chemical Demilitarization 
program at the Umatilla Depot in Oregon. His advice and work on defense 
related issues on both the national level and in conjunction with 
Oregon's fine National Guard has always been exemplary.
  Michael, is returning to Oregon to attend Law School at the 
University of Oregon. I wish him well and do not doubt that Michael 
will put his law degree to good work. I join my staff in thanking him 
for his time and expertise. Given his background, good character and 
passion for public service, I would not be surprised to see Michael's 
return to Washington, DC, sometime in the future, working again on 
behalf of the state of Oregon.

                          ____________________



       COMMEMORATING THE 80TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE AMERICAN LEGION

 Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as we enter the twilight of the 
Twentieth Century, we can look back at the immense multitude of 
achievements that led to the ascension of the United States of America 
as the preeminent nation in modern history. We owe this title as 
world's greatest superpower in large part to the twenty-five million 
men and women who served in our armed services and who defended the 
principles and ideals of our nation.
  Before we embark upon the Twenty-First Century, the American Legion 
will celebrate its 80th anniversary serving our nation's veterans. 
Since the first gathering of American World War I Doughboys in Paris, 
France on March 15th, 1919, the American Legion has upheld the values 
of freedom, justice, respect and equality. The American Legion 
eventually was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic, mutual-
help, war-time veterans organization. A community-service organization 
which now numbers nearly 3 million members--men and women--in nearly 
15,000 American Legion Posts worldwide.
  The American Legion's support for our nation's veterans has been 
exemplary over the last eighty years. Shortly after it's founding, the 
American Legion successfully lobbied for the creation of a federal 
veterans bureau. With the American Legion's support, the agency 
developed a veterans hospital system in the 1930s. In 1989, another 
American Legion plan became reality: the elevation of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs as a cabinet-level agency. The American Legion also 
successfully advocated for the compensatory rights of veterans, victims 
of atomic radiation, PTSD, Agent Orange, and Persian Gulf syndrome.
  Over the past eighty years, the American Legion also has been active 
in promoting the values of patriotism and competition with our nation's 
young people. There are many sons and daughters participating in 
American Legion sponsored programs such as American Legion Boys and 
Girls State, Boys and Girls Nation, the National High School Oratorical 
Contest, and the Junior Shooting Sports and American Legion Baseball.
  Throughout my service in Congress, I have long appreciated the 
leadership of the South Dakota American Legion for its input on a 
variety of issues impacting veterans and their families in recent 
years. The American Legion's insight and efforts have proven very 
valuable to me and my staff, and I commend each and every one of them 
for their leadership on issues of importance to all veterans of the 
armed forces.
  Mr. President, as Americans, we should never forget the men and women 
who served our nation with such dedication and patriotism. I close my 
remarks by offering my gratitude and support for all the achievements 
performed by the American Legion. For eighty years now, the American


Legion has been the standard bearer in the representation of our 
veterans. I want to extend my sincerest appreciation to the American 
Legion for its continued leadership.

                          ____________________


[[Page 12397]]

                            ELIZABETH BURKE

 Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize 
Elizabeth Burke, who has been chosen as a 1999 Community Health Leader 
by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for her efforts to combat 
domestic violence. As one of 10 outstanding individuals selected each 
year to receive this distinguished award for finding innovative ways to 
bring health care to communities whose needs have been ignored and 
unmet, Ms. Burke's work on behalf of domestic violence victims has 
become a national model.
  A former victim of domestic violence, Elizabeth Burke was hired to 
start up the Domestic Violence Medical Advocacy Project at Mercy 
Hospital in Pittsburgh in 1994. The project is a joint effort between 
Mercy Hospital and the Women's Center and Shelter of Greater 
Pittsburgh, and since its start five years ago, the hospital has 
increased the identification of domestic violence victims by more than 
500 percent. Women are offered counseling, education, shelter and 
employment programs in the 24 hour, 40 bed facility. The Center screens 
all women who are admitted into the hospital, identifying domestic 
violence victims at a point when they are most receptive to help.
  Ms. Burke is responsible for training hundreds of physicians, nurses, 
social workers as well as others in prevention diagnosis, treatment and 
advocacy for victims of domestic violence. Since coming to the project 
she has successfully bridged the gap between the domestic violence and 
medical fields to create a comprehensive response to victims of 
domestic violence. From emergency room screenings to follow-up services 
to an extensive prevention network, she ensures that abused women get 
help before the violence destroys their lives.
  Ms. Burke's efforts don't stop there. She also chairs the 
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence and makes 
presentations on domestic violence to a broad community. In addition, 
she serves as adjunct faculty at the University of Pittsburgh, 
University of Missouri and West Virginia University.
  Mr. President, many victims of domestic violence have been touched by 
Elizabeth Burke's compassionate spirit. I ask my colleagues to join 
with me in commending Ms. Burke for her extraordinary contribution to 
the Pittsburgh community and to all victims of domestic 
violence.

                          ____________________



                             YOUTH VIOLENCE

 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our nation has been riveted by the 
violence in Littleton, CO and Conyers, GA and our youth's easy access 
to guns. Communities have become increasingly concerned about their own 
schools and are more sensitized to the dangers of youth violence. Yet, 
despite this scrutiny, firearms continue to claim the lives of our 
young people. Every day on the average, another 14 children in America 
are killed with guns because of the gaping loopholes in our Federal 
firearms laws. We took steps to eliminate some of these loopholes 
during Senate consideration of the juvenile justice bill. 
Unfortunately, the legislation passed by the Senate did not go far 
enough to reduce the easy availability of lethal weapons to persons who 
should not have them.
  Today, I saw an ABC News Wire report called ``Michigan sting 
operation shows felons can buy guns.'' According to this report, two 
investigators in Michigan, one posing as a felon and the other as his 
friend, went to ten different firearms dealers to purchase guns. 
Remember, selling a gun to a felon is illegal but these investigators 
had no problems with the gun dealers they approached. Out of the 10 
dealers in this investigation, nine reportedly allowed, apparently, 
illegal purchases. In total, 37 guns were apparently purchased 
illegally during this selling spree. And still, the NRA wants Congress 
to expand the loopholes in our firearms laws, rather than taking modest 
steps to close them.
  Since the moment the Senate passed the Juvenile Justice bill, NRA 
lobbyists in Washington have been working around the clock to lobby 
Members of the House of Representatives. The NRA has named as its ``top 
priority, the defeat of any Lautenberg-style gun show amendment in the 
U.S. House.'' The Lautenberg amendment, adopted by the Senate, simply 
requires dealers at gun shows to follow the same rules as other gun 
dealers, by using the existing Brady system for background checks. It 
accomplishes this goal without creating any new burdens for law-abiding 
citizens and without any additional fees imposed on gun sellers or gun 
buyers. But the NRA wants to create additional loopholes by creating a 
special category of gun show dealers, who would be exempt from even the 
most minimum standards. They also want to weaken the bill by 
establishing a 24-hour limit on the time that vendors have to complete 
background checks, rather than the current standard of 3 business days, 
the time the FBI says is necessary. It will be a sad day if the NRA can 
successfully lobby the House to eliminate these moderate proposals in 
the Juvenile Justice bill.
  I hope the House will amend its current bill to include language, 
passed by the Senate, to limit the importation of large capacity 
ammunition devices, clips that domestic companies were prohibited from 
manufacturing in 1994. Again, this is a moderate measure designed to 
keep clips with rounds as high as 250 off our streets and out of the 
hands of young people.
  As the House begins their consideration of the juvenile justice bill 
next week, I hope it will strengthen, not weaken, the moderate gun 
control measures that we passed in the Senate. For example, Congress 
should take steps to prevent unintentional shootings, which occur as a 
result of unsafe storage of guns. These daily tragedies, resulting from 
the careless storage of guns, can easily be prevented by requiring the 
use of locking devices for guns, which are inexpensive and easy to use. 
We should also take steps to eliminate illegal gun trafficking and ban 
semiautomatic assault weapons and handguns for persons under 21 years 
of age.
  The legislation passed in the Senate was a step in the right 
direction, but those moderate reforms are in jeopardy if Congress 
allows our legislative priorities to be dictated by the NRA.

                          ____________________



                  OUTSTANDING STUDENT--COURTENAY BURT

 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the 
achievements of an outstanding student from Kalispell, Montana. The 
Montana chapter of the American Association of University Women 
sponsors an annual essay contests for students in grades 11 and 12. The 
topic of the essays was ``Women in Montana History.''
  Courtenay Burt, an Eleventh Grader at Bigfork High School, had her 
essay chosen as the best of all submitted in Montana. She writes about 
her grandmother, a woman of integrity and wisdom who died when 
Courtenay was only eight months old. Her essay tells us the story of a 
woman who grew up during the Great Depression, survived the often harsh 
climate of Montana, raised a family, earned the respect of her 
community, and maintained a healthy sense of humor throughout it all.
  I ask that Courtenay Burt's essay ``Big Mama'' be printed in the 
Record.
  The essay follows:

                              ``Old Mama''

                          (By Courtenay Burt)

       ``Dear Courtenay, I wish you could only know how much I had 
     looked forward to watching you grow up, but I guess that just 
     wasn't meant to be. Not to worry, though--we'll get better 
     acquainted later.'' My grandmother, who was affectionately 
     referred to as ``Old Mama,'' wrote those words in a shaky 
     hand just before she passed away in 1982. I was eight months 
     old, then, and so I have no memories of her; instead I've 
     borrowed the memories of those who knew and lover her, as I 
     wish I could have. Through reminiscing with those close to 
     her, I have discovered the courageous, colorful woman

[[Page 12398]]

     my grandmother was and I have begun to paint a picture in my 
     mind.
       ``Old Mama,'' was born Mary Katherine Emmert on February 7, 
     1918, in Kalispell, Montana. From an early age, it was 
     apparent she would make her own decisions, and her strong 
     will served her well. Using her active imagination, young 
     Mary reportedly kept her parents as a full gallop.
       Mary's adolescent years might have been similar to any of 
     ours, but they were marked by the hardships of the Great 
     Depression, which began in 1929. ``Old Mama'' actually was 
     one of those children who walked three miles to school in a 
     blizzard. Like many, young Mary was eager to grow up. ``You 
     always look up to the next step and think how grown up you 
     would feel to be there, but when you get there, you don't 
     feel any different than you ever did. I have found this to be 
     the way with life,'' she stated in a paper for her English 
     class at Flathead County High School.
       As a young woman, Mary lived the American Dream: She 
     married Tommy Riedel, a local boy, and they eventually had 
     two children. The couple worked side by side building a home 
     on family farmland south of Kalispell, and the years that 
     followed were typical for a young family of the '50's: Tommy 
     worked while Mary raised the children. There were 
     neighborhood events, outdoors activities, and there were 
     always the joys of the farm life. My mother recalls horseback 
     rides with Old Mama on those long-ago summer evenings, dusk 
     falling hazy and pink as they loped the long fields home.
       Old Mama was a constant and steady support for her 
     children. At one time she drove all the way to Nebraska to 
     watch my mother compete in the National track finals. 
     ``During those teen years, it was her never-failing presence 
     more than her words that assured me of her love,'' my mother 
     once wrote.
       After Tommy had a sudden heart attack in his mid-forties 
     and became disabled, Mary did not sit helplessly by. She 
     inventoried her skills and went to work in Kalispell, 
     becoming a legal secretary. She took great pride in her work. 
     Years later, when it was fashionable for women to have more 
     grandiose plans, my mother once made the mistake of remarking 
     that she intended to be more than ``just a secretary.'' Old 
     Mama gathered herself to full indignation and retorted that, 
     indeed, Christ had been ``just a carpenter.''
       Eventually, hard work and commitment opened a door for Mary 
     Riedel. When the Justice of the Peace fell ill--for whom 
     she'd been ``just a secretary''--Mary was appointed to act in 
     his place. From all accounts, the job was perfect for her. 
     ``Old Mama,'' had an uncanny ability to discern people's 
     character and it served her well, as did her dry sense of 
     humor. On one occasion, Mary intercepted a note that a 
     previous offender had written to a friend who was due to 
     appear in her court.
       ``Watch out for Mary Redneck,'' the note cautioned; it went 
     on to complain of a substantial fine and a stern lecture. As 
     Judge Mary read the note, all eyes were riveted on her. 
     Slowly, Mary began to smile. Then she was laughing-tear 
     streaming, gut-wrenching laughter. She returned the note to 
     offender with the notation: ``Sorry. This seems to have 
     gotten misdirected. Best wishes, Judge Mary Redneck.''
       So often, in the shadow of life's triumphs come the cruel, 
     unexpected twists. My grandmother was diagnosed with terminal 
     cancer only a few years after being elected Justice of the 
     Peace. Determined to battle the disease, she struggled to 
     survive the ravages of chemotherapy. With all of her heart 
     she fought, until she could see that it was time to give in 
     with grace.
       On the last evening, she gathered her family together. ``I 
     told God I wanted ten more years,'' she said, that wry smile 
     still working the corners of her mouth. ``But when you're 
     dealing with Him . . . you have to compromise a little.'' To 
     the end, Old Mama was indomitable.
       On April 14, 1982, Mary Riedel was layed to rest. Although 
     she is not here in person, herspirit lives on in the hearts 
     of those who loved her; her strength, faith, and courage fire 
     my imagination and warm my heart. Mary Riedel was a woman to 
     be admired and remembered, and I am proud that she was my 
     grandmother. She showed us how to live . . . and when the 
     time came, she showed us how to die.


                              works cited

       Beers, Burton F., World History: Patterns of Civilization: 
     Prentice Hall; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; Needham, 
     Massachusetts; Updated Edition, 1993.
       The Bible, New International Version as written by the 
     Apostles.
       Burt, Justin, ``Mary Riedel: An Influencing Force in 
     Montana History,'' Women of Montana Essays 1991-1995; 
     American Association of University Women; Kalispell, Montana 
     1996.
       Burt, Kathleen, ``Remembering Mary Redneck,'' an 
     unpublished paper.
       Burt, Kathleen, A personal interview.
       Riedel, Mary, ``Pat,'' an unpublished 
     autobiography.

                          ____________________



                         PLEASANT VIEW GARDENS

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, recently the Washington Post 
contained an article recognizing an innovative and successful approach 
to public housing in Baltimore, MD. Pleasant View Gardens, a new 
housing development, holds great promise as a new approach to public 
housing in the Nation.
  The birth of this new project began in 1994, when the City of 
Baltimore in cooperation with the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development and the State of Maryland, made funds available for the 
demolition of Lafayette Courts and began the process of replacing it 
with the new Pleasant View Gardens. As the Washington Post reported, 
high rise buildings in the ``densest tract of poverty and crime in 
[Baltimore] city'' have been replaced by low-rise, low density public 
housing where in the evenings you hear ``the murmur of children playing 
on the jungle gym at sunset,. . .police officers [chat] with 
residents..[and] the street corners [are] empty.'' Residents who once 
referred to their housing as a ``cage,'' now allow their children to 
play outside.
  Pleasant View offers homeownership opportunities and affordable 
rental housing to its residents as well as a medical clinic, a 
gymnasium, a job training center, an auditorium and includes a 110-bed 
housing complex for senior citizens. Pleasant View is part of a plan to 
replace more than 11,000 high-rise units in Baltimore with 
approximately 6,700 low-rise units to be completed by 2002, with 
remaining residents to be relocated throughout the city. I believe that 
the Pleasant View initiative offers a new path for public housing in 
the future and demonstrates that working with the community, the 
government can help to make an important difference. I ask that the 
full text of this article be printed in the Record.
  The article follows:

                   [Washington Post, April 26, 1999.]

   Pleasant View Lives Up to Name--New Public Housing Has Less Crime

                            (By Raja Mishra)

       BALTIMORE.--On a recent April evening in the Pleasant View 
     public housing development here, the ordinary was the 
     extraordinary.
       The only sound was the murmur of children playing on a 
     jungle gym at sunset. Police officers chatted with residents 
     on the sidewalk. Street corners were empty. Just over three 
     years ago, Lafayette Towers stood on this spot five blocks 
     northeast of the Inner Harbor. The half-dozen 11-story high-
     rise buildings were the densest tract of poverty and crime in 
     the city.
       Public planners trace the lineage of Lafayette Towers--and 
     hundreds of high-rise buildings like them in other cities--to 
     modernist European architects and planners of the post-World 
     War II era. When the need for urban housing gave birth to 
     such places, the term ``projects'' was viewed with favor.
       Plasant View residents who once lived in Lafayette Towers 
     had their own term for the buildings: cages. Life in the 
     project remains seared in their memories.
       ``I had to lug groceries up to the 10th floor because the 
     elevator was always broke,'' said Dolores Martin, 68. ``But 
     you're afraid to go up the steps because you don't know who's 
     lurking there.''
       Eva Riley, 32, spent the first 18 years of her life in 
     Lafayette Towers.
       ``It gives you a feeling of despair,'' she recalled. 
     ``You're locked up in a cage with a fence around you and 
     everything stinks.''
       In Pleasant View, the federal government's more recent 
     theories of public housing--which stress low-rise, lower 
     density public housing rather than concentrations of massive 
     high-rises--have been put to the test.
       The physical layout of Pleasant View is the heart of the 
     new approach. Each family has space: large apartments, a yard 
     and a door of their own. There are no elevators or staircases 
     to navigate. Playgrounds and landscaping fill the space 
     between town houses. There is a new community center.
       One year into the life of the new development, the results 
     present a striking contrast to life in the old high-rise 
     complex: Crime has plummeted. Drugs and homicide have all but 
     disappeared. Employment is up.
       ``Folks are revitalized. The old is but, the new is in. And 
     the new is much better,'' said Twyla Owens, 41, who lived in 
     Lafayette Towers for six years and moved into Pleasant View 
     last year.
       ``People who live here care about how it looks and keeping 
     it safe,'' said Thomas Dennis, 63, who heads a group of 
     volunteers that patrols Pleasant View. ``We all pull 
     together. There was nothing like that at Lafayette.''
       ``Federal housing officials say they view Pleasant View as 
     their first large-scale success in rectifying a disastrous 
     decision half a century ago to build high-rise public 
     housing.
       ``It's an acknowledgment that what existed before was not 
     the right answer,'' said Deborah Vincent, deputy assistant 
     secretary for

[[Page 12399]]

     public housing at the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development.
       The about-face is a welcome change for longtime critics of 
     high-rise projects.
       ``I don't hold any real animosity to the people who sat 
     down in the 1940s and planned Lafayette Towers,'' said 
     Baltimore City Housing commissioner Daniel P. Henson III. 
     ``But, boy, were they short-sighted.''
       In retrospect, it seems as if the idea of the urban 
     apartment project was destined to lead to problems, several 
     housing experts said.
       It concentrated the poorest of the poor in small spaces set 
     apart from the rest of the city. The idea is thought to have 
     originated with Le Corbusier, considered one of the giants of 
     20th century architecture.
       Le Corbusier was grappling with the problem of crowding in 
     big cities in France as populations swelled at the beginning 
     of the century. Slums were rapidly expanding in urban areas. 
     Rather than move housing outward, Le Corbusier thought it 
     would be better to move it upward: high-rises. He conceived 
     of them as little towns unto themselves, with commerce, 
     recreation and limited self-government.
       As hundreds of thousands of young Americans returned from 
     World War II, eager to find transitional housing for their 
     young families, and a mass migration began from the rural 
     South to the urban North, Le Corbusier's thinking influenced 
     a generation of U.S. policymakers.
       In this country, cost became a central issue. The new 
     projects were designed to house as many people as possible 
     for as little money as possible.
       ``Who wanted to put poor people in lavish housing? So they 
     used shoddy materials and were built poorly,'' said Marie 
     Howland, head of the Urban Studies and Planning Department at 
     the University of Maryland at College Park.
       The tall high-rises soon because symbols of blight.
       ``Then the sigma of public housing increased because 
     everyone could just point to the housing high-rises,'' said 
     Sandra Neuman, interim director of the Institute for Policy 
     Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
       As the ex-servicemen departed for new suburban 
     developments, many of the projects took on the appearance of 
     segregated housing, particularly in cities south of the 
     Mason-Dixon line. Baltimore housing department officials 
     unearthed official city documents from the 1940s that refer 
     to the planned high-rises as ``Negro housing.''
       The most public initial concession that high-rise public 
     housing had failed came on July 15, 1972, when the notorious 
     Pruitt-Igoe projects of St. Louis were demolished with 
     explosives.
       High-rise projects have been crashing down across the 
     country with increasing frequency in recent years. They have 
     been replaced with low-rise, low-density public housing in 22 
     cities, including Alexandria, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia 
     and Atlanta.
       The $3 billion effort there aims to replace more than 
     11,000 high-rise units. HUD hopes to have all the 
     construction done by 2002. Most of the new units will be town 
     houses. There will be a few low-rise apartments and some 
     stand-alone homes as well. Those who do not get space in the 
     new units will be relocated in other, existing low-rise 
     apartments.
       The facilities reflect other shifts in public housing 
     philosophy; social needs must also be addressed and a 
     positive environment must be created.
       Twenty-seven of the 228 homes in Pleasant View are owned by 
     their occupants. The city is trying to coax some of the 
     renters, as well as others, to buy. The idea is to have a 
     mixed-income population with long-term responsibilities. All 
     residents are required to have a job or be enrolled in job 
     training.
       ``Before, you had too many people with too many social 
     problems concentrated in one area. Here you have a mix of 
     incomes,'' said U-Md.'s Howland.
       Pleasant View has a new medical clinic, a gymnasium, a 110-
     bed housing complex for senior citizens, a job training 
     center and an auditorium, where President Clinton recently 
     delivered a speech on homelessness.
       Pleasant View also has its own police force, a small cadre 
     of officers from the Baltimore City Housing Authority police 
     unit.From a small station in the community center, officers 
     monitor the community using cameras that are mounted 
     throughout the neighborhood.
       In 1994, the last year Lafayette was fully operative, there 
     were 39 robberies. In Pleasant View, there have been three. 
     In 1994, there were 108 assaults; Pleasant View had seven. 
     Lafayette had nine rapes, Pleasant View none.
       Four hundred of the 500 people who lived in Lafayette 
     Towers have returned to live in Pleasant View, among them Eva 
     Riley. After a childhood in the high rises, she left as soon 
     as she could afford subsidized housing in another part of the 
     city, vowing never to raise her children in a place like 
     Lafayette Towers.
       But when she visited Pleasant View shortly after its 
     construction, she decided to return to her old neighborhood 
     with her children, Jerod, 13, and Lakeisha, 11.
       ``It's much safer,'' she said. ``I don't mind my kids 
     playing outside in the evening.''

                          ____________________



       25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VERMONT COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES

 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize 
the Vermont Council on the Humanities on the occasion of its 25th 
anniversary.
  In 1965, Congress created the National Endowment for the Humanities 
(NEH) with the goal of promoting and supporting research, education, 
and public programs in the humanities. The mission of the NEH was to 
make the worlds of history, language, literature and philosophy a part 
of the lives of more Americans. Over the past three decades, the NEH 
has lived up to its founding mission and has made the humanities more 
accessible. As Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and 
Pensions Committee, which has jurisdiction over the agency, I have been 
extraordinarily proud to support NEH during my years in Congress.
  NEH brings the humanities to our lives in many unique and exciting 
ways. NEH makes grants for preserving historic resources like books, 
presidential papers, and newspapers. It provides support for 
interpretive exhibitions, television and radio programs. The agency 
facilitates basic research and scholarship in the humanities. And NEH 
strengthens teacher education in the humanities through its summer 
institutes and seminars. Yet, in my view, one of the most important 
ways that NEH broadens our understanding of the humanities is through 
the support it provides for state humanities councils. These state 
humanities councils, at the grassroots level, encourage participation 
in locally initiated humanities projects. Every state has one, but few 
are as innovative, creative and self-sufficient as the Vermont Council 
on the Humanities.
  Early on, the Vermont Council on the Humanities determined that the 
first step in engaging Vermonters in the humanities was to ensure that 
all Vermonters were able to read. The Vermont Humanities Council met 
this challenge head on and provided support for reading programs and 
book discussions targeted at people of all levels of literacy--from the 
Connections programs which serve adult new readers to the scholar-led 
discussions held in public libraries. In 1996, the Council initiated 
the Creating Communities of Readers program. Five Vermont communities 
received grants to help them achieve full literacy for their 
communities. This undertaking of ``creating a state in which every 
individual reads, participates in public affairs and continues to learn 
throughout life,'' involves an enormous commitment. Yet, undaunted by 
the enormity of the challenge, the Vermont Humanities Council stepped 
to the plate and hit a home run.
  Vermont has taken quite literally the mission of bringing the 
humanities to everyone and, in doing so, the Vermont Council has 
distinguished itself as a national leader in promoting reading as a 
path towards participation in the humanities. Recently, the Vermont 
Council received a national award of $250,000 from the NEH to implement 
humanities based book discussions for adult new readers nationwide. 
Through this national Connections program, 14,000 children's books will 
become part of the home libraries of adults who are learning to read.
  There is much we can gain from studying the humanities. The small 
amount of money that the federal government spends on NEH goes a long 
way toward building a national community. Coming together to learn from 
literature, learn from our past, and learn from each other is, in my 
view, an extraordinarily valuable use of our public dollars.
  Twenty-five years ago, the Vermont Humanities Council chose the road 
less traveled, and that has made all the difference in Vermont and in 
the nation. The Council, with its focus on literacy, chose to 
experiment by developing new and different ways of bringing the 
humanities to all Vermonters. By choosing to move to the beat of its 
own

[[Page 12400]]

drum, the Vermont Humanities Council has become a unique and 
independent actor promoting the importance of literacy as a means of 
pursuing the humanities.
  In honor of this twenty-fifth anniversary, I offer my sincere 
congratulations to the Vermont Council on the Humanities for a job well 
done. I would also like to offer a special note of gratitude to Victor 
Swenson and the Council's extraordinary Board of Directors. Victor's 
leadership and the commitment of the Board has made our Council a 
shining example of excellence. Keep up the good work.

                          ____________________



  COMMEMORATING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS

 Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as we enter the twilight of the 
Twentieth Century, we can look back at the immense multitude of 
achievements that led to the ascension of the United States of America 
as the preeminent nation in modern history. We owe this title as 
world's greatest superpower in large part to the twenty-five million 
men and women who served in our armed services and who defended the 
principles and ideals of our nation.
  Before we embark upon the Twenty-First Century, the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars (VFW) will celebrate an historic milestone. On September 
29, the VFW will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the organization's 
founding. For over one hundred years, the VFW has supported our armed 
forces from the battlefields to the home front. From letter-writing 
campaigns in WWI to ``welcome home'' rallies after the Persian Gulf War 
to care packages sent to Bosnia, the VFW continues to take pride in 
supporting American troops overseas.
  The VFW's support for our nation's armed forces has been exemplary 
over the last one hundred years, but it is the VFW's work with our 
nation's veterans that has been most impressive. The original intention 
of the VFW, in fact, was to ensure that the veterans of the Spanish-
American war would not be forgotten and that they received medical care 
and support in return for their service and sacrifice. The VFW's motto, 
``Honor The Dead By Honoring The Living'', resonates to this day and 
will carry forth into the next century. Since organizing the first 
national veterans service office in 1919, to today's nationwide network 
of service offices, the VFW provides the assistance veterans need in 
order to obtain much-deserved benefits.
  To celebrate this prestigious occasion, a resolution, S. J. 
Resolution 21, has been introduced in the United States Senate 
designating September 29, 1999 as ``Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 
United States Day'', and the President of the United States is 
authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon all 
Government agencies and the people of the United States to observe the 
day with appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities. I am a proud 
cosponsor of this resolution which honors the VFW's recognition of 
military service and remembrance of the sacrifices made in our nation's 
defense. I feel this resolution presents an opportunity to recognize, 
honor, and pay tribute to the more than 2,000,000 veterans of the armed 
forces represented by the VFW, and to all the individuals who have 
served in the armed forces
  Throughout my service in Congress, I have long appreciated the 
leadership of both the South Dakota VFW and the Ladies Auxiliary for 
their input on a variety of issues impacting veterans and their 
families in recent years. Their insight and efforts have proven very 
valuable to me and my staff, and I commend each and every one of them 
for their leadership on issues of importance to all veterans of the 
armed forces. I was honored to have theVFW's strong support when I 
offered my amendment to increase veterans health care in this year's 
budget to $3 billion. Even though it wasn't the full amount of my 
amendment, the final Budget Resolution contained a $1.7 billion 
increase above what the Clinton Administration had requested for 
veterans health care. This never would have been possible without the 
grassroots support of the VFW.
  Mr. President, as Americans, we should never forget the men and women 
who served our nation with such dedication and patriotism. I close my 
remarks by offering my gratitude and support for all the achievements 
performed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. For a century, this 
organization has been the standard bearer in the representation of our 
veterans, as well as their undying patronage to our armed forces and 
support for the maintenance of a strong national defense.

                          ____________________



                     TRIBUTE TO ANTONIO J. PALUMBO

 Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Antonio 
J. (Tony) Palumbo, a coal miner from Western Pennsylvania who humbly 
represents the generous spirit of community.
  President and owner of the New Shawmut Mining company, Mr. Palumbo 
was born in Pennsylvania on June 14, 1906 and actively serves as a 
Trustee for La Roche College, Duquesne University, Carlow College, 
Gannon College, the Villa Nazareth School in Rome, Italy, and the Mayo 
Clinic Foundation for Medical Education and Research. He has also 
developed unique relationships with the Catholic Diocese of Erie, Elk 
County Christian High School, the Nicaraguan-American Nursing 
Collaboration, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the Holy Family 
Institute and the Boy Scouts of St. Marys, PA.
  Throughout his years of involvement at these institutions, Mr. 
Palumbo has gained the admiration and respect of the many students that 
he has come in contact with. His influence in their lives will be felt 
for many years to come.
  Mr. Palumbo was recently presented with a Lifetime Achievement Award 
by the National Society of Fund Raising Executives. His efforts have 
helped build educational and health care facilities, endow research, 
provide scholarships, deliver care to the poor and support community 
initiatives. As varied as each of these causes are, they all reflect 
Tony Palumbo's compassion for the needs of others and his commitment to 
using his time and talents to enrich the lives of those around him.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join with me in commending Tony 
Palumbo for the leadership and compassion that he has portrayed, as 
well as the platform that he has created for motivating the stewardship 
of others.

                          ____________________



                75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, on May 24, 1924, President Calvin 
Coolidge signed into law the Rogers Act, establishing a unified corps 
of career diplomats to represent the United States abroad. Based on the 
principles of professionalism, non-partisanship and merit-based 
promotion, thus was born the modern foreign service.
  This year we join in commemorating the 75th anniversary of the 
foreign service. Over the years there have been many changes: it has 
become more diverse, more specialized, and has been called to deal with 
an ever-expanding list of issues. While this milestone is an occasion 
for celebration and congratulations, there are some sobering reminders 
of the task that still awaits us. 1998 saw the worst attack on American 
diplomats in history, with two tragic bombings that resulted in the 
deaths of over 220 persons, twelve of them Americans. Here in 
Washington, we continue to contend with budget cuts that handicap the 
ability of our foreign service officers to perform their duties safely 
and effectively.
  On the occasion of this anniversary, Secretary Albright hosted a 
dinner at the State Department as a tribute to the efforts of the brave 
men and women who have served over the past three-quarters of a 
century. In her speech, she challenged the unfortunate and inaccurate 
stereotypes of the foreign service and emphasized the urgency of 
providing adequate resources to promote U.S. interests abroad. I 
strongly agree with the thrust of her remarks, and I ask that the full 
text of her statement be printed in the Record.

[[Page 12401]]

  The statement follows:

 Remarks by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, 75th Anniversary 
       Dinner of the United States Foreign Service, May 24, 1999

       Secretary Albright: It is indeed a pleasure to be able to 
     first congratulate Nicholas (Bombay) for winning the essay 
     contest. It's never too early in life to learn the value of 
     strong diplomatic leadership, and although I didn't meet you 
     until tonight, I already like the sound of the name Bombay 
     preceded by the term ``Ambassador'' or ``Secretary of 
     State.'' (Laughter.)
       Congratulations, once again.
       Thank you, Cokie, and good evening to all of you. It's a 
     great pleasure to be able to spend the evening here with you, 
     and I must say that a special pleasure for me to have had 
     George Kennan on my right and Paul Sarbanes on my left--can't 
     ask for much more. It has been a great evening to be able to 
     exchange views.
       Members of Congress and distinguished colleagues and 
     friends, and so many of you who have contributed to the rich 
     legacy of the modern US Foreign Service, as we mark our 75th 
     anniversary, I want to begin by thanking Under Secretary 
     Pickering for his remarks. There is really no better 
     advertisement for what can be achieved in the Foreign Service 
     than the career of Tom Pickering. From 1959 to 1999, as Cokie 
     explained, he has served everywhere and done everything; and 
     he's still doing it. Tom, the Foreign Service doesn't have a 
     Hall of Fame, but it should, and you and others here tonight 
     belong in it.
       I also want to congratulate Ambassador Brandon Grove and 
     Dan Geisler and Louise Eaton and our Director General, Skip 
     Gnehm, our generous sponsors and everyone who helped to 
     organize this magnificent event. It was a big job and 
     everybody's done it terrifically well.
       I especially endorse the conception of this anniversary as 
     a challenge to look forward. Your goal of outreach through 
     this essay contest and other initiatives is right ontarget, 
     for if we are to match or surpass the accomplishments of the 
     past 75 years, we must have the understanding and support of 
     the American people. This requires that we tell the story of 
     U.S. diplomacy clearly and well. It is to that purpose that I 
     will attempt a modest contribution in my remarks here 
     tonight.
       Thank God I don't have to win any contests. [Laughter.]
       I start with a simple request. Let us take the old, but 
     persistent, stereotype of the diplomat as dilettante and do 
     to it what one Presidential candidate wanted us to do to the 
     tax code: let us drive a stake through it, kill it, bury it 
     and make sure that it never rises again.
       The job of the Foreign Service today is done with hands on 
     and sleeves rolled up. It is rarely glamorous, often 
     dangerous and always vital.
       In my travels, I have seen our people at work not only in 
     conference rooms, but in visits to refugee camps, AIDS 
     clinics and mass grave sites. I have seen them share their 
     knowledge and enthusiasm for democracy with those striving to 
     build a better life in larger freedom.
       I have seen them and their families give freely of their 
     energy and time to comfort the ill and aid the impoverished. 
     I have seen them provide incredible administrative support 
     despite antiquated equipment, crowded workspace and 
     impossible time constraints. And I've stood with head bowed 
     at memorial services for heroes struck down while 
     representing America or helping others to achieve peace. In 
     the past 35 years, the number of names listed on the AFSA 
     plaque has grown from 77 to 186. And the memory of those most 
     recently inscribed, as Tom Pickering's toast reflected, is 
     fresh and painful in our hearts.
       So let us not be shy about proclaiming this truth. In a 
     turbulent and perilous world, the men and women of the 
     Foreign Service are on the front lines every day, on every 
     continent for us. Like the men and women of our armed 
     forces--no more, but no less--they deserve, for they have 
     earned, the gratitude and full backing of the American 
     people.
       Now, having impaled that stereotype, let's proceed to the 
     second challenge. Let us make clear to our citizens the 
     connection between what we do and the quality of life they 
     enjoy; let us demonstrate that there's nothing foreign about 
     foreign policy any more.
       Consult any poll, visit any community hall, listen to any 
     radio talk show; it's no secret what Americans care about, 
     fear and hope for the most. Certainly, foreign policy isn't 
     everything. We cannot tell any American that our diplomacy 
     will guarantee safe schools, clean up the Internet or pay for 
     long term health care.
       But we can say to every American that foreign policy may 
     well help you to land agood job; protect your environment; 
     safeguard your neighborhood from drugs; shield your family 
     from a terrorist attack; and spare your children the 
     nightmare of nuclear, chemical or biological war.
       Our Foreign Service, Foreign Service National and Civil 
     Service personnel contribute every day to America through the 
     dangers they help contain, the crimes they help prevent, the 
     deals they help close, the rightsthey help ensure and the 
     travelers they just plain help. Right, Cokie?
       There is much more we could say and 100 different ways to 
     say it, but the bottom line is clear. The success or failure 
     of U.S. foreign policy will be a major factor in the lives of 
     all Americans. It will make the difference between a 21st 
     Century characterized by peace, rising prosperity and law, 
     and a more uncertain future in which our economy and security 
     are always at risk; our values always under attack; and our 
     peace of mind never assured.
       To convince the public of this, we must erase another myth, 
     which is that technology and the end of the Cold War have 
     made diplomacy obsolete.
       Some argue that Americans concluded after Vietnam that 
     there was nothing we could do in the world; after the Berlin 
     Wall fell, that there was nothing we could not do; and after 
     the Gulf War, that there was nothing left to do. Others 
     suggest that whatever we want to do, there is no need to be 
     diplomatic about it. Our military is the best, our economy 
     the biggest; so what's left to negotiate?
       But as Walter Lippmann once wrote, ``Without diplomacy to 
     prepare the way, soften the impact, reduce the friction and 
     allay the tension, money and military power are double-edged 
     instruments. Used without diplomacy, they may, and usually 
     do, augment the difficulties they are employed to overcome. 
     Then more power and money are needed.'' So spake Walter 
     Lippmann.
       The United States emerged from the Cold War with unequaled 
     might. On every continent, when problems arise, countries 
     turn to us. Few major international initiatives can succeed 
     without our support.
       But with these truths comes a paradox: In this new global 
     era, there are few goals vital to America that we can achieve 
     through our actions alone. In most situations, for most 
     purposes, we need the cooperation of others; and diplomacy is 
     about understanding others and explaining ourselves. It is 
     about building and nourishing partnerships for common action 
     toward shared goals. It's about listening and persuading, 
     analyzing and moving in at the right time. And certainly, at 
     this time, there is no shortage of important diplomatic work 
     to be done.
       As I speak, we are using diplomacy in support of force to 
     bring the confrontation in Kosovo to an end on NATO's terms. 
     We are launching a strategy for drawing the entire Balkans 
     region into the mainstream of a democratic Europe. We are 
     preparing for a new push on all tracks of the Middle East 
     peace process. We have a high-level team inPyongyang to 
     explore options for enhancing stability on the Korean 
     Peninsula. And we're working hard to help democracy take a 
     firmer hold in capitals such as Jakarta and Lagos, Bogota and 
     Phnom Penh.
       Around Africa, we are supporting African efforts to end 
     conflicts and promote new opportunities for growth. And 
     around the world, we are striving to prevent the spread of 
     advanced technologies, so that the new century does not end 
     up even bloodier than the old one.
       Certainly, the diplomatic pace has quickened since 1924, 
     when the Rogers Act was signed, Calvin Coolidge was 
     President, the State Department's entire budget was $2 
     million and the Secretary of State had a beard. (Laughter.)
       In that time, the door of the Foreign Service has opened 
     further to minorities and women, although not far and fast 
     enough. America's overseas presence has grown several fold, 
     as has the demand for our consular services. Public diplomacy 
     has become an integral part of our work. And we've learned 
     that, merely to keep pace, we must constantly manage smarter, 
     recruit better, adjust quicker and look ahead further.
       That is why we are modernizing our technology, training in 
     21st Century skills and implementing a historic restructure 
     of our foreign policy institutions. And it's why we know that 
     the Foreign Service of 75 years from now--or even ten years 
     from now--will look far different than the Foreign Service of 
     today.
       What has not and will not change are the fundamentals: the 
     professionalism; the pride; the patriotism; the tradition of 
     excellence reflected here tonight by the wondrous George 
     Kennan and other giants of the Foreign Service. And what has 
     not changed, as well, is the need for resources.
       The problem of finding adequate resources for American 
     foreign policy has been with us ever since the Continental 
     Congress sent Ben Franklin to Paris. But it has reached a new 
     stage.
       Today, we allocate less than one-tenth of the portion of 
     our wealth that we did a generation ago to support democracy 
     and growth overseas. In this respect, we rank dead last among 
     industrialized nations.
       For years, we have been cutting positions, shutting AID 
     missions and eliminating USIS posts. And now, under the year 
     2000 budget allocations that Congress is considering, we may 
     be asked to go beyond absorbing cuts to the guillotine.
       ???e face overall reductions of 14 percent to 29 percent 
     from the President's foreign operations request and 20 
     percent for State Department operations and programs. Yes, 
     members of Congress, this is a commercial. This will 
     undermine our efforts to protect

[[Page 12402]]

     ourborders, help Americans overseas and make urgently needed 
     improvements in embassy security. And it could translate into 
     cuts of 50 percent or more in key programs from fighting 
     drugs to promoting democracy to helping UNICEF.
       Now, I'm not here to assign blame. We have gotten 
     bipartisan support from those in Congress--including those 
     with us tonight--who know the most about foreign policy. And 
     Congress did approve the President's request for supplemental 
     funds for Central America, Jordan and the Balkans.
       But this is madness. America is the world's wealthiest and 
     most powerful country. Our economy is the envy of the globe. 
     We have important interests, face threats to them, and nearly 
     everywhere.
       And I hope you agree. Military readiness is vital, but so 
     is diplomatic effectiveness. When negotiations break down, we 
     don't send our soldiers without weapons to fight. Why, then, 
     do we so often send our diplomats to negotiate without the 
     leverage that resources provide? The savings yielded by 
     successful diplomacy are incalculable. So are the costs of 
     failed diplomacy--not only in hard cash, but in human lives.
       Tonight, I say to all our friends on Capitol Hill, act in 
     the spirit of Arthur Vandenberg and Everett Dirksen and Scoop 
     Jackson and Ed Muskie: help us to help America. Provide us 
     the funds we need to protect our people and to do our jobs. 
     Let America lead!
       As we look around this room, we see depictions of liberty's 
     birth and America's transformation from wilderness to 
     greatness.
       From the adjoining balcony, we can see the memorials to 
     Lincoln and Jefferson, the Washington Monument, the Roosevelt 
     Bridge, the white stone markets of Arlington and the silent, 
     etched, cloquent black wall of the Vietnam Wall.
       It is said there is nothing that time does not conquer. But 
     the principles celebrated here have neither withered nor 
     worn. Through Depression and war, controversy and conflict, 
     they continue to unite and inspire us and to identify America 
     to the world.
       From the Treaty of Paris to the round-the-clock 
     deliberations of our own era, the story of US diplomacy is 
     the story of a unique and free society emerging from 
     isolation to cross vast oceans and to assume its rightful 
     role on the world stage. It is the story of America first 
     learning, then accepting and then acting on its 
     responsibility.
       Above all, it is the story of individuals, from Franklin 
     onwards, who answered the call of their country and who have 
     given their life and labor in service to its citizens.
       As Secretary of State, the greatest privilege I have had 
     has been to work with you, the members of the Foreign Service 
     and others on America's team.
       Together, tonight, let us vow to continue to do our jobs to 
     the absolute best of our abilities, and to tell our stories 
     in language and at a volume all can understand.
       By so doing, we will keep faith with those who came before 
     us, and we will preserve the legacy of liberty that was our 
     most precious inheritance and must become our untarnished 
     bequest.
       To the men and women of the Foreign Service who are here 
     this evening or at outposts around the world or enjoying 
     their retirement, I wish you a happy 75th anniversary; and I 
     pledge my best efforts for as long as I have breath, to see 
     that you get the support and respect you deserve.
       Thank you and happy birthday. (Applause.)

                          ____________________



TRIBUTE TO LEONARD AND MADLYN ABRAMSON FAMILY CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
pay tribute to two distinguished Pennsylvanians, Leonard and Madlyn 
Abramson, upon the establishment of the Abramson Family Cancer Research 
Institute at the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center. The $100 
million commitment from The Abramson Family Foundation--the largest 
single contribution for cancer research to a National Cancer Institute-
designated comprehensive cancer center--supports the unprecedented 
expansion of cancer research, education and patient care at Penn's 
Cancer Center.
  The Abramson Family Foundation is a trust fund directed by Leonard 
and Madlyn Abramson. Mr. Abramson is the founder and former chairman 
and CEO of U.S. Healthcare, Inc. Best known for his accurate 
predictions in the changing world of health care over the past two 
decades, Mr. Abramson believed in HMOs as the best health care 
alternative in the early 1970s. He went on to build one of the nation's 
largest and most successful managed care organizations before selling 
it to Aetna in 1996. Madlyn Abramson is a trustee of the University of 
Pennsylvania, as well as a member of the Health System's Board of 
Trustees and the Graduate School of Education's Board of Overseers.
  The Abramsons have been supporters of cancer research, as well as 
numerous other causes, for more than a decade. The family's long and 
generous history with the University of Pennsylvania Health System 
includes gifts to endow two professorships and a multi-year grant 
through the former U.S.Healthcare to the Cancer Center's Bone Marrow 
Transplant Program.
  The Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute has created a 
revolutionary framework for facilitating innovation in cancer research, 
enabling the Penn Cancer Center to bring together the best scientists, 
physicians, and staff and to develop new approaches in an effort to 
make current treatments for cancer obsolete. John H. Glick, M.D., the 
Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Professor of Clinical Oncology and Director 
of Penn's Cancer Center for more than a decade, serves as Director and 
President of the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute.
  The gift of The Abramson Family Foundation will significantly 
increase our opportunities to break new ground in the war on cancer--
especially in the areas of cancer genetics and molecular diagnosis, 
from which future research and patient care advances will occur.
  The Institute supports leading-edge cancer research through the 
recruitment of outstanding scientists and physicians from around the 
world and the design of innovative patient care paradigms. The Abramson 
pledge propels the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center--already 
one of the nation's top cancer centers--to the next level of research 
and patient-focused care.

                          ____________________



                            NEW BUDGET MATH

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to recommend an article 
that appeared this week on National Journal's website. It is ``More New 
Budget Math'' by Stan Collender and discusses in a very readable way 
why gross federal debt continues to rise even when the government is 
running a surplus. The concepts of deficit, surplus, debt, and trust 
funds lie at the heart of many of our fiercest budget battles, and 
everyone has an opinion, or a one-liner, about all of them. But these 
concepts are as technical and difficult to understand as they are 
controversial, and I always appreciate it when they are explained in a 
clear manner, as they are in this article.
  Mr. President, I ask that the article ``More New Budget Math'' be 
printed in the Record.
  The article follows.

         [From the National Journal's Cloakroom, June 8, 1999]

                  Budget Battles--More New Budget Math

                          (By Stan Collender)

       This column pointed out a year ago (June 2, 1998) that, in 
     light of the surplus, the old mathematics of the federal 
     budget were no longer adequate to explain what was happening. 
     A variety of new calculations would have to become as 
     commonplace as the old measures to move the debate along. Now 
     we have yet another example.
       One of the questions I get most these days is, how is it 
     possible for total federal debt to be increasing if there is 
     a surplus? That inevitably leads to someone insisting that 
     there really isn't a surplus at all, and that all the talk 
     about it coming from Washington is just an accounting trick 
     or an X-Files-style government conspiracy.
       Here, however, is the new math to explain things:
       A federal surplus or deficit is the amount of revenues the 
     government collects compared to the amount it spends during a 
     fiscal year. Whenever spending exceeds revenues the 
     government runs a deficit, and has to find a way to make up 
     the difference. It can sell assets (like gold from Fort Knox, 
     timber from national forests or an aircraft carrier) or 
     borrow from financial markets to raise the cash it needs to 
     cover a shortfall.
       But the revenues vs. spending calculation is not as 
     straightforward as it seems. Because of rules enacted in 1990 
     as part of the Budget Enforcement Act, the federal budget 
     does not show the actual amount of cash the government uses 
     to make loans (i.e., to students or to farmers). Instead, the 
     budget shows only the amount needed to cover the net costs to 
     the government of lending that money.
       But because the government lends real money rather than 
     this calculation, its actual cash needs are greater than what 
     is in thebudget. This is not an insignificant amount. OMB is 
     projecting that the fiscal

[[Page 12403]]

     1999 net cash requirements for all federal direct loans will 
     be $25 billion, which must be financed either by reducing the 
     surplus or, when there is a deficit, by additional federal 
     borrowing. As a result, the actual surplus is a bit lower, 
     and the amount available to reduce debt is lower than is 
     immediately apparent.
       Then there are the loans made to the government. When ever 
     it borrows to finance a deficit, the government incurs debt. 
     Conversely, whenever it runs a surplus, debt is reduced. As 
     might be expected given the surpluses that are projected over 
     the next 10 years, this debt, formally known as ``debt held 
     by the public,'' was projected in January by the 
     Congressional Budget Office to fall from its current level of 
     about $3.6 trillion to $1.2 trillion by the end of fiscal 
     2009.
       However, financing the deficit is not the only reason the 
     federal government borrows. Whenever any federal trust fund 
     takes in more than it spends in a particular year, that 
     surplus must be invested in federal government securities. In 
     effect, a trust fund's surplus is lent to the government, so 
     federal debt increases.
       CBO's January forecast showed this separate category of 
     debt--``debt held by the government''--increasing from almost 
     $2.0 trillion in fiscal 1999 to $4.4 trillion by the end of 
     2009.
       The combination of debt held by the public and debt held by 
     the government--``gross federal debt''--is increasing, 
     according to CBO, from $5.57 trillion in 1999 to $5.67 
     trillion in 2000 and $5.84 trillion in 2005.
       The bottom line, therefore, is that the measurement of what 
     the government borrows to finance its debt is projected to 
     decline because of the surplus. However, overall federal debt 
     will be increasing because of the growing surpluses in the 
     Social Security and other federal trust funds.
       This shows that the situation is neither the budget 
     sophistry nor government conspiracy that some talk show hosts 
     and conservative columnists often make it out to be. It is 
     also hardly unique. Try to imagine the following situation:
       Your personal budget is not just in balance, but you are 
     actually running a small surplus each month. Because of that, 
     you are also slowly paying down your credit cards.
       The next month, you buy a bigger and more expensive home. 
     Because of lower interest rates and other financing options, 
     your monthly payments actually go down from their current 
     levels so your surplus goes up. As a result, you increase the 
     payments you make each month on your credit cards, so that 
     portion or your debt decreases faster.
       However, the bigger and more expensive house you just 
     bought increases the overall amount you have borrowed by, 
     say, $200,000. Your budget is still in surplus, and some of 
     your debt is decreasing, but your overall debt is actually 
     growing substantially.
       This is roughly the same situation now facing the federal 
     government, given the new budget math of the surplus.
       One more thought: The debt ceiling was raised in the 1997 
     budget deal to accommodate the deficits that had been 
     projected to require additional federal borrowing through 
     fiscal 2002. But if the limit had not been raised that high 
     in 1997, this new budget math could have meant that Congress 
     would be in the anomalous, ironic, and certainly frustrating 
     situation of having to pass an increase in the debt ceiling 
     at the same time the budget was in surplus. Try to imagine 
     explaining that to constituents.
       Budget Battles Fiscal Y2K Countdown; As of today there are 
     54 days potential legislative days left before the start of 
     fiscal 2000. If Mondays and Fridays, when Congress does not 
     typically conduct legislative business are excluded, there 
     are only 33 legislative days left before the start of the 
     fiscal year.
       The House and Senate have not yet passed even their own 
     versions of any of the regular fiscal 2000 appropriations 
     bills, much less sent legislation on to the president.
       Question Of The Week; Last Week's Question. The statutory 
     deadline for reconciliation is established by Section 300 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act, which shows that Congress is 
     required to complete action by June 15 each year. This year's 
     congressional budget resolution conference report established 
     the deadline as July 16 for the House Ways and Means 
     Committee and July 23 for the Senate Finance Committee to 
     report their proposed changes to their respective houses. 
     But, as a concurrent resolution, the budget resolution did 
     not amend the Congressional Budget Act so the dates are not 
     statutory requirements.
       Congratulations and an ``I Won A Budget Battle'' T-shirt to 
     Stephanie Giesecke, director for budget and appropriations of 
     the National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities, who was selected at random from the many 
     correct answers.
       This Week's Question. A T-shirt also goes to Amy Abraham of 
     the Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee, who 
     suggested this week's question as a follow-up to last week's. 
     If June 15 is the statutory date for Congress to complete 
     reconciliation, what is the official sanction for failing to 
     comply with that deadline? Send your response to 
     scollender@njdc.com and you might win an ``I Won A Budget 
     Battle'' T-shirt to wear while watching the July 4th 
     fireworks.

                          ____________________



             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  On June 8, 1999, the Senate passed S. 1122, Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, 2000. The text of S. 1122 follows:

                                S. 1122

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, for military functions 
     administered by the Department of Defense, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active 
     duty (except members of reserve components provided for 
     elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), to section 229(b) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)), and to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund; $22,041,094,000.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active 
     duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere), 
     midshipmen, and aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to 
     section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 
     note), to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 429(b)), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund; $17,236,001,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on 
     active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for 
     elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of 
     Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), to 
     section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)), 
     and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund; 
     $6,562,336,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on 
     active duty (except members of reserve components provided 
     for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), to section 229(b) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)), and to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund; $17,873,759,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and for members of the Reserve Officers' 
     Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of 
     title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund; 
     $2,278,696,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy 
     Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund; $1,450,788,000.

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for

[[Page 12404]]

     personnel of the Marine Corps Reserve on active duty under 
     section 10211 of title 10, United States Code, or while 
     serving on active duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, 
     United States Code, in connection with performing duty 
     specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, United States 
     Code, or while undergoing reserve training, or while 
     performing drills or equivalent duty, and for members of the 
     Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and expenses authorized 
     by section 16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for 
     payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement 
     Fund; $410,650,000.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and for members of the Air Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 
     16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to 
     the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund; 
     $884,794,000.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or 
     12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States 
     Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of 
     title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund; $3,622,479,000.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air 
     National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402 
     of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, 
     or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 
     or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund; $1,494,496,000.

                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law; 
     and not to exceed $10,624,000 can be used for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be 
     made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes; $19,161,852,000 and, in addition, 
     $50,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the National 
     Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph, not less than 
     $355,000,000 shall be made available only for conventional 
     ammunition care and maintenance.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps, 
     as authorized by law; and not to exceed $5,155,000 can be 
     used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be 
     expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the 
     Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of 
     necessity for confidential military purposes; $22,841,510,000 
     and, in addition, $50,000,000 shall be derived by transfer 
     from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized 
     by law; $2,758,139,000.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by 
     law; and not to exceed $7,882,000 can be used for emergencies 
     and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may 
     be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes; $20,760,429,000 and, in addition, 
     $50,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the National 
     Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the 
     Department of Defense (other than the military departments), 
     as authorized by law; $11,537,333,000, of which not to exceed 
     $25,000,000 may be available for the CINC initiative fund 
     account; and of which not to exceed $32,300,000 can be used 
     for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on 
     the approval or authority of the Secretary of Defense, and 
     payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for 
     confidential military purposes.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications; 
     $1,438,776,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     andadministration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications; 
     $946,478,000.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications; $126,711,000.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications; $1,760,591,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National 
     Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as 
     authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army 
     National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army 
     National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair, 
     modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and 
     equipment (including aircraft); $3,156,378,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For operation and maintenance of the Air National Guard, 
     including medical and hospital treatment and related expenses 
     in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, operation, repair, and 
     other necessary expenses of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air National Guard, including repair of 
     facilities, maintenance, operation, and modification of 
     aircraft; transportation of things, hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; supplies, materials, and equipment, as authorized 
     by law for the Air National Guard; and expenses incident to 
     the maintenance and use of supplies, materials, and 
     equipment, including such as may be furnished from stocks 
     under the control of agencies of the Department of Defense; 
     travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same basis as 
     authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel on active 
     Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders while 
     inspecting units in compliance with National Guard Bureau 
     regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau; $3,229,638,000.

             Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses directly relating to Overseas Contingency 
     Operations by United States military forces; $2,087,600,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may transfer these funds only to 
     operation and maintenance accounts, within this title, the 
     Defense Health Program appropriation, and to working capital 
     funds: Provided further, That the funds transferred shall be 
     merged with and shall be available for the same purposes and 
     for the same time period, as the appropriation to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are

[[Page 12405]]

     not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts 
     may be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That the transfer authority provided in this 
     paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     contained elsewhere in this Act.

          United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

       For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; $7,621,000, of which 
     not to exceed $2,500 can be used for official representation 
     purposes.

                    Environmental Restoration, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $378,170,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

                    Environmental Restoration, Navy


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Navy, $284,000,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Navy, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Navy, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

                  Environmental Restoration, Air Force


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Air Force, $376,800,000, to 
     remain available until transferred: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon determining that such 
     funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction 
     and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings 
     and debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar 
     purposes, transfer the funds made available by this 
     appropriation to other appropriations made available to the 
     Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That upon a determination that all or part of the funds 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred 
     back to this appropriation.

                Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of Defense, $25,370,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of Defense, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

         Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $239,214,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at 
     sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense 
     (consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402, 
     404, 2547, and 2551 of title 10, United States Code); 
     $55,800,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001.

                  Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction

       For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union, 
     including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for 
     facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure 
     transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other 
     weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the 
     proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-
     related technology and expertise; for programs relating to 
     the training and support of defense and military personnel 
     for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons 
     components and weapons technology and expertise; 
     $475,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002: 
     Provided, That of the amounts provided under this heading, 
     $25,000,000 shall be available only to support the 
     dismantling and disposal of nuclear submarines and submarine 
     reactor components in the Russian Far East.

                   Pentagon Renovation Transfer Fund

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, resulting from 
     the Department of Defense renovation of the Pentagon 
     Reservation; $246,439,000, for the renovation of the Pentagon 
     Reservation, which shall remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2001.

                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $1,440,788,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $1,267,698,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including 
     ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes; $1,526,265,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2002.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $1,145,566,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked 
     combat vehicles; the purchase of not to exceed 36 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; and the purchase of 3 
     vehicles required for physical security of personnel, 
     notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger 
     vehicles but not to exceed $200,000 per

[[Page 12406]]

     vehicle; communications and electronic equipment; other 
     support equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $3,658,070,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may 
     be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; $8,608,684,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2002.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and 
     related support equipment including spare parts, and 
     accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; 
     $1,423,713,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $510,300,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

       For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, 
     or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including 
     armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools and installation thereof in public and private 
     plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned 
     equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime 
     components and designs for vessels to be constructed or 
     converted in the future; and expansion of public and private 
     plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, as follows:
       NSSN (AP), $748,497,000;
       CVN-77 (AP), $751,540,000;
       CVN Refuelings (AP), $345,565,000;
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $2,681,653,000;
       LPD-17 amphibious transport dock ship, $1,508,338,000;
       LHD-8 (AP), $500,000,000;
       ADC(X), $439,966,000;
       LCAC landing craft air cushion program, $31,776,000; and
       For craft, outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and 
     first destination transportation, $171,119,000;
       In all: $7,178,454,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2006: Provided, That additional 
     obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2006, for 
     engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such 
     budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of 
     ship construction: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided under this heading for the construction or 
     conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards 
     in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities 
     for the construction of major components of such vessel: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this 
     heading shall be used for the construction of any naval 
     vessel in foreign shipyards: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of the Navy is hereby granted the authority to 
     enter into a contract for an LHD-1 Amphibious Assault Ship 
     which shall be funded on an incremental basis.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For procurement, production, and modernization of support 
     equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy 
     ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and 
     ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of not to 
     exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may 
     be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; $4,184,891,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2002.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture, 
     and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment, 
     appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in 
     public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine 
     Corps, including the purchase of not to exceed 43 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; and expansion of public 
     and private plants, including land necessary therefor, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     $1,236,620,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, lease, and modification of 
     aircraft and equipment, including armor and armament, 
     specialized ground handling equipment, and training devices, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, Government-owned 
     equipment and installation thereof in such plants, erection 
     of structures, and acquisition of land, for the foregoing 
     purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be 
     acquired, and construction prosecuted thereonprior to 
     approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses 
     necessary for the foregoing purposes including rents and 
     transportation of things; $9,758,333,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2002.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of 
     missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment, 
     including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground 
     handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public 
     and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things; 
     $2,338,505,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $427,537,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For procurement and modification of equipment (including 
     ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground 
     electronic and communication equipment), and supplies, 
     materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided 
     for; the purchase of not to exceed 53 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only; lease of passenger motor 
     vehicles; and expansion of public and private plants, 
     Government-owned equipment and installation thereof in such 
     plants, erection of structures, and acquisition of land, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon, prior 
     to approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; $7,198,627,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2002.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary 
     for procurement, production, and modification of equipment, 
     supplies, materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise 
     provided for; the purchase of not to exceed 103 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; the purchase of 7 
     vehicles required for physical security of personnel, 
     notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger 
     vehicles but not to exceed $200,000 per vehicle; expansion of 
     public and private plants, equipment, and installation 
     thereof in such plants, erection of

[[Page 12407]]

     structures, and acquisition of land for the foregoing 
     purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be 
     acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; $2,327,965,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2002.

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment

       For procurement of aircraft, missiles, tracked combat 
     vehicles, ammunition, other weapons, and other procurement 
     for the reserve components of the Armed Forces; $300,000,000, 
     to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2002: 
     Provided, That the Chiefs of the Reserve and National Guard 
     components shall, not later than 30 days after the enactment 
     of this Act, individually submit to the congressional defense 
     committees the modernization priority assessment for their 
     respective Reserve or National Guard component.

                                TITLE IV

              RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

           Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment; $4,905,294,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2001.

           Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment; $8,448,816,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2001.

         Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment; $13,489,909,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2001.

       Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary 
     for basic and applied scientific research, development, test 
     and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be 
     designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
     pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and 
     operation of facilities and equipment; $9,325,315,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2001.

               Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, of independent 
     activities of the Director, Test and Evaluation in the 
     direction and supervision of developmental test and 
     evaluation, including performance and joint developmental 
     testing and evaluation; and administrative expenses in 
     connection therewith; $251,957,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2001.

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and 
     Evaluation in the direction and supervision of operational 
     test and evaluation, including initial operational test and 
     evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of, 
     production decisions; joint operational testing and 
     evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection 
     therewith; $34,434,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2001.

                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For the Defense Working Capital Funds; $90,344,000.

                     National Defense Sealift Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and 
     activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve 
     Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship 
     Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744); $354,700,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the 
     funds provided in this paragraph shall be used to award a new 
     contract that provides for the acquisition of any of the 
     following major components unless such components are 
     manufactured in the United States: auxiliary equipment, 
     including pumps, for all shipboard services; propulsion 
     system components (that is; engines, reduction gears, and 
     propellers); shipboard cranes; and spreaders for shipboard 
     cranes: Provided further, That the exercise of an option in a 
     contract awarded through the obligation of previously 
     appropriated funds shall not be considered to be the award of 
     a new contract: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for such procurement may 
     waive the restrictions in the first proviso on a case-by-case 
     basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that adequate domestic supplies are not available to meet 
     Department of Defense requirements on a timely basis and that 
     such an acquisition must be made in order to acquire 
     capability for national security purposes.

                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and 
     health care programs of the Department of Defense, as 
     authorized by law; $11,184,857,000, of which $10,527,887,000 
     shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which not to 
     exceed 2 per centum shall remain available until September 
     30, 2001, of which $356,970,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2002, shall be for 
     Procurement: and of which $300,000,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2001, shall be for 
     Research, development, test and evaluation.

                      Armed Forces Retirement Home

       For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
     to operate and maintain the United States Soldiers' and 
     Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home, to be paid 
     from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
     Trust Fund, $68,295,000, of which $12,696,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for construction and renovation of 
     the physical plants at the United States Soldiers' and 
     Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home: Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single 
     contract or related contracts for the development and 
     construction, to include construction of a long-term care 
     facility at the United States Naval Home, may be employed 
     which collectively include the full scope of the project: 
     Provided further, That the solicitation and contract shall 
     contain the clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 
     52.232-18 and 252.232-7007, Limitation of Government 
     Obligations.

            Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical 
     agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 
     1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other 
     chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical 
     weapon stockpile, $1,029,000,000, of which $543,500,000 shall 
     be for Operation and maintenance to remain available until 
     September 30, 2001, $191,500,000 shall be for Procurement to 
     remain available until September 30, 2002, and $294,000,000 
     shall be for Research, development, test and evaluation to 
     remain available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That of 
     the funds available under this heading, $1,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended each year only for a Johnston Atoll 
     off-island leave program: Provided further, That the 
     Secretaries concerned shall, pursuant to uniform regulations, 
     prescribe travel and transportation allowances for travel by 
     participants in the off-island leave program.

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the 
     Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military personnel 
     of the reserve components serving under the provisions of 
     title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for Operation and 
     maintenance; for Procurement; and for Research, development, 
     test and evaluation; $842,300,000: Provided, That the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available for 
     obligation for the same time period and for the same purpose 
     as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in 
     addition to any transfer authority contained elsewhere in 
     this Act.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended; $137,544,000, of which 
     $136,244,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which 
     not to exceed $500,000 is available for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made 
     on his certificate of necessity for confidential military 
     purposes; and of which $1,300,000 to remain available until 
     September 30, 2002, shall be for Procurement.

                               TITLE VII

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                      CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

   Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund

       For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement 
     and Disability System Fund, to maintain proper funding level 
     for continuing the operation of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency Retirement and Disability System; $209,100,000.

[[Page 12408]]



               INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT

               Intelligence Community Management Account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community 
     Management Account; $149,415,000, of which $34,923,000 for 
     the Advanced Research and Development Committee shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading, $27,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Department of Justice for the National 
     Drug Intelligence Center to support the Department of 
     Defense's counter-drug intelligence responsibilities, and of 
     the said amount, $1,500,000 for Procurement shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2002, and $1,000,000 for 
     Research, development, test and evaluation shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2001.

Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental 
                            Restoration Fund

       For payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, 
     and Environmental Restoration Fund, as authorized by law; 
     $35,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                 National Security Education Trust Fund

       For the purposes of title VIII of Public Law 102-183, 
     $8,000,000, to be derived from the National Security 
     Education Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

                               TITLE VIII

               GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

       Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of 
     law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment 
     of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not 
     apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided, 
     That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire 
     foreign national employees of the Department of Defense 
     funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the 
     percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees 
     of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the 
     provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or 
     at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by 
     the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever 
     is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not 
     apply to Department of Defense foreign service national 
     employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose 
     pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980: Provided further, That the limitations 
     of this provision shall not apply to foreign national 
     employees of the Department of Defense in the Republic of 
     Turkey.
       Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 8004. No more than 20 per centum of the appropriations 
     in this Act which are limited for obligation during the 
     current fiscal year shall be obligated during the last 2 
     months of the fiscal year: Provided, That this section shall 
     not apply to obligations for support of active duty training 
     of reserve components or summer camp training of the Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps.


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense 
     that such action is necessary in the national interest, he 
     may, with the approval of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, transfer not to exceed $2,000,000,000 of working 
     capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made 
     available in this Act to the Department of Defense for 
     military functions (except military construction) between 
     such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to 
     be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and 
     for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to 
     which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer 
     may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on 
     unforeseen military requirements, than those for which 
     originally appropriated and in no case where the item for 
     which funds are requested has been denied by Congress: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify 
     the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this 
     authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided 
     further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available to prepare or present a request to the Committees 
     on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for 
     higher priority items, based on unforeseen military 
     requirements, than those for which originally appropriated 
     and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is 
     requested has been denied by the Congress.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8006. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in 
     working capital funds of the Department of Defense 
     established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United 
     States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are 
     necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from 
     such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such 
     funds: Provided further, That transfers may be made between 
     working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation and the ``Operation and 
     Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such amounts as may 
     be determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, except that such 
     transfers may not be made unless the Secretary of Defense has 
     notified the Congress of the proposed transfer. Except in 
     amounts equal to the amounts appropriated to working capital 
     funds in this Act, no obligations may be made against a 
     working capital fund to procure or increase the value of war 
     reserve material inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     has notified the Congress prior to any such obligation.
       Sec. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used 
     to initiate a special access program without prior 
     notification 30 calendar days in session in advance to the 
     congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 8008. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate: (1) a multiyear contract that employs 
     economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 
     in any 1 year of the contract or that includes an unfunded 
     contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000; or (2) a 
     contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear 
     contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in 
     excess of $20,000,000 in any 1 year, unless the congressional 
     defense committees have been notified at least 30 days in 
     advance of the proposed contract award: Provided, That no 
     part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate a multiyear contract for which the 
     economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at 
     least to the limits of the Government's liability: Provided 
     further, That no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to initiate multiyear procurement 
     contracts for any systems or component thereof if the value 
     of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless 
     specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, That no 
     multiyear procurement contract can be terminated without 10-
     day prior notification to the congressional defense 
     committees: Provided further, That the execution of multiyear 
     authority shall require the use of a present value analysis 
     to determine lowest cost compared to an annual procurement.
       Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for 
     multiyear procurement contracts as follows:
       Longbow Apache Helicopter; MLRS Rocket Launcher; Abrams 
     M1A2 Upgrade; Bradley M2A3 Vehicle; F/A-18E/F aircraft; C-17 
     aircraft; and F-16 aircraft.
       Sec. 8009. Within the funds appropriated for the operation 
     and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby 
     appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United 
     States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs 
     under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds 
     may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance 
     costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to 
     authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported 
     to Congress on September 30 of each year: Provided, That 
     funds available for operation and maintenance shall be 
     available for providing humanitarian and similar assistance 
     by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust Territories of the 
     Pacific Islands and freely associated states of Micronesia, 
     pursuant to the Compact of Free Association as authorized by 
     Public Law 99-239: Provided further, That upon a 
     determination by the Secretary of the Army that such action 
     is beneficial for graduate medical education programs 
     conducted at Army medical facilities located in Hawaii, the 
     Secretary of the Army may authorize the provision of medical 
     services at such facilities and transportation to such 
     facilities, on a nonreimbursable basis, for civilian patients 
     from American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 
     Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
       Sec. 8010. (a) During fiscal year 2000, the civilian 
     personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on 
     the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such 
     personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any 
     constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the 
     number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day 
     of such fiscal year.
       (b) The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2001 Department of 
     Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were 
     effective with regard to fiscal year 2001.
       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to 
     military (civilian) technicians.
       Sec. 8011. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available by this Act shall be used by the 
     Department of Defense to exceed, outside the 50 United 
     States, its territories, and the District of Columbia, 
     125,000 civilian workyears: Provided, That workyears shall be 
     applied as defined in the Federal Personnel Manual: Provided 
     further, That workyears expended in dependent student hiring 
     programs for disadvantaged youths shall not be included in 
     this workyear limitation.

[[Page 12409]]

       Sec. 8012. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to 
     influence congressional action on any legislation or 
     appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
       Sec. 8013. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be used to make contributions to the Department of 
     Defense Education Benefits Fund pursuant to section 2006(g) 
     of title 10, United States Code, representing the normal cost 
     for future benefits under section 3015(c) of title 38, United 
     States Code, for any member of the armed services who, on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, enlists in the 
     armed services for a period of active duty of less than three 
     years, nor shall any amounts representing the normal cost of 
     such future benefits be transferred from the Fund by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs pursuant to section 2006(d) of title 10, United 
     States Code; nor shall the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pay 
     such benefits to any such member: Provided, That this 
     limitation shall not apply to members in combat arms skills 
     or to members who enlist in the armed services on or after 
     July 1, 1989, under a program continued or established by the 
     Secretary of Defense in fiscal year 1991 to test the cost-
     effective use of special recruiting incentives involving not 
     more than nineteen noncombat arms skills approved in advance 
     by the Secretary of Defense: Provided further, That this 
     subsection applies only to active components of the Army.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available for the basic pay and allowances of any member of 
     the Army participating as a full-time student and receiving 
     benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from the 
     Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when time spent 
     as a full-time student is credited toward completion of a 
     service commitment: Provided, That this subsection shall not 
     apply to those members who have reenlisted with this option 
     prior to October 1, 1987: Provided further, That this 
     subsection applies only to active components of the Army.
       Sec. 8014. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to convert to contractor performance an activity 
     or function of the Department of Defense that, on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by more 
     than ten Department of Defense civilian employees until a 
     most efficient and cost-effective organization analysis is 
     completed on such activity or function and certification of 
     the analysis is made to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate: Provided, That 
     this section and subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 10 U.S.C. 
     2461 shall not apply to a commercial or industrial type 
     function of the Department of Defense that: (1) is included 
     on the procurement list established pursuant to section 2 of 
     the Act of June 25, 1938 (41 U.S.C. 47), popularly referred 
     to as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act; (2) is planned to be 
     converted to performance by a qualified nonprofit agency for 
     the blind or by a qualified nonprofit agency for other 
     severely handicapped individuals in accordance with that Act; 
     or (3) is planned to be converted to performance by a 
     qualified firm under 51 per centum Native American ownership.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8015. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for 
     the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be 
     transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act 
     solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege 
     Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to 
     section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2301 note), 
     as amended, under the authority of this provision or any 
     other transfer authority contained in this Act.
       Sec. 8016. None of the funds in this Act may be available 
     for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its 
     departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and 
     mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the 
     anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United 
     States from components which are substantially manufactured 
     in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this 
     section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating, 
     quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the 
     forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That 
     for the purpose of this section substantially all of the 
     components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to 
     be produced or manufactured in the United States if the 
     aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in 
     the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the 
     components produced or manufactured outside the United 
     States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service 
     responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on 
     a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be 
     made in order to acquire capability for national security 
     purposes.
       Sec. 8017. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
     Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) shall be available for the 
     reimbursement of any health care provider for inpatient 
     mental health service for care received when a patient is 
     referred to a provider of inpatient mental health care or 
     residential treatment care by a medical or health care 
     professional having an economic interest in the facility to 
     which the patient is referred: Provided, That this limitation 
     does not apply in the case of inpatient mental health 
     services provided under the program for the handicapped under 
     subsection (d) of section 1079 of title 10, United States 
     Code, provided as partial hospital care, or provided pursuant 
     to a waiver authorized by the Secretary of Defense because of 
     medical or psychological circumstances of the patient that 
     are confirmed by a health professional who is not a Federal 
     employee after a review, pursuant to rules prescribed by the 
     Secretary, which takes into account the appropriate level of 
     care for the patient, the intensity of services required by 
     the patient, and the availability of that care.
       Sec. 8018. Funds available in this Act may be used to 
     provide transportation for the next-of-kin of individuals who 
     have been prisoners of war or missing in action from the 
     Vietnam era to an annual meeting in the United States, under 
     such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.
       Sec. 8019. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during the current fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense may, 
     by executive agreement, establish with host nation 
     governments in NATO member states a separate account into 
     which such residual value amounts negotiated in the return of 
     United States military installations in NATO member states 
     may be deposited, in the currency of the host nation, in lieu 
     of direct monetary transfers to the United States Treasury: 
     Provided, That such credits may be utilized only for the 
     construction of facilities to support United States military 
     forces in that host nation, or such real property maintenance 
     and base operating costs that are currently executed through 
     monetary transfers to such host nations: Provided further, 
     That the Department of Defense's budget submission for fiscal 
     year 2001 shall identify such sums anticipated in residual 
     value settlements, and identify such construction, real 
     property maintenance or base operating costs that shall be 
     funded by the host nation through such credits: Provided 
     further, That all military construction projects to be 
     executed from such accounts must be previously approved in a 
     prior Act of Congress: Provided further, That each such 
     executive agreement with a NATO member host nation shall be 
     reported to the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate 30 days prior to the conclusion and endorsement of any 
     such agreement established under this provision.
       Sec. 8020. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 
     Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, 
     .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols.
       Sec. 8021. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to 
     pay more than 50 per centum of an amount paid to any person 
     under section 308 of title 37, United States Code, in a lump 
     sum.
       Sec. 8022. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated 
     or made available in this Act shall be used during a single 
     fiscal year for any single relocation of an organization, 
     unit, activity or function of the Department of Defense into 
     or within the National Capital Region: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the congressional 
     defense committees that such a relocation is required in the 
     best interest of the Government.
       Sec. 8023. A member of a reserve component whose unit or 
     whose residence is located in a State which is not contiguous 
     with another State 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): Provided, That 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.
       Sec. 8024. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, $8,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive 
     payments authorized by section 504 of the Indian Financing 
     Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That contractors 
     participating in the test program established by section 854 
     of Public Law 101-189 (15 U.S.C. 637 note) shall be eligible 
     for the program established by section 504 of the Indian 
     Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544).
       Sec. 8025. During the current fiscal year, funds 
     appropriated or otherwise available for any Federal agency, 
     the Congress, the judicial branch, or the District of 
     Columbia may be used for the pay, allowances, and benefits of 
     an employee as defined by section 2105 of title 5, United 
     States Code, or an individual employed by the government of 
     the District

[[Page 12410]]

     of Columbia, permanent or temporary indefinite, who--
       (1) is a member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces, 
     as described in section 10101 of title 10, United States 
     Code, or the National Guard, as described in section 101 of 
     title 32, United States Code;
       (2) performs, for the purpose of providing military aid to 
     enforce the law or providing assistance to civil authorities 
     in the protection or saving of life or property or prevention 
     of injury--
       (A) Federal service under sections 331, 332, 333, or 12406 
     of title 10, or other provision of law, as applicable; or
       (B) full-time military service for his or her State, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a 
     territory of the United States; and
       (3) requests and is granted--
       (A) leave under the authority of this section; or
       (B) annual leave, which may be granted without regard to 
     the provisions of sections 5519 and 6323(b) of title 5, if 
     such employee is otherwise entitled to such annual leave:

     Provided, That any employee who requests leave under 
     subsection (3)(A) for service described in subsection (2) of 
     this section is entitled to such leave, subject to the 
     provisions of this section and of the last sentence of 
     section 6323(b) of title 5, and such leave shall be 
     considered leave under section 6323(b) of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       Sec. 8026. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the 
     provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed 
     exceeds a period of 24 months after initiation of such study 
     with respect to a single function activity or 48 months after 
     initiation of such study for a multi-function activity.
       Sec. 8027. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American 
     Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national 
     or international political or psychological activities.
       Sec. 8028. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, the Secretary of Defense may adjust wage rates 
     for civilian employees hired for certain health care 
     occupations as authorized for the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs by section 7455 of title 38, United States Code.
       Sec. 8029. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish the 
     operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the 
     Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130 
     Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in 
     this Act.
       Sec. 8030. (a) Of the funds for the procurement of supplies 
     or services appropriated by this Act, qualified nonprofit 
     agencies for the blind or other severely handicapped shall be 
     afforded the maximum practicable opportunity to participate 
     as subcontractors and suppliers in the performance of 
     contracts let by the Department of Defense.
       (b) During the current fiscal year, a business concern 
     which has negotiated with a military service or defense 
     agency a subcontracting plan for the participation by small 
     business concerns pursuant to section 8(d) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) shall be given credit toward 
     meeting that subcontracting goal for any purchases made from 
     qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely 
     handicapped.
       (c) For the purpose of this section, the phrase ``qualified 
     nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely 
     handicapped'' means a nonprofit agency for the blind or other 
     severely handicapped that has been approved by the Committee 
     for the Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely 
     Handicapped under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
     48).
       Sec. 8031. During the current fiscal year, net receipts 
     pursuant to collections from third party payers pursuant to 
     section 1095 of title 10, United States Code, shall be made 
     available to the local facility of the uniformed services 
     responsible for the collections and shall be over and above 
     the facility's direct budget amount.
       Sec. 8032. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to 
     exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section 
     2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of 
     receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait, 
     under that section: Provided, That upon receipt, such 
     contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited 
     to the appropriations or fund which incurred such 
     obligations.
       Sec. 8033. Of the funds made available in this Act, not 
     less than $26,470,000 shall be available for the Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation, of which $18,000,000 shall be available 
     for Civil Air Patrol Corporation operation and maintenance to 
     support readiness activities which includes $2,000,000 for 
     the Civil Air Patrol counterdrug program: Provided, That 
     funds identified for ``Civil Air Patrol'' under this section 
     are intended for and shall be for the exclusive use of the 
     Civil Air Patrol Corporation and not for the Air Force or any 
     unit thereof.
       Sec. 8034. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     are available to establish a new Department of Defense 
     (department) federally funded research and development center 
     (FFRDC), either as a new entity, or as a separate entity 
     administrated by an organization managing another FFRDC, or 
     as a nonprofit membership corporation consisting of a 
     consortium of other FFRDCs and other non-profit entities.
       (b) Limitation on Compensation--Federally Funded Research 
     and Development Center (FFRDC).--No member of a Board of 
     Directors, Trustees, Overseers, Advisory Group, Special 
     Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or any similar entity of a 
     defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant to any defense FFRDC, 
     except when acting in a technical advisory capacity, may be 
     compensated for his or her services as a member of such 
     entity, or as a paid consultant by more than one FFRDC in a 
     fiscal year: Provided, That a member of any such entity 
     referred to previously in this subsection shall be allowed 
     travel expenses and per diem as authorized under the Federal 
     Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in the performance of 
     membership duties.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds available to the department from any source during 
     fiscal 2000 may be used by a defense FFRDC, through a fee or 
     other payment mechanism, for construction of new buildings, 
     for payment of cost sharing for projects funded by government 
     grants, for absorption of contract overruns, or for certain 
     charitable contributions, not to include employee 
     participation in community service and/or development.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
     funds available to the department during fiscal year 2000, 
     not more than 6,100 staff years of technical effort (staff 
     years) may be funded for defense FFRDCs: Provided, That of 
     the specific amount referred to previously in this 
     subsection, not more than 1,000 staff years may be funded for 
     the defense studies and analysis FFRDCs.
       (e) The Secretary of Defense shall, with the submission of 
     the department's fiscal year 2001 budget request, submit a 
     report presenting the specific amounts of staff years of 
     technical effort to be allocated for each defense FFRDC 
     during that fiscal year.
       Sec. 8035. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or 
     property under the control of the Department of Defense which 
     were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada: 
     Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to 
     any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of 
     Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel 
     Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for the procurement may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions 
     shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 8036. For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``congressional defense committees'' means the Armed Services 
     Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed Services 
     Committee of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the 
     Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives.
       Sec. 8037. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense may acquire the modification, depot maintenance 
     and repair of aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the 
     production of components and other Defense-related articles, 
     through competition between Department of Defense depot 
     maintenance activities and private firms: Provided, That the 
     Senior Acquisition Executive of the military department or 
     defense agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall 
     certify that successful bids include comparable estimates of 
     all direct and indirect costs for both public and private 
     bids: Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under 
     this section.
       Sec. 8038. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after 
     consultation with the United States Trade Representative, 
     determines that a foreign country which is party to an 
     agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms 
     of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of 
     products produced in the United States that are covered by 
     the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the 
     Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with 
     respect to such types of products produced in that foreign 
     country.
       (2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any 
     reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding, 
     between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to 
     which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the 
     Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from 
     foreign entities in fiscal year 2000. Such report shall 
     separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the 
     Buy American Act was waived

[[Page 12411]]

     pursuant to any agreement described in subsection (a)(2), the 
     Trade Agreement Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any 
     international agreement to which the United States is a 
     party.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American 
     Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
     for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other 
     purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 8039. Appropriations contained in this Act that remain 
     available at the end of the current fiscal year as a result 
     of energy cost savings realized by the Department of Defense 
     shall remain available for obligation for the next fiscal 
     year to the extent, and for the purposes, provided in section 
     2865 of title 10, United States Code.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8040. Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year 
     to the special account established under 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2) 
     and to the special account established under 10 U.S.C. 
     2667(d)(1) are appropriated and shall be available until 
     transferred by the Secretary of Defense to current applicable 
     appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense under 
     the terms and conditions specified by 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2)(A) 
     and (B) and 10 U.S.C. 2667(d)(1)(B), to be merged with and to 
     be available for the same time period and the same purposes 
     as the appropriation to which transferred.
       Sec. 8041. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense may be used to 
     reimburse a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces 
     who is not otherwise entitled to travel and transportation 
     allowances and who occupies transient government housing 
     while performing active duty for training or inactive duty 
     training: Provided, That such members may be provided lodging 
     in kind if transient government quarters are unavailable as 
     if the member was entitled to such allowances under 
     subsection (a) of section 404 of title 37, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That if lodging in kind is provided, 
     any authorized service charge or cost of such lodging may be 
     paid directly from funds appropriated for operation and 
     maintenance of the reserve component of the member concerned.
       Sec. 8042. The President shall include with each budget for 
     a fiscal year submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, materials that shall identify 
     clearly and separately the amounts requested in the budget 
     for appropriation for that fiscal year for salaries and 
     expenses related to administrative activities of the 
     Department of Defense, the military departments, and the 
     Defense agencies.
       Sec. 8043. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available for ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
     Activities, Defense'' may be obligated for the Young Marines 
     program.
       Sec. 8044. During the current fiscal year, amounts 
     contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military 
     Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section 
     2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available 
     until expended for the payments specified by section 
     2921(c)(2) of that Act: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available for expenditure under this section may be 
     transferred or obligated until thirty days after the 
     Secretary of Defense submits a report which details the 
     balance available in the Overseas Military Facility 
     Investment Recovery Account, all projected income into the 
     account during fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and the specific 
     expenditures to be made using funds transferred from this 
     account during fiscal year 2000.
       Sec. 8045. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act, not more than $119,200,000 shall be 
     available for payment of the operating costs of NATO 
     Headquarters: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may 
     waive this section for Department of Defense support provided 
     to NATO forces in and around the former Yugoslavia.
       Sec. 8046. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     which are available to the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items 
     having an investment item unit cost of not more than 
     $100,000.
       Sec. 8047. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     appropriations or funds available to the Department of 
     Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase 
     of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new 
     inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the 
     current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an 
     item would not have been chargeable to the Department of 
     Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and 
     if the purchase of such an investment item would be 
     chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations 
     made to the Department of Defense for procurement.
       (b) The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2001 Department of 
     Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified 
     as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation 
     contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed 
     fiscal year 2001 procurement appropriation and not in the 
     supply management business area or any other area or category 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds.
       Sec. 8048. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain 
     available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year, 
     except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for 
     Contingencies, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2001: Provided, That funds appropriated, transferred, or 
     otherwise credited to the Central Intelligence Agency Central 
     Services Working Capital Fund during this or any prior or 
     subsequent fiscal year shall remain available until expended.
       Sec. 8049. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence 
     Agency may be used for the design, development, and 
     deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program 
     intelligence communications and intelligence information 
     systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands, 
     and the component commands.
       Sec. 8050. Of the funds appropriated by the Department of 
     Defense under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', not less than $8,000,000 shall be made 
     available only for the mitigation of environmental impacts, 
     including training and technical assistance to tribes, 
     related administrative support, the gathering of information, 
     documenting of environmental damage, and developing a system 
     for prioritization of mitigation and cost to complete 
     estimates for mitigation, on Indian lands resulting from 
     Department of Defense activities.
       Sec. 8051. Amounts collected for the use of the facilities 
     of the National Science Center for Communications and 
     Electronics during the current fiscal year pursuant to 
     section 1459(g) of the Department of Defense Authorization 
     Act, 1986, and deposited to the special account established 
     under subsection 1459(g)(2) of that Act are appropriated and 
     shall be available until expended for the operation and 
     maintenance of the Center as provided for in subsection 
     1459(g)(2).
       Sec. 8052. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may 
     be used to fill the commander's position at any military 
     medical facility with a health care professional unless the 
     prospective candidate can demonstrate professional 
     administrative skills.
       Sec. 8053. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense 
     unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the 
     Buy American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``Buy American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An 
     Act making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
     Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for 
     other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.).
       (b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person 
     has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the 
     Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f 
     of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be 
     debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
       (c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with 
     appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of 
     the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in 
     expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment 
     and products are cost-competitive, quality-competitive, and 
     available in a timely fashion.
       Sec. 8054. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for a contract for studies, analysis, or 
     consulting services entered into without competition on the 
     basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the 
     activity responsible for the procurement determines--
       (1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one 
     source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work;
       (2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an 
     unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or 
     technological promise, represents the product of original 
     thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source; or
       (3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of 
     unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a 
     specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of 
     a specific concern is given financial support:

     Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to contracts 
     in an amount of less than $25,000, contracts related to 
     improvements of equipment that is in development or 
     production, or contracts as to which a civilian official of 
     the Department of Defense, who has been confirmed by the 
     Senate, determines that the award of such contract is in the 
     interest of the national defense.
       Sec. 8055. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used--
       (1) to establish a field operating agency; or
       (2) to pay the basic pay of a member of the Armed Forces or 
     civilian employee of the department who is transferred or 
     reassigned

[[Page 12412]]

     from a headquarters activity if the member or employee's 
     place of duty remains at the location of that headquarters.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense or Secretary of a military 
     department may waive the limitations in subsection (a), on a 
     case-by-case basis, if the Secretary determines, and 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate that the granting of the waiver 
     will reduce the personnel requirements or the financial 
     requirements of the department.
       (c) This section does not apply to field operating agencies 
     funded within the National Foreign Intelligence Program.
       Sec. 8056. Funds appropriated by this Act for intelligence 
     activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the 
     Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security 
     Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2000 until the 
     enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2000.
       Sec. 8057. Notwithstanding section 303 of Public Law 96-487 
     or any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Navy is 
     authorized to lease real and personal property at Naval Air 
     Facility, Adak, Alaska, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2667(f), for 
     commercial, industrial or other purposes: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     the Navy may remove hazardous materials from facilities, 
     buildings, and structures at Adak, Alaska, and may demolish 
     or otherwise dispose of such facilities, buildings, and 
     structures.


                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 8058. Of the funds provided in Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby rescinded 
     as of the date of the enactment of this Act from the 
     following accounts and programs in the specified amounts:
       Under the heading, ``Other Procurement, Air Force, 1999/
     2001'', $5,405,000;
       Under the heading, ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 1999/
     2001'', $8,000,000 ; and
       Under the heading, ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Air Force, 1999/2000'', $40,000,000.
       Sec. 8059. None of the funds available in this Act may be 
     used to reduce the authorized positions for military 
     (civilian) technicians of the Army National Guard, the Air 
     National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the 
     purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian 
     personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military 
     (civilian) technicians, unless such reductions are a direct 
     result of a reduction in military force structure.
       Sec. 8060. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea 
     unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
       Sec. 8061. During the current fiscal year, funds 
     appropriated in this Act are available to compensate members 
     of the National Guard for duty performed pursuant to a plan 
     submitted by a Governor of a State and approved by the 
     Secretary of Defense under section 112 of title 32, United 
     States Code: Provided, That during the performance of such 
     duty, the members of the National Guard shall be under State 
     command and control: Provided further, That such duty shall 
     be treated as full-time National Guard duty for purposes of 
     sections 12602(a)(2) and (b)(2) of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8062. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and 
     maintenance of the Military Departments, Unified and 
     Specified Commands and Defense Agencies shall be available 
     for reimbursement of pay, allowances and other expenses which 
     would otherwise be incurred against appropriations for the 
     National Guard and Reserve when members of the National Guard 
     and Reserve provide intelligence or counterintelligence 
     support to Unified Commands, Defense Agencies and Joint 
     Intelligence Activities, including the activities and 
     programs included within the National Foreign Intelligence 
     Program (NFIP), the Joint Military Intelligence Program 
     (JMIP), and the Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities 
     (TIARA) aggregate: Provided, That nothing in this section 
     authorizes deviation from established Reserve and National 
     Guard personnel and training procedures.
       Sec. 8063. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds appropriated in this Act may be used to reduce the 
     civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to 
     military treatment facilities below the September 30, 1999 
     level: Provided, That the Service Surgeons General may waive 
     this section by certifying to the congressional defense 
     committees that the beneficiary population is declining in 
     some catchment areas and civilian strength reductions may be 
     consistent with responsible resource stewardship and 
     capitation-based budgeting.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8064. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be transferred to or obligated from the Pentagon 
     Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund, unless the Secretary 
     of Defense certifies that the total cost for the planning, 
     design, construction and installation of equipment for the 
     renovation of the Pentagon Reservation will not exceed 
     $1,222,000,000.
       (b) The Secretary shall, in conjunction with the Pentagon 
     Renovation, design and construct secure secretarial offices 
     and support facilities and security-related changes to the 
     subway entrance at the Pentagon Reservation.
       Sec. 8065. (a) None of the funds available to the 
     Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug 
     interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to 
     any other department or agency of the United States except as 
     specifically provided in an appropriations law.
       (b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence 
     Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
     drug activities may be transferred to any other department or 
     agency of the United States except as specifically provided 
     in an appropriations law.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8066. Appropriations available in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for 
     increasing energy and water efficiency in Federal buildings 
     may, during their period of availability, be transferred to 
     other appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense 
     for projects related to increasing energy and water 
     efficiency, to be merged with and to be available for the 
     same general purposes, and for the same time period, as the 
     appropriation or fund to which transferred.
       Sec. 8067. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other 
     than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic 
     origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military 
     department responsible for such procurement may waive this 
     restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes.
       Sec. 8068. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made 
     available to provide transportation of medical supplies and 
     equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to American Samoa, and 
     funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made 
     available to provide transportation of medical supplies and 
     equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to the Indian Health 
     Service when it is in conjunction with a civil-military 
     project.
       Sec. 8069. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the 
     United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to 
     the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes that is not available from United States 
     manufacturers.
       Sec. 8070. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each 
     contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the 
     current fiscal year for construction or service performed in 
     whole or in part in a State which is not contiguous with 
     another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the 
     national average rate of unemployment as determined by the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the 
     contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that 
     portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous 
     with another State, individuals who are residents of such 
     State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or 
     would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive the 
     requirements of this section, on a case-by-case basis, in the 
     interest of national security.
       Sec. 8071. During the current fiscal year, the Army shall 
     use the former George Air Force Base as the airhead for the 
     National Training Center at Fort Irwin: Provided, That none 
     of the funds in this Act shall be obligated or expended to 
     transport Army personnel into Edwards Air Force Base for 
     training rotations at the National Training Center.
       Sec. 8072. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit, on a 
     quarterly basis, a report to the congressional defense 
     committees, the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate setting forth all costs (including 
     incremental costs) incurred by the Department of Defense 
     during the preceding quarter in implementing or supporting 
     resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, including 
     any such resolution calling for international sanctions, 
     international peacekeeping operations, and humanitarian 
     missions undertaken by the Department of Defense. The 
     quarterly report shall include an aggregate of all such 
     Department of Defense costs by operation or mission.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall detail in the quarterly 
     reports all efforts made to seek credit against past United 
     Nations expenditures and all efforts made to seek 
     compensation from the United Nations for costs incurred by 
     the Department of Defense in implementing and supporting 
     United Nations activities.
       Sec. 8073. (a) Limitation on Transfer of Defense Articles 
     and Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of

[[Page 12413]]

     the funds available to the Department of Defense for the 
     current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to transfer 
     to another nation or an international organization any 
     defense articles or services (other than intelligence 
     services) for use in the activities described in subsection 
     (b) unless the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of 
     the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (b) Covered Activities.--This section applies to--
       (1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement 
     operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of 
     the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United 
     Nations Security Council resolution; and
       (2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
     enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
       (c) Required Notice.--A notice under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services 
     to be transferred.
       (2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or 
     services to be transferred.
       (3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or 
     supplies--
       (A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of 
     all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve 
     components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be 
     transferred have been met; and
       (B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be 
     transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the 
     President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
       Sec. 8074. To the extent authorized by subchapter VI of 
     chapter 148 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall issue loan guarantees in support of United 
     States defense exports not otherwise provided for: Provided, 
     That the total contingent liability of the United States for 
     guarantees issued under the authority of this section may not 
     exceed $15,000,000,000: Provided further, That the exposure 
     fees charged and collected by the Secretary for each 
     guarantee, shall be paid by the country involved and shall 
     not be financed as part of a loan guaranteed by the United 
     States: Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide 
     quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations, Armed 
     Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services and 
     International Relations in the House of Representatives on 
     the implementation of this program: Provided further, That 
     amounts charged for administrative fees and deposited to the 
     special account provided for under section 2540c(d) of title 
     10, shall be available for paying the costs of administrative 
     expenses of the Department of Defense that are attributable 
     to the loan guarantee program under subchapter VI of chapter 
     148 of title 10, United States Code.
       Sec. 8075. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay 
     a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense 
     for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee 
     when--
       (1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of 
     the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
       (2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated 
     with a business combination.
       Sec. 8076. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this Act may be used to transport or 
     provide for the transportation of chemical munitions or 
     agents to the Johnston Atoll for the purpose of storing or 
     demilitarizing such munitions or agents.
       (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     any obsolete World War II chemical munition or agent of the 
     United States found in the World War II Pacific Theater of 
     Operations.
       (c) The President may suspend the application of subsection 
     (a) during a period of war in which the United States is a 
     party.
       Sec. 8077. None of the funds provided in title II of this 
     Act for ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' may be 
     obligated or expended to finance housing for any individual 
     who was a member of the military forces of the Soviet Union 
     or for any individual who is or was a member of the military 
     forces of the Russian Federation.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8078. During the current fiscal year, no more than 
     $10,000,000 of appropriations made in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be 
     transferred to appropriations available for the pay of 
     military personnel, to be merged with, and to be available 
     for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred, to be used in support of such personnel in 
     connection with support and services for eligible 
     organizations and activities outside the Department of 
     Defense pursuant to section 2012 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8079. For purposes of section 1553(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made in 
     this Act under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' shall be considered to be for the same purpose as any 
     subdivision under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' appropriations in any prior year, and the 1 percent 
     limitation shall apply to the total amount of the 
     appropriation.
       Sec. 8080. During the current fiscal year, in the case of 
     an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for 
     which the period of availability for obligation has expired 
     or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of 
     title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative 
     unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an 
     adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current 
     appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or 
     closed account if--
       (1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable 
     (except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before 
     the end of the period of availability or closing of that 
     account;
       (2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to 
     any current appropriation account of the Department of 
     Defense; and
       (3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is 
     not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department 
     of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, 
     Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note): 
     Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if 
     subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was 
     not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in 
     the account, any charge to a current account under the 
     authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded 
     against the expired account: Provided further, That the total 
     amount charged to a current appropriation under this section 
     may not exceed an amount equal to 1 percent of the total 
     appropriation for that account.


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 8081. Upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall make the following transfers of funds: 
     Provided, That the amounts transferred shall be available for 
     the same purposes as the appropriations to which transferred, 
     and for the same time period as the appropriation from which 
     transferred: Provided further, That the amounts shall be 
     transferred between the following appropriations in the 
     amount specified:
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1988/2001'':
       SSN-688 attack submarine program, $6,585,000;
       CG-47 cruiser program, $12,100,000;
       Aircraft carrier service life extension program, $202,000;
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $2,311,000;
       LSD-41 cargo variant ship program, $566,000;
       T-AO fleet oiler program, $3,494,000;
       AO conversion program, $133,000;
       Craft, outfitting, and post delivery, $1,688,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1995/2001'':
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $27,079,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1989/2000'':
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $13,200,000;
       Aircraft carrier service life extension program, $186,000;
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $3,621,000;
       LCAC landing craft, air cushioned program, $1,313,000;
       T-AO fleet oiler program, $258,000;
       AOE combat support ship program, $1,078,000;
       AO conversion program, $881,000;
       T-AGOS drug interdiction conversion, $407,000;
       Outfitting and post delivery, $219,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2000'':
       LPD-17 amphibious transport dock ship, $21,163,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1990/2002'':
       SSN-688 attack submarine program, $5,606,000;
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $6,000,000;
       ENTERPRISE refueling/modernization program, $2,306,000;
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $183,000;
       LSD-41 dock landing ship cargo variant program, $501,000;
       LCAC landing craft, air cushioned program, $345,000;
       MCM mine countermeasures program, $1,369,000;
       Moored training ship demonstration program, $1,906,000;
       Oceanographic ship program, $1,296,000;
       AOE combat support ship program, $4,086,000;
       AO conversion program, $143,000;
       Craft, outfitting, post delivery, and ship special support 
     equipment, $1,209,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1990/2002'':
       T-AGOS surveillance ship program, $5,000,000;
       Coast Guard icebreaker program, $8,153,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2002'':
       LPD-17 amphibious transport dock ship, $7,192,000;

[[Page 12414]]

       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1998/2002'':
       CVN refuelings, $4,605,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1991/2001'':
       SSN-21(AP) attack submarine program, $1,614,000;
        LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $5,647,000;
       LSD-41 dock landing ship cargo variant program, $1,389,000;
       LCAC landing craft, air cushioned program, $330,000;
       AOE combat support ship program, $1,435,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1998/2001'':
       CVN refuelings, $10,415,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1992/2001'':
       SSN-21 attack submarine program, $11,983,000;
       Craft, outfitting, post delivery, and DBOF transfer, 
     $836,000;
       Escalation, $5,378,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1998/2001'':
       CVN refuelings, $18,197,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1993/2002'':
       Carrier replacement program(AP), $30,332,000;
       LSD-41 cargo variant ship program, $676,000;
       AOE combat support ship program, $2,066,000;
       Craft, outfitting, post delivery, and first destination 
     transportation, and inflation adjustments, $2,127,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1998/2002'':
       CVN refuelings, $29,884,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1999/2002'':
       Craft, outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first 
     destination transportation, $5,317,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1994/2003'':
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $18,349,000;
       Oceanographic ship program, $9,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1994/2003'':
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $18,349,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1999/2003'':
       Craft, outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first 
     destination transportation, $9,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2000'':
       SSN-21 attack submarine program, $10,100,000;
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $7,100,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2000'':
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $3,723,000;
       LPD-17 amphibious transport dock ship, $13,477,000.
       Sec. 8082. Funds appropriated in title II of this Act and 
     for the Defense Health Program in title VI of this Act for 
     supervision and administration costs for facilities 
     maintenance and repair, minor construction, or design 
     projects may be obligated at the time the reimbursable order 
     is accepted by the performing activity: Provided, That for 
     the purpose of this section, supervision and administration 
     costs includes all in-house Government cost.
       Sec. 8083. During the current fiscal year, the Secretary of 
     Defense may waive reimbursement of the cost of conferences, 
     seminars, courses of instruction, or similar educational 
     activities of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies 
     for military officers and civilian officials of foreign 
     nations if the Secretary determines that attendance by such 
     personnel, without reimbursement, is in the national security 
     interest of the United States: Provided, That costs for which 
     reimbursement is waived pursuant to this subsection shall be 
     paid from appropriations available for the Asia-Pacific 
     Center.
       Sec. 8084. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may permit the use of 
     equipment of the National Guard Distance Learning Project by 
     any person or entity on a space-available, reimbursable 
     basis. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall establish 
     the amount of reimbursement for such use on a case-by-case 
     basis.
       (b) Amounts collected under subsection (a) shall be 
     credited to funds available for the National Guard Distance 
     Learning Project and be available to defray the costs 
     associated with the use of equipment of the project under 
     that subsection. Such funds shall be available for such 
     purposes without fiscal year limitation.
       Sec. 8085. Using funds available by this Act or any other 
     Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a 
     determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States 
     Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required 
     heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military 
     Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That 
     in the City of Kaiserslautern such agreements will include 
     the use of United States anthracite as the base load energy 
     for municipal district heat to the United States Defense 
     installations: Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army 
     Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat 
     may be obtained from private, regional or municipal services, 
     if provisions are included for the consideration of United 
     States coal as an energy source.
       Sec. 8086. During the current fiscal year, refunds 
     attributable to the use of the Government travel card and the 
     Government Purchase Card by military personnel and civilian 
     employees of the Department of Defense and refunds 
     attributable to official Government travel arranged by 
     Government Contracted Travel Management Centers may be 
     credited to the accounts current when the refunds are 
     received that are available for the same purposes as the 
     accounts originally charged.
       Sec. 8087. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3902, during the 
     current fiscal year, interest penalties may be paid by the 
     Department of Defense from funds financing the operation of 
     the military department or defense agency with which the 
     invoice or contract payment is associated.
       Sec. 8088. (a) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-
     case basis, waive with respect to a foreign country each 
     limitation on the procurement of defense items from foreign 
     sources provided in law if the Secretary determines that the 
     application of the limitation with respect to that country 
     would invalidate cooperative programs entered into between 
     the Department of Defense and the foreign country, or would 
     invalidate reciprocal trade agreements for the procurement of 
     defense items entered into under section 2531 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and the country does not discriminate 
     against the same or similar defense items produced in the 
     United States for that country.
       (b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
       (1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised 
     after such date under contracts that are entered into before 
     such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason 
     other than the application of a waiver granted under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding 
     construction of public vessels, ball and roller bearings, 
     food, and clothing or textile materials as defined by section 
     11 (chapters 50-65) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and 
     products classified under headings 4010, 4202, 4203, 6401 
     through 6406, 6505, 7019, 7218 through 7229, 7304.41 through 
     7304.49, 7306.40, 7502 through 7508, 8105, 8108, 8109, 8211, 
     8215, and 9404.
       Sec. 8089. Funds made available to the Civil Air Patrol in 
     this Act under the heading ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-
     Drug Activities, Defense'' may be used for the Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation's counterdrug program, including its 
     demand reduction program involving youth programs, as well as 
     operational and training drug reconnaissance missions for 
     Federal, State and local government agencies; for 
     administrative costs, including the hiring of Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation employees; for travel and per diem 
     expenses of Civil Air Patrol Corporation personnel in support 
     of those missions; and for equipment needed for mission 
     support or performance: Provided, That the Department of the 
     Air Force should waive reimbursement from the Federal, State 
     and local government agencies for the use of these funds.
       Sec. 8090. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     TRICARE managed care support contracts in effect, or in final 
     stages of acquisition as of September 30, 1999, may be 
     extended for two years: Provided, That any such extension may 
     only take place if the Secretary of Defense determines that 
     it is in the best interest of the Government: Provided 
     further, That any contract extension shall be based on the 
     price in the final best and final offer for the last year of 
     the existing contract as adjusted for inflation and other 
     factors mutually agreed to by the contractor and the 
     Government: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, all future TRICARE managed care support 
     contracts replacing contracts in effect, or in the final 
     stages of acquisition as of September 30, 1998, may include a 
     base contract period for transition and up to seven one-year 
     option periods.
       Sec. 8091. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $452,100,000 to reflect savings from revised economic 
     assumptions, to be distributed as follows:
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Army'', $8,000,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Army'', $7,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
     Army'', $9,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army'', $6,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army'', $19,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'', $44,000,000;

[[Page 12415]]

       ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'', $8,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps'', 
     $3,000,000;
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'', $37,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Navy'', $23,000,000;
       ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', $5,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', $46,000,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force'', $14,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force'', $2,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', $44,400,000;
       ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', $5,200,000;
       ``Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army'', 
     $5,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', 
     $20,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', 
     $40,900,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'', 
     $76,900,000; and
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-
     Wide'', $28,700,000:

     Provided, That these reductions shall be applied 
     proportionally to each budget activity, activity group and 
     subactivity group and each program, project, and activity 
     within each appropriation account.
       Sec. 8092. Training and Other Programs. (a) Prohibition.--
     None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     support any training program involving a unit of the security 
     forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of Defense has 
     received credible information from the Department of State 
     that the unit has committed a gross violation of human 
     rights, unless all necessary corrective steps have been 
     taken.
       (b) Monitoring.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, shall ensure that prior to a 
     decision to conduct any training program referred to in 
     subsection (a), full consideration is given to all credible 
     information available to the Department of State relating to 
     human rights violations by foreign security forces.
       (c) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in 
     subsection (a) if he determines that such waiver is required 
     by extraordinary circumstances.
       (d) Report.--Not more than 15 days after the exercise of 
     any waiver under subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
     describing the extraordinary circumstances, the purpose and 
     duration of the training program, the United States forces 
     and the foreign security forces involved in the training 
     program, and the information relating to human rights 
     violations that necessitates the waiver.
       Sec. 8093. The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may carry out a 
     program to distribute surplus dental equipment of the 
     Department of Defense, at no cost to the Department of 
     Defense, to Indian health service facilities and to 
     federally-qualified health centers (within the meaning of 
     section 1905(l)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396d(l)(2)(B))).
       Sec. 8094. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $209,300,000 to reflect savings from the pay of civilian 
     personnel, to be distributed as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $45,100,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $74,400,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $59,800,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $30,000,000.
       Sec. 8095. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $206,600,000 to reflect savings from favorable foreign 
     currency fluctuations, to be distributed as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $138,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $10,600,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $2,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $43,000,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $13,000,000.
       Sec. 8096. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $250,307,000 to reflect savings from reductions in the 
     price of bulk fuel, to be distributed as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $56,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $67,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $7,700,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $62,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $34,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve'', $4,107,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve'', $2,700,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve'', 
     $5,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', 
     $8,700,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard'', 
     $3,100,000.
       Sec. 8097. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Defense may retain all or a portion of the 
     family housing at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, as the 
     Secretary deems necessary to meet military family housing 
     needs arising out of the relocation of elements of the United 
     States Army South to Fort Buchanan.
       Sec. 8098. Funds appropriated to the Department of the Navy 
     in title II of this Act may be available to replace lost and 
     canceled Treasury checks issued to Trans World Airlines in 
     the total amount of $255,333.24 for which timely claims were 
     filed and for which detailed supporting records no longer 
     exist.
       Sec. 8099. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau, or his designee, may 
     waive payment of all or part of the consideration in the case 
     of a lease of personal property for a period not in excess of 
     one year to--
       (1) any department or agency of the Federal Government;
       (2) any State or local government, including any interstate 
     organization established by agreement of two or more States;
       (3) any organization determined by the Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau, or his designee, to be a youth or 
     charitable organization; or
       (4) any other entity that the Chief of the National Guard 
     Bureau, or his designee, approves on a case-by-case basis.
       Sec. 8100. In the current fiscal year and hereafter, funds 
     appropriated for the Pacific Disaster Center may be obligated 
     to carry out such missions as the Secretary of Defense may 
     specify for disaster information management and related 
     supporting activities in the geographic area of 
     responsibility of the Commander in Chief, Pacific and beyond 
     in support of a global disaster information network: 
     Provided, That the Secretary may enable the Pacific Disaster 
     Center and its derivatives to enter into flexible public-
     private cooperative arrangements for the delegation or 
     implementation of some or all of its missions and accept and 
     provide grants, or other remuneration to or from any agency 
     of the Federal government, state or local government, private 
     source or foreign government to carry out any of its 
     activities: Provided further, That the Pacific Disaster 
     Center may not accept any remuneration or provide any service 
     or grant which could compromise national security.
       Sec. 8101. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in Title I of this Act is 
     hereby reduced by $1,838,426,000 to reflect amounts 
     appropriated in H.R. 1141, as enacted. This amount is to be 
     distributed as follows:
       ``Military Personnel, Army'', $559,533,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Navy'', $436,773,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', $177,980,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Air Force'', $471,892,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', $40,574,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', $29,833,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps'', $7,820,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'', $13,143,000;
       ``National Guard Personnel, Army'', $70,416,000; and
       ``National Guard Personnel, Air Force'', $30,462,000.
       Sec. 8102. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, that 
     not more than twenty-five per centum of funds provided in 
     this Act, may be obligated for environmental remediation 
     under indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts with 
     a total contract value of $130,000,000 or higher.
       Sec. 8103. Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $5,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Department of Transportation to enable the 
     Secretary of Transportation to realign railroad track on 
     Elmendorf Air Force Base.
       Sec. 8104. (a) Of the amounts provided in Title II of this 
     Act, not less than $1,353,900,000 shall be available for the 
     missions of the Department of Defense related to combating 
     terrorism inside and outside the United States.
       (b) The budget of the United States Government submitted to 
     Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, 
     for each fiscal year after fiscal year 2000 shall set forth 
     separately for a single account the amount requested for the 
     missions of the Department of Defense related to combating 
     terrorism inside and outside the United States.
       Sec. 8105. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be used for the support of any nonappropriated funds activity 
     of the Department of Defense that procures malt beverages and 
     wine with nonappropriated funds for resale (including such 
     alcoholic beverages sold by the drink) on a military 
     installation located in the United States unless such malt 
     beverages and wine are procured within that State, or in the 
     case of the District of Columbia, within the District of 
     Columbia, in which the military installation is located: 
     Provided, That in a case in which the military installation 
     is located in more than one State, purchases may be made in 
     any State in which the installation is located: Provided 
     further, That such local procurement requirements for malt 
     beverages

[[Page 12416]]

     and wine shall apply to all alcoholic beverages only for 
     military installations in States which are not contiguous 
     with another State: Provided further, That alcoholic 
     beverages other than wine and malt beverages, in contiguous 
     States and the District of Columbia shall be procured from 
     the most competitive source, price and other factors 
     considered.
       Sec. 8106. (a) The Secretary of the Air Force may obtain 
     transportation for operational support purposes, including 
     transportation for combatant Commanders in Chief, by lease of 
     aircraft, on such terms and conditions as the Secretary may 
     deem appropriate, consistent with this section, through an 
     operating lease consistent with OMB Circular A-11.
       (b) The term of any lease into which the Secretary enters 
     under this section shall not exceed ten years from the date 
     on which the lease takes effect.
       (c) The Secretary may include terms and conditions in any 
     lease into which the Secretary enters under this section that 
     are customary in the leasing of aircraft by a nongovernmental 
     lessor to a nongovernmental lessee.
       (d) The Secretary may, in connection with any lease into 
     which the Secretary enters under this section, to the extent 
     the Secretary deems appropriate, provide for special payments 
     to the lessor if either the Secretary terminates or cancels 
     the lease prior to the expiration of its term or the aircraft 
     is damaged or destroyed prior to the expiration of the term 
     of the lease. In the event of termination or cancellation of 
     the lease, the total value of such payments shall not exceed 
     the value of one year's lease payment.
       (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law any payments 
     required under a lease under this section, and any payments 
     made pursuant to subsection (d), may be made from--
       (1) appropriations available for the performance of the 
     lease at the time the lease takes effect;
       (2) appropriations for the operation and maintenance 
     available at the time which the payment is due; and
       (3) funds appropriated for those payments.
       (f) The authority granted to the Secretary of the Air Force 
     by this section is separate from and in addition to, and 
     shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect, the 
     authority of the Secretary to procure transportation or enter 
     into leases under a provision of law other than this section.
       Sec. 8107. (a) The Communications Act of 1934 is amended in 
     section 337(b) (47 U.S.C. 337(b)), by deleting paragraph (2). 
     Upon enactment of this provision, the FCC shall initiate the 
     competitive bidding process in fiscal year 1999 and shall 
     conduct the competitive bidding in a manner that ensures that 
     all proceeds of such bidding are deposited in accordance with 
     section 309(j)(8) of the Act not later than September 30, 
     2000. To expedite the assignment by competitive bidding of 
     the frequencies identified in section 337(a)(2) of the Act, 
     the rules governing such frequencies shall be effective 
     immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, 
     notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553(d), 801(a)(3), 804(2), and 
     806(a). Chapter 6 of such title, 15 U.S.C. 632, and 44 U.S.C. 
     3507 and 3512, shall not apply to the rules and competitive 
     bidding procedures governing such frequencies. 
     Notwithstanding section 309(b) of the Act, no application for 
     an instrument of authorization for such frequencies shall be 
     granted by the Commission earlier than 7 days following 
     issuance of public notice by the Commission of the acceptance 
     for filing of such application or of any substantial 
     amendment thereto. Notwithstanding section 309(d)(1) of such 
     Act, the Commission may specify a period (no less than 5 days 
     following issuance of such public notice) for the filing of 
     petitions to deny any application for an instrument of 
     authorization for such frequencies.
       (b)(1) Not later than 15 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget and the Federal Communications 
     Commission shall each submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report which shall--
       (A) set forth the anticipated schedule (including specific 
     dates) for--
       (i) preparing and conducting the competitive bidding 
     process required by subsection (a); and
       (ii) depositing the receipts of the competitive bidding 
     process;
       (B) set forth each significant milestone in the rulemaking 
     process with respect to the competitive bidding process;
       (C) include an explanation of the effect of each 
     requirement in subsection (a) on the schedule for the 
     competitive bidding process and any post-bidding activities 
     (including the deposit of receipts) when compared with the 
     schedule for the competitive bidding and any post-bidding 
     activities (including the deposit of receipts) that would 
     otherwise have occurred under section 337(b)(2) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 337(b)(2)) if not for 
     the enactment of subsection (a);
       (D) set forth for each spectrum auction held by the Federal 
     Communications Commission since 1993 information on--
       (i) the time required for each stage of preparation for the 
     auction;
       (ii) the date of the commencement and of the completion of 
     the auction;
       (iii) the time which elapsed between the date of the 
     completion of the auction and the date of the first deposit 
     of receipts from the auction in the Treasury; and
       (iv) the dates of all subsequent deposits of receipts from 
     the auction in the Treasury; and
       (E) include an assessment of how the stages of the 
     competitive bidding process required by subsection (a), 
     including preparation, commencement and completion, and 
     deposit of receipts, will differ from similar stages in the 
     auctions referred to in subparagraph (D).
       (2) Not later than October 5, 2000, the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget and the Federal 
     Communications Commission shall each submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees the report which shall--
       (A) describe the course of the competitive bidding process 
     required by subsection (a) through September 30, 2000, 
     including the amount of any receipts from the competitive 
     bidding process deposited in the Treasury as of September 30, 
     2000; and
       (B) if the course of the competitive bidding process has 
     included any deviations from the schedule set forth under 
     paragraph (1)(A), an explanation for such deviations from the 
     schedule.
       (3) The Federal Communications Commission may not consult 
     with the Director in the preparation and submittal of the 
     reports required of the Commission by this subsection.
       (4) In this subsection, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means the following:
       (A) The Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and 
     Commerce of the Senate.
       (B) The Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives.
       Sec. 8108. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act for Titles II and 
     III is hereby reduced by $3,100,000,000 to reflect 
     supplemental appropriations provided under Public Law 106-31 
     for Readiness/Munitions; Operational Rapid Response Transfer 
     Fund; Spare Parts; Depot Maintenance; Recruiting; Readiness 
     Training/OPTEMPO; and Base Operations.
       Sec. 8109. Section 8106(a) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter 
     under section 101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-
     111; 10 U.S.C. 113 note), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``not later than June 30, 1997,''; and
       (2) by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
       Sec. 8110. In addition to any funds appropriated elsewhere 
     in title IV of this Act under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army'', $9,000,000 is 
     hereby appropriated only for the Army Test Ranges and 
     Facilities program element.
       Sec. 8111. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act for title IV under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Navy'', is hereby reduced by $26,840,000 and the total amount 
     appropriated in this Act for title IV under the heading 
     ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-
     Wide'', is hereby increased by $51,840,000 to reflect the 
     transfer of the Joint Warfighting Experimentation Program: 
     Provided, That none of the funds provided for the Joint 
     Warfighting Experimentation Program may be obligated until 
     the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reports to the 
     congressional defense committees on the role and 
     participation of all unified and specified commands in the 
     JWEP.
       Sec. 8112. In addition to the amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available elsewhere in this Act for the 
     Department of Defense, $23,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2000 is hereby appropriated to the Department 
     of Defense: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall 
     make a grant in the amount of $23,000,000 to the American Red 
     Cross for Armed Forces Emergency Services.
       Sec. 8113. In addition to the funds available in title III, 
     $10,000,000 is hereby appropriated for U-2 cockpit 
     modifications.
       Sec. 8114. The Department of the Army is directed to 
     conduct a live fire, side-by-side operational test of the 
     air-to-air Starstreak and air-to-air Stinger missiles from 
     the AH-64D Longbow helicopter. The operational test is to be 
     completed utilizing funds provided for in this Act in 
     addition to funding provided for this purpose in the Fiscal 
     Year 1999 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-262): 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Department is to ensure that the development, procurement 
     or integration of any missile for use on the AH-64 or RAH-66 
     helicopters, as an air-to-air missile, is subject to a full 
     and open competition which includes the conduct of a live-
     fire, side-by-side test as an element of the source selection 
     criteria: Provided further, That the Under Secretary of 
     Defense (Acquisition & Technology) will conduct an 
     independent review of the need, and the merits of acquiring 
     an air-to-air missile to provide self-protection for the AH-
     64 and RAH-66

[[Page 12417]]

     from the threat of hostile forces. The Secretary is to 
     provide his findings in a report to the defense oversight 
     committees, no later than March 31, 2000.
       Sec. 8115. Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air 
     Force'', up to $6,000,000 may be made available for the 3-D 
     advanced track acquisition and imaging system.
       Sec. 8116. Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Navy'', up to $3,000,000 may be made available for electronic 
     propulsion systems.
       Sec. 8117. Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', up to 
     $5,000,000 may be made available for a ground processing 
     station to support a tropical remote sensing radar.
       Sec. 8118. Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army'', up to 
     $6,000,000 may be provided to the United States Army 
     Construction Engineering Research Laboratory to continue 
     research and development to reduce pollution associated with 
     industrial manufacturing waste systems.
       Sec. 8119. Of the funds appropriated in title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', up to 
     $13,000,000 may be available for depot overhaul of the MK-45 
     weapon system, and up to $19,000,000 may be available for 
     depot overhaul of the Close In Weapon System.
       Sec. 8120. Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $1,500,000 may be available for prototyping and 
     testing of a water distributor for the Pallet-Loading System 
     Engineer Mission Module System.
       Sec. 8121. Of the funds provided under title IV of this Act 
     under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Air Force'', up to $1,000,000 may be made 
     available only for alternative missile engine source 
     development.
       Sec. 8122. Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $3,000,000 may be made available for the 
     National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence 
     Pollution Prevention Initiative.
       Sec. 8123. Of the funds made available in title IV of this 
     Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to $4,500,000 may be made 
     available for a hot gas decontamination facility.
       Sec. 8124. Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``Defense Health Program'', up to $2,000,000 may be made 
     available to support the establishment of a Department of 
     Defense Center for Medical Informatics.
       Sec. 8125. Of the funds appropriated in title III under the 
     heading ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', up to $2,800,000 may 
     be made available for the K-Band Test Obscuration Pairing 
     System.
       Sec. 8126. Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army'', up to 
     $2,000,000 may be made available to continue and expand on-
     going work in recombinant vaccine research against biological 
     warfare agents.
       Sec. 8127. (a) The purpose of this section is to provide 
     means for the City of Bayonne, New Jersey, to furnish fire 
     protection through the City's municipal fire department for 
     the tenants, including the Coast Guard, and property at 
     Military Ocean Terminal, New Jersey, thereby enhancing the 
     City's capability for furnishing safety services that is a 
     fundamental capability necessary for encouraging the economic 
     development of Military Ocean Terminal.
       (b) The Secretary of the Army may, notwithstanding title II 
     of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949, convey without consideration to the Bayonne Local 
     Redevelopment Authority, Bayonne, New Jersey, and to the City 
     of Bayonne, New Jersey, jointly, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the firefighting 
     equipment described in subsection (c).
       (c) The equipment to be conveyed under subsection (b) is 
     firefighting equipment at Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, 
     New Jersey, as follows:
       (1) Pierce Dash 2000 Gpm Pumper, manufactured September 
     1995.
       (2) Pierce Arrow 100-foot Tower Ladder, manufactured 
     February 1994.
       (3) Pierce HAZMAT truck, manufactured 1993.
       (4) Ford E-350, manufactured 1992.
       (5) Ford E-302, manufactured 1990.
       (6) Bauer Compressor, Bauer-UN 12-E#5000psi, manufactured 
     November 1989.
       (d) The conveyance and delivery of the property shall be at 
     no cost to the United States.
       (e) The Secretary may require such additional terms and 
     conditions in connection with the conveyance under this 
     section as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the 
     interests of the United States.
       Sec. 8128. Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Navy'', up to $3,000,000 may be made available for basic 
     research on advanced composite materials processing 
     (specifically, resin transfer molding, vacuum-assisted resin 
     transfer molding, and co-infusion resin transfer molding).
       Sec. 8129. Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $5,000,000 may be available for Information 
     Warfare Vulnerability Analysis.
       Sec. 8130. Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air 
     Force'', up to $7,500,000 may be made available for the GEO 
     High Resolution Space Object Imaging Program.
       Sec. 8131. Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $4,000,000 may be available solely for 
     research, development, test, and evaluation of elastin-based 
     artificial tissues and dye targeted laser fusion techniques 
     for healing internal injuries.
       Sec. 8132. Of the funds made available in title IV of this 
     Act for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', up to $20,000,000 may be made available for 
     supersonic aircraft noise mitigation research and development 
     efforts.
       Sec. 8133. From within the funds provided for the Defense 
     Acquisition University, up to $5,000,000 may be spent on a 
     pilot program using state-of-the-art training technology that 
     would train the acquisition workforce in a simulated 
     Government procurement environment.
       Sec. 8134. During the current fiscal year, under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the 
     Center of Excellence for Disaster Management and Humanitarian 
     Assistance may also pay, or authorize payment for, the 
     expenses of providing or facilitating education and training 
     for appropriate military and civilian personnel of foreign 
     countries in disaster management and humanitarian assistance: 
     Provided, That not later than April 1, 2001, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees 
     a report regarding the training of foreign personnel 
     conducted under this authority during the preceding fiscal 
     year for which expenses were paid under the section: Provided 
     further, That the report shall specify the countries in which 
     the training was conducted, the type of training conducted, 
     and the foreign personnel trained.
       Sec. 8135. Of the funds appropriated in title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', up to 
     $4,000,000 may be made available for the Manufacturing 
     Technology Assistance Pilot Program.
       Sec. 8136. Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $5,000,000 may be available for visual display 
     performance and visual display environmental research and 
     development.
       Sec. 8137. Of the funds appropriated in title III under the 
     heading ``Other Procurement, Army'', $51,250,000 shall be 
     available for the Information System Security Program, of 
     which up to $10,000,000 may be made available for an 
     immediate assessment of biometrics sensors and templates 
     repository requirements and for combining and consolidating 
     biometrics security technology and other information 
     assurance technologies to accomplish a more focused and 
     effective information assurance effort.
       Sec. 8138. Of the funds appropriated in title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for the 
     Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of 
     Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, up to $10,000,000 may be made 
     available for carrying out the first-year actions under the 
     5-year research plan outlined in the report entitled 
     ``Department of Defense Strategy to Address Low-Level 
     Exposures to Chemical Warfare Agents (CWAs)'', dated May 
     1999, that was submitted to committees of Congress pursuant 
     to section 247(d) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 
     112 Stat. 1957).
       Sec. 8139. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The B-2 bomber has been used in combat for the first 
     time in Operation Allied Force against Yugoslavia.
       (2) The B-2 bomber has demonstrated unparalleled strike 
     capability in Operation Allied Force, with cursory data 
     indicating that the bomber could have dropped nearly 20 
     percent of the precision ordnance while flying less than 3 
     percent of the attack sorties.
       (3) According to the congressionally mandated Long Range 
     Air Power Panel, ``long range air power is an increasingly 
     important element of United States military capability''.
       (4) The crews of the B-2 bomber and the personnel of 
     Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, deserve particular credit 
     for flying and supporting the strike missions against 
     Yugoslavia, some of the longest combat missions in the 
     history of the Air Force.
       (5) The bravery and professionalism of the personnel of 
     Whiteman Air Force Base have advanced American interests in 
     the face of significant challenge and hardship.
       (6) The dedication of those who serve in the Armed Forces, 
     exemplified clearly by the

[[Page 12418]]

     personnel of Whiteman Air Force Base, is the greatest 
     national security asset of the United States.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the skill and professionalism with which the B-2 bomber 
     has been used in Operation Allied Force is a credit to the 
     personnel of Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, and the Air 
     Force;
       (2) the B-2 bomber has demonstrated an unparalleled 
     capability to travel long distances and deliver devastating 
     weapons payloads, proving its essential role for United 
     States power projection in the future; and
       (3) the crews of the B-2 bomber and the personnel of 
     Whiteman Air Force Base deserve the gratitude of the American 
     people for their dedicated performance in an indispensable 
     role in the air campaign against Yugoslavia and in the 
     defense of the United States.
       Sec. 8140. Of the funds appropriated in title III under the 
     heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', up to 
     $10,000,000 may be made available for U-2 aircraft defensive 
     system modernization.
       Sec. 8141. Of the amount appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', $25,185,000 shall be available for research 
     and development relating to Persian Gulf illnesses, of which 
     $4,000,000 shall be available for continuation of research 
     into Gulf War syndrome that includes multidisciplinary 
     studies of fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple 
     chemical sensitivity, and the use of research methods of 
     cognitive and computational neuroscience, and of which up to 
     $2,000,000 may be made available for expansion of the 
     research program in the Upper Great Plains region.
       Sec. 8142. Of the total amount appropriated in title III 
     under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', up to 
     $17,500,000 may be made available for procurement of the F-
     15A/B data link for the Air National Guard.
       Sec. 8143. Of the funds appropriated in title III under the 
     heading ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'', up to $3,000,000 may 
     be made available for the MK-43 Machine Gun Conversion 
     Program.
       Sec. 8144. 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 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; 
     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 not needed for current operations 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 title 10, United States Code, 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 the purpose 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.
       (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 purpose 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.
       (B) 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 chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, 
     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 at Ford Island.
       (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 title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (ii) The Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied 
     Housing Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a)(2) of 
     that 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 title 10, 
     United States Code, for activities authorized under 
     subchapter IV of chapter 169 of that title 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 title 10, United States Code.
       (2) Section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411).
       (3) Sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483, 484).
       (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) 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 2862(i)(3)(A)(i) of the 
     Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, 
     subject to the restrictions on the use of

[[Page 12419]]

     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 2862(i)(3)(A)(ii) of the 
     Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, 
     subject to the restrictions on the use of the transferred 
     amounts specified in that section.''.
       (m) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 2801(4) of title 10, 
     United States Code.
       (2) The term ``property support service'' means the 
     following:
       (A) Any utility service or other service listed in section 
     2686(a) of title 10, United States Code.
       (B) Any other service determined by the Secretary to be a 
     service that supports the operation and maintenance of real 
     property, personal property, or facilities.
       Sec. 8145. (a) The Department of Defense is authorized to 
     enter into agreements with the Veterans Administration and 
     federally-funded health agencies providing services to Native 
     Hawaiians for the purpose of establishing a partnership 
     similar to the Alaska Federal Health Care Partnership, in 
     order to maximize Federal resources in the provision of 
     health care services by federally-funded health agencies, 
     applying telemedicine technologies. For the purpose of this 
     partnership, Native Hawaiians shall have the same status as 
     other Native Americans who are eligible for the health care 
     services provided by the Indian Health Service.
       (b) The Department of Defense is authorized to develop a 
     consultation policy, consistent with Executive Order 13084 
     (issued May 14, 1998), with Native Hawaiians for the purpose 
     of assuring maximum Native Hawaiian participation in the 
     direction and administration of governmental services so as 
     to render those services more responsive to the needs of the 
     Native Hawaiian community.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Native 
     Hawaiian'' means any individual who is a descendant of the 
     aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised 
     sovereignty in the area that now comprises the State of 
     Hawaii.
       Sec. 8146. Of the funds made available in title IV of this 
     Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Navy'', up to $3,000,000 may be made available to 
     continue research and development on polymer cased 
     ammunition.
       Sec. 8147. (a) Of the amounts appropriated by title II 
     under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
     Wide'', up to $220,000 may be made available to carry out the 
     study described in subsection (b).
       (b)(1) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 
     of Engineers, shall carry out a study for purposes of 
     evaluating the cost-effectiveness of various technologies 
     utilized, or having the potential to be utilized, in the 
     demolition and cleanup of facilities contaminated with 
     chemical residue at facilities used in the production of 
     weapons and ammunition.
       (2) The Secretary shall carry out the study at the Badger 
     Army Ammunition Plant, Wisconsin.
       (3) The Secretary shall provide for the carrying out of 
     work under the study through the Omaha District Corps of 
     Engineers and in cooperation with the Department of Energy 
     Federal Technology Center, Morgantown, West Virginia.
       (4) The Secretary may make available to other departments 
     and agencies of the Federal Government information developed 
     as a result of the study.
       Sec. 8148. Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', up to $500,000 
     may be available for a study of the costs and feasibility of 
     a project to remove ordnance from the Toussaint River.
       Sec. 8149. Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air 
     Force'', $63,041,000 may be available for C-5 aircraft 
     modernization.
       Sec. 8150. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act may be made available for 
     reconstruction activities in the Republic of Serbia 
     (excluding the province of Kosovo) as long as Slobodan 
     Milosevic remains the President of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
       Sec. 8151. Office of Net Assessment in the Office of the 
     Secretary of Defense, jointly with the United States Pacific 
     Command, shall submit a report to Congress no later than 180 
     days after the enactment of this Act which addresses the 
     following issues:
       (1) A review and evaluation of the operational planning and 
     other preparations of the United States Department of 
     Defense, including but not limited to the United States 
     Pacific Command, to implement the relevant sections of the 
     Taiwan Relations Act since its enactment in 1979.
       (2) A review and evaluation of all gaps in relevant 
     knowledge about the current and future military balance 
     between Taiwan and mainland China, including but not limited 
     to Chinese open source writings.
       (3) A set of recommendations, based on these reviews and 
     evaluations, concerning further research and analysis that 
     the Office of Net Assessment and the Pacific Command believe 
     to be necessary and desirable to be performed by the National 
     Defense University and other defense research centers.
       Sec. 8152. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Congress recognizes and supports, as being fundamental 
     to the national defense, the ability of the Armed Forces to 
     test weapons and weapon systems thoroughly, and to train 
     members of the Armed Forces in the use of weapons and weapon 
     systems before the forces enter hostile military engagements.
       (2) It is the policy of the United States that the Armed 
     Forces at all times exercise the utmost degree of caution in 
     the training with weapons and weapon systems in order to 
     avoid endangering civilian populations and the environment.
       (3) In the adherence to these policies, it is essential to 
     the public safety that the Armed Forces not test weapons or 
     weapon systems, or engage in training exercises with live 
     ammunition, in close proximity to civilian populations unless 
     there is no reasonable alternative available.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) there should be a thorough investigation of the 
     circumstances that led to the accidental death of a civilian 
     employee of the Navy installation in Vieques, Puerto Rico, 
     and the wounding of four other civilians during a live-
     ammunition weapons test at Vieques, including a reexamination 
     of the adequacy of the measures that are in place to protect 
     the civilian population during such training;
       (2) the Secretary of Defense should not authorize the Navy 
     to resume live ammunition training on the Island of Vieques, 
     Puerto Rico, unless and until he has advised the 
     congressional defense committees of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives that--
       (A) there is not available an alternative training site 
     with no civilian population located in close proximity;
       (B) the national security of the United States requires 
     that the training be carried out;
       (C) measures to provide the utmost level of safety to the 
     civilian population are to be in place and maintained 
     throughout the training; and
       (D) training with ammunition containing radioactive 
     materials that could cause environmental degradation should 
     not be authorized;
       (3) in addition to advising committees of Congress of the 
     findings as described in paragraph (2), the Secretary of 
     Defense should advise the Governor of Puerto Rico of those 
     findings and, if the Secretary of Defense decides to resume 
     live-ammunition weapons training on the Island of Vieques, 
     consult with the Governor on a regular basis regarding the 
     measures being taken from time to time to protect civilians 
     from harm from the training.
       Sec. 8153. Of the funds appropriated in title IV for 
     Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, up to 
     $10,000,000 may be utilized for Army Space Control 
     Technology.
       Sec. 8154. (a) Of the funds appropriated in title II under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'' (other 
     than the funds appropriated for space launch facilities), up 
     to $7,300,000 may be available, in addition to other funds 
     appropriated under that heading for space launch facilities, 
     for a second team of personnel for space launch facilities 
     for range reconfiguration to accommodate launch schedules.
       (b) The funds set aside under subsection (a) may not be 
     obligated for any purpose other than the purpose specified in 
     subsection (a).
       Sec. 8155. Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $4,000,000 may be made available for the 
     Advanced Integrated Helmet System Program.
       Sec. 8156. Prohibition on Use of Refugee Relief Funds for 
     Long-term Regional Development or Reconstruction in 
     Southeastern Europe. None of the funds made available in the 
     1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 
     106-31) may be made available to implement a long-term, 
     regional program of development or reconstruction in 
     Southeastern Europe except pursuant to specific statutory 
     authorization enacted on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       Sec. 8157. Of the funds appropriated in title III, 
     Procurement, under the heading ``Missile Procurement, Army'', 
     up to $35,000,000 may be made available to retrofit and 
     improve the current inventory of Patriot missiles in order to 
     meet current and projected threats from cruise missiles.
       Sec. 8158. (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to 
     evaluate and demonstrate methods for more efficient operation 
     of military installations through improved capital asset 
     management and greater reliance on the public or private 
     sector for less-costly base support services, where 
     available.
       (b) Authority.--(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may 
     carry out at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, a demonstration 
     project to be known as the ``Base Efficiency Project'' to 
     improve mission effectiveness and reduce the cost of 
     providing quality installation support at Brooks Air Force 
     Base.

[[Page 12420]]

       (2) The Secretary shall carry out the Project in 
     consultation with the Community to the extent the Secretary 
     determines such consultation is necessary and appropriate.
       (3) The authority provided in this section is in addition 
     to any other authority vested in or delegated to the 
     Secretary, and the Secretary may exercise any authority or 
     combination of authorities provided under this section or 
     elsewhere to carry out the purposes of the Project.
       (c) Efficient Practices.--(1) The Secretary may convert 
     services at or for the benefit of the Base from 
     accomplishment by military personnel or by Department 
     civilian employees (appropriated fund or non-appropriated 
     fund), to services performed by contract or provided as 
     consideration for the lease, sale, or other conveyance or 
     transfer of property.
       (2) Notwithstanding section 2462 of title 10, United States 
     Code, a contract for services may be awarded based on ``best 
     value'' if the Secretary determines that the award will 
     advance the purposes of a joint activity conducted under the 
     Project and is in the best interest of the Department.
       (3) Notwithstanding that such services are generally funded 
     by local and State taxes and provided without specific charge 
     to the public at large, the Secretary may contract for public 
     services at or for the benefit of the Base in exchange for 
     such consideration, if any, the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (4)(A) The Secretary may conduct joint activities with the 
     Community, the State, and any private parties or entities on 
     or for the benefit of the Base.
       (B) Payments or reimbursements received from participants 
     for their share of direct and indirect costs of joint 
     activities, including the costs of providing, operating, and 
     maintaining facilities, shall be in an amount and type 
     determined to be adequate and appropriate by the Secretary.
       (C) Such payments or reimbursements received by the 
     Department shall be deposited into the Project Fund.
       (d) Lease Authority.--(1) The Secretary may lease real or 
     personal property located on the Base to any lessee upon such 
     terms and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate 
     and in the interest of the United States, if the Secretary 
     determines that the lease would facilitate the purposes of 
     the Project.
       (2) Consideration for a lease under this subsection shall 
     be determined in accordance with subsection (g).
       (3) A lease under this subsection--
       (A) may be for such period as the Secretary determines is 
     necessary to accomplish the goals of the Project; and
       (B) may give the lessee the first right to purchase the 
     property if the lease is terminated to allow the United 
     States to sell the property under any other provision of law.
       (4)(A) The interest of a lessee of property leased under 
     this subsection may be taxed by the State or the Community.
       (B) A lease under this subsection shall provide that, if 
     and to the extent that the leased property is later made 
     taxable by State governments or local governments under 
     Federal law, the lease shall be renegotiated.
       (5) The Department may furnish a lessee with utilities, 
     custodial services, and other base operation, maintenance, or 
     support services, in exchange for such consideration, 
     payment, or reimbursement as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       (6) All amounts received from leases under this subsection 
     shall be deposited into the Project Fund.
       (7) A lease under this subsection shall not be subject to 
     the following provisions of law:
       (A) Section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, other 
     than subsection (b)(1) of that section.
       (B) Section 321 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 
     303b).
       (C) The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
       (e) Property Disposal.--(1) The Secretary may sell or 
     otherwise convey or transfer real and personal property 
     located at the Base to the Community or to another public or 
     private party during the Project, upon such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate for 
     purposes of the Project.
       (2) Consideration for a sale or other conveyance or 
     transfer or property under this subsection shall be 
     determined in accordance with subsection (g).
       (3) The sale or other conveyance or transfer of property 
     under this subsection shall not be subject to the following 
     provisions of law:
       (A) Section 2693 of title 10, United States Code.
       (B) The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.)
       (4) Cash payments received as consideration for the sale or 
     other conveyance or transfer of property under this 
     subsection shall be deposited into the Project Fund.
       (f) Leaseback of Property Leased or Disposed.--(1) The 
     Secretary may lease, sell, or otherwise convey or transfer 
     real property at the Base under subsections (b) and (e), as 
     applicable, which will be retained for use by the Department 
     or by another military department or other Federal agency, if 
     the lessee, purchaser, or other grantee or transferee of the 
     property agrees to enter into a leaseback to the Department 
     in connection with the lease, sale, or other conveyance or 
     transfer of one or more portions or all of the property 
     leased, sold, or otherwise conveyed or transferred, as 
     applicable.
       (2) A leaseback of real property under this subsection 
     shall be an operating lease for no more than 20 years unless 
     the Secretary of Defense determines that a longer term is 
     appropriate.
       (3)(A) Consideration, if any, for real property leased 
     under a leaseback entered into under this subsection shall be 
     in such form and amount as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (B) The Secretary may use funds in the Project Fund or 
     other funds appropriated or otherwise available to the 
     Department for use at the Base for payment of any such cash 
     rent.
       (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Department or other military department or other Federal 
     agency using the real property leased under a leaseback 
     entered into under this subsection may construct and erect 
     facilities on or otherwise improve the leased property using 
     funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department 
     or other military department or other Federal agency for such 
     purpose. Funds available to the Department for such purpose 
     include funds in the Project Fund.
       (g) Consideration.--(1) The Secretary shall determine the 
     nature, value, and adequacy of consideration required or 
     offered in exchange for a lease, sale, or other conveyance or 
     transfer of real or personal property or for other actions 
     taken under the Project.
       (2) Consideration may be in cash or in-kind or any 
     combination thereof. In-kind consideration may include the 
     following:
       (A) Real property.
       (B) Personal property.
       (C) Goods or services, including operation, maintenance, 
     protection, repair, or restoration (including environmental 
     restoration) of any property or facilities (including non-
     appropriated fund facilities).
       (D) Base operating support services.
       (E) Construction or improvement of Department facilities.
       (F) Provision of facilities, including office, storage, or 
     other usable space, for use by the Department on or off the 
     Base.
       (G) Public services.
       (3) Consideration may not be for less than the fair market 
     value.
       (h) Project Fund.--(1) There is established on the books of 
     the Treasury a fund to be known as the ``Base Efficiency 
     Project Fund'' into which all cash rents, proceeds, payments, 
     reimbursements, and other amounts from leases, sales, or 
     other conveyances or transfers, joint activities, and all 
     other actions taken under the Project shall be deposited. All 
     amounts deposited into the Project Fund are without fiscal 
     year limitation.
       (2) Amounts in the Project Fund may be used only for 
     operation, base operating support services, maintenance, 
     repair, construction, or improvement of Department 
     facilities, payment of consideration for acquisitions of 
     interests in real property (including payment of rentals for 
     leasebacks), and environmental protection or restoration, in 
     addition to or in combination with other amounts appropriated 
     for these purposes.
       (3) Subject to generally prescribed financial management 
     regulations, the Secretary shall establish the structure of 
     the Project Fund and such administrative policies and 
     procedures as the Secretary considers necessary to account 
     for and control deposits into and disbursements from the 
     Project Fund effectively.
       (4) All amounts in the Project Fund shall be available for 
     use for the purposes authorized in paragraph (2) at the Base, 
     except that the Secretary may redirect up to 50 per cent of 
     amounts in the Project Fund for such uses at other 
     installations under the control and jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary as the Secretary determines necessary and in the 
     best interest of the Department.
       (i) Federal Agencies.--(1)(A) Any Federal agency, its 
     contractors, or its grantees shall pay rent, in cash or 
     services, for the use of facilities or property at the Base, 
     in an amount and type determined to be adequate by the 
     Secretary.
       (B) Such rent shall generally be the fair market rental of 
     the property provided, but in any case shall be sufficient to 
     compensate the Base for the direct and overhead costs 
     incurred by the Base due to the presence of the tenant agency 
     on the Base.
       (2) Transfers of real or personal property at the Base to 
     other Federal agencies shall be at fair market value 
     consideration. Such consideration may be paid in cash, by 
     appropriation transfer, or in property, goods, or services.
       (3) Amounts received from other Federal agencies, their 
     contractors, or grantees, including any amounts paid by 
     appropriation transfer, shall be deposited in the Project 
     Fund.
       (j) Acquisition of Interests in Real Property.--(1) The 
     Secretary may acquire any interest in real property in and 
     around the Community that the Secretary determines will 
     advance the purposes of the Project.
       (2) The Secretary shall determine the value of the interest 
     in the real property to be acquired and the consideration (if 
     any) to be offered in exchange for the interest.

[[Page 12421]]

       (3) The authority to acquire an interest in real property 
     under this subsection includes authority to make surveys and 
     acquire such interest by purchase, exchange, lease, or gift.
       (4) Payments for such acquisitions may be made from amounts 
     in the Project Fund or from such other funds appropriated or 
     otherwise available to the Department for such purposes.
       (k) Reports to Congress.--(1) Section 2662 of title 10, 
     United States Code, shall not apply to transactions at the 
     Base during the Project.
       (2)(A) Not later than March 1 each year, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a 
     report on any transactions at the Base during the preceding 
     fiscal year that would be subject to such section 2662, but 
     for paragraph (1).
       (B) The report shall include a detailed cost analysis of 
     the financial savings and gains realized through joint 
     activities and other actions under the Project authorized by 
     this section and a description of the status of the Project.
       (l) Limitation.--None of the authorities in this section 
     shall create any legal rights in any person or entity except 
     rights embodied in leases, deeds, or contracts.
       (m) Expiration of Authority.--The authority to enter into a 
     lease, deed, permit, license, contract, or other agreement 
     under this section shall expire on September 30, 2004.
       (n) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``Project'' means the Base Efficiency Project 
     authorized by this section.
       (2) The term ``Base'' means Brooks Air Force Base, Texas.
       (3) The term ``Community'' means the City of San Antonio, 
     Texas.
       (4) The term ``Department'' means the Department of the Air 
     Force.
       (5) The term ``facility'' means a building, structure, or 
     other improvement to real property (except a military family 
     housing unit as that term is used in subchapter IV of chapter 
     169 of title 10, United States Code).
       (6) The term ``joint activity'' means an activity conducted 
     on or for the benefit of the Base by the Department, jointly 
     with the Community, the State, or any private entity, or any 
     combination thereof.
       (7) The term ``Project Fund'' means the Base Efficiency 
     Project Fund established by subsection (h).
       (8) The term ``public services'' means public services 
     (except public schools, fire protection, and police 
     protection) that are funded by local and State taxes and 
     provided without specific charge to the public at large.
       (9) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Air 
     Force or the Secretary's designee, who shall be a civilian 
     official of the Department appointed by the President with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (10) The term ``State'' means the State of Texas.
       Sec. 8159. (a) Subject to subsection (c) and except as 
     provided in subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may 
     waive any domestic source requirement or domestic content 
     requirement referred to in subsection (b) and thereby 
     authorize procurements of items that are grown, reprocessed, 
     reused, produced, or manufactured--
       (1) inside a foreign country the government of which is a 
     party to a reciprocal defense memorandum of understanding 
     that is entered into with the Secretary of Defense and is in 
     effect;
       (2) inside the United States or its possessions; or
       (3) inside the United States or its possessions partly or 
     wholly from components grown, reprocessed, reused, produced, 
     or manufactured outside the United States or its possessions.
       (b) For purposes of this section:
       (1) A domestic source requirement is any requirement under 
     law that the Department of Defense must satisfy its needs for 
     an item by procuring an item that is grown, reprocessed, 
     reused, produced, or manufactured in the United States, its 
     possessions, or a part of the national technology and 
     industrial base.
       (2) A domestic content requirement is any requirement under 
     law that the Department must satisfy its needs for an item by 
     procuring an item produced or manufactured partly or wholly 
     from components grown, reprocessed, reused, produced, or 
     manufactured in the United States or its possessions.
       (c) The authority to waive a requirement under subsection 
     (a) applies to procurements of items if the Secretary of 
     Defense first determines that--
       (1) the application of the requirement to procurements of 
     those items would impede the reciprocal procurement of 
     defense items under a memorandum of understanding providing 
     for reciprocal procurement of defense items that is entered 
     into between the Department of Defense and a foreign country 
     in accordance with section 2531 of title 10, United States 
     Code;
       (2) the foreign country does not discriminate against items 
     produced in the United States to a greater degree than the 
     United States discriminates against items produced in that 
     country; and
       (3) one or more of the conditions set forth in section 
     2534(d) of title 10, United States Code, exists with respect 
     to the procurement.
       (d) Laws Not Waived.--The Secretary of Defense may not 
     exercise the authority under subsection (a) to waive any of 
     the following laws:
       (1) The Small Business Act.
       (2) The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c).
       (3) Sections 7309 and 7310 of title 10, United States Code, 
     with respect to ships in Federal Supply Class 1905.
       (4) Section 9005 of Public Law 102-396 (10 U.S.C. 2241 
     note), with respect to articles or items of textiles, 
     apparel, shoe findings, tents, and flags listed in Federal 
     Supply Classes 8305, 8310, 8315, 8320, 8335, 8340, and 8345 
     and articles or items of clothing, footware, individual 
     equipment, and insignia listed in Federal Supply Classes 
     8405, 8410, 8415, 8420, 8425, 8430, 8435, 8440, 8445, 8450, 
     8455, 8465, 8470, and 8475.
       (e) Relationship to Other Waiver Authority.--The authority 
     under subsection (a) to waive a domestic source requirement 
     or domestic content requirement is in addition to any other 
     authority to waive such requirement.
       Sec. 8160. In addition to funds appropriated elsewhere in 
     this Act, the amount appropriated in title III of this Act 
     under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'' is 
     hereby increased by $220,000,000 only to procure four (4) F-
     15E aircraft: Provided, That the amount provided in title IV 
     of this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, 
     and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' is hereby reduced by 
     $50,000,000 to reduce the total amount available for National 
     Missile Defense: Provided further, That the amount provided 
     in title III of this Act under the heading ``National Guard 
     and Reserve Equipment'' is hereby reduced by $50,000,000 on a 
     pro-rata basis: Provided further, That the amount provided in 
     title III of this Act under the heading ``Aircraft 
     Procurement, Air Force'' is hereby reduced by $70,000,000 to 
     reduce the total amount available for Spares and Repair 
     Parts: Provided further, That the amount provided in title 
     III of this Act under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Navy'' is hereby reduced by $50,000,000 to reduce the total 
     amount available for Spares and Repair Parts.
       Sec. 8161. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings--
       (1) on June 25, 1996, a bomb detonated not more than 80 
     feet from the Air Force housing complex known as Khobar 
     Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 members of the 
     Air Force, and injuring hundreds more;
       (2) an FBI investigation of the bombing, soon to enter its 
     fourth year, has not yet determined who was responsible for 
     the attack; and
       (3) the Senate in Senate Resolution 273 in the One Hundred 
     Fourth Congress condemned this terrorist attack in the 
     strongest terms and urged the United States Government to use 
     all reasonable means available to the Government of the 
     United States to punish the parties responsible for the 
     bombings.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the United States Government must continue its 
     investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing until every 
     terrorist involved is identified, held accountable, and 
     punished;
       (2) the FBI, together with the Department of State, should 
     report to Congress no later than December 31, 1999, on the 
     status of its investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing; 
     and
       (3) once responsibility for the attack has been established 
     the United States Government must take steps to punish the 
     parties involved.

                                TITLE IX

                       MILITARY LAND WITHDRAWALS

                               CHAPTER 1

                  RENEWAL OF MILITARY LAND WITHDRAWALS

       Sec. 9001. Short Title. This chapter may be cited as the 
     ``Military Lands Withdrawal Renewal Act of 1999''.
       Sec. 9002. Withdrawals. (a) McGregor Range.--(1) Subject to 
     valid existing rights and except as otherwise provided in 
     this chapter, the public lands described in paragraph (3) are 
     hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the 
     public land laws (including the mining laws and the mineral 
     leasing and the geothermal leasing laws).
       (2) Such lands are reserved for use by the Secretary of the 
     Army--
       (A) for training and weapons testing; and
       (B) subject to the requirements of section 9004(f), for 
     other defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes 
     specified in this paragraph.
       (3) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the lands 
     comprising approximately 608,384.87 acres in Otero County, 
     New Mexico, as generally depicted on the map entitled 
     ``McGregor Range Withdrawal--Proposed'', dated January 1985, 
     and withdrawn by the provisions of section 1(d) of the 
     Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986. Such lands do not 
     include any portion of the lands so withdrawn that were 
     relinquished to the Secretary of the Interior under the 
     provisions of that Act.

[[Page 12422]]

       (4) Any of the public lands withdrawn under paragraph (1) 
     which, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, are 
     managed pursuant to section 603 of the Federal Land Policy 
     and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782) shall continue to 
     be managed under that section until otherwise expressly 
     provided by law.
       (b) Fort Greely Maneuver Area and Fort Greely Air Drop 
     Zone.--(1) Subject to valid existing rights and except as 
     otherwise provided in this chapter, the lands described in 
     paragraph (3) are hereby withdrawn from all forms of 
     appropriation under the public land laws (including the 
     mining laws and the mineral leasing and the geothermal 
     leasing laws), under the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for 
     the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union'', 
     approved July 7, 1958 (48 U.S.C. note prec. 21), and under 
     the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et 
     seq.).
       (2) Such lands are reserved for use by the Secretary of the 
     Army for--
       (A) military maneuvering, training, and equipment 
     development and testing; and
       (B) subject to the requirements of section 9004(f), other 
     defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes 
     specified in this paragraph.
       (3)(A) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are--
       (i) the lands comprising approximately 571,995 acres in the 
     Big Delta Area, Alaska, as generally depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Fort Greely Maneuver Area Withdrawal--Proposed'', 
     dated January 1985, and withdrawn by the provisions of 
     section 1(e) of the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986; 
     and
       (ii) the lands comprising approximately 51,590 acres in the 
     Granite Creek Area, Alaska, as generally depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Fort Greely, Air Drop Zone Withdrawal--Proposed'', 
     dated January 1985, and withdrawn by the provisions of such 
     section.
       (B) Such lands do not include any portion of the lands so 
     withdrawn that were relinquished to the Secretary of the 
     Interior under the provisions of that Act.
       (c) Fort Wainwright Maneuver Area.--(1) Subject to valid 
     existing rights and except as otherwise provided in this 
     chapter, the public lands described in paragraph (3) are 
     hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the 
     public land laws (including the mining laws and the mineral 
     leasing and the geothermal leasing laws), under the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to provide for the admission of the State 
     of Alaska into the Union'', approved July 7, 1958 (48 U.S.C. 
     note prec. 21), and under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
       (2) Such lands are reserved for use by the Secretary of the 
     Army for--
       (A) military maneuvering;
       (B) training for artillery firing, aerial gunnery, and 
     infantry tactics; and
       (C) subject to the requirements of section 9004(f), other 
     defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes 
     specified in this paragraph.
       (3) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the lands 
     comprising approximately 247,951.67 acres of land in the 
     Fourth Judicial District, Alaska, as generally depicted on 
     the map entitled ``Fort Wainwright Maneuver Area Withdrawal--
     Proposed'', dated January 1985, and withdrawn by the 
     provisions of section 1(f) of the Military Lands Withdrawal 
     Act of 1986. Such lands do not include any portion of the 
     lands so withdrawn that were relinquished to the Secretary of 
     the Interior under the provisions of that Act.
       Sec. 9003. Maps and Legal Descriptions. (a) Publication and 
     Filing Requirement.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall--
       (1) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing the 
     legal description of the lands withdrawn by this chapter; and
       (2) file maps and the legal description of the lands 
     withdrawn by this chapter with the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives.
       (b) Technical Corrections.--Such maps and legal 
     descriptions shall have the same force and effect as if they 
     were included in this chapter except that the Secretary of 
     the Interior may correct clerical and typographical errors in 
     such maps and legal descriptions.
       (c) Availability for Public Inspection.--Copies of such 
     maps and legal descriptions shall be available for public 
     inspection in the following offices:
       (1) The Office of the Secretary of Defense.
       (2) The offices of the Director and appropriate State 
     Directors of the Bureau of Land Management.
       (3) The offices of the Director and appropriate Regional 
     Directors of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
       (4) The office of the commander, McGregor Range.
       (5) The office of the installation commander, Fort 
     Richardson, Alaska.
       (d) Reimbursement.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     reimburse the Secretary of the Interior for any costs 
     incurred by the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out 
     this section.
       Sec. 9004. Management of Withdrawn Lands. (a) Management by 
     Secretary of the Interior.--(1) The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall manage the lands withdrawn by this chapter pursuant to 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1701 et seq.) and other applicable law, including the 
     Recreation Use of Wildlife Areas Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k 
     et seq.) and this chapter. The Secretary shall manage such 
     lands through the Bureau of Land Management.
       (2) To the extent consistent with applicable law and 
     Executive orders, the lands withdrawn by this chapter may be 
     managed in a manner permitting--
       (A) the continuation of grazing pursuant to applicable law 
     and Executive orders where permitted on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act;
       (B) protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat;
       (C) control of predatory and other animals;
       (D) recreation; and
       (E) the prevention and appropriate suppression of brush and 
     range fires resulting from nonmilitary activities.
       (3)(A) All nonmilitary use of the lands withdrawn by this 
     chapter, other than the uses described in paragraph (2), 
     shall be subject to such conditions and restrictions as may 
     be necessary to permit the military use of such lands for the 
     purposes specified in or authorized pursuant to this chapter.
       (B) The Secretary of the Interior may issue any lease, 
     easement, right-of-way, or other authorization with respect 
     to the nonmilitary use of such lands only with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of the military department 
     concerned.
       (b) Closure to Public.--(1) If the Secretary of the 
     military department concerned determines that military 
     operations, public safety, or national security require the 
     closure to public use of any road, trail, or other portion of 
     the lands withdrawn by this chapter, that Secretary may take 
     such action as that Secretary determines necessary to effect 
     and maintain such closure.
       (2) Any such closure shall be limited to the minimum areas 
     and periods which the Secretary of the military department 
     concerned determines are required to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (3) During any closure under this subsection, the Secretary 
     of the military department concerned shall--
       (A) keep appropriate warning notices posted; and
       (B) take appropriate steps to notify the public concerning 
     such closures.
       (c) Management Plan.--(1)(A) The Secretary of the Interior 
     (after consultation with the Secretary of the military 
     department concerned) shall develop a plan for the management 
     of each area withdrawn by this chapter.
       (2) Each plan shall--
       (A) be consistent with applicable law;
       (B) be subject to conditions and restrictions specified in 
     subsection (a)(3); and
       (C) include such provisions as may be necessary for proper 
     management and protection of the resources and values of such 
     areas.
       (3) The Secretary of the Interior shall develop each plan 
     required by this subsection not later than three years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act. In developing a plan 
     for an area, the Secretary may utilize or modify appropriate 
     provisions of the management plan developed for the area 
     under section 3(c) of the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 
     1986.
       (d) Brush and Range Fires.--(1) The Secretary of the 
     military department concerned shall take necessary 
     precautions to prevent and suppress brush and range fires 
     occurring within and outside the lands withdrawn by this 
     chapter as a result of military activities and may seek 
     assistance from the Bureau of Land Management in the 
     suppression of such fires.
       (2) Each memorandum of understanding required by subsection 
     (e) shall provide for Bureau of Land Management assistance in 
     the suppression of fires referred to in paragraph (1) in the 
     area covered by the memorandum of understanding, and for a 
     transfer of funds from the military department concerned to 
     the Bureau of Land Management as compensation for such 
     assistance.
       (e) Memorandum of Understanding.--(1) The Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of the military department 
     concerned shall (with respect to each area withdrawn by 
     section 9002) enter into a memorandum of understanding to 
     implement the management plan developed under subsection (c).
       (2) Each memorandum of understanding shall provide that the 
     Director of the Bureau of Land Management shall provide 
     assistance in the suppression of fires resulting from the 
     military use of lands withdrawn by this chapter if requested 
     by the Secretary of the military department concerned.
       (f) Additional Military Uses.--(1) The lands withdrawn by 
     this chapter may be used for defense-related uses other than 
     those specified in the applicable provision of section 9002. 
     The use of such lands for such purposes shall be governed by 
     all laws applicable to such lands, including this chapter.
       (2)(A) The Secretary of Defense shall promptly notify the 
     Secretary of the Interior in the event that the lands 
     withdrawn by this chapter will be used for defense-related 
     purposes other than those specified in section 9002.
       (B) Such notification shall indicate the additional use or 
     uses involved, the proposed

[[Page 12423]]

     duration of such uses, and the extent to which such 
     additional military uses of the lands will require that 
     additional or more stringent conditions or restrictions be 
     imposed on otherwise-permitted nonmilitary uses of the land 
     or portions thereof.
       (3) Subject to valid existing rights, the Secretary of the 
     military department concerned may utilize sand, gravel, or 
     similar mineral or material resources on the lands withdrawn 
     by this chapter when the use of such resources is required to 
     meet the construction needs of the military department 
     concerned on the lands withdrawn by this chapter.
       Sec. 9005. Land Management Analysis. (a) Periodic Analysis 
     Required.--Not later than 10 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and every 10 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary of the military department concerned shall, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, conduct an 
     analysis of the degree to which the management of the lands 
     withdrawn by this chapter conforms to the requirements of 
     laws applicable to the management of such lands, including 
     this chapter.
       (b) Deadline.--Each analysis under this section shall be 
     completed not later than 270 days after the commencement of 
     such analysis.
       (c) Limitation on Cost.--The cost of each analysis under 
     this section may not exceed $900,000 in constant 1999 
     dollars.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     completion of an analysis under this section, the Secretary 
     of the military department concerned shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the analysis. The report shall set forth the 
     results of the analysis and include any other matters 
     relating to the management of the lands withdrawn by this 
     chapter that such Secretary considers appropriate.
       Sec. 9006. Ongoing Environmental Restoration. (a) 
     Requirement.--To the extent provided in advance in 
     appropriations Acts, the Secretary of the military department 
     concerned shall carry out a program to provide for the 
     environmental restoration of the lands withdrawn by this 
     chapter in order to ensure a level of environmental 
     decontamination of such lands equivalent to the level of 
     environmental decontamination that exists on such lands as of 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Reports.--(1) At the same time the President submits to 
     Congress the budget for any fiscal year after fiscal year 
     2000, the Secretary of the military department concerned 
     shall submit to the committees referred to in paragraph (2) a 
     report on environmental restoration activities relating to 
     the lands withdrawn by this chapter. The report shall satisfy 
     the requirements of section 2706(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code, with respect to the activities on such lands.
       (2) The committees referred to in paragraph (1) are the 
     Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committees on 
     Appropriations, Armed Services, and Resources of the House of 
     Representatives.
       Sec. 9007. Relinquishment. (a) Authority.--The Secretary of 
     the military department concerned may relinquish all or any 
     of the lands withdrawn by this chapter to the Secretary of 
     the Interior.
       (b) Notice.--If the Secretary of the military department 
     concerned determines to relinquish any lands withdrawn by 
     this chapter under subsection (a), that Secretary shall 
     transmit to the Secretary of the Interior a notice of intent 
     to relinquish such lands.
       (c) Determination of Contamination.--(1) Before 
     transmitting a notice of intent to relinquish any lands under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense, acting through the 
     military department concerned, shall determine whether and to 
     what extent such lands are contaminated with explosive, 
     toxic, or other hazardous materials.
       (2) A copy of a determination with respect to any lands 
     under paragraph (1) shall be transmitted to the Secretary of 
     the Interior together with the notice of intent to relinquish 
     such lands under subsection (b).
       (3) Copies of both the notice of intent to relinquish lands 
     under subsection (b) and the determination regarding the 
     contamination of such lands under this subsection shall be 
     published in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       (d) Decontamination.--(1) If any land subject to a notice 
     of intent to relinquish under subsection (a) is contaminated, 
     and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the military department concerned, makes the 
     determination described in paragraph (2), the Secretary of 
     the military department concerned shall, to the extent 
     provided in advance in appropriations Acts, undertake the 
     environmental decontamination of the land.
       (2) A determination referred to in this paragraph is a 
     determination that--
       (A) decontamination of the land concerned is practicable 
     and economically feasible (taking into consideration the 
     potential future use and value of the land); and
       (B) upon decontamination, the land could be opened to 
     operation of some or all of the public land laws, including 
     the mining laws.
       (e) Alternatives.--(1) If a circumstance described in 
     paragraph (2) arises with respect to any land which is 
     covered by a notice of intent to relinquish under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary of the Interior shall not be required to 
     accept the land under this section.
       (2) A circumstance referred to in this paragraph is--
       (A) a determination by the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the military department 
     concerned that--
       (i) decontamination of the land is not practicable or 
     economically feasible; or
       (ii) the land cannot be decontaminated to a sufficient 
     extent to permit its opening to the operation of some or all 
     of the public land laws; or
       (B) the appropriation by Congress of amounts that are 
     insufficient to provide for the decontamination of the land.
       (f) Status of Contaminated Lands.--If, because of their 
     contaminated state, the Secretary of the Interior declines to 
     accept jurisdiction over lands withdrawn by this chapter 
     which have been proposed for relinquishment under subsection 
     (a)--
       (1) the Secretary of the military department concerned 
     shall take appropriate steps to warn the public of the 
     contaminated state of such lands and any risks associated 
     with entry onto such lands; and
       (2) the Secretary of the military department concerned 
     shall report to the Secretary of the Interior and to Congress 
     concerning the status of such lands and all actions taken in 
     furtherance of this subsection.
       (g) Revocation of Authority.--(1) Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior may, upon 
     deciding that it is in the public interest to accept 
     jurisdiction over lands proposed for relinquishment pursuant 
     to subsection (a), revoke the withdrawal established by this 
     chapter as it applies to such lands.
       (2) Should the decision be made to revoke the withdrawal, 
     the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal 
     Register an appropriate order which shall--
       (A) terminate the withdrawal;
       (B) constitute official acceptance of full jurisdiction 
     over the lands by the Secretary of the Interior; and
       (C) state the date upon which the lands will be opened to 
     the operation of some or all of the public lands laws, 
     including the mining laws.
       (h) Treatment of Certain Relinquished Lands.--Any lands 
     withdrawn by section 9002(b) or 9002(c) that are relinquished 
     under this section shall be public lands under the 
     jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and shall be 
     consider vacant, unreserved, and unappropriated for purposes 
     of the public land laws.
       Sec. 9008. Delegability. (a) Defense.--The functions of the 
     Secretary of Defense or of the Secretary of a military 
     department under this chapter may be delegated.
       (b) Interior.--The functions of the Secretary of the 
     Interior under this chapter may be delegated, except that an 
     order described in section 9007(g) may be approved and signed 
     only by the Secretary of the Interior, the Under Secretary of 
     the Interior, or an Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
       Sec. 9009. Water Rights. Nothing in this chapter shall be 
     construed to establish a reservation to the United States 
     with respect to any water or water right on the lands 
     described in section 9002. No provision of this chapter shall 
     be construed as authorizing the appropriation of water on 
     lands described in section 9002 by the United States after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act except in accordance 
     with the law of the relevant State in which lands described 
     in section 9002 are located. This section shall not be 
     construed to affect water rights acquired by the United 
     States before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 9010. Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping. All hunting, 
     fishing, and trapping on the lands withdrawn by this chapter 
     shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 2671 of title 10, United States Code.
       Sec. 9011. Mining and Mineral Leasing. (a) Determination of 
     Lands Suitable for Opening.--(1) As soon as practicable after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and at least every five 
     years thereafter, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     determine, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the 
     military department concerned, which public and acquired 
     lands (except as provided in this subsection) described in 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 9002 the Secretary 
     of the Interior considers suitable for opening to the 
     operation of the Mining Law of 1872, the Mineral Lands 
     Leasing Act of 1920, the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired 
     Lands of 1947, the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, or any one 
     or more of such Acts.
       (2) The Secretary of the Interior shall publish a notice in 
     the Federal Register listing the lands determined suitable 
     for opening pursuant to this section and specifying the 
     opening date.
       (b) Opening Lands.--On the day specified by the Secretary 
     of the Interior in a notice published in the Federal Register 
     pursuant to subsection (a), the land identified under 
     subsection (a) as suitable for opening to the operation of 
     one or more of the laws specified in subsection (a) shall 
     automatically be open to the operation of such laws without 
     the necessity for further action by the Secretary or 
     Congress.
       (c) Exception for Common Varieties.--No deposit of minerals 
     or materials of the types

[[Page 12424]]

     identified by section 3 of the Act of July 23, 1955 (69 Stat. 
     367), whether or not included in the term ``common 
     varieties'' in that Act, shall be subject to location under 
     the Mining Law of 1872 on lands described in section 9002.
       (d) Regulations.--(1) The Secretary of the Interior, with 
     the advice and concurrence of the Secretary of the military 
     department concerned, shall prescribe such regulations to 
     implement this section as may be necessary to assure safe, 
     uninterrupted, and unimpeded use of the lands described in 
     section 9002 for military purposes.
       (2) Such regulations shall contain guidelines to assist 
     mining claimants in determining how much, if any, of the 
     surface of any lands opened pursuant to this section may be 
     used for purposes incident to mining.
       (e) Closure of Mining Lands.--In the event of a national 
     emergency or for purposes of national defense or security, 
     the Secretary of the Interior, at the request of the 
     Secretary of the military department concerned, shall close 
     any lands that have been opened to mining or to mineral or 
     geothermal leasing pursuant to this section.
       (f) Laws Governing Mining on Withdrawn Lands.--(1) Except 
     as otherwise provided in this chapter, mining claims located 
     pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the provisions 
     of the mining laws. In the event of a conflict between those 
     laws and this chapter, this chapter shall prevail.
       (2) All mining claims located under the terms of this 
     chapter shall be subject to the provisions of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 
     seq.).
       (g) Patents.--(1) Patents issued pursuant to this chapter 
     for locatable minerals shall convey title to locatable 
     minerals only, together with the right to use so much of the 
     surface as may be necessary for purposes incident to mining 
     under the guidelines for such use established by the 
     Secretary of the Interior by regulation.
       (2) All such patents shall contain a reservation to the 
     United States of the surface of all lands patented and of all 
     nonlocatable minerals on those lands.
       (3) For the purposes of this subsection, all minerals 
     subject to location under the Mining Law of 1872 shall be 
     treated as locatable minerals.
       Sec. 9012. Immunity of United States. The United States and 
     all departments or agencies thereof shall be held harmless 
     and shall not be liable for any injuries or damages to 
     persons or property suffered in the course of any mining or 
     mineral or geothermal leasing activity conducted on lands 
     described in section 9002.

                               CHAPTER 2

                     McGREGOR RANGE LAND WITHDRAWAL

       Sec. 9051. Short Title. This chapter may be cited as the 
     ``McGregor Range Withdrawal Act''.
       Sec. 9052. Definitions. In this chapter:
       (1) The term ``Materials Act'' means the Act of July 31, 
     1947 (commonly known as the Materials Act of 1947; 30 U.S.C. 
     601-604).
       (2) The term ``management plan'' means the natural 
     resources management plan prepared by the Secretary of the 
     Army pursuant to section 9055(e).
       (3) The term ``withdrawn lands'' means the lands described 
     in subsection (d) of section 9053 that are withdrawn and 
     reserved under section 9053.
       (4) The term ``withdrawal period'' means the period 
     specified in section 9057(a).
       Sec. 9053. Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands at McGregor 
     Range, New Mexico. (a) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing 
     rights, and except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the 
     Federal lands at McGregor Range in the State of New Mexico 
     that are described in subsection (d) are hereby withdrawn 
     from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, 
     including the mining laws, but not the Materials Act.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the withdrawal is to support 
     military training and testing, all other uses of the 
     withdrawn lands shall be secondary in nature.
       (c) Reservation.--The withdrawn lands are reserved for use 
     by the Secretary of the Army for military training and 
     testing.
       (d) Land Description.--The lands withdrawn and reserved by 
     this section (a) comprise approximately 608,000 acres of 
     Federal land in Otero County, New Mexico, as generally 
     depicted on the map entitled ``McGregor Range Land 
     Withdrawal-Proposed,'' dated January __, 1999, and filed in 
     accordance with section 9054.
       Sec. 9054. Maps and Legal Description. (a) Preparation of 
     Maps and Legal Description.--As soon as practicable after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall--
       (1) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing the 
     legal description of the withdrawn lands; and
       (2) file one or more maps of the withdrawn lands and the 
     legal description of the withdrawn lands with the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and with the 
     Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives.
       (b) Legal Effect.--The maps and legal description shall 
     have the same force and effect as if they were included in 
     this chapter, except that the Secretary of the Interior may 
     correct clerical and typographical errors in the maps and 
     legal description.
       (c) Availability.--Copies of the maps and the legal 
     description shall be available for public inspection in the 
     offices of the New Mexico State Director and Las Cruces Field 
     Office Manager of the Bureau of Land Management and in the 
     office of the Commander Officer of Fort Bliss, Texas.
       Sec. 9055. Management of Withdrawn Lands. (a) General 
     Management Authority.--During the withdrawal period, the 
     Secretary of the Army shall manage the withdrawn lands, in 
     accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the 
     management plan prepared under subsection (e), for the 
     military purposes specified in section 9053(c).
       (b) Access Restrictions.--
       (1) Authority to close.--Subject to paragraph (2), if the 
     Secretary of the Army determines that military operations, 
     public safety, or national security require the closure to 
     public use of any portion of the withdrawn lands (including 
     any road or trail therein) commonly in public use, the 
     Secretary of the Army is authorized to take such action.
       (2) Requirements.--Any closure under paragraph (1) shall be 
     limited to the minimum areas and periods required for the 
     purposes specified in such paragraph. During a closure, the 
     Secretary of the Army shall keep appropriate warning notices 
     posted and take appropriate steps to notify the public about 
     the closure.
       (c) Management of Withdrawn and Acquired Mineral 
     Resources.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall manage all withdrawn and 
     acquired mineral resources within the boundaries of McGregor 
     Range in accordance with Public Law 85-337 (commonly known as 
     the Engle Act; 43 U.S.C. 155-158).
       (2) Management of mineral materials.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this chapter or the Materials Act, the 
     Secretary of the Army may use, from the withdrawn lands, 
     sand, gravel, or similar mineral material resources of the 
     type subject to disposition under the Materials Act, when the 
     use of such resources is required for construction needs of 
     Fort Bliss.
       (d) Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping.--All hunting, fishing, 
     and trapping on the withdrawn lands shall be conducted in 
     accordance with section 2671 of title 10, United States Code, 
     and the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.).
       (e) Management Plan.--
       (1) Required.--The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary 
     of the Interior shall jointly develop a natural resources 
     management plan for the lands withdrawn under this chapter 
     for the withdrawal period. The management plan shall be 
     developed not later than three years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and shall be reviewed at least once 
     every five years after its adoption to determine if it should 
     be amended.
       (2) Content.--The management plan shall--
       (A) include provisions for proper management and protection 
     of the natural, cultural, and other resources and values of 
     the withdrawn lands and for use of such resources to the 
     extent consistent with the purpose of the withdrawal 
     specified in section 9053(b);
       (B) identify the withdrawn lands (if any) that are suitable 
     for opening to the operation of the mineral leasing or 
     geothermal leasing laws;
       (C) provide for the continuation of livestock grazing at 
     the discretion of the Secretary of the Army under such 
     authorities as are available to the Secretary; and
       (D) provide that the Secretary of the Army shall take 
     necessary precautions to prevent, suppress, or manage brush 
     and range fires occurring within the boundaries of McGregor 
     Range, as well as brush and range fires occurring outside the 
     boundaries of McGregor Range resulting from military 
     activities at the range.
       (3) Fire suppression assistance.--The Secretary of the Army 
     may seek assistance from the Bureau of Land Management in 
     suppressing any brush or range fire occurring within the 
     boundaries of McGregor Range or any brush or range fire 
     occurring outside the boundaries of McGregor Range resulting 
     from military activities at the range. The memorandum of 
     understanding under section 9056 shall provide for assistance 
     from the Bureau of Land Management in the suppression of such 
     fires and require the Secretary of the Army to reimburse the 
     Bureau of Land Management for such assistance.
       Sec. 9056. Memorandum of Understanding. (a) Requirement.--
     The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall enter into a memorandum of understanding to implement 
     this chapter and the management plan.
       (b) Duration.--The duration of the memorandum of 
     understanding shall be the same as the withdrawal period.
       (c) Amendment.--The memorandum of understanding may be 
     amended by agreement of both Secretaries.
       Sec. 9057. Termination of Withdrawal and Reservation; 
     Extension. (a) Termination Date.--The withdrawal and 
     reservation made by this chapter shall terminate 50 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Requirements for Extension.--

[[Page 12425]]

       (1) Notice of continued military need.--Not later than five 
     years before the end of the withdrawal period, the Secretary 
     of the Army shall advise the Secretary of the Interior as to 
     whether or not the Army will have a continuing military need 
     for any or all of the withdrawn lands after the end of the 
     withdrawal period.
       (2) Application for extension.--If the Secretary of the 
     Army determines that there will be a continuing military need 
     for any or all of the withdrawn lands after the end of the 
     withdrawal period, the Secretary of the Army shall file an 
     application for extension of the withdrawal and reservation 
     of the lands in accordance with the then existing regulations 
     and procedures of the Department of the Interior applicable 
     to extension of withdrawal of lands for military purposes and 
     that are consistent with this chapter. The application shall 
     be filed with the Department of the Interior not later than 
     four years before the end of the withdrawal period.
       (c) Limitation on Extension.--The withdrawal and 
     reservation made by this chapter may not be extended or 
     renewed except by Act or joint resolution.
       Sec. 9058. Relinquishment of Withdrawn Lands. (a) Filing of 
     Relinquishment Notice.--If, during the withdrawal period, the 
     Secretary of the Army decides to relinquish all or any 
     portion of the withdrawn lands, the Secretary of the Army 
     shall file a notice of intention to relinquish with the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (b) Determination of Presence of Contamination.--Before 
     transmitting a relinquishment notice under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of the Interior, shall prepare a written determination 
     concerning whether and to what extent the lands to be 
     relinquished are contaminated with explosive, toxic, or other 
     hazardous wastes and substances. A copy of such determination 
     shall be transmitted with the relinquishment notice.
       (c) Decontamination and Remediation.--In the case of 
     contaminated lands which are the subject of a relinquishment 
     notice, the Secretary of the Army shall decontaminate or 
     remediate the land to the extent that funds are appropriated 
     for such purpose if the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Army, determines 
     that--
       (1) decontamination or remediation of the lands is 
     practicable and economically feasible, taking into 
     consideration the potential future use and value of the land; 
     and
       (2) upon decontamination or remediation, the land could be 
     opened to the operation of some or all of the public land 
     laws, including the mining laws.
       (d) Decontamination and Remediation Activities Subject to 
     Other Laws.--The activities of the Secretary of the Army 
     under subsection (c) are subject to applicable laws and 
     regulations, including the Defense Environmental Restoration 
     Program established under section 2701 of title 10, United 
     States Code, the Comprehensive Environmental Response 
     Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq.), and the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.).
       (e) Authority of Secretary of the Interior To Refuse 
     Contaminated Lands.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not 
     be required to accept lands specified in a relinquishment 
     notice if the Secretary of the Interior, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of the Army, concludes that--
       (1) decontamination or remediation of any land subject to 
     the relinquishment notice is not practicable or economically 
     feasible;
       (2) the land cannot be decontaminated or remediated 
     sufficiently to be opened to operation of some or all of the 
     public land laws; or
       (3) a sufficient amount of funds are not appropriated for 
     the decontamination of the land.
       (f) Status of Contaminated Lands.--If, because of the 
     condition of the lands, the Secretary of the Interior 
     declines to accept jurisdiction of lands proposed for 
     relinquishment or, if at the expiration of the withdrawal 
     made under this chapter, the Secretary of the Interior 
     determines that some of the withdrawn lands are contaminated 
     to an extent which prevents opening such contaminated lands 
     to operation of the public land laws--
       (1) the Secretary of the Army shall take appropriate steps 
     to warn the public of the contaminated state of such lands 
     and any risks associated with entry onto such lands;
       (2) after the expiration of the withdrawal, the Secretary 
     of the Army shall retain jurisdiction over the withdrawn 
     lands, but shall undertake no activities on such lands except 
     in connection with the decontamination or remediation of such 
     lands; and
       (3) the Secretary of the Army shall report to the Secretary 
     of the Interior and to the Congress concerning the status of 
     such lands and all actions taken under paragraphs (1) and 
     (2).
       (g) Subsequent Decontamination or Remediation.--If lands 
     covered by subsection (f) are subsequently decontaminated or 
     remediated and the Secretary of the Army certifies that the 
     lands are safe for nonmilitary uses, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall reconsider accepting jurisdiction over the 
     lands.
       (h) Revocation Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, upon deciding that it is in the public 
     interest to accept jurisdiction over lands specified in a 
     relinquishment notice, the Secretary of the Interior may 
     revoke the withdrawal and reservation made under this chapter 
     as it applies to such lands. If the decision be made to 
     accept the relinquishment and to revoke the withdrawal and 
     reservation, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in 
     the Federal Register an appropriate order which shall--
       (1) terminate the withdrawal and reservation;
       (2) constitute official acceptance of full jurisdiction 
     over the lands by the Secretary of the Interior; and
       (3) state the date upon which the lands will be opened to 
     the operation of the public land laws, including the mining 
     laws, if appropriate.
       Sec. 9059. Delegations of Authority. (a) Secretary of the 
     Army.--The functions of the Secretary of the Army under this 
     chapter may be delegated.
       (b) Secretary of the Interior.--The functions of the 
     Secretary of the Interior under this chapter may be 
     delegated, except that an order under section 9058(h) to 
     accept relinquishment of withdrawn lands may be approved and 
     signed only by the Secretary of the Interior, the Deputy 
     Secretary of the Interior, or an Assistant Secretary of the 
     Interior.

                                TITLE X

       SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN SANCTIONS AGAINST INDIA AND PAKISTAN

       Sec. 10001. Suspension of Sanctions. (a) In General.--
     Effective for the period of five years commencing on the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the sanctions contained in the 
     following provisions of law shall not apply to India and 
     Pakistan with respect to any grounds for the imposition of 
     sanctions under those provisions arising prior to that date:
       (1) Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2799aa).
       (2) Section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2799aa-1) other than subsection (b)(2)(B), (C), or (G).
       (3) Section 2(b)(4) of the Export Import Bank Act of 1945 
     (12 U.S.C. 635(b)(4)).
       (b) Special Rule for Commercial Exports of Dual-Use 
     Articles and Technology.--The sanction contained in section 
     102(b)(2)(G) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2799aa-1(b)(2)(G)) shall not apply to India or Pakistan with 
     respect to any grounds for the imposition of that sanction 
     arising prior to the date of enactment of this Act if 
     imposition of the sanction (but for this paragraph) would 
     deny any license for the export of any dual-use article, or 
     related dual-use technology (including software), listed on 
     the Commerce Control List of the Export Administration 
     Regulations that would not contribute directly to missile 
     development or to a nuclear weapons program. For purposes of 
     this subsection, an article or technology that is not 
     primarily used for missile development or nuclear weapons 
     programs.
       (c) National Security Interests Waiver of Sanctions.--
       (1) In general.--The restriction on assistance in section 
     102(b)(2)(B), (C), or (G) of the Arms Export Control Act 
     shall not apply if the President determines, and so certifies 
     to Congress, that the application of the restriction would 
     not be in the national security interests of the United 
     States.
       (2) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (A) no waiver under paragraph (1) should be invoked for 
     section 102(b)(2)(B) or (C) of the Arms Export Control Act 
     with respect to any party that initiates or supports 
     activities that jeopardize peace and security in Jammu and 
     Kashmir;
       (B) the broad application of export controls to nearly 300 
     Indian and Pakistani entities is inconsistent with the 
     specific national security interests of the United States and 
     that this control list requires refinement; and
       (C) export controls should be applied only to those Indian 
     and Pakistani entities that make direct and material 
     contributions to weapons of mass destruction and missile 
     programs and only to those items that can contribute such 
     programs.
       (d) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit 
     a report to the appropriate congressional committees listing 
     those Indian and Pakistani entities whose activities 
     contribute directly and materially to missile programs or 
     weapons of mass destruction programs.
       (e) Congressional Notification.--A license for the export 
     of a defense article, defense service, or technology is 
     subject to the same requirements as are applicable to the 
     export of items described in section 36(c) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(c)), including the transmittal of 
     information and the application of congressional review 
     procedures described in that section.
       (f) Renewal of Suspension.--Upon the expiration of the 
     initial five-year period of suspension of the sanctions 
     contained in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the 
     President may renew the suspension with respect to India, 
     Pakistan, or both for additional periods of five years each 
     if, not less than 30 days prior to each renewal of 
     suspension, the

[[Page 12426]]

     President certifies to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that it is in the national interest of the United 
     States to do so.
       (g) Restriction.--The authority of subsection (a) may not 
     be used to provide assistance under chapter 4 of part II of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.; 
     relating to economic support fund assistance) except for--
       (1) assistance that supports the activities of 
     nongovernmental organizations;
       (2) assistance that supports democracy or the establishment 
     of democratic institutions; or
       (3) humanitarian assistance.
       (h) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this Act prohibits 
     the imposition of sanctions by the President under any 
     provision of law specified in subsection (a) or (b) by reason 
     of any grounds for the imposition of sanctions under that 
     provision of law arising on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       Sec. 10002. Repeals. The following provisions of law are 
     repealed:
       (1) Section 620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2375(e)).
       (2) The India-Pakistan Relief Act (title IX of the 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, as contained 
     in section 101(a) of Public Law 105-277).
       Sec. 10003. Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined. 
     In this title, the term ``appropriate congressional 
     committees'' means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2000''.

                          ____________________



                     RECOGNITION OF JEANINE ESPERNE

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is common for Members of the Senate to 
thank members of their staff, particularly after handling an important 
piece of legislation. I am sure our constituents realize much of what 
we do is in reliance on very capable members of our staff. I have never 
taken the opportunity to talk about a member of my staff before, but on 
this occasion I wish to do so very briefly, because tomorrow a member 
of my staff is leaving to go on to another wonderful opportunity. I 
think it is important to recognize her as someone who embodies really 
the qualifications and the qualities of staff that all of us would like 
to have work with us and represent our constituents' interests.
  Her name is Jeanine Esperne. She began working with me about a dozen 
years ago when I was a Member of the House of Representatives and 
served on the House Armed Services Committee. She became my chief 
legislative assistant on defense matters. She came from the office of 
General Abramson, who at the time was head of the Strategic Defense 
Initiative Organization at the Pentagon, with rich experience in 
defense and national security matters.
  She worked with me as staff person on my Defense Armed Services 
Committee matters throughout my career in the House. Then, when I came 
to the Senate, she remained on my staff responsible for all foreign 
policy and national security matters.
  That was important, because I began serving immediately on the Senate 
Select Committee on Intelligence in an active capacity and had a 
significant need for someone of her qualifications and experience.
  In addition to that, I chaired the Subcommittee on Technology, 
Terrorism, and Government Information of the Judiciary Committee, again 
requiring someone with her expertise to assist me in those matters.
  Throughout her tenure on my staff, she has worked with Arizona 
companies and interests that have important defense-related concerns 
and with other people around the country who share a strong desire that 
we have a strong national defense, including contractors and other 
individuals with a direct interest in the government process.
  During this time, the feedback I received from both my own 
constituents and others around the country was uniformly in praise of 
Jeanine Esperne for her willingness to listen, her professionalism, the 
fact she used time very economically. She didn't waste time; she 
understood that time was important to everyone. She got her job done 
very quickly with a minimum of excess effort, almost always satisfying 
the interests of the constituent or the person with whom we were trying 
to work.
  It is with mixed emotions that today I pay tribute to Jeanine Esperne 
on her next to last day on my staff as she moves on to another 
opportunity. I do so not only because she has worked for me in a way 
which exemplifies the way most Members would have their staffs work 
with them, but I think it is important for our constituency to know 
that we have very fine staff in the Congress, that our work could not 
be done without that staff, and that when we take the opportunity to 
praise the staff, it is really to praise their exceptional abilities 
and the way in which they have served our constituents.
  In the case of Jeanine Esperne, I certainly express all of those 
sentiments, wish her very well in her new endeavors, and certainly 
suggest that occasionally those Members who are so busy doing jobs here 
take the time more often to thank those staff who, after all, are 
responsible for so much of our success.
  Jeanine Esperne, good wishes and thank you for all of your services 
on behalf of the U.S. Government, and on my behalf specifically.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk 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.

                          ____________________



                                 KOSOVO

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the agreement signed yesterday between 
NATO and Yugoslavia is hopeful news as we move toward our goals of 
ending the atrocities and genocide in Kosovo and bolstering stability 
in southeastern Europe. The vote by the UN Security Council today 
authorizing an international peacekeeping force in Kosovo is yet 
another hopeful sign.
  This agreement is a victory for freedom. It is a defeat for dictators 
around the world. NATO's resolve to halt and redress Milosevic's crimes 
against humanity sends an important message to world leaders who engage 
in ethnic cleansing and other atrocities. NATO's victory over Yugoslav 
aggression also sends a positive signal to the forces of democracy in 
the region.
  President Clinton deserves immense credit for his leadership 
throughout this 11-week military operation. When so many said it was 
impossible, he kept a 19-member NATO alliance intact. When so many said 
it would never work, he stuck to the air campaign that led that NATO 
alliance to victory.
  The President never wavered in his commitment to the alliance's goals 
of ending the atrocities in Kosovo, forcing the withdrawal of Serb 
forces from the region, and ensuring the safe return of Kosovar 
refugees to their homes. President Clinton's steadfast resolve, 
together with our NATO allies, forced President Milosevic to back down 
and accept NATO's conditions for a halt in the bombing campaign.
  It would appear that some of those who were most critical of the 
President's Kosovo policies were more concerned with waging a political 
assault than in stopping the Serbs' military assault on Kosovo. But now 
that the Serbs have conceded defeat, one can only hope that those who 
were so harshly critical of the President might concede they were 
mistaken.
  Our NATO allies also deserve great credit and much gratitude. They 
understood the long-term implications of failing to address the 
Yugoslav threat to Kosovo and to regional stability. They met the 
challenge head-on and showed that NATO remains the most formidable 
military alliance in the world.
  And the front-line states--Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, and 
Romania--were forced to experience firsthand the consequences of 
Milosevic's ethnic cleansing. They, and the Republic of Montenegro, 
should be commended for accepting hundreds of thousands of refugees and 
enduring the instability caused by the actions of the Yugoslav 
government.
  Of course, those truly on the front lines were our U.S. military 
forces who

[[Page 12427]]

contributed so skillfully to the success of the air campaign. They 
deserve our full support and our thanks for carrying out their mission 
so bravely, and for achieving our military goals with virtually no 
casualties.
  It is now vitally important that the United States and our NATO 
allies remain vigilant to ensure that the Serbs live up to their 
agreement so that the Kosovars can return to their country and their 
homes, and rebuild their lives. They have a right to live in peace 
without fear of further atrocities.
  The agreement reached yesterday is cause for great hope that we can 
achieve those goals, and I want to again commend the President, our 
troops, NATO, and those front line countries who gave so much for the 
success and the victory that we celebrate today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I commend the democratic leader on behalf of 
the entire country for the statement he has just made. Think for just a 
minute what has taken place: Thousands and thousands of individual 
sorties by 19 member nations. There are some, who were detractors, who 
referred to this as Clinton and Gore's war. No, it was not Clinton and 
Gore's war, but rather a war of those people of good will around the 
world, and certainly in this country, who detest evil, repudiate ethnic 
cleansing, and, in short, believe that atrocities by bullies like 
Slobodan Milosevic should be no more.
  So, I am confident and hopeful this will send a message to those 
around the world who feel they can maim and kill and displace those 
people with whom they disagree for purposes only they understand--the 
color of their skin, their religion--a message that this will no longer 
happen.
  So I, too, applaud the Commander in Chief. I especially applaud 
Secretary of Defense William Cohen for his leadership and commend all 
the American forces deployed in the Balkan region who have served and 
succeeded in the highest traditions of our country, and, finally, I 
wish to thank the families of the brave service men and women who 
participated in Operation Allied Force, who have borne the burden of 
being separated from their families for these many weeks.
  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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--KOSOVO

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of a Kosovo-related resolution; 
that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc; and that the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have to object at this time, not that I 
will object to it in the end. The Senate will go on record on this 
matter, but we just saw the language 15 minutes ago. I have already 
initiated a process to have it reviewed by the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, 
the chairman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, and 
other interested Senators, to make sure they are comfortable with the 
language, because it does go beyond just the resolution we see underway 
now concerning Kosovo and the withdrawal of the Serbian troops and, 
hopefully, the return of the Kosovars. It also goes into some language 
with regard to what should happen in Kosovo now and also language with 
regard to President Milosevic.
  All I am saying is we want to review the language and make sure all 
interested Senators are aware of it. We will be glad to work with 
Senator Reid, Senator Daschle, and others to have a statement by the 
Senate on this matter, as we usually do when there are events such as 
this.
  I do want to go ahead and say for the record, as others have, that 
the Senate is, I am sure, and I personally am very pleased an agreement 
appears to have been worked out and appears to be going forward.
  Earlier I was able to discuss this matter with the President. It does 
appear that the Serbian troops are beginning to be withdrawn and the 
bombing will be halted. This should lead to a process where the 
Kosovars can return to their homeland. That is good news.
  I think we all should express our appreciation for the leadership 
that has occurred in this area, and also for the good and outstanding 
work done by our troops. That is the thrust of what is in this 
resolution. So I think we all should acknowledge that. I think there is 
a sigh of relief that it did not go on further, with great problems 
facing U.S. men and women in uniform who had to go in as ground troops, 
or as the weather turned bad. We are all very pleased that this appears 
to be working out.
  As the President said to me when we talked earlier today--and I do 
not want to quote the President, because you do not do that, but the 
upshot of it was we still have a long way to go. And we do. But we all 
can hope and pray for the best.
  So while I will reserve the right to object at this point, we will 
work with the leadership on both sides of the aisle and develop some 
language on which the Senate can act.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we understand the objection of the majority 
leader. We wish we could have gotten the information in the form of 
this resolution to him sooner. But the war just ended, and the United 
Nations resolution just a matter of hours ago was passed.
  We thought it was very appropriate prior to this weekend--we are 
going out of session now until Monday--that the President, the 
Secretary of Defense, and especially those military men and women who 
have been away from home for weeks--the bombing has taken 11 weeks--
that we commend and applaud the work they have done.
  The way to do that formally is through a resolution. As the leader 
has said, he agrees generally with the thrust of what we are trying to 
do. We will be happy to work with the Republican leadership to come up 
with a resolution that makes sure the fighting men and women of this 
country are commended, that the Secretary of Defense is commended, the 
Commander in Chief, and that also we acknowledge we set out to make 
sure the Serb forces got out of Kosovo--they are on their way out--that 
the ethnic Albanians are allowed to return--they are on their way 
back--and, of course, there be a peacekeeping force on the ground, 
which this body has already approved.
  So with that, I will yield the floor, recognizing that this is a 
great day in the history of the United States, and it is a great day in 
the history of the other 18 nations in that we have been able to force 
evil to come to an end. We have won the war. It is very important that 
we now win the peace.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. One final comment on that. The record will show the Senate 
is working on an appropriate resolution. We will have one, I am sure, 
early next week.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Daschle-
Reid resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the concurrent resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                            S. Con. Res. --

       Whereas United States and NATO Forces have achieved 
     remarkable success in forcing Yugoslavia to accept NATO's 
     conditions to halt the air campaign;
       Whereas these historic accomplishments have been achieved 
     at an astoundingly small loss of life and number of 
     casualties among American and NATO forces;
       Whereas to date two Americans have been killed in the line 
     of duty;
       Whereas hundreds of thousands of Kosovar civilians have 
     been ethnically cleansed or killed by Serb security forces: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That:
       (1) The Congress applauds and expresses the appreciation of 
     the Nation to:

[[Page 12428]]

       (A) President Clinton, Commander in Chief of all American 
     Armed Forces, for his leadership during Operation Allied 
     Force.
       (B) Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Armed Forces Chief 
     of Staff Hugh Shelton and Supreme Allied Commander--Europe 
     Wesley Clark, for their planning and implementation of 
     Operation Allied Force.
       (C) All of the American forces deployed in the Balkan 
     region, who have served and succeeded in the highest 
     traditions of the Armed Forces of the United States.
       (D) All of the forces from our NATO allies, who served with 
     distinction and success.
       (E) The families of American service men and women 
     participating in Operation Allied Force, who have bravely 
     borne the burden of separation from their loved ones, and 
     staunchly supported them in this crisis.
       (2) The Congress notes with deep sadness the loss of life 
     on all sides in Operation Allied Force.
       (3) The Congress demands from Slobodan Milosevic:
       (A) The withdrawal of all Serb forces from Kosovo according 
     to relevant provisions of the Military Technical Agreement 
     between NATO and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
       (B) An end to the hostilities in Kosovo on the part of Serb 
     forces.
       (C) The unconditional return to their homes of all Kosovar 
     citizens displaced by Serb aggression.
       (4) The Congress urges the KLA to observe the ceasefire and 
     demilitarize.
       (5) The Congress urges all relevant authorities to 
     seriously examine the issue of possible war crimes by 
     Slobodan Milosevic and other Serb military leaders and 
     forces.

                          ____________________



  GUIDANCE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF EMERGENCIES AS A PART OF THE BUDGET 
                                PROCESS

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
turn to calendar No. 89, S. 557, the budget process bill to which the 
lockbox issue has been offered as an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 557) to provide guidance for the designation of 
     emergencies as a part of the budget process.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. LOTT. I send a cloture motion to the desk to the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     amendment No. 297 to Calendar No. 89, S. 557, a bill to 
     provide guidance for the designation of emergencies as a part 
     of the budget process:
         Trent Lott, Pete Domenici, Rod Grams, Mike Crapo, Bill 
           Frist, Michael B. Enzi, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Judd 
           Gregg, Strom Thurmond, Chuck Hagel, Thad Cochran, Rick 
           Santorum, Paul Coverdell, Jim Inhofe, Bob Smith of New 
           Hampshire, and Wayne Allard.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this 
cloture vote will occur then on Tuesday under rule XXII.


                            Call of the Roll

  I now ask unanimous consent that the vote occur immediately following 
the passage vote on the Y2K bill Tuesday, with the mandatory quorum 
under rule XXII being waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



      STEEL, OIL AND GAS LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM--MOTION TO PROCEED


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. LOTT. I now move to proceed to H.R. 1664 and send a cloture 
motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 121, H.R. 1664, the steel, oil and 
     gas loan guarantee program legislation:
         Trent Lott, Pete Domenici, Rick Santorum, Mike DeWine, 
           Ted Stevens, Kent Conrad, Joe Lieberman, Robert C. 
           Byrd, Byron L. Dorgan, Jay Rockefeller, Tom Daschle, 
           Harry Reid, Paul Wellstone, Tom Harkin, Fritz Hollings, 
           Robert J. Kerrey, and Tim Johnson.

  Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, this cloture vote will 
also occur on Tuesday.


                            Call of the Roll

  I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote occur immediately 
following the cloture vote on the lockbox issue, if not invoked, on 
Tuesday. In addition, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum 
under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I now withdraw the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.

                          ____________________



                      NATIONAL YOUTH FITNESS WEEK

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the 
immediate consideration of S. Res. 34, which was reported by the 
Judiciary Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 34) designating the week beginning 
     April 30, 1999, as ``National Youth Fitness Week.''

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be 
agreed to, the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the preamble be 
agreed to, the title, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this 
resolution be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendment was agreed to.
  The resolution (S. Res. 34), as amended, was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, as amended, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                               S. Res. 34

       Whereas the Nation is witnessing a historic decrease in the 
     health of the youth in the United States, with only 22 
     percent of the youth being physically active for the 
     recommended 30 minutes each day and nearly 15 percent of the 
     youth being almost completely inactive each day;
       Whereas physical education classes are on the decline, with 
     75 percent of students in the United States not attending 
     daily physical education classes and 25 percent of students 
     not participating in any form of physical education in 
     schools, which is a decrease in participation of almost 20 
     percent in 4 years;
       Whereas more than 60,000,000 people, \1/3\ of the 
     population of the United States, are overweight;
       Whereas the percentage of overweight youth in the United 
     States has doubled in the last 30 years;
       Whereas these serious trends have resulted in a decrease in 
     the self-esteem of, and an increase in the risk of future 
     health problems for, youth in the United States;
       Whereas youth in the United States represent the future of 
     the Nation and the decrease in physical fitness of the youth 
     may destroy the future potential of the United States unless 
     the Nation invests in the youth in the United States to 
     increase productivity and stability for tomorrow;
       Whereas regular physical activity has been proven to be 
     effective in fighting depression, anxiety, premature death, 
     diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, colon cancer, 
     and a variety of weight problems;
       Whereas physical fitness campaigns help encourage 
     consideration of the mental and physical health of the youth 
     in the United States; and
       Whereas Congress should take steps to reverse a trend 
     which, if not resolved, could destroy future opportunities 
     for millions of today's youth because a healthy child makes a 
     healthy, happy, and productive adult: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) designates the week beginning June 21, 1999, as 
     ``National Youth Fitness Week'';
       (2) urges parents, families, caregivers, and teachers to 
     encourage and help youth in the United States to participate 
     in athletic activities and to teach adolescents to engage in 
     healthy lifestyles; and
       (3) requests the President to issue a proclamation calling 
     on the people of the United
     
     
[[Page 12429]]

     States to observe the week with appropriate ceremonies and 
     activities.

  The title was amended so as to read: ``A resolution designating the 
week beginning June 21, 1999, as `National Youth Fitness Week'.''

                          ____________________



                    THE YEAR OF SAFE DRINKING WATER

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of S. Res. 81, which was reported by the 
Judiciary Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 81) 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.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, 
the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed at the 
appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 81) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                               S. Res. 81

       Whereas clean and safe drinking water is essential to every 
     American;
       Whereas the health, comfort, and standard of living of all 
     people in this Nation depends upon a sufficient supply of 
     safe drinking water;
       Whereas behind every drop of clean water are the combined 
     efforts of thousands of water plant operators, engineers, 
     scientists, public and environmental advocacy groups, 
     legislators, and regulatory officials;
       Whereas public health protection took an historic leap when 
     society began treating water to remove disease-causing 
     organisms;
       Whereas over 180,000 individual water systems in the United 
     States serve over 250,000,000 Americans;
       Whereas the Safe Drinking Water Act is one of the most 
     significant legislative landmarks in 20th century public 
     health protection;
       Whereas the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act on 
     December 16, 1974, enabled the United States to take great 
     strides toward the protection of public health by treating 
     and monitoring drinking water, protecting sources of drinking 
     water, and providing consumers with more information 
     regarding their drinking water;
       Whereas Americans rightfully expect to drink the best water 
     possible, and expect advances in the public health sciences, 
     water treatment methods, and the identification of potential 
     contaminants; and
       Whereas the continued high quality of drinking water in 
     this country depends upon advancing drinking water research, 
     vigilantly monitoring current operations, increasing citizen 
     understanding, investing in infrastructure, and protecting 
     sources of drinking water: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) designates the year of 1999 as ``The Year of Safe 
     Drinking Water'';
       (2) commemorates the 25th anniversary of the enactment of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act; and
       (3) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
     calling upon the people of the United States to observe the 
     year with appropriate programs that enhance public awareness 
     of--
       (A) drinking water issues;
       (B) the advancements made by the United States in the 
     quality of drinking water during the past 25 years; and
       (C) the challenges that lie ahead in further protecting 
     public health.

                          ____________________



                 NATIONAL PEDIATRIC AIDS AWARENESS DAY

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 114, which was also 
reported by the Judiciary Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 114) designating June 22, 1999, as 
     ``National Pediatric AIDS Awareness Day.''

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, 
the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, and any statements relating to this resolution be printed at the 
appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 114) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              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.

                          ____________________



                PRESENTATION OF GOLD MEDAL TO ROSA PARKS

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 127, which is at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 127) permitting the 
     use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to present a 
     gold medal on behalf of Congress to Rosa Parks.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
concurrent resolution.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any 
statements relating to the resolution be printed at the appropriate 
place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 127) was agreed to.

                          ____________________



               MEASURE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--H.R. 1259

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 1259 be 
placed on the calendar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________


                          COMMENDING THE PAGES

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today is the last day of work of the present 
group of pages--the ``youngest Government employees.'' I commend all of 
the pages and wish them good luck in their future endeavors. I know all 
Members would want to personally thank them for their hard work. Many 
days they have worked late into the night, and the next morning they 
would get up



[[Page 12430]]


early to go to school. It is not an easy job being a Senate page. Their 
work here is very important, as we move through our legislative process 
and quite often move a lot of paper around. They help us an awful lot.
  I have particularly enjoyed watching this group and seeing them at 
the door and seeing them in the halls and seeing them led by Senator 
Thurmond into the dining room for ice cream for one and all.
  I therefore ask consent that the names of this class of Senate pages 
be printed in the Record with our heartiest appreciation.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              Senate Pages


                            Republican Pages

       Jennifer Duomato.
       Micah Ceremele.
       Rick Carrol.
       Cathy Cone.
       Courtney Mims.
       Marian Thorpe.
       Jessica Lipschultz.
       Derrek Allsup.
       Mark Nexon.
       Clay Crockett.


                             Democrat Pages

       Stephanie Valencia.
       Patrick Hallahan.
       Danielle Driscoll.
       Halicia Burns.
       Bud Vana.
       Stephanie Stahl.
       Mark Hadley.
       Devin Barta.
       Brendan McCann.
       Jennifer Machacek.
       Chandra Obie.

  Mr. REID. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. REID. I also say to the pages that there has been an example set 
in years past that pages become Members of the Senate, not the least of 
which is our own Senator Chris Dodd. If you think the example we have 
set for you is one you would want to follow later in life, you should 
know you have a very good foundation by being a page.

                          ____________________



                    ORDERS FOR MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on 
Monday, June 14. I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday, 
immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be 
approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time 
for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and 
there be a period of morning business until 1 p.m. with Senators 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask consent that at 1 p.m. the Senate begin 
consideration of the energy and water appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



                                PROGRAM

  Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate 
will not be in session. On Monday, the Senate will consider the energy 
and water appropriations bill, as was just agreed to, with the first 
rollcall vote expected to occur at approximately 5:30 on Monday. We 
will need to work with all Senators to make sure Senators can be 
present for that vote but, as is usually the case, unless notified 
otherwise, there will be votes on Monday at approximately 5:30 or 
sometime shortly thereafter.
  It is my hope the energy and water appropriations bill can be 
completed during Monday's session of the Senate. Two cloture motions 
were filed with respect to the Social Security lockbox issue and the 
oil, gas, and steel appropriations revolving fund bill.
  Also, under previous consent, the Y2K bill will be completed on 
Tuesday. Therefore, a series of votes will occur beginning at 2:15 on 
Tuesday, June 15.

                          ____________________



                ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999

  Mr. LOTT. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, 
I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the 
previous order.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:41 p.m., adjourned until 
Monday, June 14, 1999, at 12 noon.

                          ____________________



                              NOMINATIONS

  Executive nominations received by the Senate June 10, 1999:


                   CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

       ANN BROWN, OF FLORIDA, TO BE A COMMISSIONER OF THE CONSUMER 
     PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION FOR A TERM OF SEVEN YEARS FROM 
     OCTOBER 27, 1999. (REAPPOINTMENT)
       ANN BROWN, OF FLORIDA, TO BE CHAIRMAN OF THE CONSUMER 
     PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION. (REAPPOINTMENT)


                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

       JAMES CATHERWOOD HORMEL, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR 
     EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF 
     AMERICA TO LUXEMBOURG, TO WHICH POSITION HE WAS APPOINTED 
     DURING THE LAST RECESS OF THE SENATE.


                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

       DAVID W. OGDEN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
     GENERAL, VICE FRANK HUNGER, RESIGNED.
  EXECUTIVE NOMINATION RECEIVED BY THE SENATE MAY 26, 1999:


                            IN THE AIR FORCE

       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND FOR REGULAR 
     APPOINTMENT (IDENTIFIED BY AN ASTERISK (*)) UNDER TITLE 10, 
     U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 531:

                              To be major

     *RAAN R. AALGAARD
     CARLENA A. ABALOS
     JOSEPH D. ABEL
     JOSEPH A. ABRIGO
     PATRICK K. ADAMS
     BRIAN T. ADKINS
     ROY ALAN C. AGUSTIN
     DONALD W. AILSWORTH
     KRISTOPHER J. ALDEN
     *STEPHEN J. ALEXANDER
     MICHAEL D. ALFORD
     ALEE R. ALI
     CHARLES T. ALLEN
     KEVIN S. ALLEN
     MARK P. ALLEN
     *SCOT T. ALLEN
     MICHAEL W. ALLIN
     STEVEN G. ALLRED
     DOUGLAS E. ALMGREN
     JAMES W. ALSTON
     JOHN S. ALTO
     DENIO A. ALVARADO
     IGNACIO G. ALVAREZ
     MATTHEW G. ANDERER
     ARTHUR W. ANDERSON
     *BARBARA A. ANDERSON
     BERNADETTE A. ANDERSON
     BETTY L. ANDERSON
     CALVIN N. ANDERSON
     CHRISTOPHER M. ANDERSON
     DANIEL L. ANDERSON
     EUGENE S. ANDERSON
     JOHN R. ANDERSON
     JON M. ANDERSON
     MARK RICHARD ANDERSON
     MICHAEL A. ANDERSON
     RICHARD N. ANDERSON
     EDWARD C. ANDREJCZYK
     HAROLD G. ANDREWS, II
     PETER J. ANDREWS
     BENJAMIN C. ANGUS
     ANTHONY R. ARCIERO
     NINA M. ARMAGNO
     TIMOTHY L. ARMEL
     *JOHN E. ARMOUR
     MARK J. ARMSTRONG
     JOHN T. ARNOLD
     *MARTHA ARREDONDO
     DAVID R. ARRIETA
     AMY V. ARWOOD
     MYRON H. ASATO
     CHRISTOPHER D. ASHABRANNER
     TROY A. ASHER
     *IRENE L. ASHKER
     JAMES M. ASHLEY
     *RANDALL M. ASHMORE
     GARY A. ASHWORTH
     DONALD A. ASPDEN
     HANS R. AUGUSTUS
     *DAVID A. AUPPERLE
     STEVEN A. AUSTIN
     CASSANDRA D. AUTRY
     M. SHANNON AVERILL
     CHRISTOPHE L. AVILA
     *JOSEPH L. BACA
     THOMAS A. BACON
     DAVID P. BACZEWSKI
     JOSEPH V. BADALIS
     BRYAN J. BAGLEY
     FREDERICK L. BAIER
     SHARON F. BAILEY
     WILLIAM D. BAILEY
     LINDA L. BAILEYMARSHALL
     JEFFREY A. BAIR
     JAMES C. BAIRD
     MELVIN A. BAIRD
     ERIC W. BAKER
     RUSTY O. BALDWIN
     SUSAN F. BALL
     CHRISTOPHER BALLARD
     MERRILL D. BALLENGER
     JOHN M. BALZANO
     JOHN D. BANSEMER
     NORMAN W. BARBER
     SALVADOR E. BARBOSA
     *JIMMY LEE BARDIN
     TONY L. BARKER
     ROBERT J. BARKLEY
     PHILLIP B. BARKS
     WILLIAM A. BARKSDALE
     CASSIE B. BARLOW
     WARREN P. BARLOW
     JAMES A. BARNES
     KYLER A. BARNES
     *BARTON V. BARNHART
     ANTHONY J. BARRELL
     ANNE H. BARRETT
     SAM C. BARRETT
     DOUGLAS W. BARRON
     FRANCESCA BARTHOLOMEW
     JOHN S. BARTO
     MARCUS P. BASS
     DALE L. BASTIN
     MARK J. BATES
     DAVID W. BATH
     *CHRISTOPHER R. BAUTZ
     BRENT R. BAXTER
     DAVID B. BAYSINGER
     MATTHEW D. BEALS
     CHARLES L. BEAMES
     *ADAM G. BEARDEN
     KEITH L. BEARDEN
     ANDREW C. BEAUDOIN
     BRIAN A. BEAVERS
     SCOTT M. BEDROSIAN
     JEANNINE A. BEER
     MICHAEL A. BEHLING
     MARY A. BEHNE
     ROBERT H. BEHRENS
     *STEVEN G. BEHRENS
     SCOTT W. BEIDLEMAN
     BRIAN A. BEITLER
     LEWONNIE E. BELCHER
     *BRADLEY L. BELL
     DOVER M. BELL
     JOHN L. BELL, JR.
     GREGORY J. BELOYNE
     MARIALOURDES BENCOMO
     CHRISTIAN P. BENEDICT
     WARREN L. BENJAMIN
     KEVIN S. BENNETT
     WILLIAM T. BENNETT
     STEPHEN R. BENNING
     *MICHAEL P. BENSCHE
     CHRISTOPHER J. BEODDY
     DIANA BERG
     WILLIAM S. BERGMAN
     KEVIN L. BERKOMPAS
     *NATHAN M. BERMAN
     *PETER H. BERNSTEIN
     ALAN R. BERRY
     KENNETH B. BERRY
     MARIE L. BERRY
     JAMES A. BESSEL
     BELLA T. BIAG
     ROBERT W. BICKEL
     *PAUL J. BIELEFELDT
     KURT J. BIENIAS
     VAL J. BIGGER
     STEVEN A. BILLS
     TRENT D. BINGER
     PETER D. BIRD
     MICHAEL O. BIRKELAND
     KURT D. BIRMINGHAM
     LEOLYN A. BISCHEL
     *DAMON D. BISHOP
     DARREN L. BISHOP
     STEPHEN H. BISSONNETTE
     *CHRISTOPHER S. BJORKMAN
     *ROBERT S. BLACK
     MILTON L. BLACKMON, JR.
     DAVID T. BLACKWELL
     KRISTINE E. BLACKWELL
     RICK A. BLAISDELL
     JEFFREY E. BLALOCK
     THOMAS S. BLALOCK, JR.
     JOHN E. BLEUEL
     RAYMOND H. BLEWITT
     SONNY P. BLINKINSOP
     RICHARD D. BLOCKER III
     FRANZ E. BLOMGREN
     ADAM J. BLOOD
     MARK E. BOARD
     DAVID W. BOBB
     JUSTIN L. BOBB
     GREGORY D. BOBEL
     KEVIN J. BOHAN
     BARBARA D. BOHMAN
     MATTHEW J. BOHN
     LORENZO L. BOLDEN, JR.
     JOANNE BOLLHOFER
     JENNIFER A. BOLLINGER
     CRAIG L. BOMBERG
     LISA D. BOMBERG
     GREGORY L. BONAFEDE
     JEFFREY P. BONS
     *GERALD A. BOONE
     *ROBERT K. BOONE
     SCOTT C. BORCHERS
     *JANET A. BORDEN
     PHILLIP M. BOROFF
     *ANDREW J. BOSSARD
     DAROLD S. BOSWELL
     MARY NOEHL BOUCHER

[[Page 12431]]


     FRITZIC P. BOUDREAUX, JR.
     *JAMES D. BOUDREAUX
     THOMAS A. BOULEY
     DUANE K. BOWEN
     ROBERT D. BOWER
     MICHELLE M. BOWES
     CLIFFORD M. BOWMAN
     TERRY L. BOWMAN
     GORDON F. BOYD II
     JOHN A. BOYD
     MARCUS A. BOYD
     TUCK E. BOYSON
     TAURUS L. BRACKETT
     HAROLD W. BRACKINS
     JAMIE S. BRADY
     MICHAEL H. BRADY
     JAMES I. BRANSON
     *HARRY BRAUNER
     JAMES R. BRAY
     JEFFREY R. BREAM
     JOHN M. BREAZEALE
     GARY R. BREIG
     KELLY J. BREITBACH
     DAVID A. BRESCIA
     COY J. BRIANT
     DAVID P. BRIAR
     ANTHONY S. BRIDGEMAN
     WILLIAM S. BRINLEY
     *TIMOTHY B. BRITT
     PAUL D. BRITTON
     DERRELL R. BROCKWELL
     LINDA S. BROECKL
     *DAVID G. BROSIUS
     DARRELL P. BROWN
     HAROLD D. BROWN, JR.
     KEVIN D. BROWN
     MANNING C. BROWN
     SCOTT L. BROWN
     SCOTT T. BROWN
     BRUCE F. BROWNE
     KEVIN G. BROWNE
     HERALDO B. BRUAL
     PATRICIA S. BRUBAKER
     LARRY A. BRUCE, JR.
     STEVEN E. BRUKWICKI
     JANET D. BRUMLEY
     MICHAEL H. BRUMMETT
     ERIC J. BRUMSKILL
     ARCHIBALD E. BRUNS
     EFFSON CHESTER BRYANT
     JAMES E. BUCHMAN
     GERALD A. BUCKMAN
     JOHN T. BUDD
     GEORGE B. BUDZ
     ANTHONY W. BUENGER
     STEVEN C. BUETOW
     JOHN J. BULA
     MARIAN R. BUNDY
     MICHAEL P. BUONAUGURIO
     *VINCENT M. BUQUICCHIO
     RODNEY J. BURCH
     RONALD A. BURGESS
     DOUGLAS A. BURKETT
     ROBERT R. BURNHAM
     ANN M. BURNS
     KEVIN E. BURNS
     TIMOTHY A. BURNS
     PHLECIA R. BURSEY
     JAMES B. BURTON
     MICHAEL D. BUSCH
     TIMOTHY E. BUSH
     DEAN E. BUSHEY
     *CARLOS E. BUSHMAN
     JEFFREY T. BUTLER
     RANDALL L. BUTLER
     ANTHONY C. BUTTS
     CARL A. BUTTS
     *JOHN J. CABALA
     DAN D. CABLE
     HENRY T. G. CAFFERY
     DANIEL B. CAIN
     SHAWN D. CALDWELL
     ELWIN B. CALLAHAN
     SEAN P. CALLAHAN
     RONALD CALVERT
     MARLON G. CAMACHO
     SCOTT C. CAMERON
     CAROLYN D. CAMPBELL
     DENNIS T. CAMPBELL
     GORDON H. CAMPBELL, JR.
     MICHAEL F. CANAVAN
     JR C. CANDELARIO
     *BEVERLY J. CANFIELD
     CHRISTOPHER G. CANTU
     DANIEL D. CAPPABIANCA
     DANIEL F. CAPUTO
     ALEXANDER C. CARDENAS
     JAMES L. CARDOSO
     BARAK J. CARLSON
     KENNETH A. CARPENTER
     KEVIN P. CARR
     THOMAS J. CARROLL III
     *LISA C. CARSWELL
     MICHAEL C. CARTER
     WILLIAM T. CARTER
     STEVEN M. CASE
     *JAMES W. CASEY
     LINA M. CASHIN
     MANUEL F. CASIPIT
     BRIAN G. CASLETON
     HENRI F. CASTELAIN
     ELMA M. CASTOR
     MARTHA E. CATALANO
     WADE K. CAUSEY
     BRUCE C. CESSNA
     JAMES L. CHAMBERLAIN
     CHARLES E. CHAMBERS
     CHARLES R. CHAMBERS
     SHERI L. CHAMBLISS
     ROBERT D. CHAMPION
     SANDRA M. CHANDLER
     CRAIG C. CHANG
     ALICE S. CHAPMAN
     JOHN W. CHAPMAN
     JOHNNY R. CHAPPELL
     THOMAS M. CHAPPELL
     MARK C. CHARLTON
     XAVIER D. CHAVEZ
     CHRISTOPHER D. CHELALES
     JOHN A. CHERREY
     ROBERT T. CHILDRESS
     SCOTT D. CHOWNING
     LILLY B. CHRISMAN
     *DON M. CHRISTENSEN
     TERRENCE J. CHRISTIE
     ROBYN A. CHUMLEY
     *KAREN L. CHURCH
     PATRICIA M. CIFELLI
     ANTHONY J. CIRINCIONE
     MICHAEL S. CLAFFEY
     BERYL M. CLAREY
     *BRIAN D. CLARK
     KELLY B. CLARK
     ROBERT J. CLASEN
     JOHN L. CLAY
     WILLIAM T. CLAYPOOLE
     MICHELLE M. CLAYS
     JEFFREY C. CLAYTON
     JEFFERSON W. CLEGHORN
     LISA M. CLEVERINGA
     JEFFREY E. CLIFTON
     LUKE E. CLOSSON III
     JONATHAN C. CLOUGH
     CAROL A. CLUFF
     THOMAS C. CLUTZ
     RICHARD G. COBB
     ALFORD C. COCKFIELD
     DWIGHT F. COCKRELL
     KAREN F. COFER
     JAMES A. COFFEY
     DAVID COHEN
     MARK A. COLBERT
     STEVEN D. COLBY
     THOMAS D. COLBY
     PHILBERT A. COLE, JR.
     JON M. COLEMAN
     JAMES W. COLEY
     THOMAS W. COLLETT
     JAMES C. COLLINS
     JON C. COLLINS
     RANDY L. COLLINS
     *NATHAN J. COLODNEY
     KIMBERLY G. COLTMAN
     EDWARD S. CONANT
     SHANE M. CONNARY
     JOHN T. CONNELLY, JR.
     SEBASTIAN M. CONVERTINO
     DOUGLAS G. COOK
     JEFFREY J. COOK
     MICHELE M. COOK
     WILLIAM T. COOLEY
     DENNIS E. COOPER
     STEPHEN D. COOPER
     BRIAN C. COPELLO
     JAN L. COPHER
     BARBARA M. COPPEDGE
     DAVID S. CORKEN
     CHARLES R. CORNELISSE
     KYLE M. CORNELL
     *JOHN J. CORNICELLI
     NICHOLAS COSENTINO
     DONDI E. COSTIN
     JEFFREY R. COTTON
     JAMES A. COTTURONE, JR.
     BRYAN R. COX
     JEFFREY A. COX
     KEITH A. COX
     MARK A. COX
     GREGORY P. COYKENDALL
     BEVERLY J. COYNER
     STEPHEN P. CRAIG
     CHRIS D. CRAWFORD
     ROSE M. CRAYNE
     ROGER W. CREEDON
     JEFFERY J. CRESSE
     ROBERT A. CREWS
     JOHN T. CRIST
     STEPHEN P. CRITTELL
     *TIMOTHY D. CROFT
     MYRNA E. CRONIN
     WILLIAM J. CRONIN IV
     BRENDA L. CROOK
     *MICHAEL B. CROSLEN
     ANDREW R. CROUSE
     STANLEY D. CROW, JR.
     JAMES A. CRUTCHFIELD
     NEAL J. CULINER
     CURTIS N. CULVER
     JAMES P. CUMMINGS
     BRIAN W. CUNNING
     BARBARA C. CUPIT
     DARRIN L. CURTIS
     DEAN A. CUSANEK
     DAVID J. CUSTODIO
     GLENN T. CZYZNIK
     *JONATHAN S. DAGLE
     SCOTT V. DAHL
     STEPHEN C. DALEY
     KENT B. DALTON
     STEVEN J. DALTON
     CHARLES J. DALY
     LEONARD J. DAMICO
     JAMIE A. DAMSKER
     JOHN B. DANIEL
     ERIC D. DANNA
     LARRY J. DANNELLEY, JR.
     JEFFREY C. DARIUS
     LARRY G. DAVENPORT
     PAUL D. DAVENPORT
     *AARON A. DAVID
     MELVIN G. DEAILE
     DWIGHT E. DEAN
     MICHAEL E. DEARBORN
     MICHAEL A. DEBROECK
     JAMES J. DECARLIS III
     KIMBERLY JO DECKER
     TIMOTHY B. DECKER
     ALEXANDER I. DEFAZIO
     PHILIP S. DEFENBACH
     DREXEL G. DEFORD, JR.
     MITCHELL T. DEGEYTER
     ROD A. DEITRICK
     ELAINE M. DEKKER
     PENA EDUARDO C. DELA, JR.
     MARY M. DELGADO
     JAY B. DELONG, JR.
     MICHAEL T. DELUCIA
     JOSEPH W. DEMARCO
     JOHN T. DEMBOSKI
     GERALD M. DEMPSEY
     DAVID R. DENHARD
     KEVIN R. DENNINGER
     MICHAEL R. DENNIS
     ANTHONY J. DENNISON III
     TIMOTHY J. DENNISON
     JANE G. DENTON
     EUGENE F. DEPAOLO
     IAN J. DEPLEDGE
     DAVID G. DERAY
     JOSEPH L. DERDZINSKI
     JAY B. DESJARDINS, JR.
     FRANCES A. DEUTCH
     NATHAN P. DEVILBISS
     MARK D. DEVOE
     GRANT C. DICK
     *SANDRA M. DICKENSON
     MATTHEW J. DICKERSON, SR.
     JOHN R. DIDONNA
     JAMES H. DIENST
     TODD A. DIERLAM
     PAMELA D. DIFFEE
     MICHAEL L. DILDA
     JOSEPH A. DILLINGER
     ELLIS D. DINSMORE
     STEPHEN J. DION
     DONALD G. DIPENTA
     DOUGLAS S. DIXON
     PHILLIP N. DIXON
     CHRISTOPHER P. DOBB
     DEAN E. DOERING
     MARY A. DOLAN
     NEAL E. DOLLAR
     BRIAN P. DONAHOO
     ANDREW H. DONALDSON
     *ROBIN ANNE DONATO
     LAUREEN M. DONOVAN
     WILLIAM R. DONOVAN II
     STEFAN B. DOSEDEL
     GARTH D. DOTY
     PAUL D. DOTZLER
     STEVEN I. DOUB
     RONALD J. DOUGHERTY
     BARRY D. DOVIN
     JOHN J. DOYLE
     *JOSEPH R. DOYLE
     TAMMY J. DOYLE
     THOMAS P. DOYLE
     THURMAN L. DRAKE, JR.
     TIMOTHY J. DRANTTEL
     SUSAN C. DRENNON
     ROBERT S. DROZD
     JONATHAN T. DRUMMOND
     *KEITH J. DUFFY
     LAURA L. DUGAS
     LEA A. DUNCAN
     DAWN M. DUNLOP
     CARRIE L. DUNNE
     PATRICK B. DUNNELLS
     RONDA L. DUPUIS
     KENT A. DUSEK
     BRIAN T. DWYER
     *JOHNNY F. DYMOND
     ROBERT L.P. EADES
     THOMAS A. EADS
     ROBERT M. EATMAN
     STEVEN P. EBY
     JAMES R. ECHOLS
     KEVIN L. EDENBOROUGH
     KIRK W. EDENS
     CHRISTOPHER R. EDLING
     *ALAN M. EDMIASTON
     BOBBY G. EDWARDS, JR.
     CHERYL L. EDWARDS
     JAMES W. EDWARDS
     RICHARD F. EDWARDS
     ROBERT R. EDWARDS, JR.
     SCOTT D. EDWARDS
     BRIAN L. EGGER
     PATRICIA D. EGLESTON
     LAWRENCE A. EICHHORN
     CRAIG S. EICKHOFF
     KENNETH A. EIKEN
     RONALD S. EINHORN
     THOMAS D. EISENHAUER
     GERARD H. EISERT
     ELAINE S. ELDRIDGE
     GEORGE G. ELEFTERIOU
     *DONALD RICHARD ELLER, JR.
     WENDY CARLEEN ELLIOTT
     BARNEY G. ELLIS
     PATRICK M. ELLIS
     PATRICK W. ELLIS
     GREGORY C. ELLISON
     PATRICK H. ENCINAS
     GREGORY S. ENGLE
     ADAM C. ENGLEMAN
     MARK E. ENNIS
     LARRY T. EPPLER
     REY R. ERMITANO
     KENNETH G. ERNEWEIN
     BRIAN E. ERNISSE
     ALEXANDER A. EROLIN
     RICHARD ESCOBEDO
     STEVEN A. ESTOCK
     *MARK D. EVANS
     SONGI R. EVANS
     WILBURN EVANS III
     BRIAN D. EWERT
     ROBERT A. FABIAN
     DAVID T. FAHRENKRUG
     JAMES D. FAIN
     HENRY J. FAIRTLOUGH
     KELLY S. FARNUM
     MICHAEL G. FARRELL
     CHERYL R. FARRER
     KURTIS W. FAUBION
     JEFFREY N. FAWCETT
     JAMES L. FEDERWISCH
     *SUSAN M. FEDRO
     *CATHERINE L. FEIL
     BRADLEY K. FELIX
     LAURA FELTMAN
     DONALD S. FELTON
     TIMOTHY J. FENNELL
     *THOMAS A. FERRARI
     CHRISTOPHER R. FERREZ
     WILLIAM A. FERRO
     MICHAEL S. FIELDS
     WILLIE L. FIELDS III
     SCOTT T. FIKE
     RICHARD E. FILER
     PAUL K. FINDLEY
     DONALD N. FINLEY
     *KIMBERLY FINNEY
     MICHAEL J. FINNEY
     STEVEN T. FIORINO
     CYNTHIA L.H. FISHER
     JASON FISHER
     JAY R. FISHER
     TIMOTHY L. FITZGERALD
     DAVID M. FITZPATRICK
     JOHN D. FITZSIMMONS, JR.
     MICHAEL F. FLECK
     KEVIN S. FLEMING
     WILLIAM J. FLEMING
     LEE A. FLINT III
     *JAMES K. FLOYD
     SCOTT G. FLOYD
     THOMAS J. FLYNN, JR.
     RICHARD L. FOFI
     PATRICK F. FOGARTY
     JETH A. FOGG
     DARLENE L. FOLEY
     JOHN T. FOLMAR
     *ARNALDO FONSECA
     *DAVID J. FORBES
     EDWARD L. FORD
     TEDDY R. FORDYCE II
     SCOTT A. FOREST
     GERALD T. FORGETTE
     MARK A. FORINGER
     LANCE N. FORTNEY
     CLAUDIA M. FOSS
     HARRY A. FOSTER
     STEVEN D. FOUCH
     *JENNIFER E. FOURNIER
     JOHN A. FOURNIER
     *ROBERT J. FOURNIER
     STEVEN J. FOURNIER
     KAREN S. FRALEY
     MICHAEL S. FRAME
     EDWARD M. FRANKLIN
     ELLEN A. FRANKLIN
     STEVEN C. FRANKLIN
     *GINA T. FRATIANI
     GEORGE W. FRAZIER, JR.
     JOHN T. FREDETTE
     BRIAN E. FREDRIKSSON
     FRANK FREEMAN III
     JEFFREY B. FREEMAN
     LEE S. FREEMAN
     MICHAEL D. FREESTONE
     KATHLEEN A. FRENCH
     ROBERT J. FREY
     *ERIC L. FRIED
     *MARIA A. FRIED
     JOSEPH P. FRIERS
     WILLIAM E. FRITZ II
     KENNETH D. FROLLINI
     *JAY. D. FULLER
     *CHRISTOPHER A. FURBEE
     JEFFREY C. GADWAY
     WALTER A. GAGAJEWSKI
     JOHN W. GAGE
     CRAIG L. GAGNON
     DAVID A. GAINES
     NATHAN W. GALBREATH
     PETRA M. GALLERT
     *LIBBY A. GALLO
     JAMES C. GALONSKY
     TROY R. GAMM
     EDWARD W. GANIS, JR.
     RICHARD K. GANNON
     ARTHUR G. GARCIA
     JOHN R. GARCIA
     RAUL V. GARCIA
     JOHN R. GARRETT
     CLAY L. GARRISON
     MARK P. GARST
     BRENDA M. GARZA
     DAVID J. GAUTHIER
     THOMAS W. GEARY
     EDWARD R. GEDNEY
     MICHAEL T. GEHRLEIN
     JEWEL A. GEORGE
     SCOT B. GERE
     WILLIAM E. GERHARD, JR.
     JEFFREY J. GERINGER
     DANIEL E. GERKE
     *PATRICIA A. GETHING
     CAROL C. GIACHETTI
     ANTHONY P. GIANGIULIO
     GEOFFREY M. GIBBS
     *PARKS G. GIBSON
     ROBERT C. GIBSON
     FRANCES M. GIDDINGS
     DANNY R. GIESLER
     THOMAS C. J. GILKESON
     ANDREA L. GILL
     DAVID L. GILL
     ANDREW W. GILLESPIE
     ERIC J. GILLILAND
     KENNY Y. GILLILAND
     THOMAS C. GILSTER
     STEVEN R. GIOVENELLA
     PETER D. GIUSTI
     ANTHONY L. GIZELBACH
     MICHAEL W. GLACCUM
     JERRY E. GLATTFELT
     FRANK A. GLENN
     KEVIN B. GLENN
     DONAVAN E. GODIER
     *MARTHA D. GOFF
     NATHAN E. GOFF
     JASON L. GOLD
     DAVID J. GOLDEN
     JOHN D. GOLDEN
     PETER E. GOLDFEIN
     DAVID B. GOLDSTEIN
     DANIEL J. GOLEN
     WILLIAM M. GOLLADAY
     GERARD A. GONZALUDO
     JULIA R. GOODE
     JANET L. GOODER
     *GARY R. GOODLIN
     JANETTE B. GOODMAN
     THOMAS E. GOODNOUGH
     STEVEN F. GOODWILL
     JANET K. GORCZYNSKI
     KEVIN A. GORDEY
     JAMES S. GORDON
     JANICE Y. GORDON
     JOHN R. GORDY II
     CATHERINE M. GORTON
     DONALD J. GRABER
     BETH ANN GRADY
     DANIEL R. GRAHAM
     GLENN L. GRAHAM
     JANINE D. GRAHAM
     SCOTT D. GRAHAM
     JONATHAN A. GRAMMER
     ERIK L. GRAVES
     JOHN A. GRAVES
     CHARLES W. GRAY
     DAVID E. GRAY
     GORDON P. GREANEY
     STEWART F. GREATHOUSE
     DARRYL W. GREEN
     DAVID R. GREEN
     *TIMOTHY P. GREEN
     JONATHAN J. GREENE
     STEPHEN E. GREENTREE
     CHARLES S. GREENWALD
     MICHAEL R. GREGG
     MICHAEL R. GREGORY
     MICHAEL C. GRIECO
     DAVID R. GRIFFIN
     WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN, II
     STANLEY E. GRIFFIS
     CEABERT J. GRIFFITH
     *DONALD W. GRIFFITH
     *JENNIFER L. GRIMM
     PATRICK J. GRIMM
     LUCIEN A. GRISE
     JOHN F. GROFF
     RONALD J. GROGIS
     CHARLES K. GROSSART
     JANET R. GRUNFELDER
     *JOHN W. GUETERSLOH
     PAUL R. GUEVIN III
     KEVIN J. GULDEN
     ERIC C. GUMBS
     LARRY E. GUNNIN, JR.
     STEPHEN E. GURNEY
     MARTIN D. GUSTAFSON
     CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ
     FLOYD A. GWARTNEY
     DAVID M. HAAR
     WILLIAM E. HABEEB
     DOUGLAS I. HAGEN
     JOHN O. HAGEN, JR.
     BELINDA F. HAINES
     STEPHEN A. HAJOSY
     LAWRENCE E. HALBACH
     CALVIN S. HALL II
     JASON T. HALL
     MICHAEL J. HALL
     STEPHEN N. HALL
     MATTHEW W. HALLGARTH
     PAUL S. HAMILTON
     FRANCISCO G. HAMM
     DAVID W. HAMMACK




[[Page 12432]]

     BRADLEY K. HAMMER
     DOUGLAS M. HAMMER
     MICHAEL C. HAMMOND, JR.
     MARK D. HANCOCK
     WILLIAM J. HANIG, JR.
     FRED HANKERSON III
     DARREN T. HANSEN
     JOHN M. HANSEN
     DAVID A. HANSON
     JAMES R. HARDEE
     STEVEN B. HARDY
     *JOANNE C. HARE
     MICHAEL R. HARMS
     TERRANCE A. HARMS
     WILLIAM M. HARNLY
     DON S. HARPER III
     GERALD J. HARPOLE
     MICHAEL HARRINGTON
     PATRICK M. HARRINGTON
     RICKEY O. HARRINGTON
     CHARLES H. HARRIS
     *REBA E. HARRIS
     WANDA F. HARRIS
     JOHN M. HARRISON
     LEONARD P. HARRISON
     MARCIA E. HARRISON
     WILLIAM R. HARRISON
     YVONNE HARRISON
     RODNEY A. HART
     STEPHEN L. HART
     MICHAEL M. HARTING
     RICHARD T. HARTMAN
     JAMES E. HARVEY
     JERI L. HARVEY
     JERRY R. HARVEY, JR.
     LYNN M. HARVEY
     DAVID R. HASSLINGER
     *MARK A. HATCH
     STEVEN M. HATCHNER
     DAVID A. HAUPT
     CHRISTOPHER P. HAUTH
     *CHRISTOPHER A. HAWES
     *STEVEN K. HAYDEN
     DAVID C. HAYEN
     BRADLEY F. HAYWORTH
     AMAND F. HECK
     JANE E. HEETDERKSCOX
     DAVID M. HEFNER
     PAUL B. HEHNKE
     *CURTIS L. HEIDTKE
     ROBERT D. HELGESON
     *GUBA LISA M. HELMS
     CRAIG A. HENDERSON
     MARKUS J. HENNEKE
     THEODORE P. HENRICH
     JOSEPH S. HENRIE
     GARY L. HENRY
     WENDY C. HEPT
     MARK R. HERBST
     MARK L. HEREDIA
     CHRISTOPHER A. HERMAN
     GREGORY A. HERMSMEYER
     MAYNARD C. HERTING, JR.
     JOHN P. HESLIN
     CRAIG J. HESS
     THOMAS P. HESTERMAN
     MICHAEL H. HEUER
     DAVID L. HICKEY
     HARLAN K. HIGGINBOTHAM
     ALBERT M. HIGGINS
     JEFFREY L. HIGGINS
     THOMAS M. HILDEBRAND
     RANDOLPH C. HILDEBRANDT
     KENNETH A. HILL
     *SCOTT J. HILMES
     DAVID W. HILTZ
     BRADLEY T. HINCE
     CARLETON H. HIRSCHEL
     RONALD W. HIRTLE
     PETER HJELLMING
     BRIAN S. HOBBS
     DAVID J. HOFF
     LAWRENCE M. HOFFMAN
     *BRIAN E. HOFFMANN II
     WAYNE P. HOLDEN
     RHONDA D. HOLDER
     PAUL E. HOLIFIELD, JR.
     STEVEN R. HOLKOVIC
     MICHAEL W. HOLL
     DALE S. HOLLAND
     KENNETH G. HOLLIDAY
     DANIEL F. HOLMES
     *GERALDINE E. HOLMESBARNETT
     ERIC L. HOLSTROM
     CHRISTOPHER M. HOLTON
     JOEL N. HOLTROP
     LEA D. HOMSTAD
     *CRINLEY S. HOOVER
     *JEANETTE C. HOPE
     JAMES M. HOPKINS
     JAY R. HOPKINS
     *MARY F. HORNBACK
     ROBERT E. HORSMANN
     SHAUN D. HOUSE
     MICHAEL L. HOUSEHOLDER
     *MAX D. HOUTZ
     ADRIAN L. HOVIOUS
     CHERYL Y. HOWARD
     RUSSELL D. HOWARD
     TIMOTHY W. HOWARD
     ROBERT R. HOWE
     DONNA MARIE HOWELL
     WALTER C. HOWERTON
     BILLIE I. HOYLE
     JEFFERY L. HOYT
     DIRK D. HUCK
     JANET C. HUDSON
     DENISE A. HUFF
     DOUGLAS A. HUFFMAN
     JOHNATHAN B. HUGHES
     JUDITH A. HUGHES
     KEITH M. HUGO
     RODNEY R. HULLINGER
     DEAN G. HULLINGS
     CAMERON D. HUMPHRES
     SUSANNE M. HUMPHREYS
     CRAIG G. HUNNICUTT
     DAVID R. HUNT, JR.
     JEFFREY R. HUNT
     ROBERT G. HUNT
     JOHN E. HUNTER
     JON C. HUNTER
     THOMAS M. HUNTER
     BRYAN D. HUNTLEY
     STEVEN B. HURTEAU
     AMELIA L. HUTCHINS
     RICHARD A. HYDE II
     DAVID C. IDE
     GRETCHEN LARSEN IDSINGA
     MARK INGUAGGIATO
     JEFFREY D. IRWIN
     STEPHAN C. ISAACS
     JOHN J. IWANSKI
     KYLE E. JAASMA
     TODD A. JAAX
     CHRISTOPHER J. JACKSON
     DAVID C. JACKSON
     LINWOOD J. JACKSON, JR.
     TROY S. JACKSON
     CHRISTOPHER M. JACOBS
     WAYNE R. JACOBS, JR.
     *IAN CHARLES JANNETTY
     SUSAN JANO
     BARBARA E. JANSEN
     PATRICK M. JEANES
     *NELTA JEANPIERRE
     RHETT W. JEFFERIES
     BRIAN K. JEFFERSON
     BILLIE M. JENNETT
     CARLOS D. JENSEN
     SEAN L. JERSEY
     KIRK C. JESTER
     LINDA J. JESTER
     MARCUS A. JIMMERSON
     *SUSAN D.K. JOBE
     CONNIE J. JOHNMEYER
     *ANDREW D. JOHNSON
     CAROL A. JOHNSON
     CLARENCE JOHNSON, JR.
     DALE R. JOHNSON
     DANIEL E. JOHNSON
     DAVID W. JOHNSON
     ERIC C. JOHNSON
     JAMES M. JOHNSON
     KARLTON D. JOHNSON
     KEVIN L. JOHNSON
     PHILIP E. JOHNSON
     RICHARD A. JOHNSON
     SCOTT F. JOHNSON
     STEVEN B. JOHNSON
     THOMAS N. JOHNSON
     WALTER M. JOHNSON, JR.
     JOHNNY K. JOHNSTON
     BRIAN S. JONASEN
     *BRUCE W. JONES
     CHRISTOPHER P. JONES
     CRAIG R. JONES
     *MARC A. JONES
     PATRICIA J. JONES
     PHILLIP W. JONES, JR.
     ROY V.J. JONES
     SYLVIA B. JONIGKEIT
     BRIAN D. JOOS
     *FRANZISKA JOSEPH
     *CHRISTOPHER J. JOYCE
     TRACY J. KAESLIN
     KEITH B. KANE
     KIM M. KANE
     STEPHEN J. KARIS
     KIRK S. KARVER
     JANET LYNN KASMER
     MICHAEL B. KATKA
     JAMES C. KATRENAK
     SCOTT M. KATZ
     ANTHONY T. KAUFFMAN
     DAVID A. KAUTH
     CHRISTOPHER M. KEANE
     SHEILA F. KEANE
     JEFFREY T. KEEF
     WILLIAM J. KEEGAN, JR.
     DANIEL J. KEELER
     ROBERT W. KEIRSTEAD, JR.
     LORETTA A. KELEMEN
     DAVID E. KELLER
     REBECCA A. KELLER
     RONALD J. KELLER
     *CHRISTOPHER L. KELLY
     JEFFREY W. KELLY
     MICHAEL J. KELLY
     RICHARD F. KELLY
     RICHARD S. KELLY
     *JAMES P. KENNEDY
     *JAY KENT
     ROMAN H. KENT
     LINDA J. KEPHART
     ROBERT J. KEPPLER
     FADI P. KHURI
     DARWIN P. KIBBY
     DOUGLAS W. KIELY
     DAVID W. KIERSKI
     *KRISTINE M. KIJEK
     ERIC D. KILE
     ROBERT KILLEFER III
     *CHARLES C. KILLION
     KEVIN R. KILLPACK
     KENNETH T. KILMURRAY
     PETER E. KIM
     *ROBIN P. KIMMELMAN
     MICHAEL T. KINDT
     CARL L. KING
     KRISTY G. KING
     *RAVEN MICHELLE L. KING
     ROSEMARY KING
     CHRISTOPHER E. KINNE
     GUS S. KIRKIKIS
     JAMES J. KISCH
     DOUGLAS K. KLEIST
     KENNETH J. KNAPP
     JAMES A. KNIGHT
     STEPHEN M. KNIGHT
     TRACY L. KNUEVEN
     DANIEL P. KNUTSON
     STACEY T. KNUTZEN
     MARISSA KOCH
     SANDRA L. KOERKENMEIER
     LORIANN A. KOGACHI
     JOSEPH KOIZEN
     KURT M. KOLCH
     *ANTON G. KOMATZ
     MICHAEL W. KOMETER
     DAVID W. KOONTZ
     JOSEPH H. KOPACZ
     RONALD B. KOPCHIK
     CRYSTAL L. KORBAS
     ERIC T. KOUBA
     CHARLES H. KOWITZ
     *ANDREW P. KRAFT
     GREGORY A. KRAGER
     JAMES N. KRAJEWSKI
     *GARY MITCHELL KRAMER
     ANNA MARTINEZ KRAMM
     STEVEN KRAVCHIN
     *ROBERT K. KRESSIN
     THOMAS R.W. KREUSER
     GUYLENE D. KRIEGHFLEMING
     GREGORY A. KROCHTA
     *GREGORY W. KRUSE
     CHRISTOPHER J. KUBICK
     SUZANNE S. KUMASHIRO
     SHIAONUNG D. KUO
     MARK C. KURAS
     ANTHONY C. KWIETNIEWSKI
     SHOMELA R. LABEE
     MANUEL LABRADO
     GUERMANTES E. LAILARI
     DAVID W. LAIR
     MARY T. LALLY
     PETER J. LAMBERT
     *GILBERTO LANDEROS, JR.
     BRIAN W. LANDRY
     JOSEPH C. LANE
     THOMAS R. LANE
     DAVID M. LANGE
     MARK A. LANGE
     MARK J. LANGLEY
     *DENNIS W. LANGSTON
     JEFFREY W. LANNING
     ROWENE J. LANT
     TIMOTHY P. LAQUERRE
     MICHAEL E. LARAMEE
     MARGARET C. LAREZOS
     CRAIG C. LARGENT
     ANDRE M. LARKINS
     BRET C. LARSON
     KELLY J. LARSON
     LAURA L. LARSON
     LOREN B. LARSON
     PHILLIP J. LASALA
     JEFFREY R. LATHROP
     ROBERT R. LATOUR
     SCOTT C. LATTIMER
     RICHARD W. LAURITZEN
     DAVID P. LAVALLEY
     PAUL A. LAVIGNE
     PETER S. LAWHEAD
     TIMOTHY J. LAWRENCE
     KATHLEEN A. LAWSON
     KELLY A. LAWSON
     EUGENE D. LAYESKI
     ANITA L. LEACH
     JULIE A. LEAL
     RICHARD D. LEBLANC
     JAMES E. LEDBETTER, JR.
     DAVID J. LEE
     DEAN W. LEE
     JAMES K. LEE
     KEVIN R. LEE
     JOHN R. LEITNAKER
     GLENN B. LEMASTERS, JR.
     *DANIEL G. LEMIEUX
     LAWRENCE M. LENY
     CHARLES W. LEONARD
     ROBERT T. LEONARD
     THOMAS A. LERNER
     DAVID M. LEVINE
     *CHARLES E. LEWIS
     KEITH E. LEWIS
     RAYMOND K. LEWIS
     GARY D. LIEBOWITZ
     MICHAEL P. LIECHTY
     RONALD K. LIGHT, JR.
     ALFRED M. LIMARY
     LEIGH A. LINDQUIST
     RAY A. LINDSAY
     *JOSEPH G. LINFORD
     *JOHN T. LINN
     DEWEY G. LITTLE, JR.
     JENICE L. LITTLE
     JOHN W. LITTLEFIELD
     THOMAS B. LITTLETON
     DANIEL D. LLEWELYN
     *DAVID L. LOBUE
     DONALD C. LOCKE, JR.
     ERVIN LOCKLEAR
     JANET K. LOGAN
     BRYAN D. LOGIE
     VINCENT P. LOGSDON
     DAVID S. LONG
     GREGORY P. LONG
     SHARON M. LOPARDI
     JOSEPH C. LOPERENA
     ADALBERTO LOPEZ, JR.
     MAX LOPEZ
     RAYMOND S. LOPEZ
     ROYCE D. LOTT
     ANDREW LOURAKE
     JOSEPH C. LOVATI
     JEFFREY D. LOVE
     CHRISTOPHER W. LOWE
     DAVID B. LOWE
     GREGG S. LOWE
     JANE K. LOWE
     KEITH F. LOWMAN
     DAVID S. LUBOR
     DAVID J. LUCIA
     ABBIE K. LUCK
     GREGORY T. LUKASIEWICZ
     STEVEN P. LUKE
     JEFFREY S. LUM
     VALERIE L. LUSTER
     NATHAN G. LYDEN
     SHANNON D. LYNCH
     STEPHAN G. LYON
     ADAM MAC DONALD
     JOHN R. MAC DONALD
     RONALD G. MACHOIAN
     DAVID P. MACK
     JOHN R. MACKAMAN
     MATTHEW M. MACKINNON
     TIMOTHY J. MADDEN
     MICHAEL E. MADISON
     KENNETH D. MADURA
     CARL F. MAES
     PATRICK J. MAES
     CHERYL L. MAGNUSON
     DENA M. MAHER
     EDWARD A. MAITLAND
     STEVEN R. MALL
     CHARLES J. MALONE
     WILLIAM H. MALPASS
     PETER E. MANCE
     PAUL R. MANCINI
     WILLIAM J. MANDEVILLE
     MATTHEW A. MANDINA
     MICHELLE R. MANDY
     GREGORY J. MANG
     MATTHEW E. MANGAN
     JEFFREY J. MANLEY
     JUDY L. MANLEY
     JOHN F. MANNEY, JR.
     *SCOTT A. MANNING
     ROBERT A. MARASCO
     MARTIN R. MARCOLONGO
     DEBORAH R. MARCUS
     GOUVEIA TAMZI M. MARIANO
     JEFFREY L. MARKER
     ROBERT G. MARLAR
     JAMES D. MARRY
     MARK A. MARRY
     LEE H. MARSH, JR.
     RAYMOND W. MARSH
     STEVEN C. MARSMAN
     JAVIER MARTI
     CYNTHIA A. MARTIN
     HAROLD W. MARTIN III
     ELFIDO MARTINEZ
     GLENN E. MARTINEZ
     JUAN F. MARTINEZ
     ORLANDO M. MARTINEZ
     DAVID B. MARZO
     MICHAEL L. MASON
     RICHARD L. MASTERS, JR.
     EDWARD J. MASTERSON
     KEVIN M. MASTERSON
     KEVIN P. MASTIN
     RUBEN MATA
     ROY V. MATHIS
     DANE D. MATTHEW
     AUDRA R. MATTHEWS
     PATRICK S. MATTHEWS
     MIKE M. MATTINSON
     KYLE H. MATYI
     DAVID K. MAY
     JONATHAN R. MAY
     ROBERT L. MAY, JR.
     SCOTT L. MAYFIELD
     AARON D. MAYNARD
     CRAIG E. MAYS
     EUGENE J. MAZUR, JR.
     MAURIZIO MAZZA
     ANDRE MC AFEE
     KEITH D. MC BRIDE
     RACHEL A. MC CAFFREY
     TERRANCE J. MC CAFFREY II
     CHRISTOPHER C. MC CANN
     GERALD J. MC CAWLEY
     JAMES C. MC CLELLAN
     JAMES M. MC CLESKEY
     CHARLES J. MC CLOUD, JR.
     ROBERT M. MC COLLUM
     RICHARD D. MC COMB
     *KATHY P. MC CONNELL
     THOMAS L. MC CONNELL
     *MICHAEL J. MC CORMICK
     ALISON F. MC COY
     STEVEN R. MC COY
     ILYO L. MC CRAY
     JAMES D. MC CREARY
     MARY A. MC CUBBINS
     *REGINALD G. MC CUTCHEON
     MICHAEL B. MC DANIEL
     CHARLES M. MC DANNALD III
     IDA L. MC DONALD
     JOE D. MC DONALD
     JOHN J. MC DONOUGH III
     WANDA J. MC FATTER
     JENNY A. MC GEE
     LETITIA R. MC GEE
     KRISTINE A. MC GINTY
     JERRY H. MC GLONE
     THERESA J. MC GOWANSROCZYK
     CARLTON W. MC GUIRE
     *RALPH D. MC HENRY, JR.
     GENE P. MC KEE
     THOMAS H. MC KENNA
     *TIMOTHY J. MC KENNA
     JOHNNY R. MC KENNEY, JR.
     MATTHEW A. MC KENZIE
     PATRICK T. MC KENZIE
     MARY L. MC KEON
     RICHARD R. MC KINLEY
     CAREY M. MC KINNEY
     TANYA R. MC KINNEY
     RANDALL A. MC LAMB
     LAWRENCE W. MC LAUGHLIN
     *VONDA F. MC LEAN
     SCOTT D. MC LEOD
     MICHAEL C. MC MAHON
     TERENCE J. MC MANUS
     THOMAS J. MC NEILL
     GREGORY J. MC NEW
     STACY S. MC NUTT
     CAROL L. MC TAGGART
     HUGH J. MC TERNAN
     LAURA J. MC WHIRTER
     MICHAEL A. MEANS
     BRIAN B. MEIER
     DOUG J. MELANCON
     AURA L. MELENDEZ
     LIBERTAD MELENDEZ
     THOMAS S. MENEFEE
     MARK W. MERCIER
     KENT I. MEREDITH
     SCOTT C. MERRELL
     KAREN R. MERTES
     DAVID P. MERTZ
     DEBORAH A. MESERVE
     DONALD E. MESSMER, JR.
     FREDERICK G. MEYER
     JEFFREY A. MEYER
     LINDA P. MEYER
     MICHAEL B. MEYER
     JESSICA MEYERAAN
     DOUGLAS B. MEYERS
     HAROLD F. MEYERS
     MONICA E. MIDGETTE
     JOSEPH A. MIGGINS
     JOHN M. MIGYANKO
     QUINTEN L. MIKLOS
     CURTIS S. MILAM
     GARY L. MILAM
     SHARI T. MILES
     ANGELA D. MILEY
     ALAN R. MILLER
     BRYAN E. MILLER
     CURTIN W. MILLER
     DANIEL A. MILLER II
     DAVID G. MILLER
     DOUGLAS R. MILLER
     EDDIE T. MILLER
     GRETCHEN P. MILLER
     JODY D. MILLER
     KARLA J. MILLER
     *RANDALL J. MILLER
     RICHARD C. MILLER
     ROBERT C. MILLER
     VIVIAN L. MILLER
     MICHAEL S. MILLS
     AVERY D. MIMS
     *FRANCIS P. MINOGUE
     JOSEPH B. MIRROW
     KEVIN J. MISSAR
     ELSPETH J. MITCHELL
     GLENDA M. MITCHELL
     JOSEPH C. MITCHELL
     *MARGUERITE T. MITCHELL
     MARK E. MITCHELL
     MICHAEL E. MITCHELL
     RICHARD L. MITCHELL
     ROBYN A. MITCHELL
     MARK J. MITTLER
     *DONALD C. MOBLY
     STEPHEN E. MOCZARY
     JAMES J. MODERSKI
     COLIN R. MOENING
     JOHN J. MOES
     CHRISTOPHER A. MOFFETT
     CHARLES M. MONCRIEF
     DENNIS A. MONTERA
     THOMAS P. MONTGOMERY
     *BRYAN S. MOON
     DARRYL W. MOON
     ANNETTE MOORE
     *AUNDRA L. MOORE
     *JOE W. MOORE
     LOURDES D. R. MOORE
     MICHAEL A. MOORE
     PATRICIA R. MOORE
     THOMAS C. MOORE
     TIMOTHY K. MOORE


[[Page 12433]]

     RICHARD D. MOOREHEAD
     RAFAEL MORALESFIGUEROA
     JACK P. MORAWIEC
     JOHN W. MOREHEAD
     MICHAEL D. MORELOCK
     DAVE B. MORGAN
     DAVID S. MORK
     RONALD P. MORRELL
     LINDA J. MORRIS
     RICHARD W. MORRIS
     BROOK S. MORROW
     GARY S. MOSER
     KEVIN B. MOSLEY
     GREGORY D. MOSS
     KARI A. MOSTERT
     KIRK B. MOTT
     TIMOTHY B. MOTT
     PETER G. MOUTSATSON
     TY C. MOYERS
     PAUL J. MOZZETTA
     DAVID G. MUEHLENTHALER
     RICHARD J. MUELLER
     ALAN G. MUENCHAU
     JAMES R. MUNFORD
     DAVID W. MURPHY
     LYNN P. MURPHY
     RICKY R. MURPHY
     THOMAS E. MURPHY
     JOHN P. MURRAY
     TIMOTHY M. MURTHA
     DEBORAH K. MURTOLA
     CANDICE L. MUSIC
     TONY P. MUSSI
     *ANTHONY E. MUZEREUS
     JEFFREY B. MYERS
     *CHARLES D. MYRICK
     DANA L. MYRICK
     MARY J. NACHREINER
     DAVID S. NAHOM
     DAVID S. NAISBITT
     MICHAEL L. NAPIER
     PATRICIA A. NARAMORE
     *GILBERT G. NARRO
     JOSEPH B. NATTERER
     JOHN R. NEAL
     KELLY L. NEAL
     RANDALL C. NEDEGAARD
     HOWARD D. NEELEY
     DALE L. NEELY, JR.
     JAMES R. NEEPER, JR.
     CLIFTON D. NEES
     CATHERINE M. NELSON
     DAVID K. NELSON
     JON C. NELSON
     KRISTEN A. NELSON
     *LENORA C. NELSON
     SCOTT R. NELSON
     SHAWN D. NELSON
     THOMAS N. NELSON
     STEVEN W. NESSMILLER
     KATERINA M. NEUHAUSER
     JOSEPH H. NEWBERRY
     KENNIS R. NICHOLLS
     RICHARD B. NICHOLS
     ANTHONY B. NICHOLSON
     ANDREW T. NIELSEN
     GAIL M. NOBLE
     JEFFREY R. NOLAN
     RICHARD E. NOLAN
     TIMOTHY J. NOLAN
     MICHAEL J. NOLETTE
     GARY V. NORDYKE
     THOMAS W. NORRIS
     WILLIAM A. NOVAK
     *ANTHONY T. NOVELLO
     MICHAEL J. NOYOLA
     FREDERICK D. NYBERG
     ADAM E. NYENHUIS
     JEFFREY W. NYENHUIS
     DEBORAH LYNNE ODELL
     DIANA R. ODONNELL
     WALSH TRACY A. OGRADY
     ANGEL R. OLIVARES
     *MICHAEL J. OLIVE
     JOHN SHERMAN OLIVER
     *CHARLES S. OLSON
     CRAIG A. OLSON
     CHRISTOPHER J. OMLOR
     PATRICK R. ONEILL
     DWAYNE J. OPELLA
     ANTHONY L. ORDNER
     HOWARD K. OSBORNE
     DOLORES M. OSBORNEHENSLEY
     EDWIN H. OSHIBA
     LOUIS C. OSMER
     *HEATHER L. OSTERHAUS
     BEVERLY D. OSTERMEYER
     *JOLANTA J. OSZURKO
     KARL E. OTT
     KAREN L. OTTINGER
     ROGER R. OUELLETTE
     DANIEL J. OURADA
     BRENDA L. OWEN
     CHARLES R. OWEN
     RHONDA G. OZANIAN
     ANTHONY M. PACKARD
     MARIA C. PAGAN
     BENJAMIN R. PAGANELLI
     CLEVELAND S. PAGE
     JAMES P. PAGE
     *BRENDA A. J. PAKNIKNAGEM
     JOSEPH F. PALLARIA, JR.
     DAVID J. PALMER
     RICHARD S. PALMIERI
     JAMES P. PALMISANO
     STANLEY D. PANGRAC, II
     *JAMES W. PANK
     LOUIS P. PAOLONE
     ANTHONY F. PAPATYI
     JENNIFER R. PAPINI
     AMY A. PAPPAS
     JAMES M. PAPPAS
     KATHYLEEN M. PARE
     JEREMY M. PARISI
     JOHN T. PARK
     VINCENT K. PARK
     BRIAN A. PARKER
     EDWARD L. PARKER, JR.
     GREGORY H. PARKER
     JAMES G. PARKER, JR.
     TIMOTHY W. PARKER
     RICHARD L. PARKS
     MICHAEL L. PARLOW
     KEITH C. PARNELL
     DEBRA A. PARRISH
     SEAN P. PARRY
     DALE A. PARSONS
     JAMES L. PATTERSON, II
     MARK A. PATTERSON
     RONNIE M. PATTERSON
     BRADLEY H. PATTON
     SCOTT GEORGE PATTON
     DALE A. PATTYN
     RONALD E. PAUL
     JOHN G. PAYNE
     JOHN R. PAYNE
     JOHN W. PEARSE
     WILLIAM R. PEARSON
     PAUL J. PEASE
     DONALD J. PECK II
     * LISA T. PEGUES
     * DAVID W. PENCZAR
     DONALD R. PENDERGRAFT
     TRAVIS E. PEPPLER
     GROVER C. PERDUE
     ROBERT M. PERON
     LUCI P. PERRI
     DOUGLAS W. PERSONS
     CHRISTINE M. PETERS
     DAVID E. PETERS
     MELVIN H. PETERSEN
     ERICK S. PETERSON
     KARL R. PETERSON
     RICHARD A. PETERSON, JR.
     RODNEY J. PETITHOMME
     JON J. PETRUZZI
     ROBERT A. PFEIFER
     JOHN J. PHALON
     BRETT A. PHILLIPS
     BRIAN S. PHILLIPS
     RODGER W. PHILLIPS
     TODD R. PHINNEY
     TODD L. PHIPPS
     MARC D. PICCOLO
     MICHAEL M. PIERSON
     * RUSSELL L. PINARD
     * SCOTT F. PINKMAN
     JO A. PINNEY
     DAVID S. POAGE
     DAVID J. POHLEN
     VICTOR P. POLITO
     * MARK D. POLLARD
     DAVID E. POLLMILLER
     STEPHEN R. POMEROY
     MARK S. POOL
     LOURDES M. POOLE
     ANTHONY P. POPOVICH
     JOSEPH T. POPOVICH
     ROBERT J. POREMSKI
     GARDINER V. PORTER
     SCOTT W. PORTER
     CATHERINE A. POSTON
     * SHEILA D. POWELL
     JOHN W. POWERS III
     WILLIAM M. PRAMENKO
     MICHAEL W. PRATT
     KEITH M. PREISING
     ROBERT D. PRICE
     STEVEN J. PRICE
     JOHN E. PRIDEAUX
     KENNETH D. PRINCE
     GREGORY B. PROTHERO
     ROBERT J. PROVOST
     WILLIAM PUGH
     JACK D. PULLIS
     WALTER E. PYLES
     TERESA A. QUICK
     JAMES A. QUIGLEY
     JOHN T. QUINTAS
     CHRISTOPHER J. QUIROZ
     JOSEPHINE C. K. QUIROZ
     RODNEY ALLEN RADCLIFFE
     BRIAN D. RADUENZ
     RICHARD A. RADVANYI
     KURT R. RAFFETTO
     MICHELLE M. RAFFETTO
     DANIEL G. RAINES
     ELIOT S. RAMEY
     * ROBERT A. RAMEY
     GREGORY N. RANKIN
     ROBERT J. RANKIN
     VICKI J. RAST
     GLENN A. RATCHFORD
     * DIANE L. RAUSCH
     DOUGLAS M. RAUSCH
     MARINA C. RAY
     BRUCE RAYNO
     DARRELL M. RAYNOR
     CATHERINE A. REARDON
     ALAN F. REBHOLZ
     ROBERT D. REDANZ, JR
     MICHAEL E. REDDOCH
     BRADLEY S. REED
     * CARL L. REED II
     ROBERT L. REED
     PATRICK S. REESE
     MICHAEL J. REEVES
     JAMES A. REGENOR
     THOMAS T. REICHERT
     DAVID E. REIFSCHNEIDER
     KEVIN P. REIGSTAD
     DOUGLAS P. REILLY
     JAMES E. REINEKE
     GREGORY M. REITER
     PAUL RENDESSY
     PETER C. RENNER
     * JULIE L. RESHESKEFISHER
     DAVID A. REY
     MICHAEL REYNA
     KENNETH D. RHUDY
     KENNETH E. RIBBLE
     ROBERT S. RICCI
     DOMINICA R. RICE
     RANDER RICE
     ETHAN B. RICH
     HAROLD L. RICHARD, JR.
     CHRISTOPHER C. RICHARDSON
     JAMES D. RICHARDSON
     PAUL RICHARDSON
     RENEE M. RICHARDSON
     RUDY L. RIDENBAUGH
     PETER A. RIDILLA
     CURTIS B. RIEDEL
     KEITH B. RIGGLE
     * ROBERT J. RIGGLES
     DANNY W. RILEY
     PATRICIA M. RINALDI
     RUBEN RIOS
     RANDOLPH E. RIPLEY
     DAVID G. RISCH
     ALEXANDER K. RITSCHEL
     TODD A. RITTER
     KATHLEEN M. RIZZA
     CHRISTOPHE F. ROACH
     KARI W. ROBERSONHOWIE
     JAMES E. ROBERTS, JR.
     * TONY R. ROBERTS
     RANDALL D. ROBERTSON
      CHANDRA L. ROBESON
     PETER C. ROBICHAUX
     * PANDOLLA ROBIN
     CHARLES T. ROBINSON
     DAVID T. ROBINSON
     DIANE W. ROBINSON
     * JOHN A. ROBINSON
     JULIETTE ROBINSON
     MICHAEL A. ROBINSON
     NEIL W. ROBINSON, JR.
      ROGER E. ROBINSON
     STANLEY K. ROBINSON
     WILLIAM A. ROBINSON, JR.
     * JAMES E. RODRIGUEZ
     * LUIS A. RODRIGUEZ
     * JOHN K. ROGERS
     ROBERT M. ROGERS
     JOSEPH A. ROH
     LUIS A. ROJAS
     * KENNETH J. ROLLER
     GREGORY E. ROLLINS
     JOSEPH J. ROMERO
     MICHAEL E. RONZA
     EVA M. ROSADO
     JOHN J. ROSCOE
     DAVID J. ROSE
     LEE W. ROSEN
     RONALD L. ROSENKRANZ
     GREGORY J. ROSENMERKEL
     JAMES P. ROSS
     SCOTT K. ROSS
     * DETLEF H. ROST, JR.
     DOUGLAS F. ROTH
     RICHARD P. ROTH
     ROBERT B. ROTTSCHAFER
     CHRISTOPHER E. ROUND
     MICHAEL C. ROUSE
     ANDERSON B. ROWAN
     MICHAEL J. ROWE
     RICHARD L. ROWE, JR.
     DAVID B. ROWLAND
     THOMAS M. ROY
     JAMES M. RUBUSH
     GARY S. RUDMAN
     CHRISTIAN M. RUEFER
     BRIAN C. RUHM
     RAMPHIS E. RUIZ
     DAVID L. RUNDELL
     LAUREN RUNGER
     DANIEL H. RUNKLE
     * DANIEL B. RUNYON
     RALPH J. RUOCCO
     JAMES M. RUPA
     * DANIEL J. RUSH
     CHE V. RUSSELL
     ROY C. RUSSELL
     PHILIP E. RUTLEDGE II
     PATRICK G. RYAN
     * REBECCA L. RYAN
     STEPHEN M. RYAN
     JON J. RYCHALSKI
     JAMES RYPKEMA
     JEAN M. SABIDO
     * JOHN A. SADECKI
     THOMAS G. SADLO
     MARK P. SALANSKY
     BIENVENIDA M. SALAZAR
     JOHN C. SALENTINE
     MATTHEW D. SAMBORA
     ALBERTO C. SAMONTE
     KIRK J. SAMPSON
     MONTAGUE D. SAMUEL
     JOHN J. SANCHEZ
     PABLO A. SANCHEZ
     DAVID P. SANCLEMENTE
     ALBERT G. SANDERS
     ELIA P. SANJUME
     *J. EMMANUEL I. SANTATERESA
     THOMAS A. SANTORO, JR.
     ROY C. SANTOS
     MARK A. SARDELLI
     PETER E. SARTINO
     PETER A. SARTORI
     TIMOTHY D. SARTZ
     TODD M. SASAKI
     JEFFREY A. SATTERFIELD
     SHERRIE L. SAUNDERSGOLDSON
     DUANE A. SAUVE
     JEFFREY A. SAXTON
     DARRYL F. SCARVER
     DOUGLAS P. SCHAARE
     DOROTHY RUTH SCHANZ
     KEVIN D. SCHARFF
     *RAFAEL A. SCHARRON
     *CHRISTOPHER S. SCHARVEN
     PAUL E. SCHERER
     NICOLAUS A. SCHERMER
     TIMOTHY K. SCHIMMING
     CONSTANCE E. SCHLAEFER
     DAVID J. SCHLUCKEBIER
     JAMES G. SCHMEHIL, JR.
     ALLEN T. SCHMELZEL
     GARRETT J. SCHMIDT
     LISA A. SCHMIDT
     MARK C. SCHMIDT
     BRIAN A. SCHOOLEY
     SUZET SCHREIER
     ROBERT P. SCHROEDER
     JOHANNA Q. SCHULTZ
     TIMOTHY P. SCHULTZ
     ROBERT J. SCHUTT
     BERNARD SCHWARTZ
     HEIDI H. T. SCHWENN
     *KAREN L. SCLAFANI
     ANNE MARIE SCOTT
     ERIC C. SCOTT
     HERBERT C. SCOTT
     JAMES C. SCOTT
     RONALD L. SCOTT, JR.
     TERRY SCOTT
     JEFFREY E. SCUDDER
     DOUGLAS B. SEAGRAVES
     MALINDA K. SEAGRAVES
     JOHN T. SEAMON
     JAMES N. SEAWARD
     ROBERT C. SELEMBO
     MICHAEL A. SEMENOV
     DANIEL M. SEMSEL
     JAMES L. SENN
     JAMES N. SERPA
     KIMBERLY D. SEUFERT
     CHAD R. SEVIGNY
     JOSEPH A. SEXTON
     JOHN K. SHAFER
     MILHADO L. SHAFFER III
     RAY A. SHANKLES
     MICHAEL P. SHANNAHAN
     BRETT D. SHARP
     JEFFREY M. SHAW
     ETHEL S. SHEARER
     CHRISTINE J. SHEAROUSE
     PERRY T. SHEAROUSE
     *LISA C. SHEEHAN
     BRYAN H. SHELBURN
     MARIAN B. SHEPHERD
     JOHN M. SHEPLEY
     RYAN M. SHERCLIFFE
     JEFFREY R. SHERK
     GEORGE A. SHERMAN III
     *BARBARA E. SHESTKO
     JEREMIAH L. SHETLER
     MICHAEL W. SHIELDS
     FREDERICK R. SHINER
     CHERRI L. SHIREMAN
     WILLIAM T. SHEPHERD SHIRLEY
     WILLIAM L. SHOPP
     *ALAN T. SHORE
     LAWRENCE M. SHOVELTON
     CHARLES A. SHUMAKER
     DALE G. SHYMKEWICH
     CHARLES P. SIDERIUS
     JOSEPH F. SIEDLARZ
     LEANNE M. SIEDLARZ
     PATRICK R. SILVIA
     *THOMAS A. SILVIA
     JOSEPH SIMILE, JR.
     RONALD J. SIMMONS
     ROBERT V. SIMPSON
     *WILLIAM T. SINGER
     NAVNIT K. SINGH
     JAMES M. SIRES
     JAMES B. SISLER
     RICHARD A. P. SISON
     LOUANN SITES
     JOHN H. SITTON
     JONATHAN L. SKAVDAHL
     DAVID W. SKOWRON
     MICHAEL L. SLOJKOWSKI
     GREGORY L. SLOVER
     ROBERT L. SLUGA
     THOMAS E. SLUSHER
     KALWANT S. SMAGH
     KENNETH SMALLS
     MARK P. SMEKRUD
     DOUGLAS S. SMELLIE
     BETTY M. SMITH
     CHRISTOPHER AVERY SMITH
     CORNELL SMITH
     DAVID A. SMITH
     DAVID GILMAN SMITH
     DIRK D. SMITH
     DORRISS E. SMITH
     DOUGLAS R. SMITH
     GEORGE T. SMITH III
     GLENN P. SMITH
     GREGORY A. SMITH
     KENDA C. SMITH
     *PAUL F. SMITH
     RANDELL P. SMITH
     *RICKY L. SMITH
     SANDRA K. SMITH
     SCOTT T. SMITH
     THOMAS J. SMITH
     VERNETT SMITH
     CRAIG A. SMYSER
     *DAVID ROBERT SNYDER
     RICHARD H. SOBOTTKA
     CLARK M. SODERSTEN
     JAMES P. SOLTI
     NEBOJSA SOLUNAC
     EDWARD D. SOMMERS
     DWIGHT C. SONES
     MAURO D. SONGCUAN, JR.
     DAVID M. SONNTAG
     JOHN G. SOPER
     *PETER A. SORENSEN
     EVA CHRISTINE SORROW
     SEAN M. SOUTHWORTH
     DAVID M. SOWDERS
     ROBERT L. SOWERS II
     MICHAEL J. SPANGLER
     MILTON C. SPANGLER II
     THOMAS E. SPARACO
     *VANCE HUDSON SPATH
     JONATHAN R. SPECHT
     CALVIN B. SPEIGHT
     TANGELA D. SPENCER
     JAMES A. SPERL
     CARLA M. SPIKOWSKI
     HAROLD S. SPINDLER
     ANDREW D. SPIRES
     ERIC K. SPITTLE
     ROBERT A. SPITZNAGEL
     SAMUEL L. SPOONER III
     SHARON L. SPRADLING
     *WONSOOK S. SPRAGUE
     STEPHEN L. SPURLIN
     RAYMOND W. STAATS
     JOHN J. STACHNIK
     STANLEY STAFIRA
     EDWARD C. STALKER
     ALINE M. STAMOUR
     GEORGE L. STAMPER, JR.
     CARL M. STANDIFER
     BRIAN K. STANDLEY
     MARIA STANEK
     CLIFFORD B. STANSELL
     MICHAEL P. STAPLETON
     STEVEN H. STATER
     GREGORY C. STAUDENMAIER
     *DAWN M. STAVE
     SHERRY L. STEARNS
     JOHN H. STEELE
     JENNIFER E. STEFANOVICH
     *ETHAN A. STEIN
     JOHN C. STEINAUER
     CINDY D. STEPHENS
     JAMES R. STEPHENS, JR.
     TIMOTHY M. STEPHENS
     JAY C. STEUCK
     ALAN C. STEWART
     JEFFREY P. STEWART
     KEVIN STEWART
     DAVID R. STIMAC
     HENRY E. E STISH
     CHARLES G. STITT
     STEPHEN J. STOECKER
     PATRICK J. STOFFEL
     RODNEY J. STOKES
     *SCOTT E. STOLTZ
     CRISTINA M. STONE
     ELMER C. STONE, JR.
     JAY M. STONE
     *JOHN A. STONE
     *CHRISTOPHER K. STONER
     SHARION L. STONEULRICH
     DOUGLAS C. STORR
     PAUL S. STORY
     *JULIA G. STOSHAK
     ANGELA G. STOUT
     NAOMI E. STRANO
     CHRISTOPHER J. STRATTON
     DANIEL E. STRICKER
     ROBERT STRIGLIO
     DANA E. STRUCKMAN
     NELSON R. STURDIVANT
     JAIME E. SUAREZ
     CHARLES S. SUFFRIDGE
     PATRICK T. SULLIVAN
     SCOTT A. SULLIVAN
     BEVERLY J. SUMMERS
     LUTHER W. SURRATT II
     CHRISTOPHER S. SVEHLAK
     PETER F. SVOBODA
     DEVIN P. SWALLOW

[[Page 12434]]


MICHAEL W. SWANN
RUSSELL L. SWART
BRUCE A. SWAYNE
BRYAN E. SWECKER
*JOHN G. SWEENEY
ROBERT J. SWEET
RICHARD W. SWEETEN
VIRGINIA G. SWENTKOFSKE
JOHN B. SWISHER
ELIZABETH A. SYDOW
JEFFREY P. SZCZEPANIK
STEVEN F. SZEWCZAK
DENISE M. TABARY
SCOTT D. TABOR
BRUCE A. TAGG
JON T. TANNER
MOLLY L. TATARKA
JAMES S. TATE
KYLE F. TAYLOR
ROBERT K. TAYLOR
STEPHEN W. TAYLOR
STEVEN M. TAYLOR
TIMOTHY S. TAYLOR
STEPHANIE M. TEAGUE
DAVID B. TEAL
ALVARO L. TEENEY
RAYMOND J. TEGTMEYER
KEITH J. TEISTER
TAMMY R. TENACE
JOHN M. TENAGLIA
CURTIS G. TENNEY
TED M. TENNISON
MICHAEL J. TERNEUS
MARK D. TERRY
ROYCE M. TERRY
NEAL A. THAGARD
DOUGLAS G. THAYER
PAUL T. THEISEN
SCOTT D. THIELEN
BEN M. THIELHORN
JAMES C. THOMAS
JEFFERY L. THOMAS
JONATHAN W. THOMAS
WILLIAM C. THOMAS
CHARITY J. THOMASOS
BRADLEY P. THOMPSON
MICHAEL E. THOMPSON
ANDREW A. THORBURN
*RICHARD H. THORNELL
MICHAEL THORNTON
SHARON D. THUROW
KARI A. THYNE
*PERRY D. TILLMAN
JEFFREY M. TODD
STEVEN M. TODD
PATRICK M. TOM
KEVIN S. TOMB
KEVIN C. TOMPKINS
KEITH R. TONNIES
TIMOTHY K. TOOMEY
ALEXANDER V. FR TORRES
*CARLOS A. TORRES
ROBERT P. TOTH
STEPHEN J. TOTH
SUSAN A. TOUPS
ADDISON P. TOWER
JOEL B. TOWER
NELSON TOY
REBECCA A. TRACTON
DEE A. TRACY
HAI N. TRAN
GARY S. TRAUTMANN
SCOTT L. TRAXLER
TIMOTHY TREFTS
MARVIN H. TREU
CHERYL SCHARNELL TROCK
SANDRA K. TROEBER
HUGH M. TROUT
THOMAS J. TRUMBULL II
KENNETH C. TUCKER
ZENA A. TUCKER
*STEPHEN B. TUELLER
BARBARA A. TUITELE
KIP B. TURAIN
JOSEPH J. TURK, JR.
SUSAN L. TURLEY
BRYAN K. TURNER
GREGARY S. TURNER
MICHAEL G. TURTURRO
LINDA M. TUTKO
RICHARD L. TUTKO
JAMES H. TWEET
SCOTT S. TYLER
WILLIAM R. TYRA
CHRISTINE S. UEBEL
*THOMAS R. UISELT
JAMES C. ULMAN
KEVIN R. UMBAUGH
*MICHAEL UPDIKE
DANIEL URIBE
GEORGE A. URIBE
DAVID J. USELMAN
AMY L. VAFLOR
GREG A. VALDEZ
VICENTE V. VALENTI
REBECCA M. VALLEJO
PAUL J. VALLEY
*BEMMELEN TROY A. VAN
HOOK RICHARD B. VAN
*JEFFERY A. VANCE
ROBERT M. VANCE
EDWARD J. VANGHEEM
KERRY VANORDEN
JOSEPH L. VARUOLO
CRISTOS VASILAS
GLENN M. VAUGHAN
SCOTT E. VAUGHN
WADE H. VAUGHT
*RAMON A. VELEZ
DANGE GERALD J. VEN
JOHN E. VENABLE
ANTONIOS G. VENGEL
DELORIES M. VERRETT
DAVID F. VICKER
PAUL E. VIED II
DARREN R. VIGEN
SCOTT D. VILTER
*KEITH E. VINZANT
DEAN C. VITALE
LEAMON K. VIVEROS
KEVIN M. VLCEK
DAVID A. VOELKER
CYLYSCE D. VOGELSANGWATSON
KARL W. VONLUHRTE
JAY C. VOSS
SUSAN M. VOSS
DARLENE E. WADE
ROBERT L. WADE, JR.
JOHN G. WAGGONER
GARY F. WAGNER
JOHN A. WAGNER
THOMAS E. WAHL
DUNKIN E. WALKER
*EVA D. WALKER
SCOTTY L. WALKER
THOMAS B. WALKER, JR.
*WESTON H. WALKER
EUGENE J.J. WALL, JR.
BRIAN T. WALLACE
RICHARD E. WALLACE
GERALD W. WALLER
JASON W. WALLS
MITCHELL D. WALROD
*CATHERINE L. WALTER
KENNETH A. WALTERS
TODD P. WALTON
BUI T. WANDS
BENJAMIN F. WARD
DALE A. WARD
KEVIN D. WARD
WALTER H. WARD, JR.
GEORGE H.V. WARING
PETER H. WARNER
RUSSELL M. WARNER
TIMOTHY S. WARNER
BRIAN L. WARRICK
MARY E. WARWICK
JOHN A. WARZINSKI
*ANGELA D. WASHINGTON
HARRY W. WASHINGTON, JR.
JOSEPH M. WASSEL
KERVIN J. WATERMAN
LARRY K. WATERS
JAMES N. WATRY
LEANNE M. WATRY
CHRISTINA L. WATSON
DON R. WATSON, JR.
*JOHN K. WATSON
NINA A. WATSON
RICHARD A. WATSON
ROBERT O. WATT
MICHAEL K. WEBB
TIMOTHY S. WEBB
ERNEST P. WEBER
ROBERT J. WEBER
DOROTHY A. WEEKS
HAL J. WEIDMAN
JERRY A. WEIHE
JEFFERY D. WEIR
*JOHN K. WEIS
KATHLEEN A. WELCH
CLAY E. WELLS
CAROL P. WELSCH
*ROGER M. WELSH
NEIL D. WENTZ
KRISTA K. WENZEL
ELIZABETH A. WEST
OTIS K. WEST
DANIEL H. WESTBROOK
BEATRIZ WESTMORELAND
RALPH D. WESTMORELAND
GREGORY G. WEYDERT
JEFFERY C. WHARTON
ROBERT L. WHITAKER
JEFFREY M. WHITE
MARK H. WHITE
MICHAEL I. WHITE
RANDALL L. WHITE
TIMOTHY M. WHITE
MARY M. WHITEHEAD
RONALD J. WHITTLE
JAMES D. WHITWORTH
*WILSON W. WICKISER, JR.
ROBERT WILLIAM WIDO, JR.
JEFFREY L. WIESE
GLEN M. WIGGY
HOLLY R. WIGHT
JOHN L. WILKERSON
KIRK D. WILLBURGER
DAVID R. WILLE
APRIL Y. WILLIAMS
CARL J. WILLIAMS
CARY M. WILLIAMS
DOUGLAS A. WILLIAMS
GREGORY A. WILLIAMS
GREGORY S. WILLIAMS
MICHAEL R. WILLIAMS
NANCY J. WILLIAMS
NANCY T. WILLIAMS
NANETTE M. WILLIAMS
PATRICK J. WILLIAMS
PAUL E. WILLIAMS
PAUL R. WILLIAMS
THOMAS M. WILLIAMS
TIMOTHY L. WILLIAMS
*ANNETTE J. WILLIAMSON
SHERI L. WILLIAMSON
ERIC E. WILLINGHAM
ADAM B. WILLIS
ANTHONY W. WILLIS
TRAVIS A. WILLIS, JR.
CHRISTOPHER A.D. WILLISTON
STEWART S. WILLITS
CEDRIC N. WILSON
DARRYL L. WILSON
DONALD R. WILSON
DWAYNE L. WILSON
GREGORY WILSON
JANET L. WILSON
JOEL L. WILSON
KAREN G. WILSON
KELLY D. WILSON
MARTY E. WILSON
TIMOTHY D. WILSON
VAN A. WIMMER, JR.
MARTIN G. WINKLER
MARYELLEN M. WINKLER
MATTHEW R. WINKLER
BRAD S. WINTERTON
DUDLEY C. WIREMAN
DAVID B. WISE
DOUGLAS P. WISE
JAMES H. WISE
COLLEEN M. WISEVANNATTA
*CHARLES F. WISNIEWSKI
*BRIAN E. WITHROW
SCOTT J. WITTE
JULIE A. WITTKOFF
JOEL L. WITZEL
JEFFREY S. WOHLFORD
*TERRI S. WOMACK
DEANNA C. WON
GRAND F. WONG
*KEVIN K.Y. WONG
*THERESA G. WOOD
TIMOTHY S. WOOD
NEIL E. WOODS
VINCENT G. WOODS
LARRY D. WORLEY, JR.
MICHAEL A. WORMLEY
NORMAN M. WORTHEN
BARBARA L. WRIGHT
EDDY R. WRIGHT
EDWARD K. WRIGHT, JR.
*JOEL C. WRIGHT
*NATASHA V. WROBEL
JOHN R. WROCKLOFF
DANIEL M. WUCHENICH
CHRISTIE M. WYATT
MARK P. WYROSDICK
JULIE ANN WYZYWANY
JASON R. XIQUES
JOSEPH M. YANKOVICH, JR.
ANCEL B. YARBROUGH II
TAMARA YASELSKY
JEFFREY H.L. YEE
JEFFREY K. YEVCAK
BRIAN B. YOO
JOHN P. YORK
DAVID A. YOUNG
JANE C. YOUNG
RICHARD R. YOUNG
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
RAMONA D. YOUNGHANSE
RITA R. YOUSEF
LING YUNG
*WILLIAM Z. ZECK
GREGORY S ZEHNER
ELIZABETH A. ZEIGER
WILLIAM E. ZERKLE
*STEPHEN T. ZIADIE
*JAMES D. ZIMMERMAN
THOMAS ZUPANCICH
STEVEN R. ZWICKER


                              IN THE ARMY

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

                        To be brigadier general

     HARRY B. AXSON, JR.
     GUY M. BOURN
     RONALD L. BURGESS, JR.
     REMO BUTLER
     WILLIAM B. CALDWELL IV
     RANDAL R. CASTRO
     STEPHEN J. CURRY
     ROBERT L. DECKER
     ANN E. DUNWOODY
     WILLIAM C. FEYK
     LESLIE L. FULLER
     DAVID F. GROSS
     EDWARD M. HARRINGTON
     KEITH M. HUBER
     GALEN B. JACKMAN
     JEROME JOHNSON
     RONALD L. JOHNSON
     JOHN F. KIMMONS
     WILLIAM M. LENAERS
     TIMOTHY D. LIVSEY
     JAMES A. MARKS
     MICHAEL R. MAZZUCCHI
     STANLEY A. MC CHRYSTAL
     DAVID F. MELCHER
     DENNIS C. MORAN
     ROGER NADEAU
     CRAIG A. PETERSON
     JAMES H. PILLSBURY
     GREGORY J. PREMO
     KENNETH J. QUINLAN, JR.
     FRED D. ROBINSON, JR.
     JAMES E. SIMMONS
     STEPHEN M. SPEAKES
     EDGAR E. STANTON III
     RANDAL M. TIESZEN
     BENNIE E. WILLIAMS
     JOHN A. YINGLING


[[Page 12435]]

             CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 

                United States
                 of America


June 10, 1999


            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, June 10, 1999

  The House met at 10 a.m.
  The Chaplain, the Reverend James David Ford, D.D., offered the 
following prayer:
  Let us pray. Of all our prayers that ring with fervor and intensity, 
our prayers for peace come from the depths of our hearts and souls. O 
gracious God, from whom all blessings flow, we earnestly pray for peace 
in our world so that people will live without threats or fear and know 
the gifts of security and freedom. Our prayers of thanksgiving and 
appreciation are with all those people who have used their abilities 
and responsibilities to promote safety and accord. May Your Spirit, O 
God, encourage us to do the works of reconciliation, for Your Wsord 
assures us that the peacemaker shall be called blessed. In Your Name we 
pray. Amen.

                          ____________________



                              THE JOURNAL

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

                          ____________________



                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER. Will the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) 
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN 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.

                          ____________________



REREFERRAL OF H.R. 915, AUTHORIZING COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT IN PAY OF 
                       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on the Judiciary be discharged from consideration of the bill (H.R. 
915) to authorize a cost of living adjustment in the pay of 
administrative law judges, and that the bill be rereferred to the 
Committee on Government Reform.
  The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________



                      ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

  The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain 10 1-minutes on each side.

                          ____________________



                     A COP KILLER FOR COMMENCEMENT

  (Mr. DeLAY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, Evergreen State College is having a convicted 
cop killer, Mumia Abu-Jamal, as their commencement speaker this year. 
This outrage is as sad as it is maddening.
  America wonders why there are shootings in schools. Well, 
irresponsible institutions making celebrities out of killers are part 
of the problem.
  In our mixed-up times, heroes are often made for the wrong reasons. 
The real hero in this case is the police officer who was shot in the 
back while doing his duty. Yet the twisted radicals in the ivory tower 
give the spotlight to his murderer while refusing the officer's widow 
time to speak.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment of silence 
to protest this outrage to honor Officer Faulkner and to give sympathy 
to the real hero's wife, Maureen.

                          ____________________



                          KOSOVO POLICY WORKED

  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, we woke up this morning with news reports 
that the first Serb forces in Kosovo are finally being withdrawn. The 
policy is working, so let us give credit where credit is due. It was 
because of the perseverance and unity of all 19 democratic nations of 
NATO that finally got Milosevic to capitulate and stop the atrocities 
in Kosovo.
  Let us hope we are at the dawn of a new era, of peace in the Balkans, 
a peace that will see the removal of Milosevic from power, true 
democratic reforms take place, the eventual inclusion of the Balkan 
countries in the European Union and perhaps even NATO someday.
  A foolish speculation? An idle dream? I do not think so. Who amongst 
us could have predicted that within 10 short years some of the most 
repressive communist regimes in Central Europe would today be 
flourishing democracies, members of the European Union, and even 
members of NATO itself?
  I do believe that the historical trends sweeping across Europe today 
are on our side in this endeavor. Now comes the difficult task of 
enforcing the peace. My thoughts and prayers are with our young men and 
women in American uniform who are being called upon once again in the 
20th century to restore the peace and humanity on the Statement of 
Europe.

                          ____________________



       SALUTE TO MARK MARSHALL, CARSON CITY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

  (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, as Congress prepares to debate the 
juvenile crime legislation next week, I would like to highlight the 
extraordinary efforts of an individual in the State of Nevada.
  Mark Marshall, of the Carson City Sheriff's Department, was honored 
this week by the Carson City International Rotary Club as Law 
Enforcement Officer of the year because he established a proactive 
campaign of gang suppression for the city and the Sheriff's Department. 
These results have been recognized nationwide and have greatly 
benefited the troubled youths in the area.
  As a Vietnam veteran, he courageously served his country overseas and 
now serves the people back home in the State of Nevada. In an era where 
brainstorming runs rampant on how to curb gang violence, Mark has 
stepped to the forefront to take on this difficult task.
  His nearly 15 years of service to the people of Carson City has 
earned him this prestigious award. Along with his colleagues and the 
public he serves, I extend my best wishes and congratulations to this 
fine peace officer, his wife, Jennifer, and their two daughters, 
Elizabeth and Sarah.
  Mark, we are all proud of your accomplishments.

                          ____________________



                   KOSOVO PEACE AGREEMENT IS FRAGILE

  (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, I hope for the best, but this peace 
agreement seems very fragile. After rape, murder, and genocide, no 
simple piece of paper will stop the war in Yugoslavia.
  Ethnic Albanians did not fight and die for autonomy or self-rule. 
Neither


did George Washington, Congress. But, for sure, ethnic Albanians did 
not die for the right to live in a suburb of Belgrade.
  Congress was warned in 1986 that without freedom for Kosovo, there 
will be no long-lasting peace in the region. I say, ``Free Kosovo, 
protect a sovereign border, or there will be no long-lasting peace.''

                          ____________________


[[Page 12436]]

                        SALUTE TO CUBAN PATRIOTS

  (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, this past Monday scores of Cuban 
dissidents began a hunger strike in Havana to protest the 40 years of 
oppression that their countrymen have been subjected to under the 
tyrannical rule of Fidel Castro.
  Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, one of the organizers of this public protest 
has said that the goal of the hunger strikers is to draw attention to 
the numerous violations of human rights in Cuba and to ask for freedom 
for all of the political prisoners.
  Their courageous defiance of the Cuban tyrant is heroic, and once 
again attracts worldwide attention to Castro's deplorable human rights 
record.
  Because we pride ourselves in being the land of the free and the home 
of the brave, we must applaud the efforts of these patriots who are 
peacefully trying to bring liberty to their enslaved homeland.
  I ask my colleagues in Congress to send the opposition inside of Cuba 
the clear message that we stand in solidarity with them and that we 
will do our part to help bring freedom and democracy to the 11 million 
presently shackled in the island nation.

                          ____________________



                       SUCCESSFUL TEST FOR THAAD

  (Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, at 7:20 a.m. this morning THAAD intercepted 
a Hera target at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Like a 
bullet hitting a bullet, the THAAD missile had a direct hit on the 
target.
  Although there have been difficulties along the way for this program, 
the THAAD team has accomplished one of the most technologically 
challenging feats ever attempted. Significantly, this morning's test is 
the first time that THAAD has been able to make it to the end game, and 
I want to stress that it worked, the technology works.
  Previous tests were plagued with low-tech failures that did not allow 
the THAAD missile to reach the end game to attempt the intercept. In 
conjunction with the PAC III that hit on March 15, this proves that 
hit-to-kill technology can work.
  We must remain mindful, however, that THAAD and other missile defense 
systems are still at the R&D stage. There still could be more failures. 
But we must remain supportive of these systems.
  I want to congratulate the United States Army, especially the 
soldiers at Fort Bliss in White Sands, and all of the employees at 
White Sands Missile Range. I also want to congratulate the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization and THAAD contractors for this great 
success.
  Madam Speaker, this is an important and momentous day for national 
missile defense but, ultimately, for the defense of our troops in 
deployed areas throughout the world.

                          ____________________



            SUPPORT FOR EFFORTS OF CUBAN INTERNAL OPPOSITION

  (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, a message to Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, 
Dr. Leonel Morejon Almagro, William Herrera Diaz, Marco Lazaro Torres, 
and Rolando Munoz, and the scores of others who have joined throughout 
the island of Cuba 3 days ago in protest to reject the violation of 
human rights and demand democracy for the Cuban people:
  We are with you. We will continue with you. You have our support, our 
solidarity, like all of the heroic political prisoners in Cuba; such as 
Vladimiro Roca, Marta Beatriz Roque, Feliz Bonne, Rene Gomez Manzano, 
Jorge Luis Garcia Perez Antunez, Maritza Lugo, Rafael Ybarra Roque, and 
the thousands of others.
  And, Madam Speaker, I am still waiting to see the first time when 
someone in this body who advocates trade and tourism for Castro comes 
down here and advocates freedom for the thousands of Cuban political 
prisoners.

                          ____________________



                  CONGRATULATIONS ON VICTORY IN KOSOVO

  (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, God bless our United States 
troops and God bless them for the victory that we have obtained in the 
conflict in Kosovo.
  When I went to the Macedonian refugee camps just a couple of weeks 
ago, every man, woman and child, every elderly person pleaded with me, 
let us go back home.
  And although we must be cautious now that Serbian troops are on their 
way out, now we will have, with our NATO allies, peacekeeping troops. 
Congratulations Mr. Clinton. There is no shame in acknowledging when 
the United States is unified we can do good for the world.
  Congratulations to Sandy Berger. It is time now for us to stand 
united in an effort to make sure that peace maintains and the Kosovo 
refugees go back.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, I will introduce today the Legal Amnesty 
Restoration Act of 1999, because we have 350,000 refugees in the United 
States who have not been able to apply for their citizenship; people 
from all over the world, taxpaying people who have been able to provide 
for this Nation. It is a shame and a travesty. I hope my colleagues 
will vote for the Legal Amnesty Restoration Act of 1999.

                          ____________________



                             CHILD SURVIVAL

  (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, around the world today there are daughters 
and sons of many nations whose lives are at stake. Why? In large part 
because our Nation has sought to impose our own population control 
ideas on other countries whose most pressing needs are for basic 
nutrition and health care.

                              {time}  1015

  Children in these countries are dying. Yet, an increased push for 
population control has come at the expense of saving the lives of 
little children.
  A Kenyan doctor makes this point, and I quote. He says, ``Our health 
sector is collapsed. Thousands of Kenyan people will die of malaria 
whose treatment costs a few cents in health facilities, whose stores 
are stacked to the roof with millions of dollars' worth of pills, IUDs, 
Norplant, Depo-provera, most of which are supplied with American tax 
money.''
  When a mother brought a child with pneumonia to this doctor, he had 
no penicillin to give the child. All he had were cases upon cases of 
contraceptives.
  Madam Speaker, let us respond to the true health needs of these 
people, the needs of life and death. Join in transferring at least a 
portion of the population control funds to what we know works, child 
survival. Join in cosponsoring the Save the Children Act.

                          ____________________


[[Page 12437]]

                      MONEY TALKS ON CAPITOL HILL

  (Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, there is no doubt about it, money talks on 
Capitol Hill. And for the Republican leadership, no money talks louder 
than gun money.


  The National Rifle Association has been the largest political donor 
to Members of Congress throughout the decade. In fact, the NRA soft 
money contributions to the Republican Party grew exponentially when the 
Republicans took over the House in 1994.
  So it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one that the 
Republican leadership turned to the NRA to write their so-called ``gun 
control'' legislation, a proposal that is rife with loopholes.
  The truth of the matter is that big money talks louder than kids' 
lives on Capitol Hill. Enormous soft money contributions have blinded 
the Republican leadership to 13 children who die every day in America 
in gun-related violence.
  Let us stop the madness. Let us start saving our children's lives by 
passing real gun control legislation, and let us pass campaign finance 
reform to cut the ties between gun money and Congress once and for all.

                          ____________________



  AMERICANS WANT REAL PROBLEMS ATTACKED IN CONGRESS, NOT BOGUS ISSUES

  (Mr. BARR of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Madam Speaker, we can hear it already. It is, 
bash the special interest groups, bash the grass-roots organizations 
out there, and avoid the real issue.
  Unfortunately for the other side, and fortunately for real America 
out there, the American people know otherwise. The other side, in 
support of their gun control antics, frequently throw poll numbers 
around. Well, they do not tell, as usual, the rest of the story.
  For example, the CNN-USA Today poll recently found that only 4 
percent of Americans believe that guns were to blame for the tragic 
shooting at Columbine High School. By contrast, that same poll found, 
and these folks over here will never tell us that, that nearly 60 
percent of the American people put the blame on family breakdown, 
mental problems, and lack of morals, not on guns.
  That is what we ought to be addressing. That is what we are not 
addressing.
  Big-city mayors are in there with them. They are saying, let us go 
after firearms manufacturers and put thousands of people out of jobs. 
That will solve the problems in our society. Wrong again. And the 
American people know it is wrong. They will not support that sort of 
big government, big litigation.
  What they support are the honest proposals that will be before this 
House, hopefully will be before this House, to attack the real 
problems, not the bogus issues that we just heard from the other side.

                          ____________________



               LET US KEEP GUNS OUT OF HANDS OF CHILDREN

  (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I am a Democrat who believes in the 
Second Amendment right to bear arms, but a Democrat who believes that 
we need gun control to keep guns out of the hands of our children.
  There are plenty of causes of the violence in Littleton and in 
Georgia: parental neglect, teacher neglect, those young people who 
fired those weapons and committed those crimes, violence, sadistic and 
cruel videos and movies, and video games. But the number one culprit is 
the guns that the kids use to kill the other kids.
  Some people say we cannot do two things at once in America, we cannot 
enjoy the right to bear arms and go hunting and use our guns lawfully 
and at the same time enact laws to keep guns out of the hands of 12- 
and 14-year-olds.
  They are wrong. They underestimate the intelligence and ability of 
Americans to do two important things at once, recognize our right to 
bear arms, but protect our children.
  The Republican leadership must stop its efforts to water down and 
delay reasonable, common-sense gun control that keeps guns out of the 
hands of our children.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to get their leadership to allow 
reasonable, common-sense gun control to be passed in this House.

                          ____________________



  FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATING ONGOING SAFETY PROGRAMS REQUIRED BY FAA

  (Mr. CALVERT asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, on May 26, 1999, the City Manager of 
Corona testified that the City of Corona has been forced by the Fish 
and Wildlife Service to buy new land for mitigation in order to 
maintain and operate existing levees, flood control, streets, parks, 
and airport protection zones, which means clearing out trees in front 
of the runway that have been there for over 30 years and continually 
maintained.
  That is right, Madam Speaker, Fish and Wildlife wants to mitigate for 
ongoing safety programs required by the FAA.
  All of the mitigation required by Fish and Wildlife on this project 
were for existing projects, not for new ones. However, Fish and 
Wildlife Director Jamie Clark stated in that same hearing that 
requiring retroactive mitigation is not allowed.
  Today I will introduce legislation that would prohibit retroactive 
mitigation for impacts that have occurred in the past. This is just 
common-sense legislation.

                          ____________________



                         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 other body passed a 
modest gun safety package to keep guns out of the hands of kids and of 
criminals. They did the right thing. Now it is our turn to do the right 
thing.
  But instead of doing the right thing, the Republican leadership in 
this House is playing games with gun safety. We now have a gun safety 
bill that has been written by the National Rifle Association. Instead 
of closing the gun show loophole to allow criminal background checks at 
gun shows, the NRA opens that loophole wider.
  Background checks work. I would refer my colleagues to a study 
released in this morning's USA Today that says, ``The instant 
background check might be the most effective piece of gun legislation 
ever.''
  The NRA says that we do not need new gun safety to protect kids and 
that the Justice Department has failed to do its job. Wrong again. This 
new study shows that gun laws are enforced more vigorously today than 5 
years ago, prosecutions are up, and crime is down.
  Gun legislation we passed in 1994 is working. We did the right thing 
then. Let us do the right thing now for our children and for families 
in this country.

                          ____________________



                          CHINO BASIN DAIRIES

  (Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend 
the House for passing H.R. 1906, the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill.
  One of the bill's provision contains an earmark of $99 million for 
watershed and flood prevention operations. This is highly important to 
the dairy producers of my district, primarily located in Chino and 
Ontario, California.
  As a result of the up-slope urbanization, the Chino Basin dairies, 
which are comprised of 270 dairies and 350 cows, have experienced 
increased flooding. This flooding washes manure and other water into 
the Santa Ana River, which is the source of drinking water downstream 
for 2\1/2\ million people.
  Report language contained in H.R. 1906 identifies the Chino dairy 
preserves as an important project. Madam Speaker, this is one of the 
many steps which I hope the House will continue to take in resolving 
this tremendous problem.




                          ____________________


[[Page 12438]]

              COX REPORT PUTS BOMBSHELLS ON PUBLIC RECORD

  (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, the recent release of the 
Cox report on the Chinese espionage at our nuclear laboratories has put 
on the public record a number of bombshells.
  The crown jewel of our nuclear arsenal, design of the W-88 warhead, 
has been stolen by the Chinese Communists. Even more amazing is that 
nothing was done about it after it was discovered in 1995.
  Chinese Communist penetration of our nuclear secrets is almost total.
  The response from the White House? ``Everybody does it'' and ``Let's 
not overreact.''
  I can hardly imagine how one could possibly say, ``Let's not 
overreact.'' What could possibly be worse than losing the single most 
valuable nuclear secret we have? And as for the everybody-does-it 
defense when confronted by scandal, the charge is false. It is a lie.
  President Ronald Reagan did not arm China with our best military 
technology, and President Reagan did not silence anyone inside the 
executive branch who dared challenge this policy. But this is exactly 
what has happened during this administration.

                          ____________________



        DEMOCRATS PROPOSE TO RAISE OUR TAXES, LOWER OUR DEFENSES

  (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, raise our taxes and lower our defenses. 
That is what the top Democrat in the House just proposed the other day.
  What must other Democrats be saying privately about the statement 
made by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Richard Gephardt), the 
minority leader, about his desire to cut defenses and raise taxes?
  Most of them quietly agree with the Democrat leader, but they also 
know that politically it would be difficult to express out loud their 
belief that taxes are not high enough, that middle-class families 
should endure the tax-and-spend policies of liberal Democrats.
  Perhaps they are applauding their leader's courage for standing up 
for what they believe, a smaller defense and greater taxes. But it 
seems many of them are also nervous.
  What if Americans learn that Democrats still stand for the 1960's 
style liberalism of even bigger government, ever higher taxes, and less 
freedom for individuals?
  This is a truly fascinating case in American politics today. Right 
now in Congress, Democrats stand in the way of a Republican tax cut. 
And now Democrats have made public their plans to lower our defenses 
and raise our taxes.

                          ____________________



              KOLBE-STENHOLM SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN ON WOMEN

  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Charlie Stenholm) and I have introduced a comprehensive Social Security 
reform legislation, H.R. 1793, and I want to talk today about some of 
the provisions that are in this bill. Today, I want to concentrate on 
those dealing with women.
  Our bill contains a minimum benefit provision that would provide a 
more robust benefit than afforded by the current system. For an 
individual who works 40 years, we guarantee them a Social Security 
benefit equal to 100 percent of the poverty level. And as a result of 
that provision alone, 50 percent of women will get more retirement 
benefits under the Kolbe-Stenholm plan than under current law.
  Our plan also allows workers to contribute an additional $2,000 per 
year into their personal account. Women expected to take time off to 
raise children can make voluntary contributions both before and after 
their hiatus to catch up. For women who earn less than $30,000, the 
Kolbe-Stenholm plan provides a savings subsidy for up to $600 per year.
  One of the reasons our bill is better for women is the changing 
nature of divorce. Not only has the divorce rate skyrocketed, but 
marriages are not lasting as long and more and more women are not 
remarrying. Consequently, more and more women are heading into 
retirement alone without the benefit of a spouse's Social Security 
income.
  As more women are raising children alone, working in lower-paying 
jobs, or not remarrying after divorce, the minimum benefit provision, 
the ability to catch up for lost years and the savings subsidy will do 
more to lift those women out of poverty.

                          ____________________



                           NATO HAS PREVAILED

  (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, let me just say a word about 
what is happening in another part of the world. We are achieving at 
least a temporary peace in the Balkans. Hopefully, it will be a 
sustained peace.
  NATO and the United States have prevailed. They have been resolute, 
they have been strong, and in fact, they have been successful.
  There has only been begrudging admission that it has been a 
successful policy. But when we consider the fact that we have not lost 
one pilot to enemy fire, we did not have to send in troops, and yet 
NATO has now prevailed. And it is clear now that NATO is resolute, it 
is stronger, and in fact it can control what happens in Europe, 
particularly the volatile region of Eastern Europe, into a much greater 
conflagration that might otherwise have expected that we would have 
been responsible for ultimately getting under control had not NATO been 
able to pull together 19 nations and pursue a coordinated, resolute 
policy.
  This is terribly important for the long-term security of the United 
States. The President, the Secretary of State, General Clark and NATO, 
deserve a great deal of credit for their principled and resolute 
leadership.

                          ____________________



  PERMITTING USE OF CAPITOL ROTUNDA FOR PRESENTATION OF CONGRESSIONAL 
                        GOLD MEDAL TO ROSA PARKS

  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on House Administration be discharged from further 
consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 127) 
permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to 
present a Gold Medal on behalf of Congress to Rosa Parks, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, while I am 
not planning to object, I just want to concur that those of us on this 
side of the aisle join with the gentleman from Oklahoma in support of 
this resolution.
  I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) for purposes of 
explaining the resolution.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for yielding.
  First I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson) 
for introducing the resolution to award Mrs. Parks the Congressional 
Gold Medal of Honor. With such leadership Americans will never forget 
where we came from and never lose sight of where we must go.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support honoring Mrs. Rosa Parks in the 
Capitol Rotunda under the dome of the People's House with the Gold 
Medal of Honor. What could be more appropriate than for Mrs. Parks to 
receive the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor in the Capitol Rotunda, 
the structure that

[[Page 12439]]

unites the House and Senate, a symbol of a government of the people, by 
the people and for the people. Our majestic Rotunda is the world's 
emblem of democracy and freedom. Mrs. Parks stood in the face of 
segregation and started a movement that united a Nation. How 
appropriate for us to honor her where we come together as Members and 
where we come together as Americans.
  Over 40 years ago, Mrs. Parks united the races on a bus in 
Montgomery, Alabama, and how appropriate for us to honor her in our 
country's most enduring symbol of unity, the Capitol Rotunda.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of 
the Committee on House Administration.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for yielding, and I join the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
  I do not know how many Americans have seen Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks is 
a woman small in stature. But that belies the fact that she was a giant 
in her courage and in her commitment and in the impact she made on 
America, not just on African Americans, though an impact she had on 
their lives and the respect accorded to them, but on the lives of every 
American who live today in a better country, more conscious of our need 
to give to each individual within our country the respect that they are 
due as human beings and children of God.
  Rosa Parks, Mr. Speaker, is a giant in the history of America. On 
December 1st, 1955, Rosa Parks looked up from her seat and said, ``No, 
I will not give you my seat. I was here first. I'm an American citizen. 
I paid my fare. And I ought to be able to sit on this seat.'' Mr. 
Speaker, she was absolutely correct. But as Martin Luther King observed 
some 8 years later, in August of 1963, America had yet to live out the 
reality of the promises made in our Declaration of Independence and in 
our Constitution, that Rosa Parks, like the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Emerson), was endowed not by government but by her Creator with 
certain unalienable rights, and among these were life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. And our Constitution said, particularly in the 
14th amendment and the 15th amendment, that color would not dictate 
lesser Americans.
  Rosa Parks is a giant, and I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to join the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Oklahoma in setting 
aside, as the gentleman from Oklahoma so ably articulated, the Rotunda, 
a revered spot not only in this country but around the world, to honor 
Rosa Parks, to say to her, ``Thank you. Thank you for helping America 
be a better country.''
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). 
I want to give a special commendation to the gentlewoman from Indiana 
(Ms. Carson) who works hard and did a great job on this issue. I would 
just like to say that when Rosa Parks sat down on that bus, she stood 
up for all Americans, not just black Americans. I, too, am honored to 
be here today.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, let 
me just also add my voice.
  I had the opportunity to meet Rosa Parks when she came to 
Philadelphia and visited with a group of young people at the Liberty 
Bell in Philadelphia. Observing the crack, she had a fairly profound 
statement to make about the fact that there was still some need for 
healing in our own country about issues related to civil rights, but 
that her work and her life and her legacy had played just a small part. 
It really was the support and the prayers of millions and millions of 
Americans of different ethnic backgrounds who supported the efforts of 
the civil rights movement which really started with her decision not to 
relinquish her seat.
  From time to time I know we have broad disagreements around here, but 
it is refreshing to see that in a bipartisan way we could come 
together. I am pleased to join with my colleague and my friend from 
Oklahoma as we move now to make the rotund available. Some are honored 
by having this type of honor bestowed upon them. Today I think the 
Congress is honored by having an American of Rosa Parks' stature to be 
able to honor.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 127

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to 
     be used on June 15, 1999, for a ceremony to present a gold 
     medal on behalf of Congress to Rosa Parks. Physical 
     preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in 
     accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the 
     Capitol may prescribe.

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

                          ____________________



        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}  1037


                     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 Mrs. Emerson (Chairman pro tempore) in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, June 9, 1999, amendment No. 14 printed in part A of House 
Report 106-175 by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) and 
offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) as her designee had 
been disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in House 
Report 106-175.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Buyer

  Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Buyer:
       Page 207, after line 5, add the following new subtitle (and 
     redesignate the succeeding subtitle accordingly):

   Subtitle F--Eligibility to Participate in the Thrift Savings Plan

     SEC. 661. AUTHORITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES TO 
                   CONTRIBUTE TO THE THRIFT SAVINGS FUND.

       (a) Authority for Members of the Uniformed Services To 
     Contribute to the Thrift Savings Fund.--(1) Subchapter III of 
     chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 8440e. Members of the uniformed services

       ``(a)(1) A member of the uniformed services performing 
     active service may elect to contribute to the Thrift Savings 
     Fund--
       ``(A) a portion of such individual's basic pay; or
       ``(B) a portion of any special or incentive pay payable to 
     such individual under chapter 5 of title 37.

     Any contribution under subparagraph (B) shall be made by 
     direct transfer to the Thrift Savings Fund by the Secretary 
     concerned.
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an 
     election under paragraph (1) may be made only during a period 
     provided under section 8432(b), subject to the same 
     conditions as prescribed under paragraph (2)(A)-(D) thereof.
       ``(B)(i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a member of the 
     uniformed services performing active service on the effective 
     date of this section may make the first such election during 
     the 60-day period beginning on such effective date.

[[Page 12440]]

       ``(ii) An election made under this subparagraph shall take 
     effect on the first day of the first applicable pay period 
     beginning after the close of the 60-day period referred to in 
     clause (i).
       ``(b)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, 
     the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter VII shall 
     apply with respect to members of the uniformed services 
     making contributions to the Thrift Savings Fund.
       ``(2)(A) The amount contributed by a member of the 
     uniformed services under subsection (a)(1)(A) for any pay 
     period shall not exceed 5 percent of such member's basic pay 
     for such pay period.
       ``(B) Nothing in this section or section 211 of title 37 
     shall be considered to waive any dollar limitation under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which otherwise applies with 
     respect to the Thrift Savings Fund.
       ``(3) No contributions under section 8432(c) shall be made 
     for the benefit of a member of the uniformed services making 
     contributions to the Thrift Savings Fund under subsection 
     (a).
       ``(4) In applying section 8433 to a member of the uniformed 
     services who has an account balance in the Thrift Savings 
     Fund, the reference in subsection (g)(1) or (h)(3) of section 
     8433 to contributions made under section 8432(a) shall be 
     considered a reference to contributions made under any of 
     sections 8351, 8432(a), 8432b(b), or 8440a-8440e.
       ``(c) For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `basic pay' has the meaning given such term 
     by section 204 of title 37;
       ``(2) the term `active service' means--
       ``(A) active duty for a period of more than 30 days, as 
     defined by section 101(d)(2) of title 10; and
       ``(B) full-time National Guard duty, as defined by section 
     101(d)(5) of title 10;
       ``(3) the term `Secretary concerned' has the meaning given 
     such term by section 101 of title 37; and
       ``(4) any reference to `separation from Government 
     employment' shall be considered a reference to a release from 
     active duty (not followed by a resumption of active duty, or 
     an appointment to a position covered by chapter 83 or 84 of 
     title 5 or an equivalent retirement system, as identified by 
     the Executive Director in regulations) before the end of the 
     31-day period beginning on the day following the date of 
     separation), a transfer to inactive status, or a transfer to 
     a retired list pursuant to any provision of title 10.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after the 
     item relating to section 8440d the following:

``8440e. Members of the uniformed services.''.

       (b) Amendments Relating to the Employee Thrift Advisory 
     Council.--Section 8473 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsections (a) and (b) by striking ``14 members'' 
     and inserting ``15 members''; and
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
     (9) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(10) 1 shall be appointed to represent participants who 
     are members of the uniformed services (within the meaning of 
     section 8440e).''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--(1) Paragraph 
     (11) of section 8351(b) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by redesignating such paragraph as paragraph (8).
       (2) Subparagraph (B) of section 8432b(b)(2) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``section 
     8432(a)'' and inserting ``sections 8432(a) and 8440e, 
     respectively,''.
       (3)(A) Section 8439(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (i) by inserting ``or 8432b(d)'' after ``8432(c)(1)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``8351'' and inserting ``8351, 8432b(b), 
     or 8440a-8440e''.
       (B) Section 8439(a)(2)(A)(i) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``8432(a) or 8351'' and 
     inserting ``8351, 8432(a), 8432b(b), or 8440a-8440e''.
       (C) Section 8439(a)(2)(A)(ii) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``title;'' and inserting ``title 
     (including subsection (c) or (d) of section 8432b);''.
       (D) Section 8439(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
     striking ``, over'' at the end of clause (iii) and inserting 
     ``; and'', and by adding after clause (iii) the following:
       ``(iv) any other amounts paid, allocated, or otherwise 
     credited to such individual's account, over''.

     SEC. 662. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THRIFT SAVINGS FUND.

       (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 3 of title 37, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 211. Contributions to Thrift Savings Fund

       ``A member of the uniformed services who is performing 
     active service may elect to contribute, in accordance with 
     section 8440e of title 5, a portion of the basic pay of the 
     member for that service (or of any special or incentive pay 
     under chapter 5 of this title which relates to that service) 
     to the Thrift Savings Fund established by section 8437 of 
     title 5.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

``211. Contributions to Thrift Savings Fund.''.

     SEC. 663. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Executive Director (appointed by the Federal 
     Retirement Thrift Investment Board) shall issue regulations 
     to implement sections 8351 and 8440e of title 5, United 
     States Code (as amended by section 661) and section 211 of 
     title 37, United States Code (as amended by section 662).

     SEC. 664. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the amendments made by this subtitle shall take 
     effect one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     or on July 1, 2000, whichever is later.
       (b) Exception.--Nothing in this subtitle (or any amendment 
     made by this subtitle) shall be considered to permit the 
     making of any contributions under section 8440e(a)(1)(B) of 
     title 5, United States Code (as amended by section 661), 
     before December 1, 2000.
       (c) Effectiveness Contingent on Offsetting Legislation.--
     (1) This subtitle shall be effective only if--
       (A) the President, in the budget of the President for 
     fiscal year 2001, proposes legislation which if enacted would 
     be qualifying offsetting legislation; and
       (B) there is enacted during the second session of the 106th 
     Congress qualifying offsetting legislation.
       (2) If the conditions in paragraph (1) are met, then, this 
     section shall take effect on the date on which qualifying 
     offsetting legislation is enacted or, if later, the effective 
     date determined under subsection (a).
       (3) For purposes of this subsection:
       (A) The term ``qualifying offsetting legislation'' means 
     legislation (other than an appropriations Act) that includes 
     provisions that--
       (i) offset fully the increased outlays for each of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2009 to be made by reason of the 
     amendments made by this subtitle;
       (ii) expressly state that they are enacted for the purpose 
     of the offset described in clause (i); and
       (iii) are included in full on the PayGo scorecard.
       (B) The term ``PayGo scorecard'' means the estimates that 
     are made with respect to fiscal years through fiscal year 
     2009 by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office and 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under 
     section 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and a Member opposed will each 
control 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) oppose the 
amendment?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, and I 
ask unanimous consent that in the absence of opposition that I be 
allowed to control the time otherwise reserved for the opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Hawaii?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Subcommittee on Military Personnel has been striving to find the 
right combination of incentives to address the negative recruiting and 
retention trends that threaten the readiness of our military forces. 
That is the purpose of the Buyer-Abercrombie amendment, to offer a 
military thrift savings plan.
  On the retention front, all services have incurred unsustainable 
losses among pockets of highly qualified experienced personnel, 
including aviators and many high tech skills. The most severe retention 
problems are in the Navy and the Air Force where officers, 
noncommissioned officers and enlisted members across the force are 
leaving at rates that threaten the future viability of those services.
  On the recruiting front, three of the services, beginning with the 
Army, then the Navy and finally the Air Force, have been struggling to 
meet production goals for new recruits. In addition, some sources of 
officer commissions, specifically Army and Air Force senior reserve 
officer training programs, are failing to produce the required number 
of new officers.
  As a result of the continuing recruiting shortfalls and reduced 
retention,

[[Page 12441]]

senior military leaders find themselves compelled to deploy forces to 
crises and contingencies at manning levels well below the 100 percent 
or better standard that heretofore has been their goal. With reduced 
manning levels among the deployed forces, senior leaders are 
reluctantly accepting higher operational risks, reduced readiness and 
increased stress on both deployed and nondeployed forces.
  The Subcommittee on Military Personnel conducted a number of hearings 
on recruiting and retention this spring. Although we learned that 
recruiting and retention are complex problems for which there are no 
simple solutions, a consistent theme among the military was a strong 
interest in participating in a tax deferred savings plan like the 
Federal Government's thrift savings plan. Today's military members like 
many in our society want to have control over their own retirement. 
They understand the value of saving and they want the benefits of tax 
deferred savings enjoyed by 45 million Americans participating in over 
600,000 defined contribution retirement plans like the Federal 
Government's own TSP. While H.R. 1401 contains many compensation and 
policy initiatives to combat recruiting and retention problems, the one 
key piece that is not included at this point is the thrift savings 
plan. There is no doubt that the ability to participate in a thrift 
savings program will be a powerful tool in our fight to stabilize 
recruiting and retention programs.
  The amendment being offered jointly by myself and the gentleman from 
Hawaii, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 
is a bare bones thrift savings program modeled after the savings 
program the Congress granted 965,000 Federal employees who qualify for 
a pension under the Civil Service Retirement System. The plan includes 
a maximum payroll contribution of 5 percent of basic pay with no 
government matching or automatic payments. We would add the ability to 
make contributions from special and incentive pays. But the 
participants would not be authorized to exceed contribution limits 
established by the tax code.
  There is lost revenue associated with the deferral of taxes on the 
contributions and earnings. We did not include the TSP in the bill 
because we were still working on alternatives for addressing the direct 
spending question. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the direct 
spending incurred with this provision to be $11 million in fiscal year 
2000 and $993 million through fiscal year 2009. This amendment 
addresses this pay-go requirement by making the provision contingent 
upon the President submitting and the Congress enacting qualified 
offsetting legislation during the consideration of the fiscal year 2000 
budget request.
  I would like to compliment publicly the working relationship I have 
had with the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). It has been a 
true pleasure in working to address our recruiting, our retention and 
the retirement concerns affecting the Nation's military.
  Madam Chairman, a vote for this amendment is a vote for the people 
who serve this Nation in uniform. A vote for this amendment is a vote 
for military readiness. It is a vote for military retention. I urge my 
colleagues to support a military thrift savings plan.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in strong support of what the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Buyer) has correctly characterized as a bipartisan amendment. I 
would think that we might even say that it is a nonpartisan amendment, 
to offer the thrift savings plan to our dedicated service members. As 
the senior Democrat on the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, I am 
extremely proud of the compensation package that we have put in this 
bill to help military personnel. This package addressed pay and 
retirement, as the gentleman from Indiana indicated, in a comprehensive 
fashion. May I add parenthetically, Madam Chairman, that I give full 
credit to the gentleman from Indiana for the really fabulous job that 
he, the staff and the other Members did with respect to making this 
truly comprehensive and far reaching.

                              {time}  1045

  We were unable to include, as he indicated, a provision that we both 
viewed as critical not only to the military, but to the economic 
security of this Nation, the Thrift Savings Plan.
  We have the lowest personal savings rate since 1950. Over the past 
year, the personal savings rate, the amount of savings divided by 
disposable income expressed as a percentage in this country, has been 
less than 1 percent. The savings rate in the country is important 
because it represents the resources that can be used to create, sustain 
or expand the Nation's capital. Savings represent the potential for 
long-term future growth and increase the national standard of living, 
and we want our military to be able to participate in it.
  As a Nation, we should encourage all people to save, and, as an 
employer, the government is remiss if we do not offer that same 
opportunity to the military. Service members should be extended the 
same benefits as other Federal employees.
  Madam Chairman, as my colleagues know, we, as Members of Congress, 
are permitted to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, and we think 
that, at a minimum, equity requires us to open up this process to 
members of the United States military. There are currently 1.4 million 
employees who do not have the employer-sponsored savings plan; that is 
the military. The military is the largest employer that does not offer 
a 401(k) plan. We do offer the benefit to Federal civilians, as I 
indicated, of the Thrift Savings Plan.
  Extending this plan to the military will have a salutary effect on 
the economy. Participation in the Thrift Savings Plan is 86.1 percent 
of the FERS employees and 61.2 percent of the CRS employees. If only 
61.2 percent of the people in the military were to participate, there 
would be 848,000 participants. This amounts to a total contribution of 
additional savings of almost $1 billion over a 10-year period.
  It is past overdue then for us to extend this benefit to the military 
and allow them the benefit from and contribute to the growth of the 
economy.
  So I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and reiterate, 
if I might, in this closing portion of these remarks that this is the 
product, this amendment is the product of a work effort which has 
characterized the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee 
on Armed Services from the beginning under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) which was one of encouragement and 
cooperation not only extended to all Members, but extended to all 
members of the armed services who were invited to participate in our 
deliberations, and credit for that goes to the leadership of Mr. Buyer.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Maloney) to speak on the amendment.
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak in 
support of this amendment and would like to start by commending the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Buyer) for proposing this amendment to provide the men and women 
of our military with an employer-sponsored 401(k)-style retirement 
plan. Indeed, as the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) have both said, the underlying bill 
makes major steps in regard to compensation and retirement; and I have 
heard already from people in the armed services and former members of 
the armed services their gratitude for the work that the subcommittee 
and the committee have done in regard to this matter.
  This amendment, however, makes a good bill even better. This is a no-
frills proposal that will allow military personnel to direct up to 5 
percent of their own income, their money, into tax-deferred investment 
accounts without any direct expense to the Federal budget. Private 
citizens, Federal employees

[[Page 12442]]

and Members of Congress currently enjoy this opportunity, and we should 
offer it to the dedicated personnel of our armed services.
  Indeed, many young men and women in the military have urged me to 
support this Thrift Savings Plan proposal as a means for them to start 
a portable savings plan for their retirement. At a time when the 
military is competing with a very strong economy and a private sector 
that is hungry for the same motivated and talented workers we need to 
fill the ranks of our armed services, it makes great sense to offer an 
employment package that includes a tax-deferred savings plan.
  Once again, as we have seen in the military campaign against 
Yugoslavia, our Nation has the most capable armed forces on Earth. That 
is because we have outstanding soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. 
We need to make sure that we do all we can to keep them.
  I urge my colleagues to support these brave and courageous men and 
women and vote ``aye'' for the Abercrombie-Buyer amendment.
  Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I want to thank our chairman, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), as well as the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie); Mr. Buyer has been a tireless defender of 
trying to advance the rights and the additional support of our armed 
forces throughout the world.
  I rise in strong support of the Buyer-Abercrombie amendment to 
authorize members of the uniformed services to participate in the 
Federal Thrift Savings Plan. Madam Chairman, with the exception of the 
military, the Congress has already acted to give virtually every other 
Federal employee access to tax-deferred savings. We have even 
authorized the 960,000 employees eligible for the Civil Service 
Retirement System, CRS, the option to participate in the Thrift Savings 
Plan. Fully 61 percent of those employees are making contributions to 
the Thrift Savings Plan; and if they are investing in the common stock 
option, they are benefiting from a rate of return in excess of 30 
percent over the last 4 years. This is simply an amendment to provide 
equity and fairness to one of the most deserving populations in 
America, the men and women who serve our Nation in uniform.
  At a time when most Americans are benefiting from a strong economy 
with immense growth in personal wealth using tax-deferred savings 
military personnel are denied the opportunity. Given the sacrifices 
being made by military members and their families today, difficult and 
often hazardous working conditions, long deployments from home, long 
working hours, limited funding for parts and other on-the-job 
resources, underfunded quality of life programs, the uniformed services 
should be the last group denied the opportunity to invest in their own 
future.
  We attempted earlier this year to address the pay inequities, as we 
did in the past Congress, because we were increasing Federal employees 
and other areas, but not our armed forces. This is an attempt to expand 
not only the pay question, but the benefits that other government 
employees get to the military, who should be the first to get these 
benefits, not the last.
  There is every indication that military people want to participate in 
the Thrift Savings Plan and are willing to make the financial 
sacrifices necessary to benefit from the Thrift Savings Plan. It is 
time to set the record straight. Vote ``yes'' on the Buyer-Abercrombie 
amendment, and I again want to congratulate the chairman for his 
efforts.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Pickett).
  Mr. PICKETT. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and 
I commend the authors of the amendment for offering it here today. I 
sponsored legislation on this issue myself that was not successful, I 
am sorry to say, but I am very happy to be here in support of this 
amendment. I think it is a provision that is long-past due.
  The military has a very small percentage of the people that enter who 
end up making it a career. Eighty-three percent of the people that 
enter the military do not intend to make it a career, and at the 
present time, they have no means to start a retirement fund. This will 
give them that opportunity by allowing them to participate in the 
Thrift Savings Plan.
  The proposal here would be a no-frills plan modeled after the savings 
program that Members of Congress have, 5 percent payroll contribution 
without government matching or automatic contribution. Thrift Savings 
Plan participation offers service members some portability for 
retirement benefits that they would not otherwise have, and I think 
this will encourage people to want to serve in our military. The 
savings program would be managed by the Federal Thrift Saving 
Investment Board, a professional, independent organization that will 
insure and guarantee the security of the money set aside by these 
people seeking to build a retirement fund.
  Madam Chairman, I am very pleased that this amendment is being 
offered. I know that it is going to help our military in their 
recruitment and retention efforts, and I think it is a step in the 
right direction to make certain that our military people, even those 
who do not plan to make the military a career, have the opportunity to 
create and sustain a retirement program.
  Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would like to compliment the gentleman who just spoke, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett) whose district and his home are 
the Navy in Norfolk. Mr. Pickett has been a hard worker on the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel, very tireless in his efforts to 
address the recruiting and retention and retirement issues; and he has 
also been an advocate of the Thrift Savings Plan over the years, and I 
know this is a good moment for him likewise.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and to 
commend the chairman and ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) for 
cooperation and their hard work and their can-do spirit.
  Madam Chairman, as I mentioned earlier this morning, members of the 
Committee on Armed Services were firmly committed to making this the 
year of the troops. We recognize that American military personnel and 
their families were bearing the brunt, the 10-year shrinkage in annual 
defense spending. The result has been devastating. Military quality of 
life is severed to the point that all of our service branches are 
having difficulty recruiting and retaining quality military personnel.
  This year's defense authorization legislation reverses the downward 
spiral in defense funding and begins the difficult process of rearming 
our military both as a fighting force and as a family. While 
sophisticated hardware and advancements in technology are critical 
elements of this rebuilding effort, it is our exceptional personnel, 
the engine of the American fighting force.
  I believe our legislation takes an important first step in reaching 
out to our men and women in uniform and letting them know that they 
count and that we appreciate the difficult job they do.
  The Buyer-Abercrombie amendment would make our already good 
authorization bill even better. This amendment provides our service 
personnel the same benefit we provide to all civil servants, the 
opportunity to participate in the Federal Government's Thrift Savings 
Plan. Such an initiative would give every sailor, soldier, airman and 
marine a chance to plan and prepare for the future through 
participation in the plan. Individual service personnel could make tax-
deferred deposits into accounts similar to IRAs.
  Madam Chairman, this measure would have a positive effect on 
recruiting and retention and does not begin to describe the benefit. 
The Buyer-Abercrombie amendment is an effective tool

[[Page 12443]]

in our effort to ensure our highly qualified men and women remain in 
service. We express our appreciation for their protection by our 
support of the Buyer-Abercrombie amendment.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the senior Democrat on the 
committee, who has been a mentor to us all, and it is a great pleasure 
to have him speak on this most important amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I first must say how very proud I am of 
the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Buyer), how proud I am of our ranking member, the gentleman from Hawaii 
(Mr. Abercrombie) for the work that they did on the personnel section 
of this bill. The work that they provided for us, and hopefully we will 
have a strong vote on this entire bill at a later moment today, will 
give encouragement, will give heart, to those who are in the military 
and have some doubts as to whether they should stay and serve our 
Nation in uniform or to seek their fortunes elsewhere.

                              {time}  1100

  The pay package, which includes the pay raise, the pay tables, the 
pension package, it will encourage so many to stay and seek retirement 
later than leaving. I just cannot compliment the gentlemen enough. I 
want this House to know of my praise for the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) on the fine 
work they have done.
  Let me also add that I support this amendment that they have offered. 
It was first brought to my attention by the Chief of Naval Personnel, 
and it is an excellent amendment. It is a key part of the full package 
that will be comprising the personnel section of this bill.
  The military is the largest employer that does not offer a 401(k) 
plan. However, we do offer this benefit to Federal civilian employees 
under the Thrift Savings Plan. As a government, we should strive for 
equity among the different types of employees. I fully support this. It 
is equity on the Federal level among all different types of employees, 
soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who leave before completing 20 
years will not leave empty-handed, but be able to take the Thrift 
Savings Plan with them into another 401(k) plan.
  This is the right thing to do for the young people as they grow in 
service and in maturity. I fully support, fully support this amendment.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, with the Chair's permission and with 
the indulgence of the gentleman from Indiana, there was a request by a 
Member to speak, and I ask unanimous consent to extend the debate by 1 
minute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The Chair would entertain 
that request if it were equally divided, 1 minute on both sides.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Hawaii withdraw his 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes, Madam Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
will be recognized to 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii 
(Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I request that the time that has 
been yielded to me be divided, 2\1/2\ minutes each to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
does have the 5 minutes under the 5-minute rule.
  Mr. SKELTON. I will be pleased to yield to the gentleman from Indiana 
at the proper time.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I did not realize we were going to 
have such a complicated and convoluted situation here.
  I think what the gentlemen are doing, I say to the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), is 
absolutely necessary. I think when we do the little things, the big 
things take care of themselves.
  I had not really looked carefully at this amendment, but having 
looked at this amendment, it is the types of little things that build 
morale and stabilization to a military force that is deserving.
  I just wanted to echo here and compliment the chairman, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and all 
associated with this.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii 
(Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, in closing, I would like to thank 
the subcommittee staff for their very hard work. Additionally, I would 
like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). It 
has been a pleasure to work with him, to develop such a comprehensive 
benefits package that I am certain will ensure the viability of the 
all-volunteer force well into the next century.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Madam Chairman, 
and for his contribution and that of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie).
  One of the challenges associated with recruiting the high quality 
military force that we possess today are the demands the force places 
on personnel programs within the uniformed services.
  Military men and women today are bright, confident, and they are 
honorable young people. If these superb young people were anything less 
than the best, they would not measure up to the extreme challenges that 
we call on them to overcome each and every day as they serve the Nation 
around the world.
  This high quality force includes members that are more independent 
and savvy than we have seen in the past. They understand the importance 
of saving for retirement and they want to control their future.
  We have observed a revolution in investment that has changed the 
retirement planning in the private sector, and those in the military 
services want to participate in a strong economy that has benefited 
some others in America. For example, they want the same 30 percent rate 
of return that 1.8 million Federal civilian employees enjoyed today 
from their Thrift Savings program. They want some retirement 
portability that they do not have today within the military retirement 
system. In short, they want to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan.
  While this, again, is no silver bullet that guarantees good 
recruiting and retention, we must not allow this powerful, cost-
effective recruiting and retention tool to go unused. The readiness of 
the force depends on our action today.
  I urge that the administration would include this in the 2001 budget. 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Buyer-Abercrombie 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to provide the uniformed services 
access to the Thrift Savings Plan.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Mr. Buyer and the gentleman from 
Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie for introduction of this amendment to provide 
all members of our uniformed services with the opportunity to 
participate in a Thrift Savings Plan. This proposal mirrors legislation 
that was introduced by me and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Pickett 
last year and again this year as H.R. 556.
  It is not only reasonable but also fair that those who serve our 
nations armed forces should be eligible for personal savings plans 
available to other federal employees and Members of Congress. Today 
when our military pay falls behind cost of living, other federal worker 
pay and benefits it is essential that Congress provide our military 
services with additional incentives for recruitment and retention.
  With recruitment down, and re-enlistments dropping we must reexamine 
both the compensation, living conditions and benefits offered our 
military personnel.

[[Page 12444]]

  This action today is only one change of many needed to address 
problems and challenges facing our military and their dependents. It 
has been my privilege to work with others to help enact this savings 
plan and I urge its adoption as this military authorization legislation 
moves forward.
  This action will also compliment legislation that I helped to author 
last year that begins to open our federal employees health benefit 
program to our military retirees and their dependents.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Buyer-
Abercrombie amendment to provide, in law, a provision for disability 
separation and retirement for service members with pre-existing 
conditions. This amendment is one of the en-bloc amendments.
  Current law does not include a standard to establish eligibility for 
disability retirement and separation based on medical conditions that 
existed prior to members entry into military service. Previously, 
disability retirement and separation based on pre-existing medical 
condition had been authorized in regulations after eight years of 
service.
  In 1979 the Department of Defense recommended to the Congress that 
disability compensation be extended to personnel with less than eight 
years of service, in order not to ``worsen . . . the competitive 
position of the armed forces in attracting and retaining the numbers 
and quality of members essential to the proper functioning of the 
forces'' in context of the ``All Volunteer'' service. Congress, under 
the Military Personnel and Compensation Amendments of 1980, approved 
this request. The DoD disability directive written at this time 
maintained the eight years length of service requirement only for pre-
existing conditions. That policy was removed from the regulations in 
1996 after a legal finding that there was no law to support the policy.
  Only in very rare instances is medical evidence provided that states 
unequivocally that military service played no part in the progression 
of the disease. In fact, such evidence has been presented for just a 
handful of diseases i.e. (Retinitis Pigmentosa, Huntington's Chorea) 
and the Services have found their hands tied by current DoD policy and 
legislation.
  This amendment offered by myself and Mr. Buyer would place in law a 
well-conceived and once well-executed policy and has the strong support 
of the Department of Defense. Adoption of this proposal would provide 
compensation to a small number of deserving people--perhaps 50 
annually--that are afflicted by hereditary or congenital disease 
undetected at the time they joined the military.
  These affected service members are patriots, who after faithfully 
serving their country for at least eight years, are now told they are 
no longer fit for military duty because of a pre-existing condition. 
These men and women joined the military in good faith and it is that 
good faith that we must return to them. Mr. Buyer and I strongly urge 
our colleagues to support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, further proceedings 
on this question will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed in House 
Report 106-175.


               Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam 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. 16 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 283, after line 
     6), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1024. ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERS TO ASSIST IMMIGRATION AND 
                   NATURALIZATION SERVICE AND CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       (a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter 
     18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after section 374 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol 
       and control

       ``(a) Assignment Authorized.--Upon submission of a request 
     consistent with subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may 
     assign members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps 
     to assist--
       ``(1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 
     preventing the entry of terrorists and drug traffickers into 
     the United States; and
       ``(2) the United States Customs Service in the inspection 
     of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points of entry into the 
     United States to prevent the entry of weapons of mass 
     destruction, components of weapons of mass destruction, 
     prohibited narcotics or drugs, or other terrorist or drug 
     trafficking items.
       ``(b) Request for Assignment.--The assignment of members 
     under subsection (a) may occur only if--
       ``(1) the assignment is at the request of the Attorney 
     General, in the case of an assignment to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, or the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     the case of an assignment to the United States Customs 
     Service; and
       ``(2) the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary 
     of the Treasury (as the case may be) is accompanied by a 
     certification by the President that the assignment of members 
     pursuant to the request is necessary to respond to a threat 
     to national security posed by the entry into the United 
     States of terrorists or drug traffickers.
       ``(c) Training Program.--If the assignment of members is 
     requested under subsection (b), the Attorney General or the 
     Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be), together with 
     the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a training program 
     to ensure that members to be assigned receive general 
     instruction regarding issues affecting law enforcement in the 
     border areas in which the members will perform duties under 
     the assignment. A member may not be deployed at a border 
     location pursuant to an assignment under subsection (a) until 
     the member has successfully completed the training program.
       ``(d) Conditions on Use.--(1) Whenever a member who is 
     assigned under subsection (a) to assist the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service or the United States Customs Service 
     is performing duties at a border location pursuant to the 
     assignment, a civilian law enforcement officer from the 
     agency concerned shall accompany the member.
       ``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
       ``(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to 
     conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement 
     activity or to make an arrest; and
       ``(B) supersede section 1385 of title 18 (popularly known 
     as the `Posse Comitatus Act').
       ``(e) Notification Requirements.--The Attorney General or 
     the Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be) shall 
     notify the Governor of the State in which members are to be 
     deployed pursuant to an assignment under subsection (a), and 
     local governments in the deployment area, of the deployment 
     of the members to assist the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service or the United States Customs Service (as the case may 
     be) and the types of tasks to be performed by the members.
       ``(f) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title 
     shall apply in the case of members assigned under subsection 
     (a).
       ``(g) Termination of Authority.--No assignment may be made 
     or continued under subsection (a) after September 30, 
     2002.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 374 the following new item:

``374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, they say this is a perennial Traficant amendment. For 
12 years I worked to change the budget surplus in an IRS civil tax 
case, 12 years, and yes, this is 3 years in a row, because a report 
recently filed said the greatest national security threat facing the 
American people is not a foreign enemy per se and their missiles, it is 
the easy access to America by terrorists and drug smugglers, and our 
borders are wide open.
  The Traficant amendment does not mandate troops on the border. It 
says if the administration has an emergency and calls them, which they 
can, it codifies the conditions by which those troops shall be placed. 
They must be trained. They can never go out alone. They cannot make 
arrests.
  Let me say this, only 3 out of 100 trucks coming across our borders 
are even inspected, and we are building houses and giving rabies 
vaccinations in Haiti, guarding borders in the mideast, waging 
peacekeeping missions all over the world. The number one security 
threat facing America and the weak link is our border.

[[Page 12445]]

  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
reluctantly, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I again reluctantly oppose the amendment for the 
following reasons: It is unnecessary. The President of the United 
States already has the inherent authority to declare a national 
emergency and employ national reserves to protect the borders of the 
United States. It is inherent within the constitutional powers of the 
president. If we cannot protect our own borders within those inherent 
powers, we do not have to specifically ordain, we do not have to 
enumerate nor dictate to the President of the United States.
  This amendment seeks to protect our border against terrorists and 
weapons of mass destruction. In fact, major initiatives are already 
underway to mobilize the Nation against such threats through the 
utilization of the National Guard weapons of mass destruction programs.
  The evidence is overwhelming that our military forces are stretched 
to a breaking point. Readiness is suffering due to an overcommitment 
and underresourcing. We have just added Kosovo to the many locations 
around the world where the United States forces will be semi-
permanently assigned to a major new mission, like policing the border. 
Redirecting many military personnel to nonmilitary missions would 
increase the negative impact on military readiness.
  Under U.S. law, law enforcement is historically and properly left to 
the Department of Justice and its agencies, as it should be. The United 
States military is precluded from becoming a police force, under the 
posse comitatus act. We ought not to change the basic principle.
  We have had many discussions about this, and I compliment the 
gentleman's tenacity over the years in bringing this amendment. But if 
it is the border the gentleman wants to strengthen, we can do that 
through other proper agencies and not through the use of a military 
force.
  At a time when this Nation has embraced the North American Free Trade 
Agreement and we want to have even better relations with Mexico and 
Canada, putting a military force on the border itself sends a very 
awful message to our friend to the south.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, I ask my colleagues to think, instead of 
feel. I know they are worried about a negative message being sent. But 
let me say to my colleague that Mexico places their troops along the 
border because they recognize that the battle against drugs is going to 
have to be fought on the border.
  The concept of political correctness, of what might look bad is 
unimportant to Mexico. They know how desperate the situation is. They 
put their troops where the problem exists. We send our troops all over 
the world. We are ready to send another 7,000 to Kosovo to protect 
other neighborhoods and other borders.
  What about the American neighborhoods that are being poisoned by 
drugs today? Is it too much to ask that the American taxpayer who pays 
for these troops, be allowed to be protected from drugs by these 
troops?
  Madam Chairman, I want to point out, almost every State along the 
border has committed its National Guard to helping along the border at 
addressing this crisis. Is it too much to say, with good training and 
appropriate supervision, that the United States Federal Government will 
make its contribution, too, in every way possible?
  Please, common sense says we should be doing as much for our American 
citizens as we are doing for people all over the world.
  Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Reyes).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. There are a number 
of Members that would like a unanimous consent to be in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Do I yield time, or does it count against my 1\1/2\ minutes? What is 
the procedure? Obviously, we do not have enough time to have everybody 
speak.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes, during which time he may yield to anyone he wishes within the 
1\1/2\ minutes that he has been yielded.
  Mr. REYES. It will count against my time?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is correct. The gentleman is 
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Traficant 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Amendment by the gentleman from 
Ohio.
  I do want to commend my colleague from Ohio for his dedication and 
tenacity in fighting drugs. Every member of this body, I am sure, 
shares his commitment to ending this scourge on our society. But, while 
we share the same goals, we do have a difference in opinion on how to 
eradicate drug smuggling and drug abuse.
  The District I represent sits on the Mexican border. One of the 
crossings in my District is the busiest border crossing in the entire 
world! So, I have personal experience with the border and all the 
opportunities and challenges associated with border crossings.
  There is no question that we must gain better control of our borders. 
There have been Herculean efforts by the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, the Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, and many other government agencies, including 
state and local agencies. All these agencies are to be commended for 
their efforts and dedication to controlling our borders and ending the 
illegal crossing of narcotics and narcotics smugglers.
  And, though much remains to be done, I have serious and grave 
reservations about this proposal to literally arm the border. Yes, we 
need to better control the border, but placing armed military personnel 
on our borders, who are trained to fight and win wars by killing 
people, is not the answer.
  The United States military is the best equipped, best trained, most 
disciplined, and most efficient in the world. Our military can win any 
war that the American people choose to fight. But, the brave men and 
women serving in our Armed Forces win those wars by killing people. As 
repulsive and unforgiving as killing is, it is the way wars are won. 
With people who are trained to kill other people patrolling our own 
border, I fear for the safety of our own citizens--not from intent, but 
from accident.
  I also want to remind everyone that Mexico is a friendly country. 
They have made no attempts at invasion since the Alamo. Accordingly, I 
believe this proposal could do serious damage to a relationship that is 
fragile, at best.
  Mr. Chairman, we must find new and innovative methods for stopping 
illegal drugs from coming into our country and killing our people. But 
I do not believe arming the Mexican-American border with the United 
States military is the best way. I call on my colleagues to not limit 
themselves to old and easy ideas for ending this scourge of deadly 
drugs. Let us think beyond the conventional solutions of greater force 
and move toward new proposals.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I think that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has made some good points about 
terrorism, but this is something that Immigration and Customs can do. I 
rise in opposition to the amendment at this time.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I have a tremendous amount of respect for both the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and those Members of Congress that 
are frustrated about the specter of terrorism, drugs, and all of these 
other things. But these are the facts: 90 percent of the drugs enter 
through our ports of entry. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
mentioned, only

[[Page 12446]]

three of out of every 100 trucks are inspected.
  Currently there are only 8,000 Border Patrol agents to cover our 
border. We need 20,000 to do the job. $1.9 million was paid out in a 
settlement to the Ezequiel Hernandez family as he was shot by a 
military patrol in Texas on the border.
  The needs of the border are this: We need to understand and have a 
common-sense approach from this Congress. We need more Border Patrol 
agents. We need more Customs inspectors. We need more INS inspectors. 
We also need to support the technology that will make us effective in 
inspecting those trucks at the ports of entry.
  The consequences I see are, are we moving towards marshal law, not 
just for border communities, but throughout the country? Are we going 
to have armed personnel from the United States military in our 
neighborhoods, not just on the border, but throughout the country? Are 
we going to have another Ezequiel Hernandez incident?
  This has a tremendous impact, not only on border communities, but on 
this country and a tremendous impact on the readiness and our ability 
to deploy our troops and expect the best from our armed forces.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I want every Member of Congress to look at the chart 
that the opposition brought in. I want the chairman of the subcommittee 
to look at it. I want the Committee on National Security to look at it. 
We are talking about every country all over the world, and the National 
Security report came out and said the biggest weakness to America's 
national security is our own border.
  Listen carefully. Increased availability of inexpensive cruise 
missiles and the capability to fabricate and introduce biotoxins and 
chemical agents into the United States at record levels, warheads 
housing nuclear/chemical/biological weapons proliferating, effective 
missile defenses needed.
  But look at our borders. Although not seriously considered, coastal 
and border defense of the homeland is a challenge that needs attention. 
Infiltration of our borders by drug smugglers and contraband goods 
illustrates a dangerous problem.
  Now let me say this. Only three out of 100 trucks. Where are the 
agents? I support the agents. This does not even deal with immigration. 
Terrorists finance their business with narcotics. Congress talks about 
a war on narcotics.
  All we have is a war going on in Kosovo. We are building homes in 
Haiti and giving vaccinations to dogs in Haiti, and the damn border is 
wide open, and I am going to hear this. The committee would not even 
have had a debate on our border if it was not for this amendment.
  Now, this amendment may not pass this time, but 90 percent of the 
American people are fed up with a Congress that does nothing and talks 
about a war on crime and a war on terrorism when we are ripe and wide 
open.
  I want to say one last thing. I want some support in a conference. 
There is not enough anatomy in the other body to even consider these 
issues. This is the House of Representatives. Show some backbone.
  I do not mandate these troops. The President must ask for them. But 
by God, if he gets them, the Traficant law says they cannot violate 
posse comitatus. They must be trained. They must give notice to the 
governors, and it must be coordinated.
  Now, that is the way it is. I expect the support of this House today.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The Chair will remind 
Members that the use of profanity in the Chamber is not permitted.
  Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) that your 
passion is real. It is misdirected. It should not be the troops on the 
border, it should be increasing Customs, INS and DEA.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Madam Chairman, I admire the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant), and as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) said, for his 
tenacity, but I disagree strongly with his proposal to militarize our 
border, to put a significant part of my congressional district under 
martial law.
  He is not talking about martial law in Youngstown, Ohio. He is not 
talking about martial law in New York City. He wants to clear the 
streets of gangs and drug dealers. What about clearing them with 
military troops there in those cities as well?
  He wants to use the military resources to help stop drugs at our 
borders and prevent terrorists. Guess what. It is happening. It is 
happening right now. Joint Task Force 6, located in El Paso, Texas, is 
doing that.
  Here are some of the things that the military does now along the 
border. Army engineering groups are building roads and fences along the 
border so that we can patrol it. We have the National Guard unloading 
trucks at our crossing stations so they can be inspected for drugs. We 
have the Air Force operating our aerostats which provide radar coverage 
against drug-smuggling aircraft. It is Customs that should deal with 
this. It is Immigration and Border Patrol that should deal with this; 
it is not the military role to deal with this.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman. I rise in strong opposition 
to the Traficant amendment to place armed troops on the border. This 
great nation of ours is both a nation of immigrants and a nation of 
laws, not a nation against immigrants. This means that we have laws, 
but we also have fairness, we also have due process, and yes, we have a 
group of hardworking men and women who make up the U.S. Border Patrol. 
Rather than giving up and becoming a military police-state, let's 
continue to support our Border Patrol and do everything we can to 
improve the border patrol. I have joined with Congressman Sylvestre 
Reyes to introduce H.R. 1881, the Border Patrol Recruitment and 
Retention Act of 1999. This legislation will provide incentives and 
support for recruiting and retaining border patrol agents. This 
legislation would increase the compensation for Border Patrol agents 
and allow the Border Patrol agency to recruit its own agents without 
relying on personnel offices of the INS.
  The Border Patrol is not able to recruit enough agents to meet this 
authorizing level. Therefore, after speaking with the budget analysts 
at the INS, an additional $3.7 million is needed to raise the starting 
salary level from GS-5 level to GS-7 level, which will be slightly over 
$30,000 and comparable with the other federal law enforcement agencies.
  Apparently Madam Chairman, the Border Patrol Agency loses a lot of 
its agents when they reach the GS-9 level, and that salary level is 
around $33,000 because there is currently a ceiling on how much an 
agent can earn. We must do this every year Madam Chairman until FY 
2001, which is the remaining authorizing years for Border Patrol agents 
as mandated by the 1996 law.
  Let's not line up troops along the border. The military is not 
supposed to be used for such purposes. Let's beef up our nation's 
Border Patrol and pass H.R. 1881, the Border Patrol Recruitment and 
Retention Act of 1999.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 15 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana

[[Page 12447]]

(Mr. Buyer) and amendment No. 16 offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered By Mr. Buyer

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Buyer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 425, 
noes 0, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 185]

                               AYES--425

     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
     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
     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
     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)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     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
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     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
     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
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Cooksey
     Hilleary
     Holt
     Kasich
     Lofgren
     Olver
     Wynn

                              {time}  1144

  Mr. MOLLOHAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
200, the Chair announces that she will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the period of time in which a vote by electronic device will be taken 
on the additional amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


               Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) 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 pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 181, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 186]

                               AYES--242

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf

[[Page 12448]]


     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Armey
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bliley
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Conyers
     Hilleary
     Holt
     Kasich
     Lofgren
     Manzullo
     Olver
     Wynn

                              {time}  1153

  Messrs. CRAMER, OXLEY, and DEUTSCH changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). It is now in order to debate 
the subject of the policy of the United States relating to the conflict 
in Kosovo.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. SPENCE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, as the 3-month air war appears to be winding down and 
NATO operations in Yugoslavia appear headed for a new and, in my 
opinion, perhaps more troubling phase for our country, I think it is 
entirely appropriate that the House have a debate over various aspects 
of our Kosovo policy.
  Over the past few months, the issue of this administration's policy 
has been contentious and confusing not only to the Congress but to the 
American people, as well. Under such circumstances, I do not understand 
why debate is a bad thing.
  In my personal opinion, the conflict in Kosovo and the wider wars in 
the Balkans do not directly impact on core United States national 
security interests. Our interests in the current conflict are primarily 
humanitarian.
  Madam Chairman, in the words of NATO Secretary General Solana, 
Operation Allied Force is ``a war fought for values.'' I am not 
minimizing the importance of values. They mean a lot to the American 
people and to me personally.
  Americans take their political values seriously. We declared our 
independence from Great Britain on the basis of inalienable rights. 
Yet, as a Nation, when it comes to matters of national security and 
foreign policy, when it comes to matters of these kind, we have always 
tempered our values with an appreciation of our broader national 
interests, as did the Founding Fathers, who were especially weary of 
foreign entanglements.
  The need for a clear right assessment of the national interest is 
especially important when it comes to the use of United States military 
force. Committing our Armed Forces to combat should never be done 
without an objective reckoning of interest, cost, and benefits. Indeed, 
that ought to be our solemn obligation to the men and women in uniform 
who place their lives at risk to protect and promote American interests 
all around what remains a dangerous world.
  We cannot afford to simply ask whether the cause is just but whether 
we are willing and able to pay the many direct and indirect costs 
necessary to achieve victory if victory can be clearly defined.
  The costs to our Armed Forces of ongoing operations in the Balkans 
from 1995 until today has been substantial and continues to rise 
exponentially. Also, there is no end in sight.
  Including the funds recently approved by Congress in the Kosovo 
supplemental and in this bill, the cost of operations in the Balkans is 
approaching $20 billion.

                              {time}  1200

  That figure represents just the incremental costs to the Department 
of Defense, the costs of the additional fuel, munitions, spare parts, 
personnel and other associated costs with operations in the Balkans. It 
does not begin to cover the capital costs associated with raising, 
equipping, training and maintaining our armed forces.
  Put simply, American military commitments in the Balkans have risen 
to the level of a third major war, over and above the two potential 
major wars facing us in Korea and Southwest Asia, and form the basis of 
our United States national strategy. We are involved in an 
unanticipated major war in Europe with a military force that in my view 
is overextended and underresourced to the point where it cannot 
effectively protect our national interests around the world, nor can it 
execute the Nation's military strategy in time of war.
  These basic realities have shaped my position in regard to our 
operations in the Balkans over the past several years. I do not 
downplay the humanitarian tragedy that has befallen the Balkans. None 
of us do. With our military already overextended, I have long 
maintained that it is unwise to commit our forces, especially United 
States ground forces, to an open-ended commitment in Southern Europe 
that would place our other vital interests around the world at 
immediate and, in my opinion, unacceptable risk. Parenthetically I note 
that the two new incoming Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Marine 
Corps have expressed similar concerns about this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that our armed forces are at a 
fraction of their Gulf War strength of the late 1990s, it seems that 
the administration has approached this entire Balkans policy for the 
past several years and certainly the past several months in isolation 
from Korea or the Persian Gulf. We must first and foremost consider

[[Page 12449]]

our security and foreign policy with our heads, not just our hearts. 
And we cannot consider the signals we send to Serbia separately from 
the signals we send to Iraq and Iran and North Korea or any other 
nation that is or might become our adversary where the threats posed 
are a higher degree than that in the Balkans.
  I urge my colleagues to bear in mind our global interests and 
responsibilities and the ability of our military forces to protect all 
of these interests as we debate the Kosovo policy today and in the 
future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let us speak of Kosovo today. We have achieved, our country has 
achieved, NATO has achieved a victory in the field of battle in the 
Balkans. The issues we debate today and the votes taken today will tell 
whether we keep that victory or whether we sour it or whether we throw 
ashes on it and tell those young men and young women who have been in 
harm's way that their efforts were for good or whether they were for 
naught.
  Mr. Chairman, never in the history of this country has a Congress 
voted to deprive America of a military victory in the field after it 
has been achieved. It is my sincere hope that this Congress today will 
not deprive America, will not deprive the NATO nations of a victory 
that it has achieved by placing young men and young women in harm's 
way.
  The House is now going to consider a series of amendments concerning 
our involvement in NATO operations in Yugoslavia. The House should 
approve my amendment to delete section 1006(a) of the bill and we 
should approve the Taylor amendment which outlines the goals for our 
military and peacekeeping operations in Yugoslavia. However, we should 
reject the Souder amendment, which is even more restrictive than the 
flawed language that is in the bill, and we should reject the Fowler 
amendment because the House debated and rejected a similar Fowler 
amendment in March by a vote of 178-237.
  Mr. Chairman, when I spoke during general debate on this bill, I 
mentioned that my only reservation about this legislation concerns 
section 1006 relating to budgeting for operations in the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia. This provision, which prohibits the use of 
funds authorized by this legislation for the conduct of combat or 
peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, is too 
restrictive and can result in funds being cut off while our troops are 
in the field. I agree with the necessity to fund our operations in the 
Balkans with supplemental appropriations and I have so stated. However, 
if the bill's provisions are left in place, we could have a situation 
where the funds from one supplemental run out before another is 
enacted. In that case, the section in question would prevent the use of 
these Department of Defense funds authorized by this bill to support 
our troops in the region whether in combat or peacekeeping. Moreover, 
if this language remains in the authorization bill, this otherwise 
excellent legislation that we have will be subject to a presidential 
veto.
  The amendment which I offer will delete subsection (a) of section 
1006 while leaving in place subsection (b) which requires the President 
to request supplemental appropriations in order to conduct combat or 
peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 
Subsection (b), standing alone, adequately protects the funding 
authorized in this bill without running the risk of undermining 
America's and NATO's military peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago when we were first scheduled to take this 
bill up on the floor, I would have argued that the language in the bill 
sent the wrong message at the wrong time. Now with the withdrawal of 
Serbian forces from Kosovo scheduled to begin today, the message we 
would send by rejecting my amendment and the timing of that message 
would be even worse. Specifically, retaining that harmful section would 
send a signal to U.S. and allied military personnel in the region that 
their superb performance to date may be cut off at a fiscally-driven 
date having nothing to do with operational or diplomatic 
considerations.
  It would send a signal of uncertainty to our NATO allies at a time 
when American leadership on the ground, in the air and in various 
diplomatic venues is carrying Operation Allied Force and related 
efforts forward.
  It would send a signal to Kosovar refugees depending on America and 
NATO that the Alliances's commitment to returning them safely to their 
homes is wavering.
  It would send a signal to President Milosevic that he need only hold 
on or stall for a few more months before funding for American 
participation in the NATO air campaign or peacekeeping mission is 
accomplished.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very serious issue. It relates not only 
to Kosovo, it relates not only to Yugoslavia, it relates to the 
leadership of this bastion of freedom, of America, in this world.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me respond briefly to my friend from 
Missouri with respect to depriving us of what he calls victory in this 
war.
  The war that I am concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is the next war, and 
I am concerned about the stocks of ammunition that are now very low. I 
am also concerned about those young men and women who have served us so 
well in the air war that has taken place over the last 78 days or so. 
The best way we can serve those men and women in uniform is to see to 
it that we get a large number of them off food stamps. I am talking 
about the 10,000 military families that currently are on food stamps.
  Another way we can serve them is to see to it that we have the spare 
parts to get our mission capability rates up above 70 percent and to 
get that crash rate which last year was 55 aircraft crashing resulting 
in 55 deaths during peacetime operations down to a lower level, if not 
an acceptable level. All of that is going to take money.
  Mr. Chairman, this war will be a disaster if we pay for it out of the 
moneys that would have gone to increase our munitions back to the two-
war requirement, that would have gone to raise the pay of our military 
people up to the level where they can make more than the food stamp 
rate, if the money is taken out of the spare parts coffers where it has 
been taken in the past to leave 40 percent of our aircraft grounded 
because they are not mission capable.
  I just say to my friend from Missouri, let us not pull money out of 
operations in this new euphoria that he thinks we should be engaged in, 
out of operations and out of the spare parts supplies and out of the 
ammunition coffers and out of the personnel benefit coffers. Otherwise, 
the next war will be a disaster for us. I hope that he will work with 
me to see to it that money is not taken out of the defense budget for 
Kosovo.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, we won the war. Now we 
must win the peace. We led NATO into that war in order for us to end 
the atrocities over in Kosovo and now we must be part of NATO to ensure 
that peace is there and that it will stick. Not only do the Republican 
amendments today undermine our efforts in Kosovo but the underlining 
provisions of this bill without the Skelton amendment make it nearly 
impossible to effectively implement the peace agreement because it cuts 
off the funds on September 30. Every major newspaper in the world has a 
peace agreement on the front page of every major newspaper. Why can our 
friends on the Republican side not read what is on the front page of 
every major newspaper in the world and declare that we have peace and 
we have the responsibility to be part of making sure that peace works.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).

[[Page 12450]]


  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I do commend our young men and women in 
the military for this peace that we hope has been achieved today 
because it is due to their great efforts that we have this opportunity 
for peace.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not often disagree with the gentleman from 
Missouri, he is a Member of this House for whom I have the highest 
regard and affection, but on this particular issue, I think he is 
wrong. Just this last weekend, General Shelton, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that even with the peace agreement, the 
NATO operation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is no longer one 
of peacekeeping but of peace enforcement. We are clearly going to be 
placing U.S. forces in a hostile environment.
  On one side of our forces, we will have the Serbs who we have been 
bombing for the last 2\1/2\ months. On the other side we will have the 
Kosovo Liberation Army which will be frustrated by the failure of the 
peace agreement to require a referendum as the Rambouillet accord would 
have done on independence. NATO forces will be defending Belgrade 
sovereignty over Kosovo, a position which is directly at odds with the 
KLA's paramount goal of independence. Moreover, while all the details 
of the peace agreement are not clear, it appears that the Russian 
element will approximate 10,000 troops compared to America's 7,000. 
Their line of command remains undetermined.
  Over the last 2\1/2\ months, the United States has provided the 
lion's share of the effort in the air campaign. The latest figures 
indicate that the United States has had 723 aircraft involved versus 
257 provided by the European states of NATO. The ratio of U.S. to 
European aircraft is almost 3 to 1. Yet the European states of NATO 
combined have more than twice as many active duty troops than we do, 
and their combined gross domestic product of $8.1 trillion is actually 
slightly more than our own GDP of $8.08 trillion.
  The gentleman from Missouri would delete the provision in this bill 
that adds teeth to it, that the President may not spend money in fiscal 
year 2000 authorized by this bill for our military for operations in 
Kosovo but rather must submit a request for supplemental funding to 
meet any cost associated with the Kosovo mission.

                              {time}  1215

  Given the inadequate funding that our military has received over the 
last 6 years, I believe this would be a grave mistake. I note that just 
this week the incoming chiefs of the Army and Marine Corps are quoted 
in the press as expressing concern about the long-term implications of 
the mission. I quote Army General Shinseki:

       Each additional contingency operation impacts the Army's 
     ability to remain focused on its war-fighting requirements. I 
     am concerned about the prospects of a long-term commitment to 
     Kosovo with ground forces.

  I just want to put it down to home. Earlier this year I visited my 
naval air station in Jacksonville. I was shocked at what I saw. Of 21 
P-3 aircraft on the tarmac, only four could fly. My S-3 pilots were 
only getting 5 hours a month flying time because there were not enough 
planes.
  This House just passed the supplemental appropriations bill to 
reimburse the services for the President's air campaign and provide for 
other urgent service requirements. It was not enough, but it was a 
start. Now that we have met these urgent needs, we must prevent 
readiness from declining again.
  The gentleman from Missouri's amendment would allow that to happen, 
and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a peace plan for Kosovo. Milosevic's troops are 
moving out, peacekeepers are moving in, the refugees are going home. 
America can claim a victory by the outstanding young men and women in 
our armed services. Yet this House could snatch defeat from the jaws of 
victory.
  We must support the agreement, provide the funds, back the 
peacekeepers. Instead, in this bill, the Republican majority has chosen 
to cut the funds, to pull back the peacekeepers.
  This bill prohibits funding after September 30 for any U.S. military 
involvement in Kosovo, even to help secure the peace. Not only that, 
two other Republicans, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) have amendments that would 
undermine the peace plan by banning peacekeepers. We should defeat 
these and approve the Skelton amendment to strike the provisions in the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, faced with tough choices, the President concluded that 
the risks of action were outweighed by the risks of inaction. Turns out 
he was right and the naysayers were wrong.
  The naysayers said to ignore this ethnic cleansing, it is not our 
problem. The President said Milosevic's brutality must not stand. The 
naysayers said, never mind. The President said, never again. The 
naysayers warned of American battle deaths, but not one American has 
been lost in combat.
  The naysayers said the conflict would spread, but it has been 
contained. The naysayers said it would sever relations with Russia, but 
Russia is our partner in the peace plan. Criticism is easy, but 
leadership takes courage.
  This House has not shown courage on Kosovo. It has acted 
irresponsibly, voting against withdrawing troops, voting against the 
air campaign, yet doubling funds for the campaign. If we vote today to 
cut off funding and renege on our commitment to NATO, Russia and the 
world, we bring further shame to this House.
  Mr. Chairman, we are better than that. Our country deserves more than 
that. Bring peace in the Balkans, preserve America's role as a world 
leader, reject these ill-advised efforts to undermine a peace in 
Kosovo.
  Reject the Souder and Fowler amendments. Vote for the Skelton 
amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me respond to the last speaker that talked about the House acting 
irresponsibly. Irresponsible action by this House would be to not 
properly fund the Nation's national military strategy to fight and win 
two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. That is exactly what 
would be irresponsible.
  To come onto this floor and then to try to claim that if we are not 
funding some peacekeeping operation that does not even test the gut-
wrenching test of vital national security interest, that we can somehow 
then go to sleep with our responsibilities in other areas of the world, 
baffles my mind.
  I mean, let me share with my colleagues what I mean by the gut-
wrenching test. Does the United States have vital interests? None that 
could be debated. Why? Because we see the President and the American 
people were unwilling to put troops on the ground. That is the gut-
wrenching test.
  America understands the test for ``vital'' is if, in fact, we would 
sacrifice or send our own son or daughter into combat. But if people in 
America are unwilling to do that, then there is a strong sense in their 
gut that it must not be vital to our particular interest.
  Now, we are in NATO. Because of our interest in NATO, the United 
States is a leader in NATO, we are in it. That is what is very, very 
clear.
  Now I am going to be a constructive critic, and that is what I have 
tried to do in this process. But there is a clear difference in foreign 
policy between Republicans and Democrats, and that is very clear in the 
enjoinment of this debate.
  Presently, there is a foreign policy of engagement where we have 
265,000 troops in 135 countries all around the world; we have reduced 
the force in half, we have placed great stresses on the force, 
increased the operational tempo. We cannot retain the force, and we 
cannot even recruit to meet the goals of the force structure to meet 
our national military strategy.

[[Page 12451]]

  Now let me shift gears. This allegation boggles my mind: Somehow 
achieved a victory? Why are we so anxious to say a victory has been 
achieved? Do my colleagues realize that Milosevic was able to achieve 
his objectives on the ground and that because refugees have now been 
sent to all areas of the world, try to get these refugees back into 
Kosovo at a time when are they going to feel the security to even go 
back?
  Now let me pose another question. Peacekeepers? Do my colleagues know 
what protects a peacekeeper? It is neutrality. I feel much more 
comfortable having an international force on the ground, not NATO. 
NATO, that is not neutral. We have been bombing for 2 months, 3 weeks. 
We are seen as the enemy by the Serbs. That makes us a target. In their 
eyes it makes us the occupiers, and if there is anything we ever learn 
about the Balkans in the thousands of pages I have read it is that a 
bad situation always gets worse in the Balkans when there is an outside 
intervening source, especially one that is seen as the enemy.
  So, yes, there is some apprehension.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman believe that the 
situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina is worse today than it was 3 years ago?
  Mr. BUYER. In Bosnia-Herzegovina it is better today than it was 3 
years ago.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman Bosnia-Herzegovina is 
in the Balkans.
  Mr. BUYER. I understand that, I understand that. I am just saying 
that what I most fear about is, in Kosovo shots can be taken and that 
has not happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The gentleman's point is well 
taken.
  Let me also compliment the gentleman who is the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Procurement, and I think the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) understands this. What we are trying to achieve 
here is for the President, if he wants to use moneys for the 
peacekeeping operation, then come with the supplemental appropriation, 
do not take it out of hide. A lot of the things for which we are doing 
here is to fund the national military strategy; that is our goal, and I 
also would want to work with the gentleman.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, 3 months ago I went with the Secretary of 
Defense to Aviano where, as the first order of business, we were to be 
briefed by Brigadier General Dan Leaf, the commander of our air forces 
there. General Leaf was there to meet us on the runway early that 
morning even though the night before he had flown a mission himself.
  He briefed us with confidence, professional pride. And without 
bluster, he told us that his success to date was due more to the 
discipline and perfection with which his men had executed their 
mission, and, yes, their morale, because they believed in what they 
were doing; and not in the ineffectiveness of our adversary because our 
adversary was formidable. He did not promise us any quick results, but 
he did not shrink from the mission, and he left us believing the 
mission would be accomplished.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, General Leaf and his troops did not disappoint 
us. They did what we asked them to do. They demonstrated the prowess of 
the United States Air Force, once again on a level with the Persian 
Gulf, and let me say I am proud to represent those troops because some 
of them came from my district, from Shaw Air Force Base. They did their 
job, they served us well, they made us proud, and I am here in the well 
of the House to commend them.
  They must wonder, as many of us do, why this bill cut short what they 
have accomplished. The bill itself, the text of the bill, precludes 
further funding for peacekeeping or combat operations next year, and 
not satisfied with that, the majority has made in order three more 
amendments which pound the same issue: no money for military operations 
of any kind. I suppose that means no signal intelligence to see what 
Milosevic is up to, no overhead satellites, no CIA, no search and 
rescue.
  What in the world are we doing considering amendments like this?
  I know peacekeeping is onerous and expensive, I know our forces are 
stretched out around the globe, but I cannot believe that we are 
considering amendments like this at this time. We should be savoring 
our victory. We should voice vote up the Skelton amendment, remove the 
ban on funding, tell the President, sure, send us a supplemental next 
year to pay for the peacekeeping. But we should savor our victory, 
defeat these other amendments and see that our victory is consummated 
by a successful peacekeeping operation.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment my friends, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the distinguished chairman of 
the full committee for their fine work here, and I would like to say 
that the agreed-to settlement yesterday is, I believe, good news for 
Kosovo, good news for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and good 
news for the American people and for our forces who have fought with 
tremendous professionalism and valor in dealing with what is obviously 
a very, very tough situation.
  We all know that NATO's campaign had a specific goal. It was about 
bringing a political settlement that could be supported by both the 
Kosovar Albanians as well as the Serbs. At the same time, America's 
ultimate goal I believe must be a future which ensures that our troops 
will not be needed in Kosovo or, for that matter, anyplace else in the 
region. That is a very important goal that we need to pursue.
  I frankly am troubled if we look at the historic pattern that we have 
seen in Yugoslavia, in the entire region, which has required that 
presence, but I think that we need to do everything that we can to 
continue to pursue that ultimate goal.
  Now, having said those things, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very 
important for us to realize that we need to proceed with an important 
and rigorous debate on exactly what U.S. national interests are around 
the world; and as we look at the challenge of having deployed troops in 
many parts of the world beyond the Balkans, we need to decide what it 
is that we want to pursue, what our priorities as a Nation are, and I 
hope that in the not too distant future we will be able to proceed with 
that.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner).

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, the House will decide today not whether or 
not we will pursue the war, because the war is over and the settlement 
has been signed and the United States and NATO have prevailed. The 
question before the House today is whether, after winning the war, will 
we lose the peace?
  In this bill there is language that would cut off all funding for the 
peacekeeping operations 3\1/2\ months from now. It is my view that we 
must send a very clear signal to the world community and to President 
Milosevic that we intend to keep the peace; that when the world 
community stood united, when our NATO allies stood united, when our 
forces prevailed in the 78 days of the bombing campaign, that this 
House of Representatives also will stand united in supporting those 
troops and supporting that peacekeeping effort.
  There is no question that we all believe in a strong military and we 
all believe that the supplemental appropriation, the emergency 
appropriation that we passed, was important to funding adequately the 
military. But to hide behind that smokescreen and say that we will 
oppose the Skelton amendment and keep the language in the bill that 
cuts off funding 3\1/2\ months from now,

[[Page 12452]]

just because we want to try to get another emergency appropriations 
bill passed sometime in the future, is, in my judgment, a wrong 
approach to a very serious issue.
  It is my hope that this House will support the Skelton amendment, to 
tell the world community that we intend to do our part, and reject the 
Fowler amendment, which was the subject of legislation we debated back 
on March 11 before the conflict began, when this House agreed to 
authorize forces of the United States to participate in a NATO 
peacekeeping operation. In that debate I offered the amendment that 
would restrict our participation to 15 percent.
  We need to continue on that course today, and we need to adopt the 
Skelton amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the esteemed ranking member 
and anybody else who wants to speak on this, we have heard a number of 
statements about how much you love the troops. I do not have any 
influence with the President. The President is sending budgets down 
that do not pay for ammunition, do not give adequate pay to our troops, 
keep them on food stamps, do not give them spare parts and do not give 
them planes new enough to avoid a 55 crash a year crash rate. We all 
know what we are trying to do. We are trying to keep our money in the 
ammunition coffers so we do not spend that on other things and have 
empty ammunition coffers when the next war comes around.
  I want to ask the gentleman, will the gentleman work to get the $13 
billion ammunition shortage plussed up to where it is at parity with 
what we need to fight the two wars?
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, absolutely.
  Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman make a pitch to the President to do 
that?
  Mr. SKELTON. Absolutely.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I will work with the gentleman over the 
next couple of weeks, and I hope all the other leaders and Members who 
have spoken on the Democrat side will use their influence to get this 
funding executed.
  Mr. SKELTON. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman will 
recall that I put together just a few short years ago a military budget 
calling for an increase in three successive years. I know full well and 
the gentleman knows full well that we need additional funding for the 
military. We made substantial gains this year. I am very pleased with 
this bill.
  What I do not want to happen is for this provision to stay in which 
cuts off the funds. We do need a supplemental. I would encourage that. 
That is why I have left section B untouched. We encourage and require 
the President to send a supplemental in the future.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to serve with the gentleman on the 
National Security Caucus, and the gentleman does an outstanding job in 
that. I am going to join the gentleman and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) and the chairman of the committee in the effort he speaks 
of, but I believe we ought to perceive this on a bipartisan basis.
  I will be speaking about what I think the President's role has been 
and what Congress' role has been, both parties, in terms of under 
funding our defense. We have not passed bills that were adequate to the 
task. The President has not vetoed any bills. We simply have not passed 
them. I want to work with the gentleman, and I appreciate his comments.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey, Mr. Andrews.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I begin by offering my congratulations and thanks to 
the men and women in uniform who have done such a fantastic job in the 
Balkans. I hope that they and their families are listening and 
understand the unanimous feeling of pride and support for what they 
have done.
  The question before us this afternoon is what do we do next? This 
bill offers a good prescription for what not to do next, because if 
this bill becomes law, on the 30th of September, whatever efforts we 
are making to sustain the peace that has been won will terminate. Now, 
that is a shortsighted and I believe irrational approach to solving 
this problem. So we need to amend the bill.
  With all due respect, I do not think we need to amend the bill in the 
way that our friends from Florida and Indiana have proposed amending 
it, because they say before we could put peacekeeping forces in, as I 
understand it, since they are ground forces, there would have to be 
specific Congressional authorization.
  What clearly has happened is that the objectives of this campaign are 
being realized. The refugees are going home, the Serbian troops are 
being withdrawn, and the objectives are being realized. To force us to 
go through a process now where we cannot follow through on this 
decision that has been made until there has been a debate and vote here 
I think would be a mistake. It would be an equally grave mistake to tie 
the President's hands and to terminate his authority on the 30th of 
September, a truly arbitrary deadline.
  The right amendment to support is the Skelton amendment. It says the 
right thing, that the President in fact should come to this body for a 
supplemental appropriation and not pay for these operations out of the 
regular military budget. I agree with that. But it does not make the 
mistake of unduly tying the hands of the commander-in-chief and 
restraining him and our military leaders from following through on the 
peace that has been won with such valor and distinction in the last few 
weeks and months.
  I strongly support the Skelton amendment; oppose the others.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, years ago when George McGovern ran for 
president, our current President and National Security Adviser worked 
in his campaign. Sandy Berger supposedly even coined the phrase ``come 
home America.'' Our boys of the Vietnam era have now grown up. It has 
gone from come home America to go everywhere America, to stay 
everywhere America.
  We do have the best military in the world. Nobody is disputing that. 
We are proud of them. But they can only do so much with poorly 
conceived political strategies.
  This is certainly no victory. After 11 weeks of bombing, we have less 
world stability than when we started. After 11 weeks of bombing, we 
have a settlement that we probably could have achieved at the 
beginning. If this is a victory, what would a defeat look like? We are 
not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, we are trying to snatch 
future victories from the jaws of this defeat.
  Let me look at the specifics here. We probably have destabilized 
Montenegro, although hopefully we can get the pro-western government 
stabilized.
  We certainly have put Macedonia at risk, which was a country where 
all the factions had pulled together, watched their trade get 
devastated, and now potentially have changed the mix and the politics 
of Macedonia.
  We have set a precedent on autonomous semi-independent republics, and 
it is not clear whether Kosovo can actually stay under Serbian control. 
What does this mean for Palestine? What does this mean for the Kurds? 
Have we taken a foreign policy change and had a potential impact around 
the world?
  What about internal interventions? What does this mean for Chechnya, 
what does this mean if there are Tiananmen Squares? Are we going to

[[Page 12453]]

intervene in other countries, with terrible tragedies and the genocide 
in those countries. We do not have a clear policy of how and when we 
are going to intervene.
  Furthermore, has this advanced the stability with Russia, has this 
advanced the stability with China, where we clearly have national 
interests and world peace interests. I would argue no.
  Furthermore, we have disproportionately pinned down our forces in an 
area of the world where we do not have clear national interests, and 
where, after 700 or 1,500 or 2,000 years of fighting, we are unlikely 
at the second we pull out not to see reoccurrences. As long as Pristina 
is conceived as the Jerusalem of the Serbian people, they are not 
likely, whether it takes 20 years or 50 years or 200 years, to change 
that attitude.
  Furthermore, why did I say that about the peace settlement? Milosevic 
remains in power. He keeps his military. Furthermore, we now disarm his 
enemies, the KLA. We have Russian troops, his friends, as part of the 
thing. I am not arguing against these points. I am saying this is 
something that he probably would have taken in the beginning.
  Furthermore, it is under UN at this point, under UN control, where 
China has a veto in the Security Council. We do not even know what the 
Russian government is going to be like after the next elections, and we 
probably are going to be there a lot more than 3 months.
  So you look at this and say, why is this peace settlement a defeat 
for Milosevic? He has moved the Kosovars out. He does not have enough 
Serbians to occupy that whole territory. We are looking at 100,000-some 
versus 1 million people. He wanted his enemies disarmed, and we are 
going to do that.
  I do not think this in any way can be called a victory.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the NATO mission in Yugoslavia has prevailed over the 
brutal dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic. NATO has shown tremendous 
resolve, tremendous persistence, throughout this crisis. Now that this 
diplomatic resolution has been reached on NATO's terms, on NATO's 
terms, this is not the time to show weakness, to cut funding or to 
damage the unity of the western democracies.
  What can the proponents of this bill be thinking by cutting funding 
for peacekeeping? This is not the Republican party of my father or the 
Republican party of my grandfather. I learned around the dinner table 
that the primary rule of foreign policy was politics ends at the 
water's edge.
  The modern Republican Party in this House seems to have forgotten 
that lesson. They seem to be setting foreign policy on personal 
considerations and a personal hatred for the President of the United 
States.
  Important challenges continue to face us in Yugoslavia. We have got 
to return the refugees and house them and clothe them and feed them by 
winter. We have got to avoid partition of Kosovo. We have got to make 
sure that Milosevic does not receive immunity for his war crimes, and 
Serbia must not receive international aid until Yugoslavia becomes 
democratic.
  What we have achieved is that NATO has shown it is willing and able 
to keep the peace in Europe. Until now they have been a defensive 
alliance. For the first time they have had to act militarily, and they 
have succeeded, they have prevailed, and they will keep the peace in 
Europe.
  The central question here all this century has been do free peoples 
in democracies have the self-discipline to prevail against 
dictatorships and all the coercive power they can bring to bear? In 
this century we have answered that question affirmatively, in two world 
wars, in the Cold War, and now in Yugoslavia.
  It is no time to step back. Support the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is not only prudent but part of a vital 
duty for this Congress to continue to discuss national security and 
policy questions relating to our ongoing operations in Kosovo. As part 
of this debate, I believe we must take a longer view of our foreign 
policy goals using lessons learned in this current crisis. In a 
nutshell, what does our intervention in Kosovo imply for our 
foreseeable future as the world's dominant power? And we are.
  Consider that NATO attacked a sovereign country that offered no 
military threat to the members of the alliance. Consider that NATO 
justified its attack on the basis of morality rather than self-defense, 
and NATO limited the accuracy and effectiveness of its attack to those 
measures that presented the least risk to NATO participants, even 
though this format predictably caused innocent civilians' deaths.
  Where do these actions as a precedent take us? Who else has the 
``right'' to mount such an attack? China? Russia? The Organization of 
African Unity? Some other power? Some rogue Nation?
  Where else should NATO attack? The principles of morality have no 
geographic boundaries. We know that. For every ethnic cleansing in the 
Balkans, there will be several more, in Africa, Indonesia, any other 
headline you want to pick in the paper. How can NATO not intervene in 
the next Liberia, Rwanda or East Timor?

                              {time}  1245

  How committed are we to such attacks? Have standoff smart bombs 
become NATO's version of diplomatic demarche? Is this what we do every 
time negotiations stall at the bargaining table?
  Underlying all these questions is the one most fundamental: What 
effect do such activities have upon our national security? I have, as 
chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, seen 
a divergence of the intelligence capabilities and assets towards the 
Balkans that has left much of the intelligence field elsewhere empty.
  What then is the end game for this and for future Kosovos? What is 
the lesson?
  I have two recommendations on how to get there. First, I suggest we 
look with the wisdom of hindsight at the role of NATO in attacks other 
than for self-defense. I believe that the citizens of NATO countries 
support our purely humanitarian operations outside our territory, but I 
have less assurance that after the bloodshed on the ground in 
Yugoslavia, they will so readily support a military attack outside our 
territory unless it is in clear self-defense.
  Second, I urge that any future interventions never again leave our 
national security, the United States of America, so vulnerable to 
surprise and to compromise. We must not allow such efforts to leave us 
vulnerable to unanticipated crises with our friends or with our 
adversaries.
  We must, in short, have an intelligence and national security 
structure sound enough and broad enough to handle any such matters as 
Kosovo, if that is what the future portends, and still stand watch 
around the world in defense of our national security, which is the 
number one purpose, the number one duty, and the number one objective 
of our military.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the critics were wrong. The headline in 
today's paper says, ``Kosovo Pullout to Start Today.'' NATO's 11-week, 
78-day campaign to stop the genocidal policies of Slobodan Milosevic in 
Kosovo is producing the results we sought. Today's pullout is the first 
step towards a complete victory.
  As William Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote this week in the Weekly 
Standard, the victory in Kosovo should send

[[Page 12454]]

a message to would-be aggressors that the United States and its allies 
can summon the will and force to do them harm.
  Syndicated columnist William Safire hit the nail on the head when he 
wrote recently, ``International moral standards of conduct, long 
derided by geopoliticians, now have muscle,'' said Bill Safire. Why? 
Because of NATO's unified, unwavering action in Kosovo.
  The threat of a NATO ground invasion had a decisive impact on the 
butcher of Belgrade. Not surprisingly, Milosevic capitulated as 
President Clinton consulted his military advisers on options for ground 
troops.
  Like the cowardly bully who picks on the weak and defenseless, 
Milosevic caved when he knew there would be no escape. President 
Clinton's resolve on the Kosovo crisis has enhanced the credibility of 
the United States and the Atlantic Alliance throughout the world.
  Finally, let me state, our efforts to secure a peace in the Balkans 
are not over. Milosevic has properly been branded as a war criminal by 
the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague, and he must be held 
accountable. Our credibility has been enhanced, NATO has been 
strengthened, a brutal dictator has been repulsed, and the cause for 
human rights has been advanced. If those are not good causes, I do not 
know what are.
  In that context, Mr. Chairman, I urge that we adopt the Taylor 
amendment, I urge that we adopt the Skelton amendment, and I urge that 
we reject the Souder and Fowler amendments, which will declare defeat, 
not victory, which is appropriately our task today.
  Mr. Chairman, the doomsayers and the critics were wrong. The banner 
headline on today's Washington Post says it all: ``Kosovo Pullout Set 
To Start Today.''
  NATO's 11-week, 78-day air campaign to stop the genocidal policies of 
Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo is producing the results we sought.
  Today's pullout is the first step toward complete victory.
  Soon we will be able to count these as our accomplishments:
  Success in providing the 1.3 million Kosovars who have been forced to 
flee their own country or displaced within the province with a safe re-
entry to their homeland.
  Success in stabilizing this most unstable region of Europe.
  And, of utmost importance, success in vindicating the credibility of 
NATO--and the United States--in rejecting and punishing Milosevic's 
unbridled barbarism.
  As William Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote this week in the Weekly 
Standard: the victory in Kosovo should ``send a message to would-be 
aggressors that . . . the United States and its allies can summon the 
will and the force to do them harm.''
  With the Serb invaders retreating and the NATO peacekeepers ready to 
restore order, it's not too soon to consider the lessons in this 
campaign and what still must be done.
  First, NATO's air campaign in Kosovo decisively demonstrates that the 
alliance can engage in military action to protect basic human rights 
and to deter aggression on the European continent.
  This policy is not just the right thing to do--it's a strategic 
imperative.
  Syndicated columnist William Safire hit the nail on the head when he 
wrote recently: ``International moral standards of conduct, long 
derided by geopoliticians, now have muscle.'' Why? Because of NATO's 
unified, unwavering action in Kosovo.
  Would-be aggressors everywhere have this message ringing in their 
ears--don't do it.
  If you take aggressive, hostile action against others, you may pay a 
very steep price indeed.
  Further, we have learned that our awesome military might--coupled 
with the will to use it--provides a very real strategic advantage.
  Clearly, the threat of a NATO ground invasion had a decisive impact 
on the butcher of Belgrade--Slobodan Milosevic.
  Not surprisingly, Milosevic capitulated as President Clinton 
consulted his military advisers on options for ground troops.
  Like the cowardly bully who picks on the weak and defenseless, 
Milosevic caved in when he knew there would be no escape.
  President Clinton's resolve on the Kosovo crisis has enhanced the 
credibility of the United States and the Atlantic Alliance throughout 
the world.
  We make good on our word.
  American credibility is a strategic asset of the highest order and 
well worth fighting for.
  Finally, let me state our efforts to secure peace in the Balkans are 
not over.
  Milosevic has properly been branded as a war criminal by the 
International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague.
  And he must be held accountable.
  Our policy goal now should be his removal from office.
  But we should encourage the Serbs to remove Milosevic and the brutal 
leaders who have caused this unnecessary suffering and misery.
  Serbia also must be clear about this: so long as Milosevic remains in 
power, it will not receive financial assistance for its reconstruction.
  Mr. Speaker, like some of my colleagues who have traveled to 
Macedonia and Albania, I have seen the devastating consequences of 
genocide.
  These images have been seared into my memory forever.
  We will not always be able to intervene to stop injustice wherever it 
occurs.
  But we have laid down a powerful precedent in Kosovo.
  Our credibility has been enhanced, NATO has been strengthened, a 
brutal dictator has been repulsed, and the cause for human rights has 
been advanced.
  If those are not good causes, I frankly don't know what are.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the Taylor and Skelton amendments and 
reject the Souder and Fowler amendments.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I wanted to respond to one allegation we heard here on the floor 
today, that what is in the bill under the chairman's language would cut 
the funds and pull back peacekeepers, once they are in place. I believe 
such comments are disingenuous and the allegation is false.
  The emergency supplemental that we passed here on the floor is not 
only for 1999, but also for the 2000 cycle. So as we move through the 
1999 cycle and we finish, and now we begin the October 1, the funds are 
not cut off. Yes, there were funds there through the emergency 
supplemental, but those funds were really used to pay the accounts and 
pay for the weapons and ammo and other things for the operations.
  Can they reprogram? Yes. But what we would like and prefer is for 
regular order. That would be for the President to offer the amendment, 
a budgetary amendment in 2000, and to do that with offsets that are 
nondefense offsets and do not spend the social security surplus.
  That is the obligation the Republican Congress has taken up: for 
every dollar of surplus, we will not spend it. That is what we request 
of the President.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Skelton 
amendment, and would strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose the 
Fowler and Souder amendments. I believe those are the wrong amendments 
at the wrong time when we are on the brink of peace in the Balkans. I 
believe that the NATO policy in Kosovo has been the right policy for 
the right reasons at the right time.
  There were two overriding concerns that got the NATO democracies 
involved in the Balkans.
  One of these, and not least of which, was the importance of trying to 
contain the conflict so it did not spread into other countries and 
ultimately result in much greater cost and greater sacrifice to the 
western democracies later.
  But the overriding one, Mr. Chairman, was the humanitarian and moral 
concerns involved in trying to help the Kosovar families and end the 
atrocities.
  We were reminded by Elie Wiesel what this was all about. When he was 
asked about the NATO air strike campaign in the Balkans, he responded, 
listen, the only miserable consolation the people in the concentration 
camps had during the Second World War was the belief that if the 
western democracies knew what was taking place, they would do 
everything in their power to try to stop it, bomb the rail lines and 
the crematoriums.

[[Page 12455]]

  Unfortunately, history later showed that the western leaders did 
know, but did not take any action. This time it is different. This time 
the western democracies do know what is going on, they are taking 
action, they are intervening. This time, he said, we are on the right 
side of history.
  Mr. Chairman, we woke up this morning with the news that the first 
Serb troops are being withdrawn from Kosovo. The policy is working. I 
think credit should be given where credit is due. It was through the 
perseverance and unity of all 19 democratic nations of NATO that forced 
Milosevic to capitulate and end the atrocities in Kosovo.
  Now we are at the dawn of a new era of peace in the Balkans. Let us 
hope it is a peace that sees the eventual removal of Milosevic from 
power, that sees true democratic reforms take place so the Balkan 
countries can eventually join the European Union, the community of 
democratic nations, and perhaps even the NATO alliance itself.
  A pipe dream? An illusion? I do not think so. Who among us could have 
predicted that within 10 short years, some of the most repressive 
Communist regimes in all of Europe would be today flourishing 
democracies, members of the European Union and NATO itself?
  The same can happen in the Balkans. Let us give this policy of peace 
in the Balkans a chance.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, NATO has achieved not a victory but a cessation of war, 
for now. It is important that Congress maintain a tight rein on the 
administration's policy in the Balkans through not providing a blanket 
authorization past September 30, which the Skelton amendment would 
effect.
  The agreement that was signed is significant for what it does not 
say. The KLA was not a party to the agreement. The KLA is not even 
mentioned in the text of the agreement. The agreement does not limit 
the types and quantities of weapons the KLA must turn in. The agreement 
does not require the KLA to turn in rifles and machine guns purchased 
in Albania and on the black market.
  Keep in mind the KLA's goal is still an independent Kosovo. They will 
not accept NATO's new goal of autonomy. They will return to the 
province well armed and well protected.
  The agreement also provides for Yugoslav forces to be allowed back 
into Kosovo, but it does not say when. This agreement may have 
established a fertile ground for more war. This agreement could 
exchange the ill-fated and ill-advised quest for a greater Serbia for 
an ill-fated and ill-advised quest for a greater Albania.
  It is urgent that Congress keep control in such an undefined and 
unpredictable environment created by an undefined agreement. Our young 
men and women could end up trapped in a ground war in Kosovo. Our young 
men and women could end up in a circular firing squad between an armed 
KLA and Serbs, Serb units trying to get back into the province.
  Only congressional oversight will keep America from getting deeper 
and deeper into a reignited war between the KLA and Serbia. That is why 
I am going to support the Fowler and Souder amendments.
  The administration already has funds appropriated for peacekeepers 
and military. There is no cut in funds being affected here. The Skelton 
amendment will permit the administration to have more authority to use 
money to send in troops or peacekeepers after October 1. This is June 
10. Vote against the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the Skelton amendment would allow a 
legitimate and proportionate role in peacekeeping, 7,000 troops. 
Earlier the gentleman from Indiana questioned whether that would 
stretch our forces too thin, whether they were overextended.
  I do not believe the short-term commitment of 7,000 peacekeepers is 
an overextension. But the thoughtless, nonstrategic, nontactical 
permanent garrison of 100,000 troops in Europe is expensive and does 
overtax our military resources.
  Ask a military strategist, why a permanent garrison of 100,000 troops 
in Europe? They say, well, to show commitment to Europe. I think we 
have shown commitment. Commitment to what, I might ask? To subsidizing 
and offsetting the legitimate defense obligations of our allies in 
Europe?
  For years we were poised to repel an attack through the Fulda Gap. 
The only invasion going on in Eastern Europe into the former Soviet 
bloc involving the Gap is an invasion by a U.S.-based clothing store 
into that area. There is no threat from the Soviet bloc any longer. We 
no longer need to permanently garrison 100,000 troops in Europe.
  Support the later vote on the Shays-Frank amendment to phase down our 
obligation to 25,000 troops, and help our military to husband its 
resources so they can serve their core obligations to defend our Nation 
against real threats.
  That would be a vote here. If Members are really concerned about the 
military being stretched too thin, vote to stop that permanent, 
thoughtless, anachronistic deployment of 100,000 troops.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, a peace has been negotiated in Kosovo, and 
are we not relieved? And are we not proud of our troops, and are we not 
proud that we did not do this in a unilateral effort, it was a 
multilateral effort?
  But at the same time, we must not overlook the United States' share 
of the burden to reach this agreement. In this effort, the United 
States forces have flown about 65 percent of the air sorties, including 
combat and support operations. The U.S. is also providing at least 25 
percent of refugee and migration assistance, shouldering the major 
burden of the Kosovo conflict.
  Even when this conflict is right in their own backyard, as the 
situation in the Balkans takes its toll, many of our allies are 
continuing to enjoy higher standards of living than our constituents, 
the American people. These nations can support education, health care, 
child care, and vital social programs because we pay their military 
bills.

                              {time}  1300

  Our Europeans have gotten used to the American taxpayer picking up 
the tab for their defense. When they are allowed to do this, we cheat 
our children, we cheat our seniors, we cheat ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come for our allies to pay their fair share 
and come to the United States with that share so that we can invest in 
our children, our seniors, and our environment. Vote for Shays-Franks 
this afternoon.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, the Yugoslav surrender is the first mark of 
hope in a long time for more than a million Albanian Kosovars. The 
horror that they have endured has ignited outrage around the world.
  In a recent trip that I took with some of my colleagues to Albania 
and Macedonia and to the border of Kosovo, I talked with refugees 
coming and streaming across the border and into the camps.
  I talked with one 16-year-old boy who told me he watched in horror as 
the paramilitary police tore the eyes out of his father's head.
  I talked to a woman who told me how they came into her home, took her 
jewelry, stole her money, took her documents, and then ordered her out 
of the House as they burned her house with her mother and father still 
in it.
  I talked to a woman, who had five children, who told me they could 
not get food for 4 days. They were locked in their house, afraid to go 
out because of the troops. When they sent the grandfather, who 
volunteered to go out to get them food, he was executed in the street.
  The horrors go on and on and on. From a moral perspective, Mr. 
Speaker, America and our NATO allies had

[[Page 12456]]

no choice but to hit Milosevic, hit him hard, hit his forces in Kosovo 
hard in order for them to withdraw.
  Now, this has not been easy, nor without controversy. Military action 
never is. I respect those in the House whose opinions differ from mine. 
Each of us must answer to our own conscience in these very difficult 
issues.
  I want to thank those Members on this side of the aisle who, under 
tremendous pressure, stood firm in their support for this policy. I 
believe their resolve has been vindicated.
  The Speaker was in a difficult decision in terms of his own 
conference pulled one way and the other way, and he stood up at various 
times throughout this process and helped move it forward, I think, in a 
positive way. I only hope today that he will stand up again.
  I regret to say, though, there are those who have tried to politicize 
the war. For more than 2 months, they have rallied against this war, 
they have called it, quote-unquote, the Clinton-Gore war. This was 
America's effort, not the Clinton-Gore war, America's effort to say 
never again. It was our effort to try to say to those who were trying 
to commit ethnic cleansing, no, you cannot do that. We will not sit 
idly by.
  Now these forces are attacking the peace. Our troops are still 
engaged. Their lives are at risk. From the beginning of this conflict, 
the brave men and women of America's armed forces have performed 
magnificently. They have answered the call of duty with tremendous 
bravery and skill and determination. We owe it to them to support their 
critical work in the months ahead.
  This House of Representatives has not handled, in some instances, 
this matter with dignity. We have sent contradictory signals throughout 
the past several months. We have been divided too long. But today we 
have a chance to set aside these divisions.
  This is an historic moment for NATO and for the strength of our 
alliance. Let us come together today in this House. Let us support the 
peace process. Let us recognize that America has once again stood tall 
for the values that our great-grandparents, our grandparents, our 
fathers and mothers stood for when they fought in the First and Second 
World Wars in Europe.
  The road ahead will be arduous. It is not going to be easy. Kosovo 
must be secured, and nearly half a million of their people must be 
settled in their homes. We owe it to those who fought bravely for us 
and to those who have been persecuted so much, we owe it to finish this 
thing in a responsible way.
  It will not be finished by September. Cutting off their funding would 
only undermine their mission, even as they stand on the bridge of 
success. So let us support our troops and let us support a strong 
peace.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Skelton amendment and no on 
the Fowler and the Souder amendments.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say a couple of things here. First, the devil is in the 
details. Mr. Milosevic has burned every village in Kosovo, or almost 
every village, and the simple fact is that he is now going to stop 
burning, now that there is nothing left, is not necessarily a victory.
  I have two staff members who, as volunteers, have delivered some 
20,000 packages of food and medicine to the refugee camps. They report 
to me that massive numbers of men are missing. By British estimate, I 
believe it is, 100,000 men from the Kosovar peasant population. We need 
to know what has happened to those men. Have they been executed? Are 
there mass graves? Are they in the custody of Serbs?
  So the Serbs are moving back, in theory, or moving back into Serbia, 
but many questions remain.
  But a very important thing has happened here, Mr. Chairman. The 
ranking member has informed me that the President has called just a few 
minutes ago and said, in response to our concerns, that he is not going 
to spend any readiness money on reconstruction or on peacekeeping 
operations, but that he will come to us with a supplemental 
appropriations request.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield, and I would like the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) to make that clear.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, yes, I will restate what the President 
told me just briefly a few moments ago. First is that he fully intends 
to ask for a supplemental from the Congress for peacekeeping.
  Second, after I raised the matter of timeliness with him, he said he 
fully intends to ask for it well before September 30.
  Third, he said it is not his intent to use any readiness funds that 
we are authorizing and appropriating for peacekeeping.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for the clarification, and I hope he will work with me and other 
members on both sides who are concerned about getting our ammunition 
stocks back to where they need to be. I know the gentleman knows they 
are very low right now.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is the 
reason I left section B out of my amendment. It has always been my 
intent that there should be a supplemental request and now, of course, 
fortunately, it is just for peacekeeping as opposed to both combat and 
peacekeeping.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I think that makes very, very clear the 
point of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), which was that 
the President had put nothing for peacekeeping in this defense bill. So 
the logical deduction was that any peacekeeping, absent a supplemental, 
had to come out of ammunition, had to come out of readiness; and that 
is something that would have disserved the country.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for explaining 
the President's recent statement.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the underlying 
bill is worthy of support. However, the language contained within, 
which prohibits funds from being utilized for Kosovo operations next 
year, will destroy the faith in the peace accords that were just 
yesterday agreed to.
  Section 1006, as drafted by the Republican majority, 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. This section is 
completely unnecessary and sends the wrong message to our allies and 
troops. I applaud Congressman Skelton's efforts to strike this 
language.
  The insidious language built into this bill is there for the purpose 
to embarrass the President and his efforts to broker peace in the 
Balkans.
  As this operation was conducted on the basis of coalition forces, it 
is absolutely essential that American forces participate without any 
hesitation. This spending ``road block'' may prevent military peace 
keeping planners and commanders from placing necessary equipment in 
place to do the job and do it right.
  Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate that many may fear that this 
unforeseen operation would place extra burdens on our troops. I can 
also appreciate that the President must be reminded that he should not 
pay for this operation out of hide. But by pinching off this artery of 
military funding, we are removing the flexibility of our commanders to 
make deployment decisions based on practical military and peace keeping 
operations. That is irresponsible.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the rhetoric on this 
debate about the need to ``protect the funding of our military.'' I 
would ask my colleagues in opposition to simply read the amendment. 
That is precisely what Mr. Skelton's amendment does--it asks that the 
President return to this body to seek additional funds for Kosovo 
operations.
  Additionally, I do not understand the rhetoric over ``winning'' or 
``losing'' in terms of Operation Allied Force. There was no real 
victory--thousands of Kosovars have been killed in a Serbian campaign 
of genocide--and there was no real defeat--Belgrade has capitulated and 
accepted the peace accords that will bring a durable armistice to the 
Kosovo region. Indeed what we do have is success--the success of 
President Clinton and his leadership, the success of NATO, and the 
success of a measured response--air power--to a complex situation that 
was engineered by a now indicted war criminal, Yugoslavian President, 
Milosevic. My dear colleagues, let us not turn this success into 
failure.

[[Page 12457]]

  Mr. Chairman, by passing the Skelton amendment, Congress will send 
two strong messages: First--we let our NATO allies know that our full 
resources are behind the peace accord 1000 percent. Second--we let the 
Administration know of our strong concern to not let this peace keeping 
operation further degrade the readiness of our military. The President 
should return to Congress for an Emergency Supplemental next year to 
pay for this peace accord and our role within it. Mr. Chairman, let's 
choose leadership over fear and pass the Skelton Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  It is now in order to consider the last five amendments printed in 
part A of House Report 106-175 which shall be considered in the 
following order: Amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), Amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder), Amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), Amendment No. 20 offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), and Amendment No. 21 offered by 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) 
or the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 17 printed in House 
Report 106-175.


         Amendment No. 17 Offered By Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. 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. 17 offered by Mr. Taylor of 
     Mississippi:
       At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. __. OPERATIONS IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution 
     provides that: ``The Congress shall have Power To . . . 
     provide for the common Defence . . . To declare War. . . To 
     raise and support Armies . . . To provide and maintain a Navy 
     . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the 
     land and naval Forces . . .''.
       (2) On April 28, 1999, the House of Representatives by a 
     vote of 139 to 290, failed to agree to House Concurrent 
     Resolution 82, which, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War 
     Powers Resolution, would have directed the President to 
     remove United States Armed Forces from their positions in 
     connection with the present operations against the Federal 
     Republic of Yugoslavia.
       (3) In light of the failure to agree to House Concurrent 
     Resolution 82, as described in paragraph (2), Congress hereby 
     acknowledges that a conflict involving United States Armed 
     Forces does exist in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
       (b) Goals for the Conflict With Yugoslavia.--Congress 
     declares the following to be the goals of the United States 
     for the conflict with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia:
       (1) Cessation by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of all 
     military action against the people of Kosovo and termination 
     of the violence and repression against the people of Kosovo.
       (2) Withdrawal of all military, police, and paramilitary 
     forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from Kosovo.
       (3) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to the stationing of an international military 
     presence in Kosovo to ensure the peace.
       (4) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to the unconditional and safe return to Kosovo of 
     all refugees and displaced persons.
       (5) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to allow humanitarian aid organizations to have 
     unhindered access to these refugees and displaced persons.
       (6) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to work for the establishment of a political 
     framework agreement for Kosovo which is in conformity with 
     international law.
       (7) President Slobodan Milosevic will be held accountable 
     for his actions while President of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia in initiating four armed conflicts and taking 
     actions leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of people 
     and responsibility for murder, rape, terrorism, destruction, 
     and ethnic cleansing.
       (8) Bringing to justice through the International Criminal 
     Tribunal of Yugoslavia individuals in the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia who are guilty of war crimes in Kosovo.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).


 Modification to Amendment No. 17 Offered By Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi--
       In the text of the matter proposed to be inserted, strike 
     clauses 2 and 3.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Mississippi?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
simply like to ask the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to 
explain his modification.
  I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for that 
purpose.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) for yielding to me, and I very much appreciate 
his previous remarks about the willingness to work with all parties to 
see to it that the military is adequately funded while we ensure the 
victory that has been won.
  As the gentleman knows, we began this debate 2 weeks ago. At that 
time, American armed forces were at war, as far as I am concerned, with 
the Yugoslav army and Serbians. Because of the Memorial Day district 
work period, because of the other delays in getting this vote to the 
floor, a great many things have happened, all, in my opinion, good for 
the United States and good for NATO and good for the good guys, the 
forces of peace in the world.
  One of the things that was included in the original motion was to 
have Congress admit that a conflict does, indeed, exist between the 
United States of America and Yugoslavia. Because of the good news that 
came out of the Balkans yesterday, that is no longer necessary.
  A second portion that the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) 
and others might have found offensive was a reminder of Congress' 
failure to act on this matter before.
  At the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), I am 
removing those two portions. The first one makes absolute sense 
because, thank goodness, we are no longer involved in armed conflict 
with the people of Yugoslavia.
  The second one, I must admit, was probably done, I felt, to help 
strengthen the cause of what needed to be done then when we were still 
in conflict and no longer is necessary. So, therefore, I have agreed to 
remove it at the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell).
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair requests that the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Taylor) provide another copy of his proposed modification to the 
Chair.
  The Clerk will rereport the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Modification to part A amendment No. 17 printed in House 
     Report 106-175 offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
       In the text of the matter proposed to be inserted, strike 
     the section heading and all that follows through the end of 
     paragraph (a) and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1206. GOALS FOR THE CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC 
                   OF YUGOSLAVIA.

       (a) Finding.--Article I, section 8 of the United States 
     Constitution provides that: ``The Congress shall have Power 
     To . . . provide for the common Defence . . . To declare War 
     . . . To raise and support Armies . . . To provide and 
     maintain a Navy . . . To make Rules for the Government and 
     Regulation of the land and naval Forces . . .''.
       (b) Goals for the Conflict With Yugoslavia.--Congress 
     declares the following to be the goals of the United States 
     for the conflict with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia:
       (1) Cessation by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of all 
     military action against the people of Kosovo and termination 
     of the violence and repression against the people of Kosovo.

[[Page 12458]]

       (2) Withdrawal of all military, police, and paramilitary 
     forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from Kosovo.
       (3) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to the stationing of an international military 
     presence in Kosovo to ensure the peace.
       (4) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to the unconditional and safe return to Kosovo of 
     all refugees and displaced persons.
       (5) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to allow humanitarian aid organizations to have 
     unhindered access to these refugees and displaced persons.
       (6) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to work for the establishment of a political 
     framework agreement for Kosovo which is in conformity with 
     international law.
       (7) President Slobodan Milosevic will be held accountable 
     for his actions while President of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia in initiating four armed conflicts and taking 
     actions leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of people 
     and responsibility for murder, rape, terrorism, destruction, 
     and ethnic cleansing.
       (8) Bringing to justice through the International Criminal 
     Tribunal of Yugoslavia individuals in the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia who are guilty of war crimes in Kosovo.

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
continue to reserve the right to object?
  Mr. HUNTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to be clear and offer the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) a chance to respond if he would 
be so kind. First of all, I express gratitude to the gentleman from 
Mississippi for his kindness. Secondly, I express admiration to him for 
his consistency. Though we disagree on the policy in Kosovo, I note 
that the gentleman and one other Member of our body had the courage of 
his convictions to recognize that what was happening was war and to so 
vote when I brought a resolution to the House floor on April 28. I 
admire him for that. I have so said so publicly and I repeat it today.
  I wish to be clear, and I ask the gentleman from Mississippi if he 
would be so kind as to make it clear that the purpose of his unanimous 
consent to remove clauses 2 and 3 in his amendment is to prevent any 
possible implication of relevance to the pending litigation one way or 
the other, which I commenced with other Members of the Congress 
regarding the legality of this war.
  Mr. HUNTER. Further reserving my right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me return the compliment 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). I thought it was of 
the utmost importance that this body, which has the constitutional duty 
to declare a war, had to vote on that issue. It was the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) that forced that to happen on the House 
floor.
  Although I regret the outcome of that vote, we did at least what the 
Constitution says that we were supposed to do, which was to vote on 
that. I have no intention of trying to do anything legislatively that 
affects the outcome of the gentleman's lawsuit or any other lawsuit.
  As the gentleman knows, as Members of Congress, things I have to 
remind my constituents on on a regular basis, that we are barred by law 
from getting involved in anything that involves another person's 
litigation as Congresspeople.
  So, therefore, I certainly do not want to adversely affect the 
gentleman's suit in any way. If this helps the gentleman to accomplish 
his goals, which is to clarify the War Powers Act, and reestablishes 
Congress' constitutionally mandated duty to declare a war that is our 
decision, then I want to see to it that that happens.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving my right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Taylor), and I renew my expression of high regard for him. We 
share this common goal.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Taylor) for 15 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago yesterday, an extremely high-
ranking member of the American forces in Europe took the time to visit, 
at our request, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and myself.

                              {time}  1315

  At that time, that extremely high-ranking American officer expressed 
his concern that the Congress really had not gotten behind this effort, 
and he felt that it was bad for morale, bad for the troops and quite 
possibly could affect the outcome of the conflict.
  The question, as I recall, from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) was what can we do; how can we help? If I recall, that 
officer, being the good officer that he is, he said that is not my 
place to tell Congress what to do. So, then, a suggestion was made by 
the gentleman from Missouri, well, what if we came out for something? 
What if after all this time, and at that time it had been over 45 days, 
Congress finally says what we are for in this conflict? That extremely 
high-ranking officer said, yes, that would help; the troops need to 
know that Congress is for something.
  He then went on to say that it would probably be helpful to say that 
we are for the goals already articulated by NATO. And at some point 
someone said, well, what about the war criminals; what about the ones 
who made this happen? Should they not be held accountable? The answer 
was yes, they should be, and that should be one of America's goals. 
With that in mind, the gentleman from Missouri and I drafted this 
amendment.
  I want to take the time to compliment the new Speaker of the House. 
He may not even remember the conversation, but 2 weeks ago today, as 
the rule for this bill appeared to be going down, I took the time to 
ask the Speaker to sit right there, explained to him what had happened, 
and told him how important I thought it was that America's Congress, if 
the 435 elected representatives of the people elected just last 
November, express what we are for in this conflict. I do not think it 
is a coincidence that we are where we are today, and I do thank the 
Speaker for what I think is his help in seeing that this will happen.
  The amendment before my colleagues takes the stated goals of NATO and 
adds to them two additional goals. Number one, Slobodan Milosevic, who 
by all accounts has now started four wars, one in Slovenia, one in 
Croatia, one in Bosnia, one in Kosovo, be held accountable for the 
rapes, the murders, the torture and the destruction caused by him and 
his lackeys in four wars.
  I took the time to research the Gulf War debate from January of 1991. 
I took the time to see what many of my colleagues said then. In almost 
every instance they talked about the rapes, they talked about the 
murders, they talked about innocent lives being taken by a brutal 
dictator and his henchmen. It is the same thing now.
  We are the good guys. And as many of my colleagues have reminded 
their other colleagues, yes, we cannot be the policemen for the world, 
but there are some things that we can do. And those things we can do, 
we should do. And to quote the preacher at Walter Jones, Sr.'s funeral, 
``And with the help of God, we will do.''
  We have proven in Bosnia there are some things we can do. The highest 
reenlistment rates in the United States Army come from people who have 
just been to Bosnia, because they know they are doing good things.
  A couple of years ago I went over there fully intending to come home 
with a notebook full of stories of why we should not be in Bosnia. I 
took the time to stay at the mess halls and visit with the kids. A 
young kid from Ocean Springs, Mississippi, not knowing my agenda, just 
told me what was on his mind. His name was Chuck Rhodes. Should we be 
here? Yes. Why? Because I am keeping women from getting raped, I am 
keeping little kids from

[[Page 12459]]

getting tortured, I am keeping old people from being drug out of their 
houses and murdered. That is why I joined the United States Army, to be 
a good guy.
  He said it more clearly than any Secretary of State, any admiral, any 
general, any President. In five sentences he articulated what we are 
trying to do as a Nation. It is about time that this Congress, which is 
given the constitutional duty to provide for the troops, to provide for 
the common defense, to raise and support armies, to provide and 
maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the 
land and naval forces. That is what this is all about. We are making 
the rules for the peace in Bosnia. And I regret that we are 60 days 
late, but it is never too late to do the right thing.
  So I would ask all of my colleagues, regardless of whatever 
hesitation that they may have had before this started, to recognize the 
fact that Bill Clinton did not win this war, Madeleine Albright did not 
win this war, the brave young Americans who flew over 30,000 sorties, 
and put their lives on the line every time they did so, they won this 
war. Let us do not give away the peace that they have won. And let us 
say as a Nation this is what we are for, and that since they have been 
willing to put their lives on the line to let it happen, let us as a 
Congress make sure that it does happen.
  So I ask all of my colleagues, regardless of whatever hesitations 
they might have had before, let us be for this. Let us be for taking a 
communist tyrant who has raped people, murdered people, forced parents 
to have sex with their own children at gun point, thrown so many bodies 
in the rivers of Yugoslavia that the turbines in the hydroelectric 
plants clogged with their corpses, let us see to it that they are 
brought to justice and that we send a message as a Nation that people 
who do those sorts of things will be held accountable and we are not 
going to let it happen again.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek the time in opposition to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time set aside for the 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) for 15 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say to my colleague, as a Member who did vote to support 
the air operation, and who has a number of members of my staff working 
as volunteers to try to help the people who have been oppressed, who 
have been moved out of Kosovo, that we are not home free; that this is 
a very, very difficult situation; that it can be argued very strongly 
that Mr. Milosevic has accomplished most of his foreign policy goals, 
if in fact those goals were to destroy the homes and the livelihoods of 
the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Very clearly, that has been almost 
entirely accomplished. I have not gotten the latest reports, but my 
understanding is that most of the villages, and which a substantial 
majority of Kosovo is ethnic Albanian, have in fact been burned. There 
are not many villages, if any, left to burn.
  Now, my friend talked about the troops and about the wonderful 
performance of our men and women in this air war. Let me just reiterate 
this point, because I do not think it can be reiterated enough. I do 
not think many of those folks watch us on television, and I do not 
think many of them read the Congressional Record. I think the place 
where they see the manifestation of our support or lack of support is 
in several ways: One, when they sit at the breakfast table with their 
wives and their children and they look at their paycheck and they 
notice that their paycheck is now 13 percent on the average less than 
the paycheck on the outside. That means if they are an electronics 
technician in the Navy that they are making 13 percent less than if 
they were working in the private sector. I think that says something to 
them about how important they are to us.
  Secondly, when they go out on operations and they discover that they 
do not have the right type of preferred ammunition, and in some cases 
they know the ammunition stocks are almost gone, that says something to 
them about their prioritization within this House of Representatives.
  And lastly, when they have to climb into that piece of equipment, 
whether it is the B-52 bomber that the Clinton administration now says 
we will fly until they are 80 years old, instead of new equipment, 
instead of a B-2, for example, or even a B-1, that says something to 
them also. I think whether a person works for a trucking company or 
whether they work for the U.S. Air Force, the age of the equipment that 
person is supplied with to work with has a large effect on their 
morale.
  Now, we all know now that this budget that the President submitted 
for this year did not put a dime in for the Kosovo operation, so that 
led us to the inescapable conclusion that if the President was going to 
start a peacekeeping operation, he was going to start doing what he has 
done in the past, which is dipping into the cash register and taking 
ammunition money and taking pay money and taking readiness money out of 
that cash register to pay for an ongoing operation. We want to make 
sure that does not happen. And I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) wants to make sure that does not happen also.
  So let me say a couple of things. First, the devil is in the detail 
with respect to the Kosovo operation. I want to know what has happened 
to the 100,000 men, and I believe that is the British estimate of men 
who are missing from their family groups. And my own staff stood there 
at the Albanian border and watched thousands of women and children come 
across with no men, and almost all those families had stories of the 
men being separated and taken off to an undisclosed destination by 
Serbian troops. What has happened to those people? Have they been taken 
up into Serbia? Are they at camps? Have they been executed?
  Secondly, what is left of the infrastructure inside Kosovo with 
respect to its ability to accommodate anybody, now that Mr. Milosevic 
has burned most of those villages? Is there anything left for them to 
go back to? We need to look at that very closely.
  Lastly, I think we need to look at the European Community and make 
sure that the European Community, which has budget problems just like 
this community has, the American community, is not looking at a way to 
make the Americans pay for the majority of the restoration of Kosovo. 
Because very clearly we have paid for the majority of the air campaign 
and we know it is very important for our allies to participate in this.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, based on the gentleman's comments, I find 
that he and I are singing from the same sheet of music, and I thank him 
for that.
  My main purpose for rising, however, is to compliment the gentleman 
from Mississippi. I think it is important that the goals for this 
entire challenge be set forth, and he has done that quite well for 
today as well as the challenge for tomorrow. I thank him for his 
thorough review of those goals.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
and I also want to compliment the gentleman for his laying out of the 
goals that the United States as well as other western nations must be 
interested in.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), the distinguished Navy ace.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  When this whole event started, many of us fought against it; felt it 
was

[[Page 12460]]

wrong. The total number of people killed in Kosovo, prior to the United 
States bombing, was 2,012. Not saying a single life is not worth 
something, but of that 2,012, one-third of those were Serbs that were 
murdered by the KLA. Their churches were bombed, their police were 
killed and kidnapped. And was there fighting there? Yes. Were both 
sides brutal? Absolutely yes. But was there massive ethnic cleansing? 
No.
  There are 300,000 Serbs that live where the KLA is not, mostly in 
Belgrade. Not a single one has left.

                              {time}  1330

  But the KLA wants a complete separation of Kosovo. They also want 
Montenegro. They also want Macedonia. And they also want part of 
Greece. That is why the Greeks are so adamant about supporting the 
Serbs; they are afraid of expansionism by the KLA.
  And yes, there are atrocities on both sides. And I have no doubt that 
on both sides there have been atrocities, mostly by the Serbs. But for 
us to go over there and do what we have done is unconscionable.
  The President said this is a big win. We have killed more civilians, 
two-and-a-half times, over twice, the amount that the Serbs killed in 
an entire year prior to the bombing. Through the bombing of NATO, there 
have been over twice the number of people killed in Kosovo as were 
killed prior to our bombing.
  If we listen to the people, the Albanians themselves coming out of 
Kosovo, listen to what they are saying, they were forced out of their 
homes after the bombing started. And many of my colleagues say, well, 
Milosevic had a plan, he had a plan, and we had a plan. Well, we 
implemented that plan.
  There are hundreds of thousands of people, in my opinion and, I 
think, the world's opinion that would not be refugees today if we had 
not bombed. That is not a win. And they say there is no loss of life. 
Ask the crew of the Apache that were killed over there in Kosovo, the 
loss of 117s.
  Before we get out of this, conservative estimates say, $50 billion to 
help rebuild Kosovo and what we have destroyed. Jesse Jackson, I do not 
support Mr. Jackson's views most of the time, but I thought he showed 
some real wisdom in the fact that he said that to get into the minds of 
the other side, to understand what the fears are of both sides, not 
just the Albanians, but what the fears of the Serbs are.
  He also said we ought to have as much compassion for the innocent 
men, women and children, the Yugoslavs, as we have for the Serbs. And 
all I hear is that the Serbs are terrible. It is not all true. We 
cannot demonize an entire nation of people. The Nazis were terrible in 
World War II, but all Germans were not Nazis and did not commit those 
crimes.
  From the very first day, I said there were certain things that we had 
to do to bring peace. And if we take a look, the number one fear, put 
ourselves in the Serbs' shoes, where one of three of them died in World 
War II defending Kosovo, their number-one fear was that, under 
Rambouillet, Kosovo was going to become independent.
  There is nothing in this agreement. And I agree that is what should 
have been done. They may have cantonization, but it still should remain 
under former Yugoslavia.
  Second, the Serbs were absolutely petrified. Where the KLA is, they 
are not in mass forces, but there are Mujahedin and Hamas within that 
and they want independence and they are going to cause problems and 
they were afraid. And when Rambouillet said that all their forces had 
to go out and their police, and none of the laws would form under 
Belgrade but from the Albanian civilians, they said, hey, this is 
Serbia.
  That is like Texas falling to Mexico and then saying, hey, 
Washington, D.C., has no laws over that. We would not do that.
  But if we take a look, the Russians in there support it. The Greeks 
in there support it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to debate the exact type of horror that 
was perpetrated on the people of Kosovo. But I would daresay that using 
the analogy that some of my colleagues have used, that World War II was 
a failure because we did not prevent Hitler from killing over 4 million 
Jews, I do not think World War II was a failure. We stopped the horror.
  I do not think what we did in Kosovo was a failure. We stopped the 
horror. We did it with absolute minimum loss of American life.
  Are we somehow disappointed there was not a big body count? Are we 
somehow disappointed there will not be another wall on the Mall with 
50,000 American names? I am not. I am happy. We did not lose one kid.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Duncan Hunter) is exactly right, 
we need to get them new weapons, we need to get them the right 
ammunition, we need to pay them like a free society ought to pay 
volunteers. He is exactly right. And none of us are in disagreement on 
that.
  We also need to protect the peace that they have won. We, as the 
Congress of the United States, ought to set the rules for the Army and 
the Navy, and that is what I am asking the Congress of the United 
States to do right now. And we ought to bring those people who have 
done horrible things to justice. They should be held accountable for 
what they have done.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Virginia is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding the time.
  This issue of America's involvement in the Balkans has given me more 
difficulty than any public policy issue I have ever been called upon to 
address. I must tell my colleagues that I have no satisfaction 
whatsoever in the manner in which the Congress of the United States has 
dealt with that terrible issue and the way we have performed consistent 
with what I would regard, if not our constitutional duty, the duty of 
common sense and of good public policy. We have, basically, from the 
beginning sought to insulate ourselves from what was going on.
  I do not have the time to lay out anything other than just a very few 
bullet points that need much more exposition.
  I have a strong point of view that this administration stumbled and 
bumbled through incredible ineptness in their execution of policy that 
got us into the mess we are in. But once we were in that mess, I have 
never understood the unwillingness of the Congress to confront the fact 
that we are there and our forces were engaged. And being engaged, we 
ought to either say, bring them home, or we ought to have supported 
them by a resolution authorizing them to be there and allowing such 
forces as were necessary to accomplish goals that we established as 
being valid goals.
  Because we did nothing of that sort in the four resolutions that were 
offered on the floor of the House, I introduced H.J.Res. 51. I suggest 
my colleagues might want to read it. I am very disturbed by the fact 
that we have not done what we should.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), as I 
understand it, there is little, if anything, in it that I would 
disagree with. I think it is basically a rhetorical statement. I happen 
to agree with the rhetoric. It gives me no problems at all.
  Let me take what remaining time I have to address the amendment of 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) which I understand will be 
next or soon in order.
  I do not have any disagreement with Mr. Skelton on that because I do 
not think this Congress ought to be saying to the President of the 
United States that he cannot deploy forces that are already deployed, 
he must withdraw. But this amendment, the language which is in the 
bill, is not intended to

[[Page 12461]]

be an interference with the President's constitutional prerogatives. It 
is intended to be in keeping with the constitutional prerogatives that 
are clearly those of the Congress.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness, I am very, 
weary year after year after year of authorizing and appropriators' 
appropriating funds for stated purposes in areas of concern to be taken 
care of where there are problems, only to find that the administration, 
because of contingencies, has taken the money and spent it somewhere 
else.
  What do we care, or do we even care anymore, about our responsibility 
as the Congress to control the purse strings? What difference does it 
make for us to spend our time authorizing after months of study and 
then appropriating funds if, having done so, the President can go off 
on any operation he chooses, spend the money in ways other than what we 
direct, and say nothing to this?
  I am not against what the President is doing or finally has been 
required to do in Kosovo, and I am delighted with what appears to be a 
reasonable success. But it does not alter the fact that when we 
appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to specific reasons 
and purposes to look after the readiness and to get the equipment for 
our forces, we want it spent for those reasons.
  If the President's policy takes us in a deployment somewhere, the 
President should come back to us and seek the funds for it, not spend 
it from things that we have otherwise authorized and appropriated. And 
that is what the issue is about and the only reason I would not be able 
to support the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by thanking the gentleman from California 
for what he did back in April, which was to force the 435 elected 
officials, not one of us was appointed, not one of us was annointed, 
every one of us begged for this job, for forcing us to do what we 
should have done all along.
  I also want to thank him for coming to me with what I thought was a 
very common-sense compromise on this issue. Again, what I had set out 
to do in the beginning was to help that very high-ranking American 
officer and let him and all the troops know that the Congress of the 
United States is behind them in what they are trying to accomplish. We 
have a chance to do that right now.
  And lastly, I want to thank the Speaker of the House, who I do 
believe played a part in seeing to it that that amendment which was 
originally blocked from consideration 2 weeks ago is being voted on 
today. I think that is supporting what we are doing today.
  I think for the sake of the kids who flew the 30,000 sorties and put 
their lives on the line every time that we protect the peace, that they 
risked their lives to gain.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider Amendment 
No. 18 printed in Part A of House Report 106-175.


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Souder:
       Strike section 1006 (page 270, line 20, through page 271, 
     line 9) and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1006. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY 
                   OPERATIONS IN FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise available to 
     the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000 may be used 
     for military operations in the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of our troops and the fundamental 
national security interests of this country. This bill is, in fact, 
about our national defense and readiness. I also want to commend the 
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for his excellent work and 
commitment in this bill to rebuild our national defense posture.
  It is my strong conviction that the United States' involvement in 
leadership in the conflict in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has, 
in fact, undermined our national interest, not furthered it. The 
President's national security adviser Sandy Berger supposedly, 
according to the President, coined the phrase ``come home, America'' 
for the McGovern campaign in 1972. Apparently, we changed this to ``go 
everywhere, America'' and now to ``stay everywhere, America.'' While 
our motives may be good, the fact is that that is not much of a 
national interest policy.
  I would like to also thank our leadership in the committee for 
including a prohibition in the bill restricting the use of funds for 
Kosovo. My amendment simply strengthens the prohibition already in the 
bill against the use of Department of Defense funds towards the 
conflict in Kosovo by applying the prohibition for all defense funds 
for Fiscal Year 2000, not merely to funds authorized in this bill.

                              {time}  1345

  The amendment also eliminates the invitation in the bill to the 
President to request additional funds for the conflict in Yugoslavia. 
We have already given too many taxpayer dollars to this ill-conceived 
operation which would be better used to strengthen our national defense 
and to be put into areas where we actually have direct national 
interests and world peace concerns as well as when we talk about this 
being $15 billion, $20 billion, $80 billion, whatever it turns out to 
be, that also means that domestic expenditures are being reduced which 
is a legitimate taxpayer question as far as where our national interest 
is.
  I want to make clear that I do not intend to limit support for 
refugees, nor does this amendment prevent missions specifically limited 
to rescuing United States military personnel or citizens in the same 
way that the underlying bill was not intended to prevent such activity.
  When given the opportunity a few weeks ago, the House of 
Representatives failed to support U.S. involvement in the bombing 
campaign in Yugoslavia. While we all hope for eventual peace, the many 
reasons to oppose involvement remain today. Reasons to oppose any 
additional funding for Kosovo include:
  The potential permanent placement of U.S. ground troops in a region 
secondary to our national interests where forces will be at risk from 
violence on both sides. The continued redirection of funds essential to 
restoring United States military readiness. Let me address one question 
that we have been debating here, is could funds be diverted from this 
bill. In fact as I pointed out in the supplemental, there are not 
restrictions that keep funds from being moved. We often play in the 
Federal Government these games where, ``Oh, we're not directly funding 
the supplies for the troops, what we do is just replace the supplies 
that were sent.'' So that the supply stream that is in the military 
currently that we were supposedly putting in for military readiness and 
buildup will be diverted over there and the new funds will merely go to 
replace what is being diverted. We have seen billions of dollars that 
were not allocated for Kosovo already spent, and it is disingenuous to 
say that, ``Oh, there would be another supplemental that would take the 
additional funds'' because they are diverting funds that are already 
there for troop training, for the gas, for the armaments and so on, and 
this has disguised the costs of this war and continues to do it. When 
we say we are

[[Page 12462]]

building the readiness of our armed forces but do not restrict the 
funds from being directly or indirectly transferred to Kosovo, it is 
less than straightforward.
  Furthermore, we are continuing to undermine the U.S. troop morale 
because they are being asked to do more with less and are being 
deployed at a rate like never before. That not only includes our active 
military but it also includes our Reserve and Guard where we are seeing 
a drop in reenlistments.
  The fact that the NATO air war accelerated and augmented the tragic 
refugee crisis which we are and will continue to support financially 
through other areas. That is not arguing that he was not an evil man 
and is not an evil man. I am speaking of President Milosevic. Or that 
other leaders in countries in the Balkans did not practice genocide. 
The fact is it is not clear what was going to happen and to what extent 
it was going to happen.
  Furthermore, the additional confusion which is added to our foreign 
policy priorities when we fail to establish a clear standard for 
humanitarian intervention while clearly undermining our relationships 
with international powers that clearly impact high priority U.S. 
national security interests including China and Russia. Let me explain 
that. It is terrible. I was in the camps in Macedonia, too. I spent a 
whole afternoon talking to refugees. You cannot deny, any citizen 
cannot deny who has talked to these people that throats were slit, that 
there are mass graves, that there were rapes. The question is, that is 
also occurring in many other parts of the world. What is our standard 
for intervention? That is the question here. And when? Is it just 
because they are white? That is a kind of question we have to confront 
with ourselves, just because CNN is in a certain part of the world. Why 
are we not in Sudan? What are the compelling reasons why we would 
intervene in one country and not another? Furthermore, to divert these 
resources like the last carrier over to the Persian Gulf so another 
carrier could be diverted into the Mediterranean leaving us blind in 
Asia where clearly we have potential coming conflicts between India, 
China and China's client states like Pakistan and North Korea and 
Japan, where clearly there are world peace major issues at stake and we 
are bogged down now in Iraq, in Bosnia, now in Haiti and now 
potentially even greater in Kosovo.
  The continuous undermining of the stability of neighboring 
democracies like Macedonia and impeding the democratic position of 
Montenegro.
  The U.S. policy of supporting, at least tacitly, the Kosovo 
Liberation Army which has some established ties to narcotics 
trafficking and terrorism targeted at Americans. One of the fundamental 
questions here in the ironies of this agreement is that we did not 
support the Kosovo Liberation Army and yet at the same time we are now 
going to accomplish for Milosevic one of the goals that he had in 
disarming them, at least temporarily.
  The undermining of NATO when we define its continuing existence as 
dependent upon as the defeat of a sovereign country with a history of 
internal conflict which offers no direct threat to a NATO member. We 
constantly heard about article 5 which was supposedly the stability of 
Europe. Now, how in the world have we advanced the stability of Europe? 
We have Macedonia and Montenegro teetering, we have Greece with 
domestic conflict. We had Romania and Hungary concerned on the northern 
border. We have Russia, a historic ally of Serbia and a rising 
nationalist movement in Russia that we have given credibility to and 
potentially with the switch in the government of Russia having their 
armed troops on the ground in a very dicey type of situation in an area 
where we thought we had expelled them. We have a general and 
potentially and most likely an independent Kosovo in the middle of 
Europe. An armed Muslim state in the center of Europe will not add to 
the stability. I point that out because I did not meet a single Kosovar 
who was ever willing to serve under a Serbian government.
  Furthermore, what does this mean in the concept of independent 
states, if the Kosovars have no intention of ever serving under a 
Serbian government? Does this now mean that in Palestine we are giving 
a blank check to the Palestinians to have an independent state separate 
from Israel? What about the Kurds in Turkey? There is a very difficult 
international policy question underneath this supposed peace settlement 
that I say puts our world positions at greater risk than we had when we 
first went in.
  Furthermore, it is no wonder that China and Russia in the earlier 
question of when we are going to intervene in a humanitarian 
intervention, part of the concern here around the world, this is not a 
Christian moral position. I could argue from a Christian moral position 
that we should intervene anywhere. And when Russians started bombing 
Chechnya we should have gone in. But what are our criterias? If they 
are a big partner, we do not go in? If they are a little trade partner, 
we do go? It is not clear. Because the terror and the murder is 
happening in many places throughout the world and was not 
extraordinarily greater in this area until we started the process. It 
was terrible but it was not extraordinarily greater than anywhere else 
in about 30 to 40 countries.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is if we should not be involved, then 
we should not be involved in either the war or the peacekeeping which 
is not necessarily the cessation of hostilities and may in fact even be 
an Iraq situation where he plays this like a yo-yo.
  My amendment simply provides, if we should not be there and we should 
not stay there, then we should not fund the money. We then bear part of 
that responsibility. My amendment provides Members of this House the 
opportunity to vote in a manner consistent with their consciences and 
the congressional responsibility to use wisely the constitutional 
spending power which is the power of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I must say, Mr. Chairman, in the words of Mark Twain, the literary 
giant from my State of Missouri, ``The more you explain it to me, the 
more I don't understand it.'' I really have a difficult time in 
understanding this amendment. For if I read it correctly, it is more 
restrictive than the language that is already in the bill. On top of 
that, it prohibits use of any funds, whether they be appropriated as a 
supplemental appropriation or otherwise from being used in the Republic 
of Yugoslavia effort. On top of that, it deletes the subsection which 
invites the President to request additional funds. That was put in by 
the majority, and I agree with it. The President should come forth and 
seek supplemental funds for the year 2000.
  So this amendment is a very drastic one. If you read it very 
carefully, it is a short amendment that has very far reaching, 
difficult results.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) the ranking member for yielding this time to me. 
I would like to respond to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) very 
briefly regarding the question he raised about how we are providing for 
a stable Europe by the actions that have been undertaken.
  Last week I traveled with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) 
to the Oxford Forum in Belfast, Ireland. While there our interlocutors 
were parliamentary officials from Germany and from England. We left 
there and went to London and met with Robin Cook. All along the way, 
including with the Prime Minister of Ireland, all we heard was praise 
for the overall aspect of this particular operation and how it has 
unified the alliance in the new paradigm. I think we really need to 
examine it from that point of view.
  But I do rise in opposition to the amendment from my friend from 
Indiana. It is unfathomable to me that as a peace agreement has just 
been signed and we are about to achieve our goals for ending the ethnic 
cleansing in Kosovo that some Members of this

[[Page 12463]]

great institution are attempting to prevent the United States from 
participating in an international security force. Quite frankly I am 
not only shocked, I am outraged at the lengths to which critics of our 
Commander in Chief will go to embarrass him. Rather than at this time 
celebrate a triumph and applaud our military for having achieved a 
successful operation, we are about the business of continuing to try to 
hamper the efforts that are put forward for peace. First these persons 
tried to prevent the Commander in Chief from stopping genocide in 
Europe. Now they are trying to stop him from securing peace. This 
simply cannot happen. I urge the body to please oppose the Souder 
amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I yield for a question to my friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to say, 
to get my oar in the water here, that this amendment does do what 
several people thought the base bill does, that is, this amendment 
would in my understanding immediately stop all operations in Kosovo. 
That is, it would paralyze air operations, no moneys of any stripe, 
whether it is this year or supplemental money or money for next year 
would be available. That means that everything would stop.
  Let me just say from my perspective the same thing that I said 
several weeks ago on this, that I think that would be a major mistake. 
This, regardless of how we got here, we are operating this air war, 
bringing it to a conclusion, and I intend and I think a number of other 
Members intend on this side to oppose this amendment as much as we 
respect our friend from Indiana.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time. I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Indiana's 
amendment. I believe it creates an entirely unworkable situation which 
could pose grave harm to the men and women in uniform who are serving 
in the Balkans. In order to understand that, we have to understand what 
would happen on September 20th if, as I expect, we have several 
thousand troops in place, conducting peacekeeping activities, and think 
about the options the President would have to continue that operation. 
The first option he would have, and I hope that he would do it, would 
be to come to this body for a supplemental appropriation above and 
beyond the regular defense appropriations for fiscal year 2000 to pay 
for the cost of this. And we could make an honest decision as to 
whether we want to do that and where the money ought to come from. I 
want to underline what the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and many others have said 
this afternoon, that that is the right thing, that is what he ought to 
do. But he may not do it. The President may not do that. And we may not 
act expeditiously if he does.
  About 2 weeks ago, just before the Memorial Day break, we were 
intending to get to work on this bill, and because of various 
legitimate political disagreements in this body, we were unable to pass 
a rule to take up this legislation.

                              {time}  1400

  That could certainly happen again, certainly happen again in the 
context of a supplemental appropriation.
  The second option the President would have under normal circumstances 
would be to reallocate funding in the fiscal year 2000 bill for this 
purpose. Now that is what he would do in the absence of a supplemental 
if this amendment were not the law.
  But if this amendment becomes the law, as I understand it, the 
President cannot do that. It flatly bars any shift of funds, any 
transfer of accounts for the purpose of supporting the ongoing 
peacekeeping operation or any other operation which we may need in the 
Republic of Yugoslavia at that time.
  His third option, as I read it, his only option, would be completely 
unacceptable, and that would be to unilaterally and immediately stop 
any operations that our military is conducting in the Republic of 
Yugoslavia. I think that does not make a lot of sense.
  For those reasons, I would oppose.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the author, the gentleman from Indiana, if he 
has a question.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to clarify the amendment, if I 
may. It only affects fiscal year 2000 funding. It has 4 months for us 
to withdraw. It does not have any immediate impact.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what does the 
President do on September 28 of 1999 if we have not gotten a 
supplemental through here, and he wants to leave 7- or 8,000 people 
there to do their job? How does he pay for it?
  I yield back for the answer.
  Mr. SOUDER. He would presumably have to overturn this bill.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, he would have to ignore the will 
that we enacted here in the bill?
  With all due respect, I think that proves my point, that it puts the 
President in an untenable situation where our failure to act to enact 
the supplemental, which happens around here a lot, would tie the 
President's hands and create, I think, an irresponsible situation.
  I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. My understanding of the bill, my amendment to the bill, 
would eliminate the invitation that both the chairman and the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) have for a supplemental, but it would not 
prohibit the President from coming with the supplemental. It prohibits 
any funds that we currently have for fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, it would though, if I am correct, 
prohibit the transfer of any funds from one account to another for this 
purpose; is that correct?
  Mr. SOUDER. Absolutely.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), and I want to compliment 
him for bringing it forward. But I also want to clarify the discussion 
which just occurred because I think it may have left some ambiguity in 
the minds of Members.
  Let me make it very, very clear. This amendment does not in any way 
prevent the President from coming forward in a straightforward fashion 
and saying to the Congress, ``I want and I request and I ask you to 
appropriate additional funds for the conduct of this war or for the 
conduct of peacekeeping.''
  What this amendment does is say, ``Mr. President, the power we have 
in the Congress is the power of the purse. You have clearly indicated 
that you are going to proceed on your own within your authority.'' So 
be it.
  But we do have the power of the purse, and this amendment would say, 
``Mr. President, you have 4 months to conclude the action, and then if 
in that 4 months you want more money, come back to the Congress and ask 
for it,'' and I think that is a perfectly legitimate role for the 
Congress to play; indeed, it is the role that the Constitution 
contemplates that we should play, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment for that reason.
  But I want to move on to another topic because I think there is going 
to be some additional confusion later in the discussion. Later today, 
on this bill, my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), 
I believe is going to offer an amendment to strike the language in the 
base bill which prohibits funds in fiscal year 2000 from being used for 
the war.
  Specifically, on page 270 in section 1006 he is going to move to 
strike lines 21 through 24. That is the language that specifically 
prohibits the President from using fiscal year 2000 moneys for the 
conduct of this war or peacekeeping without coming back to the Congress 
for permission.

[[Page 12464]]

  But in a move which will confuse Members he is going to leave in 
place the following language in subsection B of that section on page 
271 which creates the impression that the President will have to come 
to Congress and ask permission, but not the reality.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Souder amendment and to oppose 
the Skelton amendment, Mr. Chairman. The Skelton amendment appears to 
force the President to come to the Congress for proper budget authority 
for the conduct of this war, but it will not do that.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have always found it important to read what the 
amendments say, and this particular amendment strikes that provision 
which requires the President to come forth with a supplemental. 
Further, it prohibits, it prohibits other appropriated or supplemental 
appropriations by these words:
  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise available to the 
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000 may be used for military 
operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  I mean, how much clearer can we get? That cuts it off.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, let me precisely explain. The gentleman is 
right. This language says that this piece of legislation would not 
authorize the President to continue the conduct of the war or the 
peacekeeping mission. That would leave the President with the option, 
which he has at any time, to bring forward a request for a supplemental 
appropriation specifically for the operation of the war. Then we could 
debate that issue, should we fund the war and at what level, or should 
we fund the peacekeeping effort and at what level?
  Nothing in this language says the President is precluded from 
bringing forward such a proposal, and I give the gentleman back his 
time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who offered the amendment 
asked, ``Duke, would you like to speak in favor of the amendment?'' Not 
only a good guy, he has got a good heart, and I would like to talk to 
the gentleman on why I oppose this particular amendment.
  First of all, I have already spoken to why I did not believe that we 
should be in Kosovo in the first place. I have also spoken to why I 
thought that Rambouillet actually caused the war, that there was a no-
win from the start, that the President did not understand that we could 
not have an independent Kosovo, that they would never give that up, and 
that they had fears that the KLA would reprise, and we could not take 
out other military and police, and that there had to be something in 
between.
  Well, now the new agreement said that we will have Russian and Greek 
troops, which I wanted in there, to separate the two sides, and there 
is a difference between war and potential peace and what we do support.
  George Bush in Desert Storm had our allies pay for Desert Storm, and 
I think that NATO ought to pay for this, at least 99 percent of this, 
and let the United States back out of it because we have been into all 
of the other things that we have talked about, from Iraq to other 
areas, as well as in the Sudan.
  I disagreed with my colleague on his amendment because I felt that it 
took money out of the military requirements when our Joint Chiefs said 
we need 148 billion just to come up to a low-ball figure, the 
President, under the Bottom Up Review and the QDR; and I understand now 
that the supplemental will come in and not do that. But I would still 
oppose the gentleman's amendment if it takes the money out, because 
there is never a payback in this business.
  And I would say that under this amendment it totally ties the hands 
of the President as far as our troops, and I do not want to do that. I 
am trying to get us out of Kosovo. I am trying to do it because I do 
not think that we should demonize one side or another on this because 
both sides have been, but at the same time I do not want to totally tie 
the hands of the President if there is hope for peace and we can 
separate those forces.
  And with winter coming on, there is no electricity, no food, no heat, 
and there are innocent Yugoslavians and innocent Albanians at the same 
time. How are we going to handle that? I would like NATO to pay for it 
all. I am not naive enough to think they are going to do that.
  I thank the gentleman from my heart for having given me the time, and 
part of me supports what the gentleman is trying to do, but overall I 
would have to vote against the gentleman's amendment and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from California (Mr. Cunningham) 
stating this. Obviously he did read the amendment, as I did, and the 
language is pretty clear.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Actually, I had not, but I listened to what the 
gentleman said.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for having yielded this 
time to me.
  And he has pointed out, pointed to the language in his bill that the 
bill refers to 2000 money, and that would not necessarily keep the 
President from spending dollars that are presently in the 1999 
accounts; and so I want to apologize to the gentleman for misconstruing 
his amendment and saying that it would immediately paralyze all air 
operations. It would not stop for 4 months.
  I still oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I do want to let him 
know that that statement was in error.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, NATO is the alter 
ego of the United States. Whatever NATO does, it means the United 
States does, and what have we done?
  Milosevic is still in power, close to 200 schools in Serbia have been 
destroyed, a half-dozen bridges across the Danube, power plants. We 
have destroyed a country. We have wasted our precious military 
resources. The American people have been asked to pay not only for the 
war, but the President will come back and ask us to rebuild Serbia. It 
is wrong. It is fiscally wrong and it is morally wrong.
  The President needs to be stopped in this unwanted use of taxpayers' 
dollars. That is the purpose of the Souder amendment, to bring some 
sanity to what is going on in the world. This war never should have 
been started, and the American taxpayers should not be called upon to 
complete it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Connecticut is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
for coming together in opposition to this amendment.
  The logic, at this point, as we have begun a process which ends the 
horror and extermination that was going on in Kosovo, to suddenly 
believe that we can crawl into some isolationist shell just does not 
make sense. The President and the Secretary of State, Sandy Berger, and 
the Secretary of Defense have done a spectacular job. They have kept 
NATO united, and frankly, as we are skeptics by nature in this 
Congress, I was skeptical that we could keep NATO united. They were 
successful in an air campaign, and so many experts

[[Page 12465]]

told us we could not be successful with just an air campaign.
  To come to the floor today and blame us for the devastation wrought 
on the Serbs would be akin to blaming the allies for the bombing that 
occurred on Germany in World War II. We have a responsibility in this 
Congress. It is to critically examine the actions of the executive.
  But what I am fearful of here is that the hostility to this 
administration carries over in legislative attempts that defy America's 
basic national interest. Whether one believes the campaign could work 
or not, whether one believes we ought to have been there or not, at 
this stage to argue that America should simply remove itself is 
unacceptable and unwise for America's national interest.

                              {time}  1415

  America, under this President's leadership with our Secretary of 
State and their foreign policy team, has gotten an agreement for the 
smallest percentage of American participation in any action since the 
end of World War II that I can remember, less than 15 percent, a little 
over 7,000 of the troops. Our other NATO allies are taking a 
substantial portion, as they should, because it is Europe. That never 
happened before.
  We should be in the well congratulating our military and our 
political leadership for having stood up to a tyrant and stopped the 
killing. Yes, there was a price paid, a price paid on civilians on both 
sides, but no one has any right to criticize our response in fighting 
for the lives of men and women being raped and murdered, being taken 
from their homes.
  Was America to sit by and build one more monument? I have said this 
before. I have seen virtually every one of our colleagues at ceremonies 
for the Holocaust and Armenian genocide. This time we acted. We did not 
wait afterwards to wring our hands. I support the efforts of the 
chairman and the ranking Democrat to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Indiana is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, a couple of points: One is I do not think 
it is helpful to take really serious deep disagreements about the 
validity of this particular war and imply that it has a political 
motive. I think I can stand here with the respect of this House and say 
I am not obsessed with removing this President or blaming everything on 
this President. I have deep reservations and opposition, not only to 
the war, but what we are potentially going to get into in 
destabilization in the peacekeeping force, not because horror is not 
terrible, just like in Sudan and many other places around the world, 
but I fear greater consequences in the other places in national 
interest.
  Let me make clear again, this is the hardest core amendment. The 
amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) is more 
moderate. If the Skelton amendment passes to the Spence amendment, the 
House will have no way to vote for those of us who oppose this war 
because the Skelton amendment would gut the Spence amendment.
  My amendment does not remove that, although there is a question 
whether some of the supplemental funds would be affected. In my 
opinion, and I believe in most people's opinion, it would allow the 
funds to be expended for the rest of this year. We would have four 
months to make whatever transfer over of a European problem to the 
Europeans in the case of funding the peacekeepers after this.
  If one does not favor the extended intervention in the Balkans 
through whatever, whether it is peacekeeping or in fact a continuation 
of the war or an Iraq-type situation, this amendment gives one the 
ability to say in the fiscal year 2000 funds, after October 1 and for 
that year, unless the President comes to this House and says, ``This is 
an emergency, I need to waive what you previously passed, I need 
additional money,'' but it restricts the funding we are now putting out 
and have put out for fiscal year 2000 and says you cannot use that, 
yes, not only for air war and ground war, but you cannot use it for the 
peacekeepers either.
  I do not expect a lot of support for this amendment, but for those of 
us who have deep concerns, this is our chance to cast that vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97, 
noes 328, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 187]

                                AYES--97

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Crane
     Cubin
     Danner
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ewing
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Souder
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)

                               NOES--328

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens

[[Page 12466]]


     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clayton
     Dickey
     Engel
     Hilleary
     Holt
     Lofgren
     Olver

                              {time}  1443

  Messrs. FRANKS of New Jersey, NEY, and BLAGOJEVICH changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SHAYS, WATTS of Oklahoma, HERGER, PITTS, HULSHOF, EWING, GARY 
MILLER of California, SCARBOROUGH, SUNUNU, and Ms. McKINNEY changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained on 
official business in my congressional district in central New Jersey. 
During that time, I missed three rollcall votes.
  Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 185 and 
``no'' on rollcall Nos. 186 and 187.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 printed 
in Part A of House Report 106-175.


                Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Skelton

  Mr. SKELTON. 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. 19 offered by Mr. Skelton:
       In section 1006--
       (1) strike subsection (a) (page 270, lines 21 through 24);
       (2) in the section heading (page 270, line 20), strike 
     ``BUDGETING FOR'' and insert ``SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 
     REQUEST FOR''; and
       (3) in subsection (b), strike ``(b) Supplemental 
     Appropriations Request for Operations in Yugoslavia.--''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it rather ironic; no, I find it rather sad that 
in the wake of a military victory for America and for the NATO forces, 
we find ourselves in this excellent authorization bill discussing 
language that cuts off funding for the troops on September 30 of this 
year.

                              {time}  1445

  The amendment which I offer will delete subsection A of section 1006, 
while leaving in place subsection B. Subsection B requires the 
President to request supplemental appropriations in order to conduct 
combat or peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia. Subsection B, standing alone, adequately protects the 
funding authorized by this bill without running the risk of undermining 
America's and NATO's military and peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, when we were first scheduled to take this 
bill up, I would have argued that the language in this bill sent the 
wrong message at the wrong time. Now the withdrawal of Serb forces, 
which is under way from Kosovo today, the message that we would send by 
rejecting my amendment would be a horrific message. The timing of the 
message would make it even worse.
  We must pass this amendment so that we can proceed further and not 
cut off the troops for the wonderful job that they have done. We cannot 
cut them off on September 30 of this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Ortiz).
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Skelton 
amendment to the defense authorization bill, an amendment this House 
should pass for many reasons.
  The gentleman's amendment strips the present language out of the bill 
which prohibits funds being expended in Yugoslavia after September 30, 
1999. The current language in the bill does not reflect the best that 
this country and this Congress can offer in our defense policy bill.
  The House Committee on Armed Services struggled long and hard to get 
this bill to the floor. It is generally an outstanding bill, a very 
good bill. But this language will garner a presidential veto, and our 
purpose here is to pass a bill that the President will sign, as well as 
safeguard our troops and the security interests of the United States of 
America.
  Leaving the restrictive language on Yugoslavia in this bill puts its 
passage in jeopardy, and that is bad enough. But worse, it puts our 
troops in jeopardy, those young men and women fighting for the 
strategic interests of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot try to run this conflict, this war, like we 
run a regular business. We cannot do that. We are dealing with a man 
who is a vicious killer. Soldiers in the field, I do not think will 
appreciate it if we do not support this amendment.
  Lastly, we would be terribly ill-advised to include this language in 
our bill because it sends a mixed message to Milosevic, the latest 
hate-monger of the 20th century. The very last person to whom we want 
to provide aid and comfort is Milosevic, a devoted enemy of peace in 
Central Europe.
  I urge my friends and colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Government of the Republic of China announced on 
June 7 that it would provide a grant aid equivalent to about US$300 
million to help the Kosovar refugees. The aid will consist of emergency 
support for food, shelters, medical care, and education for the 
refugees. In addition, short term accommodations will be provided for 
some of the refugees in Taiwan. Most important of all, Taipei will 
support the rehabilitation of the Kosovar area in coordination with 
other international agencies.
  Taipei's offer of help drew a favorable response from our State 
Department and I think Taiwan's plan to assist Kosovar refugees and 
Macedonia is praiseworthy and demonstrates Taiwan's commitment to play 
a helpful role in the international community.
  President Lee Teng-hui of the Republic of China on Taiwan should be 
commended for his willingness to commit his country's resources to help 
other countries in need. President Lee's aid initiative to the Kosovar 
refugees is yet another demonstration of the Republic of China's 
support of U.S. policies in the Balkans.

         Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the 
           United States,
                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1999.
     Hon. Solomon Ortiz,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Ortiz: As we are all eagerly awaiting a 
     peaceful resolution of the Kosovo conflict, I am writing 
     today to direct your attention to my country's efforts to aid 
     the huge numbers of Kosovar refugees currently residing in 
     other countries.
       As a member of the world community committed to protecting 
     and promoting human rights, the Republic of China on Taiwan 
     is deeply concerned about the plight of the Kosovars and 
     hopes to contribute to the reconstruction of their war-torn 
     land. To that end, President Lee Teng-hui announced on June 
     7, 1999 that our country will grant U.S. $300 million in an 
     aid package to the Kosovars. The aid package will consist of 
     the following:
       1. Emergency support for food, shelters, medical care, and 
     education, etc. for Kosovar refugees living in exile in 
     neighboring countries.
       2. Short-term accommodations for some of Kosovar refugees 
     in Taiwan, with opportunities of job training to enable them 
     to be better equipped for the restoration of their homeland 
     upon their return.

[[Page 12467]]


       3. Support for the restoration of Kosovo in coordination 
     with international long-term recovery programs once a peace 
     plan is implemented.
       We earnestly hope that our aid will contribute to the 
     promotion of the peace plan for Kosovo and that all the 
     refugees will be able to return safely to their homes as soon 
     as possible. In this regard, we hope that we may rely on your 
     continued support and friendship as we seek to fulfill our 
     obligations as a responsible member of the international 
     community.
       With best regards,
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Stephen S. F. Chen,
                                                   Representative.

  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak directly to my 
friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) on his amendment. He 
is my friend, but I thought it was unfair to characterize this as a 
vote against our troops. As I see it, what our original base bill did 
was prevent the President from taking supplemental money that the House 
and the Senate voted for and passed for emergency supplemental, which 
was going directly to take care of many of the ills our military had.
  The gentleman's amendment would allow the President to take money out 
of that fund and use it to expand Kosovo. Our position is that no money 
should come out of that which would detriment readiness for our 
military, and secondly, that it would not expand Kosovo.
  Now, as I see it, the situation today, and I will have the gentleman 
correct me, he has had a phone call from the President that says he 
will not take money out of readiness. Secondly, he will come back to 
this Congress for a supplemental to pay for this, and the money will 
not come out of the hide of defense. That is good.
  If that is the case, this gentleman would be willing to accept the 
amendment of the gentleman from Missouri.
  But I have feared, and to me there is a difference between expanding 
a war and being able to pay to keep people separated and prepare for 
the problems that we have over there, even though I think NATO ought to 
pay for this, not the United States.
  I also want to make it clear that any supplemental is going to come 
out of the things that both sides want to do. Those are the social 
issues.
  So if the gentleman has that guarantee in writing, and I say writing 
because I would tell the gentleman I know what ``is'' is. Just a verbal 
acknowledgment that the President has promised, this is not enough.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding me this time. Just for the record, the gentleman's word is 
good enough for me. It does not have to be in writing.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I did not 
say the word of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) was not good. 
I said I did not believe the word of the President without its being in 
writing.
  I totally take the word of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California 
clearing that up.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment to 
strike the Kosovo language from this bill.
  Like many of my Democratic colleagues on the House Committee on Armed 
Services, my main concern with the underlying bill language has been 
and continues to be the inclusion of language which would basically 
require us to cease our operations in the Kosovo region at the end of 
this fiscal year.
  Although I voted for the bill in the committee, I was greatly 
concerned with the message we were sending to Milosevic, to our 
military and the rest of the world. Although I do agree with the funds 
that we are providing in this bill, the manner in which the language is 
currently written will cause an unnecessary crisis on October 1 in the 
Balkans.
  Having recently returned from that region and having heard from the 
refugees the horrors that they have experienced, I believe that we need 
to be in Kosovo and assist with the peace process.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Skelton amendment and to make 
this defense authorization a truly comprehensive bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining on 
each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 10 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) has 13 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This 
is a very important amendment, and what we do on it will be with us for 
a long time.
  We are endorsing, if we vote in favor of this amendment, a policy of 
occupation of Kosovo for an endless period of time. We have now been 
fighting an undeclared war for more than 70 days. We have endlessly 
bombed a country the size of Kentucky killing many, many civilians.
  It is an undeclared war. It is an immoral, illegal war. It violates 
the Constitution. It violates the War Powers resolution.
  It is claimed now that we have had a great victory. But what we are 
doing now, after bombing a country to smithereens, is laying plans to 
occupy it. We are asking the American people to make an endless 
commitment to occupying this country.
  A few years back, we were going to occupy Bosnia for a short period 
of time. We are still occupying Bosnia, spending between $10 billion, 
$20 billion already, depending on the estimate.
  A few years back it was in our national interests to be involved in 
the Persian Gulf. We had to do a lot of bombing there and a lot of 
fighting. We are still bombing in the Persian Gulf. I mean, when will 
it end? Where do our borders end? What are the limits to our 
sovereignty? Where is our responsibility? It seems like it is endless 
anyplace, anywhere we have to go. We are now supporting an empire.
  No wonder there is anti-American hostility existing around the world, 
because we believe that we can tell everybody what to do. We can 
deliver an ultimatum to them. If they do not do exactly what we say, 
whether it is under NATO or the United Nations or by ourselves stating 
it, what happens, we say, ``If you do not listen to us, we are going to 
bomb you.''
  I think that policy is a bad policy. If we vote for this amendment, 
we endorse this policy, and we should not. This is not the end of the 
Kosovo war; it's only the beginning of an endless occupation and the 
possibility of hostilities remain. The region remains destabilized and 
dangerous. Only a policy of non-intervention and neutrality can serve 
the interest of the American people. The sooner we quit accepting the 
role of world policemen, the better. We cannot afford to continue our 
recent policy of intervention to satisfy the power special interest 
that influences our foreign policy.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, after 78 long days, the United States and 
its NATO allies have won a major victory over the forces of instability 
and inhumanity. Today, we are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of 
victory.
  We have won the war. Serbian troops are withdrawing from Kosovo under 
the exact terms that we have held out since the beginning of this 
action. We now have an opportunity to win the peace finally in the 
Balkans.
  A vote against the Skelton amendment would prevent us from achieving 
the fruits of our success, restoring peace and stability to Kosovo, 
returning 1 million refugees to their homeland, and making sure that 
the bloodshed will finally end.

[[Page 12468]]

  Even if one was against the military action, one should be for the 
peacekeeping effort. If one cares about the humanitarian catastrophe 
that has happened in the Balkans, if one cares about the future 
stability in Europe, the peacekeeping effort is the best way to 
continue this success.
  Our heroic young people, men and women, for 74 days led this air 
campaign against the Serbian military, and therefore, we must be part 
of the peacekeeping effort.

                              {time}  1500

  The President has said that the peacekeeping force will be 
overwhelmingly made up of European troops. We must continue to fulfill 
our obligation to NATO through our participation in this effort. 
Turning our backs on this effort now would send a horrible signal to 
NATO and to the rest of the world that the United States is turning to 
an isolationist stance.
  Congress has been criticized for our erratic policy on Kosovo. This 
is our chance today to be consistent and to be united behind the policy 
of peace and responsible American leadership in the world. We have a 
responsibility to our troops, to NATO, and to the refugees to fulfill 
our role in this peacekeeping effort.
  I pray that Congress can put aside the actions of the last several 
months and join together to support this effort. It is the right thing 
to do, it makes sense, and it is worthy of our bipartisan support.
  I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to back the Skelton 
amendment, to back peacekeeping, and to back what is right for the 
world.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  What the Skelton amendment does is not what was just described. What 
the Skelton amendment does is give an absolute blank check.
  Let me make it very, very clear. The language of the bill does not 
snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Indeed, nothing in the language 
of the bill would in any way hamper the peacekeeping effort or the 
effort of our troops. What the language of the bill does, which the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) would like to strip out, is to 
say that the Congress has a proper role in deciding what our 
expenditures in support of the operations in Kosovo and in Yugoslavia 
ought to be.
  It says that, in subsection (a), the President cannot spend these 
monies appropriated for other purposes in Kosovo. But it says in 
subsection (b) that the President has to, instead, come back to the 
Congress and ask for a supplemental appropriation in which he specifies 
what he wants for the operation in Kosovo.
  That is perfectly logical, and I defend the product of the committee. 
It makes sense. It defines the proper policy and gives the Congress the 
role it ought to have.
  But here is the problem with the Skelton language. The Skelton 
language would delete subsection (a), taking away the prohibition, 
giving the President the ability to do what he wanted to do with those 
funds. But then it leaves Pyrrhic language which does not protect 
anyone. It says if the President wants to use those monies in 
Yugoslavia, in Kosovo, he can go ahead the minute he transmits a 
request for a supplemental appropriation.
  It does not say he has to get a supplemental appropriation, it does 
not say that Congress has to pass a supplemental appropriation. Indeed, 
any court reading the fact that this Congress had in the base bill 
subsection (a) saying the funds cannot be used and subsection (b) 
saying he must ask instead for a supplemental appropriation, and 
watching that on this floor we strip subsection (a), would read what we 
had left to say there is no prohibition. The President can do whatever 
he wants. He has a blank check.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important here for the 
Members to hear the language that is in the bill that the gentleman 
from Missouri seeks to strike. It says:

       Section 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.

  Now, the gentleman from Missouri wants to strike that language, and I 
think every Member of this House should want to strike that language. I 
am on the Committee on Appropriations. It is not easy to get a 
supplemental appropriations bill through the Congress, and it may take 
us extra time to do it. We have had supplementals that get stalled for 
weeks.
  I just think that to have an amendment like this that basically says 
we do not support either our troops in combat or our troops in 
peacekeeping is a mistake. But this one really bothers me.
  We should strike this out of here. We know we are going to have our 
Marines going into Kosovo to conduct a peacekeeping mission, and all 
the legislative strategists on the other side there may say, well, but 
we will get a supplemental that will then do it, but we really do not 
support it because we passed this amendment.
  Why do we not strike this thing out so it removes any ambiguity about 
our support for our troops in the field? That is what is wrong with 
this. It sends this mixed message that somehow we are not really for 
this and, therefore, we are going to come up with language that says we 
do not support either combat or peacekeeping.
  Now, I do not see why we have to have this in this. This war is over. 
The peace is about to be established, and I think the Skelton amendment 
should be passed overwhelmingly; should be accepted by the majority.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  First, I want to address my friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks). When 
the President asked for $6 billion within a supplemental for this 
operation, I wanted to give him $28.7 billion. We ended up, on this 
side of the aisle, giving the people in uniform, the people who count, 
$12 billion. We came up with twice as much for combat operations and 
for military accounts, for ammunition, for spare parts, for equipment 
than the President wanted. In fact, he complained he had too much.
  The gentleman knows what the problem is here. The problem is in the 
fiscal year 2000 budget the President did not come up with a doggone 
cent for this operation. Everything that we have got in that $280-some 
billion budget is designated for certain things, like ammunition, where 
we are extremely low. We are $13 billion low on ammunition; spare 
parts. We crashed 55 aircraft last year in peacetime operations. We 
have got 10,000 troops on food stamps. We are 18,000 sailors short in 
the Navy.
  The gentleman knows, as my good friend who works these issues with 
me, that we have a lot of deficiencies. And yet when the President came 
up with the budget, he did not put a dime toward Yugoslav operations.
  Now, what does that mean? It means he is going to reach into the cash 
register and he is going to take money out that was going to go for M-
16 bullets; it means he is going to reach into the cash register and 
take money out that would have gone for cruise missiles.
  Now, I have voted with the gentleman on every single one of the 
amendments that have come up with respect to supporting the air war. We 
have, on this side of the aisle, when it really counted, we have given 
the men and women in uniform twice what the President wanted in terms 
of money. All we want is the assurance that the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), I believe now has received from the President, where the 
President called up and said, Okay, I am going to come with a 
supplemental appropriation, I will not take money out of readiness 
accounts.
  And the gentleman knows as well as I do that we will have disserved 
the

[[Page 12469]]

men and women in uniform if we force them to continue to fly in unsafe 
aircraft. In many cases we have aircraft that are much older than they 
should, be; if we continue to make them go into conflict with 
inadequate munitions and all the other things, we are worried about the 
next war.
  So I would just agree with the gentleman that we need to spend money 
on supporting the troops. We want to make sure money is spent on 
supporting the troops.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
think we are aiming at the same destination.
  The problem is that should a supplemental be 1 day, 1 week, 1 month 
or whatever late, whatever flows from this bill cannot be spent. They 
would be without food, without ammunition, without uniforms, and it 
would make a laughing stock out of the Congress of the United States. 
We do not intend that.
  Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me make one 
statement, and then I will yield to my friend.
  I think the gentleman from Missouri would agree with me that we will 
have done a great service for the men and women in uniform if in fact 
the President says, Okay, on top of this year's appropriation and 
authorization for maintaining the military, I will come with extra 
money for the Yugoslav operation, for the peacekeeping operations, so 
we will not be dipping into ammunition accounts to fund that.
  Would the gentleman agree with me?
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that has been my intent all along. Now, the gentleman asked what the 
President told me a few minutes ago.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me take back my time for just a minute. 
I appreciate the gentleman's intent, he is my good friend from 
Missouri, but the President committing to do it is another step that 
goes beyond the gentleman's intent.
  If the gentleman from Missouri had his way, we would be spending an 
additional $20 billion in defense this year. If I had my way, and I 
think if most people on my side of the aisle had our way, we would be 
spending an additional $20 billion in defense this year. The commitment 
from the President to come with a supplemental is, I think, a very 
important thing.
  And I understand the gentleman now has a letter from the President 
that assures that?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield very briefly to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the point I am making, I would like to see 
us say, Mr. President, send up a supplemental to take care of the 
peacekeeping and the combat because we support the effort; not saying 
we do not support it, or no money shall be spent on it. It is not a 
positive way of dealing with the problem.
  Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman 
saw the results of the amendment that was just offered and saw the 
number of folks on both sides of the aisle who opposed the support of 
that amendment. I think that sends a message.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Skelton amendment, 
which would strike from this bill a dangerous Republican provision that 
bars the use of funds for operations in Yugoslavia after September 30 
of this year.
  I would ask my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle to please 
stop the political micromanagement of this conflict. We should be on 
this floor congratulating the President, giving support to our troops, 
and commending our negotiators and NATO for ethnic cleansing and 
genocide.
  This provision could not be more untimely than it is today. Just 
yesterday, Yugoslavian and NATO officials signed an agreement that 
requires a demonstrable withdrawal of Yugoslavian military forces from 
Kosovo by this afternoon and a complete withdrawal within 11 days. The 
agreement also requires an immediate cease-fire by Yugoslav forces and 
a suspension of NATO air strikes once the withdrawal of forces has 
begun. NATO officials are monitoring developments in Kosovo as we speak 
to ensure that Yugoslavia abides by its agreement.
  Stop undermining our troops and the President. Let us have all of us 
get together on this issue.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Skelton amendment, and let me just say I have my deep admiration for 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I am sure he is very 
sincere, but here we are, in the last minutes or last hours of this 
debate on such an important piece of legislation, and then at the last 
minute we get a call from the President of the United States saying a 
letter is on the way.
  The gentleman from Missouri does not even have the letter in his 
possession. We have seen letters from the President of the United 
States before. We have seen letters from this President that had so 
many holes in them they leaked like a spaghetti strainer, for Pete's 
sake. We do not know what kind of guarantee we have from the President.
  I am sure the gentleman from Missouri is sincere. I want to see 
exactly what the President has to say before we give him a blank check 
to spend billions of dollars out of readiness, putting our other people 
in jeopardy, to spend it down in the Balkans.
  The American people want us to be responsible and be very careful in 
our consideration of the lives of these people that are defending our 
country. I do not believe the President of the United States has 
demonstrated that same type of consideration, as he has sent our troops 
all over the world, stretched them so thin that our people are in 
jeopardy now.
  I say if the President is truthful, and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) does believe that his commitment is true, I would ask him 
to withdraw his amendment. It is not necessary. The gentleman's 
amendment is not necessary if the gentleman believes the President's 
word. If the President's word, if we trust the President's word that he 
is not going to spend it out of this bill and that he will come to us 
with a supplemental, the gentleman should withdraw his amendment. It is 
not necessary.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the 
amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton). I commend the gentleman for offering this amendment and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  We must stand behind our American troops who have spent the past 72 
days in harm's way.

                              {time}  1515

  Through their valiant actions and service, Mr. Milosevic has conceded 
to NATO's demands to withdraw Serb troops from Kosovo. While America 
celebrates this victory, our fighting men and women in Yugoslavia would 
be out of the resources and support that they need.
  They have served willingly and honorably, and we must ensure that 
they are able to carry out the peace plan and stabilize this vulnerable 
region. We must take our role as the defender of democracy seriously so 
that all citizens of the world are empowered to speak freely out 
against totalitarian regimes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, Ranking Member on the Armed 
Services Committee. This amendment would delete the provision currently 
in H.R. 1401 which would prohibit the use of any FY2000 funds for 
operations in Kosovo after September 30.
  I commend Mr. Skelton for offering this amendment and urge my 
colleagues to vote in

[[Page 12470]]

favor of it. We must stand behind our American troops who have spent 
the past 72 days in harm's way. Through their valiant actions and 
service, Mr. Milosevic has conceded to NATO's demands and announced 
that Serb troops will begin their withdrawal from Kosovo immediately.
  While America celebrates victory, our fighting men and women in 
Yugoslavia would be without the resources and support that they need. 
They have served willingly and honorably, and we must ensure that we 
are able to carry out the peace plan and stabilize this vulnerable 
region. The United States must stand firm at this point to ensure that 
the Albanians are able to return to Kosovo and to put America's 
strength behind the agreement with Milosevic.
  Besides supporting our troops, we must also be sure that we continue 
our humanitarian aid to this area. Over a million refugees are 
depending on assistance from several countries to survive the brutality 
inflicted upon them by the Kosovar military. Without shipments of food, 
clothing, and medical supplies, these refugees would be in even worse 
conditions than the squalor that currently pervades the camps they are 
living in. We must not desert these people.
  As the last ``superpower'' in the world, the United States must take 
its role as the defender of democracy seriously. We must not allow 
dictators like Milosevic to wipe out whole populations in order to 
``purify'' the areas they rule. We must demand that all citizens of the 
world are empowered and free to speak out against totalitarian regimes.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Missouri and support our troops.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, on April 28, when we were debating the 
resolutions regarding Kosovo, the President of the United States sent a 
letter to the floor of the House, and many represented that that letter 
meant he would obtain the approval of Congress before inserting ground 
troops. And then over the subsequent weeks we discovered he really did 
not mean it.
  In testimony by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State 
and their designees, they said, well, no, the President was not going 
to wait for a vote of approval by the House before sending in ground 
troops, if he felt ground troops were needed.
  The point is that the mission in Yugoslavia can change. So if we 
accept the Skelton amendment and the mission changes and we have to 
send ground troops in, hear me, my colleagues, the President will say 
that this vote gives him the authorization. He will do it. My 
colleagues know he will do it, because he said he could send in ground 
troops without getting a vote by Congress.
  What else can we do? I have tried in court. The Constitution gives 
Congress the right to declare war. But the court has said that a Member 
of Congress does not have standing. Even though the President carried 
on the war past the 60 days, in violation of the War Powers Resolution, 
we do not have standing to contest it.
  The restriction in the bill, that the Skelton Amendment would remove, 
is all we can do to assert our right in the constitutional scheme.


                Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential motion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
     the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the 
     enacting clause be stricken.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the Committee for not 
informing them ahead of time of this motion, but I made the motion in 
order to obtain the time to respond to some of the comments that I have 
just heard.
  I think if this institution is to regain an ounce of credibility in 
the way it has dealt with this entire issue of the war in Kosovo, it 
must pass the Skelton amendment.
  I simply do not understand what I have seen in this House in the last 
2 months on this issue. I have seen our good friends in the majority 
first vote against substituting a ground war for the air war that NATO 
is conducting. Then I have seen them vote against supporting the air 
actions that were being taken by our forces in the field.
  And then, in a double reverse that would make Barry Sanders proud, 
they voted to double the amount of money that they wanted to spend on 
the same war they said they did not want to see fought.
  I saw one member of the majority leadership in the other body stand 
up twice in meetings that we had with the President and tell the 
President that he was wrong to conduct military operations of any kind 
against Mr. Milosevic, and he even suggested that the United States was 
guilty of attacking a sovereign country.
  That same Senator, the day the peace accord was signed, then attacked 
the President because Mr. Milosevic was being allowed to stay in power 
under the agreement that was just signed. I guess that means he 
believes that new governments can be brought into being in Yugoslavia 
through immaculate conception. I do not quite understand how that is 
possible, but I guess some people think it is. That kind of double 
reverse is enough to give anybody watching, a bad case of whiplash.
  What is important here at this time is for the Congress not to make a 
negative statement about what is happening in Yugoslavia but to make a 
positive statement. Of all times, it is necessary for us to be unified 
if we are going to be in the strongest possible position to carry out 
our opportunity and our duties and our responsibilities because of the 
apparent ending of military action in Kosovo.
  It seems to me that the way that we can assert a positive position at 
this time is to eliminate the language that the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) is trying to eliminate and, on a bipartisan basis, see to 
it that the way we handle our forces in that area is consistent with 
our national interest and consistent with stabilizing that area so we 
do not have to go through this again.
  I urge support for the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HUNTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, does this side have an additional 5 minutes 
as a result of the request of the gentleman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The motion has been withdrawn by unanimous consent.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise respectfully to oppose the Skelton 
amendment.
  NATO has achieved a victory, but it is really not a victory. It is a 
cessation of war, a cessation for now. The war is stopped not because 
of bombing but because Congress did not give wholesale authorization to 
the war.
  It is important that Congress maintain its constitutional duty to 
reign the administration's war policies through not providing a blanket 
authorization past September 30, which the Skelton amendment would 
affect.
  The agreement that was passed involving the war does not involve the 
KLA, and the fact that it does not involve the KLA ought to give pause 
to Members of this Congress, because the KLA's goal is still an 
independent Kosovo. We could end up in a situation where our young men 
and women whom we all support would be in a circular firing squad with 
KLA members being arrested and Serb units trying to get back into the 
province.
  A vote against the Skelton amendment would be a vote to support the 
troops. The only way that we are going to have peace in the end is to 
make sure that there continues to be congressional oversight. Let us 
not give that up.

[[Page 12471]]


  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of 
the Skelton amendment.
  I would remind the Members of this body when President Bush stood up 
to another thug in the person of Saddam Hussein, every Member of the 
Republican leadership voted to give maximum executive authority to 
enable President Bush to act as Commander in Chief regardless of the 
War Powers Act.
  Then after the vote was taken on which the Democrats were divided, we 
requested another vote; and we voted nearly unanimously to give maximum 
authority to President Bush to act as Commander in Chief. And on every 
single subsequent vote, it was nearly unanimous that this entire House 
voted to support the President. But now the Republican majority wants 
to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
  We have prevailed in this war. We have a more resolute, a stronger 
NATO. We have worked in coordination with 19 nations. We have achieved 
something nearly miraculous. We have not lost one soldier, sailor, or 
airman to enemy fire. We have shown that we can wage an air war alone 
and be successful. We have won.
  Let us sustain this victory. Let the President act responsibly with 
the advice of the military and not politically with the advice of the 
Republican majority of this Congress who are absolutely and 
irresponsibly wrong on this issue. Support the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 30 seconds remaining.
  Let me just put the playing ground where it is right now. At this 
point, we have in this bill a provision that makes the President come 
to the Congress for a supplemental instead of taking Kosovo money out 
of ammunition accounts, out of spare parts accounts.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has advised us that the 
President has now made that commitment to us. I think that is something 
that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the chairman should 
take up shortly and discuss.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Objection, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, under the rule, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) did not have the right. That is the reason 
for the objection.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I express my appreciation to the chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in somewhat of a dilemma here regarding the 
Skelton amendment. If he were to suggest striking the language having 
to do in this proposal with section 106 relating to peacekeeping 
operations rather than the entire section, I would be in support of it. 
But as I was when we voted 213-213 back at the start of these 
activities in Yugoslavia, I continue to see no reason to be engaged in 
combat in Yugoslavia.
  I am ready, willing, and able to support peacekeeping operations 
there, but I must draw the line on combat. I am supporting not doing 
combat in Yugoslavia. I am supporting doing peacekeeping in Yugoslavia.
  If the gentleman would be so kind as to amend his request to only 
strike the combat portion so that, and I do not know the technical 
details, but if we would be allowed to do peacekeeping, I would be in 
support accordingly.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I think it is moot because the combat is 
over. That is in the past. Peacekeeping is the only thing in front of 
us. And I appreciate his support for that position.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
have great admiration for the gentleman from Missouri. My concern is 
that combat is just beginning.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think that the gentleman from Missouri has a very valid and sincere 
concern when he offers this amendment. But I, too, must oppose it and 
am opposing it because I still do not feel comfortable the way this 
administration has handled this aggressive NATO action.
  NATO, as we know, is a defensive alliance and has been using an 
aggressive posture in Kosovo. For 78 days we have bombed the heck out 
of a country which is the size of Kentucky. We have 855,000 refugees 
that have left the border that have to be brought back, 500,000 within 
the borders. These people will be returning home within a month, but to 
homes that are not there, on roads that they cannot drive on, to jobs 
that no longer exist because the businesses have been blown up.
  Ten thousand people have been killed. And what is worse, we have not 
gotten rid of Milosevic. I do not feel comfortable the way this 
administration has handled this.
  Now, I like the idea that the administration will have to come back 
to Congress and ask us for additional funding or ask us for one thing 
or the other. It seems to be the only thing that attempts to keep this 
administration in check. We do not have international unity. We do not 
have national unity. We do not have the central question answered, 
which is, why are we in Kosovo to begin with?

                              {time}  1530

  To say that these 50,000, quote, peacekeeping forces are going to be 
in there only keeping peace is ridiculous. What happens when the people 
do not want to give up their guns and their ammunition? We know that we 
are going to be right back in a warlike posture.
  I think, that being the case, it is very important that the 
administration continues to stay close to the Committee on Armed 
Services, to the Members of Congress, and to be accountable to us of 
what more money they want and what they want to spend and so forth. I 
am rising in opposition of the gentleman from Missouri's amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I have been hearing a lot of talk today on 
this amendment and on other amendments about cutting funds. I would 
like to remind this body that we are talking about funds in the fiscal 
year 2000 budget. No funds have been requested in the fiscal year 2000 
budget for Kosovo. You cannot cut what you have not requested for. I 
think that is a big misunderstanding on the part of some people on the 
other side. I repeat, for clarity, you cannot cut what you have not 
already asked for in next year's budget. This is next year's budget.


               Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hunter moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
     the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
     enacting clause be stricken out.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, is that motion renewable at 
this time?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is in order. The last motion of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was withdrawn by unanimous consent.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. SPENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of negotiating a settlement of 
this matter. In the meantime, I would like to take this additional time 
to explain what we have before us today.
  As I said a few moments ago, this budget that we have before us that 
we

[[Page 12472]]

are considering is for the year 2000. There are no funds requested by 
the President for 2000 for Kosovo in this budget.
  We have recently, as my colleagues remember, passed a supplemental 
for Kosovo that took us up to the end of this fiscal year. You cannot 
do it for the next fiscal year.
  We have had over a number of years now similar provisions to this one 
in our defense authorization bills. These provisions simply say that if 
any contingencies arise which are unbudgeted for, that the President 
should come before the committee and ask for funding for that. In the 
year that we are in right now, this fiscal year, that is what happened.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would 
just point out that I think there is a problem, because it could well 
be that the Committee on Appropriations would appropriate money for the 
Kosovo peacekeeping, for this operation. If you have not authorized it, 
it would be subject to a point of order on the floor of the House. So 
the lack of authorization would have an impact.
  Mr. SPENCE. The problem is, getting back to the point I was making, 
that the funds were not requested for. This provision is nothing new. 
It has been in other bills before now. Nothing unforeseen has happened 
because of them. As a matter of fact, as I just stated, the President 
came to us for a supplemental for funds up until the end of this fiscal 
year, it was passed and things keep on going. I suspect the same thing 
is going to happen again. This provision was put in the bill just like 
it has in the ones before, thinking no problem would arise because of 
it, and then this came up.
  Now, we are in the position where we have to assume that the 
President is going to come back to us, as a matter of fact, he has said 
so before, that he will come to us with an additional request for funds 
for Kosovo for the year 2000, and that is where we are today. Nothing 
has changed. This provision in the law, as I said, is in the law right 
now and it is just repeating it again.
  I will say something else again. The people here today in this body 
who are arguing on the other side of this issue have voted for this 
provision in other bills. As a matter of fact, they have voted for this 
provision in the context of a bill that we reported out of the 
Committee on Armed Services by a vote of 55-1. This issue came up in 
our committee, we voted on it, it was disposed of, and then when we 
voted a bill out of committee, those members by a vote of 55-1 voted 
for the bill with this provision in it. So we have the unconscionable 
position some people are taking today of opposing something they have 
already themselves voted for. I am just trying to explain why we have 
this provision in the bill and why nothing is wrong with it. People are 
trying to make it out as a cutting off of funds when you cannot cut off 
funds that have not even been requested for and are not provided for in 
next year's budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
has expired.
  Does the gentleman from California seek withdrawal of his motion?
  Mr. HUNTER. No, Mr. Chairman; I would be happy to have the other side 
proceed.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, my first question is how much time is left 
under the regular order for debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri controls 2 minutes. There 
is no time left on the opposition.
  Mr. SKELTON. My second question is, do I have 5 minutes in opposition 
to the gentleman's request?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman controls 5 minutes in opposition to the 
gentleman from California's motion.
  Mr. SKELTON. Then I so claim.
  My third inquiry is, would I be entitled to an additional 5 minutes 
should I seek to strike the last word at a later moment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the point I was trying to make, and I would 
like to hear the gentleman from South Carolina respond to it, if in 
fact the Committee on Appropriations appropriated money for Kosovo, 
that money would be subjected on the floor of the House, according to 
the Parliamentarian, to a point of order because it would lack 
authorization. So to say that this does not have any impact I believe 
is incorrect. And in fact our committee has put money in the 
appropriations bills for various peacekeeping operations before, so 
that it would not be taken out of readiness, which is the same thing 
that the gentleman from South Carolina wants to do.
  I understand that good people here can have a differing view of this, 
and I certainly respect the gentleman's perspective on this. But I do 
believe that this amendment, if it is enacted, anybody in this House 
could stand up on the floor unless a rule were enacted and object on a 
point of order and the money in the appropriations bill would be 
stricken.
  So I do not think we should take that risk. I think we should vote 
for the Skelton amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SKELTON. The 1 minute that was just eaten up came out of the 5 
minutes in opposition to the gentleman from California's motion, is 
that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time was consumed on the motion of the gentleman 
from California. The time was consumed by the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. So I have 4 minutes left of that 5 minutes, am I 
correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I just wanted to note to my friend that we had one speaker who did 
not have an opportunity to speak because of the oversight of this side, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and I would ask the gentleman's 
indulgence to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the generous 
concession. As I look at this, both sides are right. You obviously are 
correct in that this is a terrible time to pull the plug on the 
operations over in Kosovo when we are on the verge of solving the most 
volatile part of that entire operation, and this is not the time to 
give signals of uncertainty as to where we stand or what abilities our 
commanders will have in the field.
  On the other hand, they are perfectly correct over here in saying why 
are you not paying for this, why are you divesting and draining quality 
of life accounts, modernization accounts, ammunition accounts, 
readiness accounts. You are doing no favor to the cause of 
international stability by weakening and debilitating the rest of the 
military to pay for something going on in Kosovo.
  Now, that ought to be resolved and should be resolved. We really 
should not be at loggerheads here. You are right and you are right. I 
just do not see why you cannot get together and have the administration 
ask for the money to pay for Kosovo and not keep draining the readiness 
accounts.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention to my friend from 
Illinois that the time for the President to make such a supplemental is 
hardly here. Number one, we have not even passed this bill. Number two, 
peace just broke out yesterday. I fully believe, based on my 
conversation with the President, that he is going to ask for a 
supplemental for peacekeeping in

[[Page 12473]]

Kosovo in a very timely manner. I am convinced of it. He said so to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises the gentleman from Missouri that he 
has 1 minute remaining on his time in opposition to the motion of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). That is the matter on which the 
Chair is dealing at this time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SKELTON. I have 1 minute in opposition to the motion made by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), I have 2 minutes in regular 
time, and should I seek additional time on a striking of the last word, 
I would have 5 minutes there?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. However, the Chair will need 
to have a disposition of the gentleman from California's motion as soon 
as this 1 minute is complete.
  Mr. SKELTON. I understand that.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman from Missouri's 
amendment which would delete the language that would prohibit funding 
military operations, be they offensive or defensive, in Yugoslavia.
  In the tradition of the home State of the gentleman from Missouri, it 
is time that the United States show the world and Slobodan Milosevic 
that we as a Nation of peacekeeping people are committed to ensuring 
peace in Kosovo by continuing to fund the military operations in this 
region of the world.
  Congress must support this important amendment. Now is not the time 
to blink. To cut off military funding in Yugoslavia during this initial 
stage of Serb troop withdrawals is not only bad policy for Kosovo but 
also for America and for the world. Support this amendment. Our Nation 
must show the world that we follow through on our promises to ensure 
peace in Kosovo now and for the future.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw this preferential motion?
  Mr. HUNTER. No, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Then the question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skelton 
amendment.
  I have seen the refugee camps in Albania, the refugee camps in 
Macedonia. They are unlike anything I have ever seen, and I cannot do 
an adequate job of recounting to my colleagues the horror that the 
ethnic Albanians have been through.
  I do want to quote to my colleagues from a letter written to the 
President from Elie Weisel, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and himself a 
Holocaust survivor, in terms of his observations as he visited the 
camps on behalf of President Clinton.

       What I saw and heard there was often unbearable to the 
     survivor that still lives in my memory. In fact, I never 
     thought I would hear such tales of cruelty again. Now I must 
     share them with you in this brief report, which began in 
     anguish and ended in qualified, vacillating hope. While I sat 
     in my last session with the former prisoners of Milosevic's 
     police, the Yugoslav parliament approved NATO's conditions 
     for surrender.

  Mr. Chairman, we know much has happened since then to advance that 
fragile hope for peace. Milosevic agreed to the terms, the G-8 agreed 
to the terms, U.N. language, U.N. Security Council language, was 
negotiated and agreed to across the G-8.
  We know in the negotiation with the Serbian generals they had nothing 
but trouble. The generals tried to renege, more bombs were dropped, 
more Serbs were killed. Ultimately, the generals reconsidered and are 
back on the agreement.
  The only doubt raised this afternoon on this peace is raised on the 
floor of this House, and that is an incredible thing. Across this 19-
nation alliance, engaged in trying to address these horrors, this 
House, the People's House of the United States of America, would raise 
a doubt about our commitment to see this peace treaty go forward.
  Support the Skelton amendment. Without passage of this amendment, we 
leave open the question, come October 1, whether the United States will 
continue to provide the vital leadership in bringing this matter to an 
end.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
has expired.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, it seems like this 
provision in this bill has become like a piece of Super Glue we are all 
trying to shake off our hand and just cannot quite figure out how to do 
it.
  With regard to what the chairman of the committee talked about, the 
55 to 1 vote, being one of the 55, I thought we had some assurances 
during that fairly painful discussion that there would be work on this 
language. We are all trying to figure out a way to get around it, and 
in fact, the original rule that came to the House floor had a self-
executing provision, the majority's rule, to get rid of this language, 
and the rule was defeated, I believe, or did not have the support only 
because of some other extraneous problems depending on some amendments 
that did not get on the floor under that rule.
  So, I mean, this thing has been a problem from the very beginning, 
and I would hope that we could take care of it today.
  As my colleagues know, after we had that 55-to-1 vote, we were all 
very proud of this bill, and what was the headline in the paper? 
``House Votes to Cut Off Funds for Kosovo.''
  That is what will happen again if this bill passes today.
  I woke up this morning excited about all the work we put in this bill 
and finishing it and heard a radio report that the House will vote 
today on cutting off funds for Kosovo. That is the way this provision 
is going to be interpreted if we do not strike it, and I fear that we 
have got ourselves into an anti-commander-in-chief feeling, meaning 
anti-Bill-Clinton feeling in our partisan divide. I believe that is 
unfortunate.
  I hope that we will vote for the amendment of the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and put out the good authorization bill we have.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, a number of years ago the famous author 
Barbara Tuchman wrote a book, ``March of Folly,'' wherein she set forth 
a good number of examples where governments made actions and decisions 
contrary to their own best interests. It is my intent today to keep 
that from happening.
  We in this Congress, this great deliberative body in which I am 
thrilled to be a Member, we should not, number one, send a signal not 
just our troops, but to the world, that we wish to cut off funds, but 
we should not gamble with this matter at all.
  I fully intend to seek the President's offering of a supplemental to 
us. He told me he would. He also told me he would do it in a timely 
fashion. I certainly hope that comes to pass. Even if he does, it is a 
very timely request for a supplemental.
  What happens if there is a long holiday or it gets hung up in the 
Senate, or there is a disagreement over putting another supplemental 
together with it? What happens if we run out of time on September 30? 
Congress will be the laughing stock of the world, and we would all have 
very embarrassed faces.
  We do not want that to happen. We do not want that to happen at all.
  So, with that in mind, I would certainly hope that my amendment would 
be adopted, that we can get on with our business. And, Mr. Chairman, 
the sad problem is, the real sad analogy is that this is a great bill, 
the best one I have seen, the best one I have seen since early 1980s. 
It really helps the young people in uniform. And to mess it up with an 
issue like this, sending wrong signals, and as a practical legal 
matter, we would have young men and young women doing peacekeeping; if 
a supplemental gets hung up for 2 weeks, we cannot feed them, we cannot 
clothe

[[Page 12474]]

them, we cannot give them ammunition.
  That would be a terrible reflection upon this wonderful deliberative 
body.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson).
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, the good news is 
that the rest of the world is figuring out this institution is not on 
the level. When we had the earlier votes, somebody said it better than 
I can, we voted not to go backwards, not to go forward and not to do 
what we were doing.
  Now we are in the process of implementing what I think is a broad-
based goal of the American people and the Congress, stopping the 
killing of the Kosovar Albanians, getting them back in their homes, and 
we are in this dance. I am not sure what we do here has the meaning or 
the impact because of the irresponsible nature of these actions.
  If we compare what the opposition in this Congress did during the 
Gulf War, once that initial vote was taken, the Democratic side of the 
aisle stood with the President every step of the way. One would get the 
sense here that every opportunity, there is an attempt to undermine a 
policy simply because it is successful.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Taylor and 
Skelton amendments. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
will refrain from offering amendments aimed at undermining the hard-won 
peace agreement in support of human rights and basic human dignity in 
Kosovo.
  In bases across the United States and Europe, our men and women in 
uniform can be proud of the role they played in bringing peace and 
security to a suffering people. Their dedication and commitment not 
only ended the campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Kosovar 
Albanian people, but also reshaped the social and political landscape 
of Europe.
  While only time will reveal the future of Kosovo, of the Balkans and 
of Europe as a whole, we do know this campaign marks a turning point in 
U.S.-European affairs.
  Surely, there is a great deal left to be done in Kosovo. The most 
complicated, and perhaps the most dangerous, tasks still remain: 
ensuring the security of returning refugees, disarming the KLA, 
cleaning landmines and booby-traps set by Serbian troops, prosecuting 
war criminals who committed unspeakable acts against defenseless 
civilians, providing a framework to allow the Kosovar people--of all 
ethnicities--to govern themselves, and rebuilding the infrastructure 
and economies of the region. I believe the nations of Euripe will and 
should bear the greatest responsibility for achieving these objectives, 
but the United States will also play an important role. Once again, we 
shall ask much of our service men and women; and once again, I know 
they will carry out their duties with honor and distinction.
  Celebration is not appropriate as we reflect on this hard-won peace. 
The horrors inflicted on the Kosovar people over the past months are 
too painful. The destruction of their homes, livelihoods and security 
will haunt the future. The tasks ahead of us are sobering. It is a 
moment to remember and honor their sacrifices. And most especially, to 
honor and to express our appreciation for the members of the U.S. Armed 
Forces and our NATO allies whose efforts demonstrated to the world 
community that the words ``Never Again'' are more than hollow rhetoric.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
Representative Skelton's amendment. This amendment will strike the 
prohibition on the use of funds for operations in Yugoslavia.
  The prohibition currently contained in H.R. 1401 requires that the 
administration submit supplemental budget in the event military 
operations continue into FY 2000. This statutory prohibition preventing 
the President from using funds contained in the FY 2000 defense 
authorization sends the wrong message to the Yugoslavian President 
Slobodan Milosevic. As negotiations continue to proceed towards a 
settlement, this body should resist the temptation to remove another 
bargaining chip from the peace table. Our sustained bombing of the 
Yugoslavian army and police units has began to take a toll. When we are 
so close to helping NATO achieve its objectives we should not relent. 
The bill as currently written will only encourage Milosevic to hold out 
against the terms of NATO.
  This provision sends the wrong message to friend and foe alike. When 
we have stood by our NATO partners in this conflict or restore peace to 
the Balkans we should not now turn our collective backs on our 
partners. It should be clear that America still has a significant role 
in the security of Europe. Our NATO partners look at the United States 
for leadership and direction.
  I believe that our leadership through this current crisis has brought 
Milosevic to the table of peace. When I visited the refugee camps last 
month in Albania, I had the chance to ask many of the ethnic 
Alabanians, if they thought NATO's actions where to blame for their 
situation. Mr. Chairman, to a person they all agreed that the 
responsibility for this crisis rests squarely at the feet of Milosevic. 
The Kosovar refugees are depending on the U.S. and NATO to fulfill 
their commitment of returning them safely to their homes. This body 
cannot relent from our mission of peace and must ensure that Milosevic 
pays a heavy price for his present policy of repression.
  Every time that Congress says it will not fund this or that our 
troops should be out of the region by this date, we only embolden the 
forces of Milosevic. Our message should be singular in nature, 
committed to restoring peace in the Balkans. This provision establishes 
a fiscally driven date with no consideration of operational or 
diplomatic concerns. It sends a message to Milosevic that he need only 
to hold on for a few more months before funding for U.S. participation 
in the NATO air campaign or a peacekeeping mission is thrown into 
question.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, if this provision remains in the bill, the 
President has promised to veto this bill. This promised veto would come 
because of the negative effect on this provision on our troops, on the 
refugees to whom we have made commitments, and on the alliance which 
has provided security in Europe for fifty years.
  I ask the members of this body to vote--``yes'' on the Skelton 
Amendment, which demonstrates strong support for our national security.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, 
and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Chair understands that Amendment No. 20 will not be offered.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 21 printed in Part A of 
House Report 106-175.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Shays

  Mr. SHAYS. 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. 21, offered by Mr. Shays:
       At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1206. REDUCTION AND CODIFICATION OF NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF 
                   THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED TO BE ON PERMANENT 
                   DUTY ASHORE IN EUROPEAN MEMBER NATIONS OF NATO.

       (a) In General.--(1) Section 123b of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection (b):
       ``(b) European End-Strength Limitation.--(1) Within the 
     limitation prescribed by subsection (a), the strength level 
     of members of the armed forces assigned to permanent duty 
     ashore in European member nations of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization may not exceed approximately--
       ``(A) 100,000 at the end of fiscal year 1999;
       ``(B) 85,000 at the end of fiscal year 2000;
       ``(C) 55,000 at the end of fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(D) 25,000 at the end of fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter.
       ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the following members 
     are not counted:
       ``(A) Members assigned to permanent duty ashore in Iceland, 
     Greenland, and the Azores.
       ``(B) Members performing duties in Europe for more than 179 
     days under a military-to-military contact program under 
     section 168 of this title.
       ``(3) In carrying out the reductions required by paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary of Defense may not reduce personnel 
     assigned to the Sixth Fleet.''.'';
       (3) in subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Subsection 
     (b) does

[[Page 12475]]

     not apply in the event of declaration of war or an armed 
     attack on any member nation of the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization.''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by 
     striking ``The President may waive'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``The President may waive the operation of 
     subsection (a) or (b) if the President declares an emergency. 
     The President shall immediately notify Congress of any such 
     waiver.''.
       (b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 1002 of the Department of 
     Defense Authorization Act, 1985 (22 U.S.C. 1928 note), is 
     repealed.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before using my time, I want to just point out there 
are many cosponsors, and I would like to yield half of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) to give out as he chooses.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Upton), and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) are also 
cosponsors.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield half of my time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes and will be permitted 
to control that time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, to explain the amendment, first, this is a 
bipartisan amendment that is offered by Members from both the 
Republican and the Democrat side of the aisle and spans the ideological 
spectrum from liberal to moderate to most conservative member. It calls 
for a gradual decrease in the level of permanent stationed troops in 
Europe from 100,000 to 25,000, beginning with a troop reduction of 
15,000 by September 30 next year, and then 30,000 troops the year 
after, September 2001, and 30,000 the year 2002, bringing us to a total 
of 25,000.
  This amendment does not pull the rug out from under the Europeans, it 
does not reduce the overall U.S. troop levels, and it does not affect 
operations such as the operations in Bosnia or Kosovo. It simply says 
that we will have 25,000 troops instead of 100,000 and ask for our 
allies to pay more.
  In the past, we have had burdensharing amendments. And we have had 
burdensharing amendments because the Japanese pay $3.4 billion for the 
40,000 troops that we have in Japan. The Europeans now pay for 100,000, 
less than $70 million, a gigantic difference, and yet those European 
nations are quite wealthy.
  The spending on military is a percent of our budget; we spend 17.4 
percent. The European NATO nations spend 5.6 percent, and it is 
interesting to note that the leaders of the 15 European countries 
decided last Thursday to make the European unit a military power for 
the first time in its 42-year history with command headquarters staff 
and force for its own peacekeeping and peacekeeping missions in future 
crisis like those in Kosovo and Bosnia.
  We are asking the Europeans to step up and pay more and do more, and 
we are asking that we be able to allocate our troops in a more 
efficient way and not spend so much of our money in Europe.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in no way unsympathetic with its purposes. I 
certainly hope that the opposition I will speak is a bipartisan 
opposition. I certainly do not oppose it, certainly for any partisan 
reasons; I oppose it because I think it is impractical and I think it 
is unnecessary. I think it is counterproductive to our national 
security interests.
  We do not deploy our forces in Europe to defend someone else; we put 
them there because of our national security interest and concerns.

                              {time}  1600

  It is an error to say that we have a permanent force of 100,000 
people there. We have a force that is as large as we choose it to be, 
as small as we choose it to be. We have no treaty obligation that 
commits us to a precise number of 100,000 or any other number. Those 
who are there are there because our military have determined it is in 
our national security interests for them to be there.
  With reference to the cost, I can tell you that with the authorized 
force levels of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and Marines, none of 
them have as much manpower authorized to them as they need to execute 
the missions being assigned to them, so you can bring every one of the 
100,000 home and you will not have reduced the number of people in the 
military by one.
  We are even in the very sad situation where we cannot even maintain 
the presently authorized end strength of the Army, Navy and Air Force 
because of problems in recruiting and in retention.
  We are not going to reduce the cost to the defense budget one iota by 
this amendment. In fact, we will increase it by this amendment because 
you will force us to bring more of the troops home, even though our 
military believes they are better in our national security interests to 
be there than to be back in the Continental United States. At least in 
NATO, the NATO investment security account, we participate in by 
something like 23 percent. The rest of it on these bases in Europe is 
absorbed by the Nato Security Investment Account. We are not paying for 
it at all. If they come back and are garrisoned in the United States 
where the military do not think they serve our national security 
interests as well, we will pay more, not less.
  So I do not understand, other than some sort of symbolism, what it is 
we are supposed to gain by reducing the number of our troops in Europe. 
If you want to argue there is not a fair burdensharing when we have had 
missions and deployments on the Continent of Europe, I am entirely in 
agreement with you. I do not think we should have had nearly the burden 
in Bosnia that we bore. I do not think we should have had the burden in 
Kosovo that we have borne. I think that was unfair and 
disproportionate.
  But this amendment is not about any of that and would have no bearing 
upon any of that. This amendment is simply saying to the United States 
Department of Defense, you are going to have an arbitrary ceiling that 
is set legislatively on how many people you deploy somewhere, 
notwithstanding your views as to what serves the national security 
interests of the United States, and which will have zero implications 
in terms of the defense budget of the United States.
  It is well intended, but ill-conceived. I hope it will be the 
pleasure of the House to defeat it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. In the 
last few years the Europeans have increased their social spending while 
steadily decreasing the defense spending. Why? Because they rely on us 
to pick up their costs and to defend them. Our friends in Europe can 
afford the cost of defending themselves, and I think it is about time 
that they did that.
  This amendment also has been criticized that maybe it will restrict 
our ability to put forces in Europe around the world if we need to in a 
timely fashion. This amendment does not remove our ability to respond 
to a worldwide European crisis. Under the current doctrine, we are able 
to leave the equipment there. As a matter of fact, currently we will 
have, with this amendment passing, we will have the ability to keep the 
equipment, tanks, three brigades' worth of equipment in Europe, which 
will mean that we will have the equipment there, and all we will have 
to do is send the men or the military in a short period of time. This 
amendment does not touch those reserve stocks. We are able to respond 
in

[[Page 12476]]

just a matter of hours because the equipment will be there. We are only 
removing the personnel.
  So with that, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. We 
are having a hard time getting burdensharing passed. This is one way 
for us to do it. This is one way for us to make the point that it is 
time that our European allies and European friends paid their fair 
share. This will force them to do that by paying for their own defense.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think we 
ought to take a hard look at some very serious issues regarding the 
defense of Europe and this amendment squarely focuses us on that.
  Along with my friends, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays; the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank; my colleagues from California, 
Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Bilbray; the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. 
Rivers; the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Sanders; the gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Foley; and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton; I am 
offering this common sense amendment to gradually reduce our forward 
military presence in Europe. Our goal is to decrease the number of 
troops in Europe from the current level of 100,000 to 25,000 between 
now and 2002.
  It's not a secret that the United States has been the primary 
defender of Europe for the better part of this century. After World War 
2 we adopted the Marshall Plan to help us defend our allies who were 
facing incredible economic times following six long years of war.
  In those days the mission was to defend our European allies from an 
invasion by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations. Mr. Chairman, as 
important as that mission was, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to 
figure out the Cold War has been over for a decade, yet, here we are 
continuing to subsidize Europe's defense. It just doesn't make sense 
that we should continue to do this.
  I want to stress this amendment will not reduce overall U.S. troop 
levels, nor will it preclude the United States from participating in 
military operations in Europe. However, it finally restores European 
responsibility for defending its own borders. While U.S. subsidies for 
Western Europe's defense made sense during the Cold War, these 
expenditures are no longer necessary.
  Is it any wonder that while Great Britain saw fit to decrease its 
government's defense spending from 24 percent to their GNP in 1951 to 
less than seven percent in 1997, it boosted social spending from 22 
percent to 53 percent during the same time period?
  The answer is a resounding NO. Our wealthy European allies--whose 
GNP-growth has actually outpaced our own economic growth--deliberately 
underfund their defense spending because they fully expect us to bear 
the costs of protecting them when they are fully capable of doing so 
themselves. It's time to let them do so.
  Why is it that we spend $100 billion more than all the other NATO 
nations combined when their GNP and population base is larger than 
ours? It just doesn't pass the common sense test. Not now. Not ever.
  I know there are some who may question whether this leaves us in a 
precarious situation as far as defending Europe is concerned. I want to 
be very clear about this. This amendment doesn't remove our ability to 
respond to world wide or European crises such as the current military 
operations in Yugoslavia. In fact, it enhances our ability by ensuring 
our forces remain mobile and prepared to respond to emergencies around 
the globe.
  This amendment doesn't effect our prepositioned War Reserve Stocks in 
Europe. Currently we have 3 Brigades' worth of equipment--tanks and 
mechanized infantry--assigned to Europe. The methodology of placing 10 
battalions' worth of equipment and material in strategic locations is 
sound. Our amendment doesn't affect these reserves. Those numbers do 
not change under this legislation. The equipment that is currently 
readily available to U.S. forces in the event of war or other emergency 
will continue to be readily available with this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks), in demonstration of the bipartisan support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think this would be a very 
major mistake on the part of our country to reduce by 75 percent our 
force structure in Europe.
  The reason we are in Europe is because it is in our national security 
interests to be in Europe. I believe the force structure we have there 
adds to stability in the area.
  I would like to mention a few reasons why the Department of Defense 
opposes this. The proposed legislation is contrary to current guidance 
articulated in the national security strategy and force level 
recommendations in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review. The 1997 
National Military Strategy states that current force structure and 
overseas presence posture are the minimum, minimum, force capabilities 
required to execute military responsibilities. Without detailed 
analysis of current and future requirements, it is impossible to 
determine if the existing force structure is adequate to accomplish our 
task. There is also a possibility that such a study may recommend force 
reductions based on changes in priorities and objectives.
  The current U.S. overseas presence posture in Europe serves a number 
of critical concerns. First of all, as I mentioned, is regional 
stability. As evidenced by operations in the Balkans, regional 
stability in Europe is not a given. Eastern Europe in particular may 
see an increase in the number of failed and failing states, rogue 
actors and non-state entities that will threaten European stability as 
a whole.
  U.S. forces serve as both a bulwark to existing security agreements 
and a deterrent to opportunistic aggression in the region. The 
credibility of this deterrent capability must be unquestioned in the 
eyes of those who would threaten our interests in the region: major 
U.S. staging areas, as we have seen in this operation, for EUCOM, 
CENTCOM, PACOM areas of responsibility. The proximity of U.S. forces to 
critical regions outside of Europe improves our capability to respond 
to crisis. The presence of U.S. forces in Europe serves to enhance 
deterrence and provide secure locations from which U.S. forces can 
operate in central Asia, southwest Asia, and south Asia.
  Just for example, I was in England at Fairford to see our B-52 pilots 
and our B-1B pilots and KC-135s operating out of that area. Now, you 
have got to have these four deployed bases and U.S. forces there in 
order to be able to move forces from the United States to a place like 
Fairford and then into the area of responsibility in Yugoslovia. The 
fact that we have these troops forward based, in my mind, is exactly 
the right thing to do, because they can train in the area of 
responsibility and they add stability to the area. So I think this is a 
very drastic amendment and it should be, as it always has been in the 
past, overwhelmingly defeated by this House.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following information paper for the 
Record.

                           Information Paper

       Subject: Amendment Number 16 by Representative Shays 
     mandates a phased reduction of European overseas presence 
     force structure from current levels by 75% at the end of 
     fiscal year 2002.
       DoD Position: Oppose.
       Proposed legislation is contrary to current guidance 
     articulated in the National Security Strategy and force level 
     recommendations in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review.
       The 1997 National Military Strategy states that current 
     force structure and overseas presence posture are the minimum 
     force capabilities required to execute military 
     responsibilities.
       Without detailed analysis of current and future 
     requirements, it is impossible to determine if the existing 
     force structure is adequate to accomplish our taskings. There 
     is also a possibility that such a study may recommend force 
     reductions based on changes in priorities and objectives.
       Talking Points: The current U.S. overseas presence posture 
     in Europe serves a number of critical concerns:
       Regional stability: As evidenced by operations in the 
     Balkans, regional stability in Europe is not a given. Eastern 
     Europe in particular may see an increase in the number of 
     failed and failing states, rogue actors, and non-state 
     entities that will threaten European stability as a whole. 
     U.S. forces serve as both a bulwark to existing security 
     agreements and a deterrent to opportunistic aggression in the 
     region. The credibility of this deterrent capability must be 
     unquestioned in the eyes of those who would threaten our 
     interests in the region.
       Major U.S. staging area for EUCOM, CENTCOM, and PACOM AORs. 
     The proximity of U.S. forces to critical regions outside of 
     Europe improves our capability to respond to crises. The 
     presence of U.S. forces in Europe serves to enhance 
     deterrence and

[[Page 12477]]

     provides secure locations from which U.S. forces can operate 
     in Central Asia, Southwest Asia, and South Asia.
       NATO Leadership and commitments. The stability of the NATO 
     alliance is a vital U.S. national interest as stated by both 
     the President and Secretary of Defense. The presence of 
     sizable U.S. forces in theater is a visible demonstration of 
     our commitment to NATO. The United States would abrogate its 
     leadership role and significantly reduce its influence on the 
     shape of European security were we to sizably reduce our 
     presence in Europe.
       Partnership for Peace. As with NATO, the U.S. plays a vital 
     leadership role in the Partnership for Peace (PfP). By 
     increasing transparency and mutual understanding among 
     Partners, PfP contributes immeasurably to stability in 
     Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Because U.S. forces based in 
     Europe routinely engage with Partner nations, they constitute 
     the vanguard of a larger effort to build confidence and 
     enhance security among PfP member nations.
       Reassurance to Europeans in the event of Russian resurgence 
     or instability. The future of Russia is uncertain. Economic 
     and political instability remain a critical concern to 
     European and U.S. security. A significant reduction in U.S. 
     forces in Europe could contribute to further instability on 
     the continent.
       Integrated regional approach (complementing other U.S. 
     elements of power). Military forces help to establish the 
     conditions of peace and security that enable the application 
     of other elements of power. We remain economically and 
     politically committed to Europe. A significant reduction of 
     our overseas presence would diminish our capacity to develop 
     and implement a comprehensive regional approach.
       Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). 
     The presence of U.S. forces overseas as a demonstrable 
     commitment of U.S. resolve and leadership bolsters the 
     effectiveness of international institutions like OSCE.
       Finally, allies in other regions may see a large reduction 
     of forces in Europe as a precursor of a more broad-scale 
     withdrawal and the beginnings of a more neo-isolationist U.S. 
     policy. This would serve to decrease our global influence and 
     may encourage aggression elsewhere.

  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, our colleague from Washington has it 
right, this is a drastic proposal. We have seen some burden-sharing 
amendments here in the past, but this is draconian. I am shocked by it.
  As a matter of fact, I chair the delegation to the NATO Parliamentary 
Assembly, and so I follow NATO issues carefully, as do many of my 
colleagues who are here involved in this debate. I think this proposed 
reduction over 3 fiscal years is simply bad national security policy.
  The U.S., as mentioned, is not in Europe to protect European 
interests, but to defend American national interests. Our borders are 
more secure because we kept the threat far from American shores through 
our worldwide forward-based military presence. The real threat to our 
interests is broad, such as the potential conflict in Korea or 
southwest Asia where U.S. vital interests lie.
  The U.S. recently completed a reduction in Europe of our troops from 
the 320,000 to 100,000 level. I would ask the question, is this really 
sufficient to protect American interests there? It probably is. But if 
you reduce it systematically to 25,000, the practical effect is we 
cannot have even one combat division in Europe under those numbers.
  Our vital security interests in Europe and globally have not been 
delineated since the end of the Cold War, but I think it is incumbent 
on us to understand what our interests are before we begin additionally 
modifying our force posture in Europe or anywhere else.
  Remember the core of U.S. forces in the Gulf War. They were deployed 
from Europe. Many more months and much more capital would have been 
required to deploy to the Gulf without those forward-based forces. 
Today we are using airfields in Turkey for operations in northern Iraq. 
Forward deployment based out of Europe enhances U.S. readiness to 
respond expeditiously, which can increase our potential for success.
  Even making a decision to reduce U.S. forces in Europe at this point, 
I think, would be premature. DOD is in the early stages of its European 
Posture Review. In it, DOD is evaluating options to reduce stress on 
U.S. forces in Europe. The impact of these changes in force numbers, 
types and equipment, I am told is quite seriously being examined. 
Included will be review of U.S. commitments to Kosovo. It is prudent to 
wait for the completion of this study, which will be grounded in 
empirical data and be subject to careful examination. Completion is 
expected in the next several months.
  In addition, over time, the European Union's new ESDI, European 
Security and Defense Initiative, has, I think, great potential to 
contribute meaningfully to Europe's defense and to allied burden-
sharing. But, let us face it, the gap in weapons technology is growing 
between our European and Canadian partners in NATO, rather than 
shrinking. At this point our force commitment is really needed in 
Europe.
  I urge defeat for this amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to just point out 
our amendment contains a conforming repeal of section 1002 of the 
Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1995. There at C(1) it says 
the end strength level of members of the Armed Forces of the United 
States assigned to permanent duty ashore in Europe member nations in 
NATO may not exceed a permanent ceiling of approximately 100,000 in any 
fiscal year. The number exists and we are amending that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment. Simply put, it reduces our troop strength in Europe from 
100,000 to 25,000 over a 3-year period. This makes a lot of sense, does 
it not? The Cold War is over. The threat that we tried to deter for 
such a long time, the Soviet Union, is no longer a threat. It is time 
for us to say to our troops, good job, come on home. It is not time to 
say let us find another way to spend money, let us find another way of 
using these troops.
  That is ridiculous. NATO was meant, and we carried a burden for 4 
decades, it costs us hundreds of billions of dollars, to protect 
Europe. Yes, the argument was correct, we were protecting ourselves, 
because there might have been a Soviet invasion. That has been handled 
now. Now it is time to decrease the number of troops in Europe so that 
we can spend that money elsewhere, whether it is in Social Security or 
Medicare, or whether it is for our readiness and troops someplace else 
in the world, like Asia, where there may be a threat to our national 
security.
  But we do not need to subsidize Europe's defense anymore. In fact, 
this is not subsidizing Europe's defense, we are subsidizing stability. 
Is that not great? If we do not reduce our troops in Europe, if we do 
not reevaluate our position in NATO, there will be many more Balkan 
adventures, whether it is Moldova or elsewhere, draining tens of 
billions of dollars, putting us in jeopardy because we will spend 
ourselves into a position where we are vulnerable to our real enemies 
and we will break our bank. We will just not be able to do it.
  Let us have no apologies. We have no apologies about watching out for 
America's interests, spending money for our defense. But this amendment 
makes it clear that the Cold War is over and it is a waste of our money 
to be defending Europe, spending billions of dollars putting troops in 
Europe to protect their stability. They are richer than we are. Let 
them pick up their own price tag.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding time to me.
  The current situation regarding U.S. troop presence in Europe is very 
strange, because many countries in Europe are now far wealthier than 
the United States and are more than able to defend themselves. They do 
not need us.
  In Europe, because their countries invest in health care, almost all 
Europeans have free or inexpensive health care. Yet in our country, 43 
million Americans lack health care. In Europe,

[[Page 12478]]

almost all young people are able to go to college free or very 
inexpensively. In our country, young people and their families are 
going deeply into debt.
  It seems to me absolutely appropriate that Europe provide more funds 
for their own defense. If they do that, maybe we can join them and 
provide health care to all of our people, and free and inexpensive 
college education to our young people.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Bateman), a member of our Committee on Armed Services, for 
yielding.
  Though I have the highest respect for the author of this amendment, 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and his underlying 
intentions, I am strongly opposed to this measure. I base my opposition 
on two concerns.
  First, I believe the notion that we would be reducing the burden of 
our Armed Forces to our taxpayers by agreeing to the amendment is based 
upon a false impression. We have invested significantly over the past 
50 years in our military infrastructure in Europe. It is this 
investment that is now paying dividends which allowed us, such as the 
air strikes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to utilize our bases 
in Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, and in other countries.
  It is also paying off in the NATO mission in Bosnia, where we were 
able to rotate in units from our Armed Forces in Germany and to protect 
them with air power based in Italy at a much lower cost than having 
them flown in from the United States, as we appear to be facing an 
imminent new NATO mission in Kosovo, and we will see our investment 
recouped there as well.
  The reductions in Armed Forces required by this amendment simply mean 
that we will have to forfeit our investment in infrastructure.
  The second basis for my concerns about this amendment arise from the 
implications in the message that sends, particularly to our newest 
allies in Central and Eastern Europe and those in that region that 
aspire to become our allies. We would forfeit our leadership within the 
North Atlantic Council and send a disturbing signal to our allies about 
the nature of our commitment to our common security requirements.
  Since the end of the Cold War, we have already reduced our troop 
levels by over two-thirds, from more than 300,000 to just over 100,000. 
While that sizeable reduction is warranted, the drastic cuts called for 
in this amendment are not.
  I most of all would like to emphasize to my colleagues that our Armed 
Forces are not in Europe because they serve Europe's interest, but 
because they serve our Nation's interest. So I urge my colleagues to 
vote no on this amendment and preserve our Nation's vital role in 
Europe.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia a member of our 
Armed Services Committee, Mr. Bateman, for yielding. Although I have 
the highest respect for the author of this amendment, Mr. Shays, and 
his intentions, I am strongly opposed to this measure.
  I base my opposition on two concerns. First I believe that the notion 
that we would be reducing the burden to our armed services and to our 
taxpayers by agreeing to this amendment is based upon a false 
impression. We have invested significantly over the past fifty years in 
our military infrastructure in Europe.
  It is this investment that is now paying off which allows NATO air 
strikes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia utilizing our bases in 
Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom and in other countries. It also was 
paying off in the NATO mission in Bosnia where we are able to rotate in 
units from our armed forces in Germany and protect them with air power 
based in Italy at a much lower cost than having to fly them in from the 
United States. As we appear to be facing an imminent new NATO mission 
in Kosovo, we will see our investment recouped there as well.
  We not only face missions in Europe that our forward deployments 
there make easier. We have our on-going effort in the Persian Gulf for 
which we rely on the air base we share with Turkey, and in recent years 
we have been called upon to respond to humanitarian emergencies in 
Africa.
  The reductions in armed forces required by this amendment simply mean 
that we will have to forfeit our investment in infrastructure.
  The second basis for my concerns about this amendment arises from the 
implications of the message it sends, particularly to our newest allies 
in central and eastern Europe and those from that region that aspire to 
become our allies.
  We would forfeit our leadership within the North Atlantic Council, 
and send a disturbing signal to our allies about the nature of our 
commitment of our common security requirements. Since the end of the 
Cold War we have already reduced our troop levels by two-thirds--from 
more than 300,000 to just over 100,000. While this sizeable reduction 
was warranted, the drastic cuts called for in this amendment are not.
  I most of all would like to emphasize to this House that our armed 
forces are not in Europe because they serve Europe's interest, but 
because they serve the United States' interests. I urge my colleagues 
to vote no on this amendment and preserve the U.S. vital role in 
Europe.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia said that he agrees that 
the Europeans are not doing enough on the ground. There is virtual 
unanimous agreement here that it is an inappropriate strain on the 
American taxpayer and the American defense establishment for us to be 
providing the ground troops that will have to be contributed from 
America in Kosovo and Bosnia. We are told time and again we should not 
have to do it, but the Europeans are not capable without us.
  There is only one way we will reach a situation where the Europeans 
are able to provide the ground troops for European activity. That is by 
beginning a 3-year process. This begins a 3-year process of a drawdown 
in American troops. At the end of the first year, we will still have 
85,000 there. Then we will go down to 60,000, then to 25,000.
  The fact is that the remaining lavish welfare program in the world is 
the one by which American taxpayers allow our European allies not to 
bear a fair share of the burden. Members say, oh, we wish the Europeans 
would do it. We can wish and we can wish and we can wish, and it is not 
going to happen. It will happen when we bring down our troops.
  By the way, this amendment leaves the Sixth Fleet in place. We are 
not abandoning Europe. Members say, well, we need the forward bases. 
Are they telling us that if we leave the Sixth Fleet and 25,000 troops, 
our European allies will deny us access to these bases? They will not 
deny us access to these bases, although there have been times in the 
past, particularly when the Middle East was involved, when they have 
restricted our use of those bases.
  We are not talking about shutting down the bases, necessarily, 
although I must say, when it comes to shutting down bases, I do not 
understand why this Congress should always be willing to shut bases in 
America and never shut bases overseas.
  The gentleman says, what about the spending? It is also, by the way, 
one of our major foreign aid programs. I am for more foreign assistance 
to the poor, but substantial foreign assistance in the billions and 
billions of dollars to Europe, to Germany, and Italy, does not make 
sense.
  As to whether or not it saves defense money, we are not here reducing 
overall strength. But if they are not pinned down there, if there is 
more flexibility, and in particular, if this leads the Europeans to 
have the ground troops, then we could at the end of this period perhaps 
reduce our troops.
  Is there a Member of the House who thinks it is legitimate that the 
United States, that has all the burden in South Korea, most of the 
burden in the Middle East, that did most of the air war in Kosovo, that 
we should also have to have thousands of American peacekeeping troops, 
at the cost of billions, in Bosnia and Kosovo?
  If Members vote down this amendment, then please do not, in the 
future, lament the fact that American ground troops were necessary as 
part of the peacekeeping forces in Kosovo and Bosnia, because as long 
as we make the

[[Page 12479]]

Europeans this gift of welfare, they will never have the capacity.
  Let us do a little capacity-building. Let us follow the principles we 
have tried in some parts of welfare reform. Let us tell the Europeans 
that within 3 years, they are going to be on their own and we will stop 
enabling them not to do their own job.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San 
Diego, California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I 
would like to echo, for once I would like to echo the position of my 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank): Let us not be 
enablers. We are enabling Europe not to bear their fair share of the 
responsibility of defending their neighborhood.
  The United States has restructured our presence all over the world, 
but explain to the people of America, where we are going have 100,000 
troops in Europe to defend Europe, but we are now not going to have any 
troops in the Panama Canal Zone; that the Western Hemisphere is somehow 
not quite as important as Europe.
  We have gone through changes. I will remind my colleagues, we have 
gotten out of the Philippines, we have pulled out of places all over 
the world where we have found now we need to restructure.
  We went into Europe with NATO with a plan of defending Europe and to 
keep NATO from being overrun within a week. I ask my colleagues, who is 
planning to overrun Europe within a week? Who can constitute the threat 
to justify the American presence? In fact, it is not there.
  The most important issue is this: We continue to subsidize the 
European community at the price of American taxpayers. We not only have 
a right, we have a responsibility to expect our allies to tow their 
fair share. Being an ally does not mean how many troops we put on their 
soil. Australia is a major ally of this country. There are 300 U.S. 
troops in Australia. Does that make them less of an ally than Europe? 
Let us use that as an example: Fair share. Help Europe do the right 
thing and defend themselves on their soil, and use us as an aid, but 
not a crutch.
  Mr. BATEMAN. 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, this is a very popular issue. We have had this issue 
before, of course, in the name of burdensharing. But I want to remind 
my colleagues, this is not a goal, this is the real thing. In 
burdensharing we had a goal.
  I listed a number of points here that hopefully will convince most of 
the people that this is a bad deal.
  Number one, the force level we have now is a minimum requirement, 
according to the current national security strategy, which is the QDR.
  Number two, the Secretary of Defense right now is conducting a 
European posture review to re-evaluate force requirements in Europe.
  Number three, the presence of U.S. forces helps Europe to preserve 
regional stability and recover from instability.
  Number four, there is no substitute for being there. Europe is a 
major staging area for surrounding regions.
  Number five, the presence of sizeable U.S. forces in theater is a 
visible demonstration of our commitment to NATO.
  Number six, U.S. forces in Europe play a vital role in rebuilding 
Eastern Europe through a partnership for peace.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say this, the troops that we have in Europe 
are there for our convenience, not the Europeans' convenience, with 
stability and other things, and the ability to go from Europe to 
anyplace, along with families who travel with our troops. I would 
remind this body that we reduced from about 350,000 troops in 5 years 
to 100,000, and we should never forget that.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask this body, please vote no on this 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our 
time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I 
want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), for their 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I took this well back in 1991 on this very bill and I 
offered an amendment, and did not tell anybody I was going to do it, 
did not tell our leadership, I did not tell anybody on this side of the 
aisle. I certainly did not tell the Japanese government.
  I offered an amendment on burdensharing. We had 50,000 troops 
stationed in Japan at that time. We were paying 75 percent of the cost 
for those troops to be there, defending basically Japanese interests, 
and our interests as well, but the Japanese interests, in addition to 
that. That seemed to me to be an unfair ratio.
  I offered an amendment to change that ratio or to bring American 
troops home. Within 3 months, and by the way, that passed on the floor 
350 to 50, something like that, it passed in the Senate and the 
President signed it into law. Three months later, Secretary Baker 
signed an agreement with the Japanese to pick up 50 percent of the 
cost. Now we are moving closer to the 75-25 reversal in sharing of 
those costs of American troops in Japan.
  We need to do the same thing in Europe. This amendment will help us 
get there. This amendment will help our European allies continue to 
meet their responsibilities within Europe. They have begun to, after a 
shaky start in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in a very positive way throughout 
this process that we have just gone through with NATO in the Balkans, 
in Kosovo, in Southeastern Europe. They need to pick up the financial 
burden, as well.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to continue where the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior) ended and to say that what he did and because of 
what the Members did supporting him, we now get $3.6 billion in cash 
from the Japanese. When we started these burdensharing amendments a few 
years ago, the Europeans were paying $300 million for over 100,000 
troops.

                              {time}  1630

  Now, they dropped down to $200 million, and now the latest number is 
$66 million. They are getting the message from us. We are fools. Yes, 
we are fools. They are just going to keep asking us to pay more.
  I am sure our troops in Europe are there for our convenience and 
because we want them there, but they are there because the law says 
that we have to be up to 100,000. We want to move it to up to 25,000 
over 3 years.
  We want the European nations, which are as wealthy as we are, to 
defend themselves. We do not need 100,000 troops to defend from a 
Soviet attack. It is just not there. This has to someday be added, and 
the sooner we do it, the better.
  Our military is not as strong as it should be because we are 
oversubscribed in weapons systems. Our military is not as strong as it 
should be because our allies are not paying their fair share. Our 
military is not as strong as it should be because we have too many 
bases at home and abroad. We had better cut them in order to survive as 
the nation of power.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that there is a world of 
difference between not exceeding which is a floor, not a ceiling. I 
would further remind my colleagues that everything they have heard on 
behalf of this bill or this amendment is really not going to accomplish 
anything that was said on its behalf.
  It is certainly not going to achieve flexibility for deployment of 
our forces. It is inflexible when my colleagues say we cannot put 
people there that our military says they want there for our national 
security purposes. My colleagues are not accomplishing anything. My 
colleagues are not adding

[[Page 12480]]

one troop to any European subcountry's army. My colleagues are only 
detracting from the flexibility of our own government to defend its 
interests.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Shays-Frank amendment which would reduce 
American troops in Europe from 100,000 to 25,000. If American troops 
were deployed in Europe only for the purpose of defending Europe, I 
might support the amendment. However, the fact is that an overseas 
presence in Europe is in the interest of the United States because it 
is an essential element for our engagement in the world. Despite the 
fact that it entails costs, it carries risks. There is no alternative 
but to have continued American engagement in the world.
  We have a responsibility to use our unchallenged position of global 
leadership in a fashion that will make the universeal hope for peace, 
prosperity and freedom the norm of international behavior.
  Engagement is essential to our military security. Military engagement 
abroad is essential to build and enforce a more peaceful, cooperative 
world in which human rights, fair trade practices, and other interests 
and values can flourish.
  Effective international engagement requires an active and extensive 
military involvement abroad, especially in Europe. A military presence 
in Europe serves us in many ways. It contributes to regional stability. 
U.S. forces serve both as a bulwark to existing security agreements 
and, in turn, to aggression in the region.
  It enhances our ability to respond to crises around the globe. It is 
a visible demonstration of our committment to NATO and alliance that 
has maintained the peace and stability for Europe for 50 years. I might 
mention, Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to be present when the three new 
nations joined NATO just a number of weeks ago in Independence, 
Missouri.
  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. policy of engagement has been a success 
largely due to the performance of our military. Although the struggle 
for international peace may never be concluded, we must continue to 
make this effort. It is an effort we cannot make without a well-
equipped, highly trained, and ready military force. Deployment in 
Europe is essential to our readiness and to our ability to meet and 
deter other threats.
  We should reject, Mr. Chairman, this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
for yielding to me, and I thank him for the great courtesy that he has 
shown in this debate.
  I would just point out the amendment that we have offered hardly 
disengages from Europe. Our amendment would leave in Europe, untouched, 
the Sixth Fleet, one of the great fighting forces in the history of the 
world. It would also leave 25,000 troops and a cooperative effort on 
the bases.
  The question we have to face is this is, there is virtual unanimity 
in this Chamber lamenting the need for American ground troops to be 
part of the ongoing peacekeeping force in Bosnia and Kosovo.
  By the way, this amendment leaves in place language that allows the 
President at any time to dispatch troops in an emergency and to waive 
the restriction.
  The point we have is this: We believe there ought to be a European 
capacity not to duplicate the Sixth Fleet, which will be there, not to 
duplicate our air power, but to provide peacekeeping ground forces. We 
are convinced that as long as America has 100,000 troops there year in, 
year out, no matter what, there will never be the capacity in Europe to 
do it.
  One of the opponents of our amendment said, well, the Europeans are 
fully behind us in capacity, do not allow them to fall further behind. 
Give them a 3-year notice. Three years from now this wealthy 
concentration of sophisticated industrial nations will be responsible 
for the ground forces on their own in all but emergency circumstances.
  We believe in the Sixth Fleet. They will be there if we need them. 
Otherwise, be prepared to continue American ground forces as part of 
peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and Bosnia ad infinitum.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, despite the eloquence of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), I feel compelled to say that I still 
remain opposed to his amendment. I will vote against the amendment. It 
is essential that America remain engaged in Europe.
  We have cut back our troop strengths so very, very much. One hundred 
thousand, quite honestly, in my opinion, is the minimum amount that we 
should have.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut will be 
postponed.


                Amendments En Bloc Offered By Mr. Spence

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
200, I offer amendments en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

       Amendments en bloc to H.R. 1401 as reported offered by Mr. 
     Spence, amendments in Part B of House Report 106-175: 
     Amendment No. 22, amendment No. 23, amendment No. 24, 
     amendment No. 25, amendment No. 26, amendment No. 27, 
     amendment No. 28, amendment No. 29, amendment No. 30, 
     amendment No. 31, amendment No. 32, amendment No. 33, 
     amendment No. 34, amendment No. 35, amendment No. 36, 
     amendment No. 37, amendment No. 38, as modified, amendment 
     No. 39, amendment No. 40, amendment No. 41, amendment No. 42, 
     as modified, amendment No. 43, amendment No. 44, amendment 
     No. 45, as modified, amendment No. 46.

    Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Gallegly of 
                               California

                  (Amdt B-22 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title I (page 32, before line 15), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 152. PROCUREMENT OF FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT FOR THE AIR 
                   NATIONAL GUARD AND THE AIR FORCE RESERVE.

       The Secretary of the Air Force may carry out a procurement 
     program, in a total amount not to exceed $16,000,000, to 
     modernize the airborne firefighting capability of the Air 
     National Guard and Air Force Reserve by procurement of 
     equipment for the modular airborne firefighting system. 
     Amounts may be obligated for the program from funds 
     appropriated for that purpose for fiscal year 1999 and 
     subsequent fiscal years.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Spence of South 
                                Carolina

                  (Amdt B-23 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title I (page 32, before line 15), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 152. COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority To Proceed.--Cooperative engagement equipment 
     procured under the Cooperative Engagement Capability program 
     of the Navy shall be procured and installed into commissioned 
     vessels, shore facilities, and aircraft of the Navy before 
     completion of the operational test and evaluation of 
     shipboard cooperative engagement capability in order to 
     ensure fielding of a battle group with fully functional 
     cooperative engagement capability by fiscal year 2003.
       (b) Funding.--The amount authorized to be appropriated in 
     section 102(a)(1) for E-2C aircraft modification is hereby 
     increased by $22,000,000 to provide for the acquisition of 
     additional cooperative engagement capability equipment. The 
     amount authorized to be appropriated in section 102(a)(4) for 
     Shipboard Information Warfare Exploit Systems is hereby 
     reduced by $22,000,000.
                                  ____


    Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio

                  (Amdt B-24 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 37, after line 
     13), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 213. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING DEFENSE SCIENCE AND 
                   TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

       (a) Failure To Comply With Funding Requirements.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense has failed to 
     comply with the funding objective for the Defense Science and 
     Technology Program, especially the Air Force Science and 
     Technology Program, as required by section

[[Page 12481]]

     214(a) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 
     1948), thus jeopardizing the stability of the defense 
     technology base and increasing the risk of failure to 
     maintain technological superiority in future weapons systems.
       (b) Funding Requirements.--It is further the sense of 
     Congress that, for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 
     2009, it should be an objective of the Secretary of Defense 
     to increase the budget for the Defense Science and Technology 
     Program, including the science and technology program within 
     each military department, for the fiscal year over the budget 
     for that program for the preceding fiscal year by a percent 
     that is at least two percent above the rate of inflation as 
     determined by the Office of Management and Budget.
       (c) Certification.--If a proposed budget fails to comply 
     with the objective set forth in subsection (b), the President 
     shall certify to Congress that the budget does not jeopardize 
     the stability of the defense technology base or increase the 
     risk of failure to maintain technological superiority in 
     future weapons systems.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Reynolds of New York

                  (Amdt B-25 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of subtitle B of title III (page 45, after line 
     13), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 312. REPLACEMENT OF NONSECURE TACTICAL RADIOS OF THE 
                   82ND AIRBORNE DIVISION.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     301(1) for operation and maintenance for the Army, $5,500,000 
     shall be available to the Secretary of the Army for the 
     purpose of replacing nonsecure tactical radios used by the 
     82nd Airborne Division with radios, such as models AN/PRC-138 
     and AN/PRC-148, identified as being capable of fulfilling 
     mission requirements.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Evans of Illinois

                  (Amdt B-26 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of subtitle F of title V (page 138, after line 
     13), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 553. AUTHORITY FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO ALFRED 
                   RASCON FOR VALOR DURING THE VIETNAM CONFLICT.

       (a) Waiver of Time Limitations.--Notwithstanding the time 
     limitations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United 
     States Code, or any other time limitation with respect to the 
     awarding of certain medals to persons who served in the Army, 
     the President may award the Medal of Honor under section 3741 
     of that title to Alfred Rascon, of Laurel, Maryland, for the 
     acts of valor described in subsection (b).
       (b) Action Described.--The acts of valor referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the actions of Alfred Rascon on March 16, 
     1966, as an Army medic, serving in the grade of Specialist 
     Four in the Republic of Vietnam with the Reconnaissance 
     Platoon, Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 
     173rd Airborne Brigade (Separate), during a combat operation 
     known as Silver City.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Sweeney of New York

                  (Amdt B-27 in House Report 106-175)

       Page 142, line 12, strike ``may'' and insert ``shall''.
       Page 142, line 13, insert ``qualified'' after ``to 
     support''.
       Page 142, line 15, before the closing quotation marks 
     insert the following:

     The Secretary shall prescribe by regulation standards for 
     determining what nongovernmental organizations are qualified 
     for purposes of this subsection, the type of support that may 
     be provided under this subsection, and the manner in which 
     such support is provided.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Buyer of Indiana

                      or Mr. Abercrombie of Hawaii

                  (Amdt B-28 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of subtitle E of title VI (page 207, after line 
     5), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 655. DISABILITY RETIREMENT OR SEPARATION FOR CERTAIN 
                   MEMBERS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS.

       (a) Disability Retirement.--(1) Chapter 61 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     1207 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1207a. Members with over eight years of active 
       service: eligibility for disability retirement for pre-
       existing conditions

       ``(a) In the case of a member described in subsection (b) 
     who would be covered by section 1201, 1202, or 1203 of this 
     title but for the fact that the member's disability is 
     determined to have been incurred before the member becoming 
     entitled to basic pay in the member's current period of 
     active duty, the disability shall be deemed to have been 
     incurred while the member was entitled to basic pay and shall 
     be so considered for purposes of determining whether it was 
     incurred in the line of duty.
       ``(b) A member described in subsection (a) is a member with 
     at least eight years of active service.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     1207 the following new item:
``1207a. Members with over eight years of active service: eligibility 
              for disability retirement for pre-existing conditions.''.

       (b) Nonregular Service Retirement.--(1) Chapter 1223 of 
     such title is amended by inserting after section 12731a the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 12731b. Special rule for members with physical 
       disabilities not incurred in line of duty

       ``In the case of a member of the Selected Reserve of a 
     reserve component who no longer meets the qualifications for 
     membership in the Selected Reserve solely because the member 
     is unfit because of physical disability, the Secretary 
     concerned may, for purposes of section 12731 of this title, 
     determine to treat the member as having met the service 
     requirements of subsection (a)(2) of that section and provide 
     the member with the notification required by subsection (d) 
     of that section if the member has completed at least 15, and 
     less than 20, years of service computed under section 12732 
     of this title.
       ``(b) Notification under subsection (a) may not be made 
     if--
       ``(1) the disability was the result of the member's 
     intentional misconduct, willful neglect, or willful failure 
     to comply with standards and qualifications for retention 
     established by the Secretary concerned; or
       ``(2) the disability was incurred during a period of 
     unauthorized absence.''
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     12731a the following new item:

``12731b. Special rule for members with physical disabilities not 
              incurred in line of duty.''.

       (c) Separation.--Section 1206(5) of such title is amended 
     by inserting ``, in the case of a disability incurred before 
     the date of the enactment of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,'' after 
     ``determination, and''.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Gilman of New York

                  (Amdt B-29 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1206. REPORT ON THE SECURITY SITUATION ON THE KOREAN 
                   PENINSULA.

       (a) Report.--Not later than February 1, 2000, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report on the security situation on the Korean 
     peninsula. The report shall be submitted in both classified 
     and unclassified form.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--The Secretary shall include in 
     the report under subsection (a) the following:
       (1) A net assessment analysis of the warfighting 
     capabilities of the Combined Forces Command (CFC) of the 
     United States and the Republic of Korea compared with the 
     armed forces of North Korea.
       (2) An assessment of challenges posed by the armed forces 
     of North Korea to the defense of the Republic of Korea and to 
     United States forces deployed to the region.
       (3) An assessment of the current status and the future 
     direction of weapons of mass destruction programs and 
     ballistic missile programs of North Korea, including a 
     determination as to whether or not North Korea--
       (A) is continuing to pursue a nuclear weapons program;
       (B) is seeking equipment and technology with which to 
     enrich uranium; and
       (C) is pursuing an offensive biological weapons program.
       (c) Appropriate Congressional Committees.--In this section, 
     the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on International Relations and the 
     Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; 
     and
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the Senate.

     
                                  ____
   Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Thune of South 
                    Dakota or Mr. Stenholm of Texas

                  (Amdt B-30 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of subtitle B of title VII (page 224, after line 
     24), insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 713. ELECTRONIC PROCESSING OF CLAIMS UNDER THE TRICARE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 1095c of title 10, United States Code, as added by 
     section 711, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) Incentives for Electronic Processing.--The Secretary 
     of Defense shall require that new contracts for managed care 
     support under the TRICARE program provide that the contractor 
     be permitted to provide financial incentives to health care 
     providers who file claims for payment electronically.''.

[[Page 12482]]



     SEC. 714. STUDY OF RATES FOR PROVISION OF MEDICAL SERVICES; 
                   PROPOSAL FOR CERTAIN RATE INCREASES.

       Not later than February 1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to Congress--
       (1) a study on how the maximum allowable rates charged for 
     the 100 most commonly performed medical procedures under the 
     Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services 
     and Medicare compare with usual and customary commercial 
     insurance rates for such procedures in each TRICARE Prime 
     catchment area; and
       (2) a proposal for increases of maximum allowable rates 
     charged for medical procedures under the Civilian Health and 
     Medical Program of the Uniformed Services should the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1) find 20 or more rates which are 
     less than or equal to the 50th percentile of the usual and 
     customary commercial insurance rates charged for such 
     procedures.

     SEC. 715. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVISION OF CARE IN 
                   GEOGRAPHICALLY SEPARATED UNITS.

       (a) Contractual Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall require that all new contracts for the provision of 
     health care under TRICARE Prime include a requirement that 
     the TRICARE Prime Remote network, to the maximum extent 
     possible, provide health care concurrently to members of the 
     Armed Forces in geographically separated units and their 
     dependents in areas outside the catchment area of a military 
     medical treatment facility.
       (b) Report on Implementation.--Not later than May 1, 2000, 
     the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the extent 
     and success of implementation of the requirement under 
     subsection (a), and where concurrent implementation has not 
     been achieved, the reasons and circumstances that prohibited 
     implementation and a plan to provide TRICARE Prime benefits 
     to those otherwise eligible covered beneficiaries for whom 
     enrollment in a TRICARE Prime network is not feasible.

     SEC. 716. IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE UNDER THE 
                   TRICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Waiver of Nonavailability Statement or 
     Preauthorization.--In the case of a covered beneficiary under 
     chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, who is a TRICARE 
     eligible beneficiary not enrolled in TRICARE Prime, the 
     Secretary of Defense may not require with regard to 
     authorized health care services (other than mental health 
     services) under any new contract for the provision of health 
     care services under such chapter that the beneficiary--
       (1) obtain a nonavailability statement or preauthorization 
     from a military medical treatment facility in order to 
     receive the services from a civilian provider; or
       (2) obtain a nonavailability statement for care in 
     specialized treatment facilities outside the 200-mile radius 
     of a military medical treatment facility.
       (b) Notice.--The Secretary may require that the covered 
     beneficiary provide appropriate notice to the primary care 
     manager of the beneficiary.
       (c) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if--
       (1) the Secretary can demonstrate significant cost 
     avoidance for specific procedures at the affected military 
     treatment facilities;
       (2) the Secretary determines that a specific procedure must 
     be maintained at the affected military treatment facility to 
     ensure the proficiency levels of the practitioners at the 
     facility; or
       (3) the lack of nonavailability statement data would 
     significantly interfere with TRICARE contract administration.

     SEC. 717. REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS INCURRED BY COVERED 
                   BENEFICIARIES WHEN REFERRED FOR CARE OUTSIDE 
                   LOCAL CATCHMENT AREA.

       The Secretary of Defense shall require that any new 
     contract for the provision of health care services under 
     chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, shall require 
     that in any case in which a covered beneficiary under such 
     chapter who is enrolled in TRICARE Prime is referred by a 
     network provider or military treatment facility to a provider 
     or military treatment facility more than 100 miles outside 
     the catchment area of a military treatment facility because a 
     local provider is not available, or in any other respect not 
     within the terms of a new managed care support contract, the 
     beneficiary shall be reimbursed by the network provider or 
     military treatment facility making the referral for the cost 
     of personal automobile mileage, to be paid under standard 
     reimbursement rates for Federal employees, or for the cost of 
     air travel in amounts not to exceed standard contract fares 
     for Federal employees.

     SEC. 718. IMPROVEMENT OF REFERRAL PROCESS UNDER TRICARE.

       (a) Elimination of Preauthorization Requirements for 
     Certain Care.--Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary 
     of Defense, and in all new managed care support contracts the 
     Secretary shall eliminate requirements in certain cases under 
     TRICARE Prime that network primary care managers preauthorize 
     covered beneficiaries under chapter 55 of title 10, United 
     States Code, to receive preventative health care services 
     within the managed care support contract network without 
     preauthorization from a primary care manager.
       (b) Covered Services.--Should such a covered beneficiary 
     choose to receive care from a provider in the network, the 
     covered beneficiary shall not be required to have a referral 
     from a primary care manager--
       (1) for receipt of preventative obstetric or gynecological 
     services by a network obstetrician or gynecologist;
       (2) for mammograms performed by a network provider if the 
     beneficiary is a female over the age of 35; or
       (3) for provision of preventative specialty urology care 
     from a network urologist if the beneficiary is a male over 
     the age of 60.
       (c) Notice.--The Secretary may require that the covered 
     beneficiary provide appropriate notice to the primary care 
     manager of the beneficiary.
       (d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe the 
     regulations required by subsection (a) not later than May 1, 
     2000 and implement the regulations not later than October 1, 
     2000.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Traficant of Ohio

                  (Amdt B-31 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title VIII (page 246, after line 18), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 809. COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.

       (a) Compliance with Buy American Act.--No funds authorized 
     by this Act may be expended by an entity of the Department of 
     Defense unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 
     10a et seq.).
       (b) Sense of Congress Regarding Purchase of American-Made 
     Equipment and Products.--It is the sense of Congress that any 
     entity of the Department of Defense, in expending funds 
     authorized by this Act for the purchase of equipment or 
     products, should purchase only American-made equipment and 
     products.
       (c) Debarment of Persons Convicted of Fraudulent Use of 
     ``Made in America'' Labels.--If the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that a person has been convicted of intentionally 
     affixing a label bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, 
     or another inscription with the same meaning, to any product 
     sold in or shipped to the United States that is not made in 
     the United States, the Secretary shall determine, in 
     accordance with section 2410f of title 10, United States 
     Code, whether the person should be debarred from contracting 
     with the Department of Defense.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Bereuter of Nebraska

                  (Amdt B-32 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. ASIA-PACIFIC CENTER FOR SECURITY STUDIES.

       (a) Waiver of Charges.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may 
     waive reimbursement of the costs of conferences, seminars, 
     courses of instruction, or similar educational activities of 
     the Asia-Pacific Center for military officers and civilian 
     officials of foreign nations of the Asia-Pacific region if 
     the Secretary determines that attendance by such persons 
     without reimbursement is in the national security interest of 
     the United States.
       (2) In this section, the term ``Asia-Pacific Center'' means 
     the Department of Defense organization within the United 
     States Pacific Command known as the Asia-Pacific Center for 
     Security Studies.
       (b) Authority To Accept Foreign Gifts and Donations.--(1) 
     Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Defense may 
     accept, on behalf of the Asia-Pacific Center, foreign gifts 
     or donations in order to defray the costs of, or enhance the 
     operation of, the Asia-Pacific Center.
       (2) The Secretary may not accept a gift or donation under 
     paragraph (1) if the acceptance of the gift or donation would 
     compromise or appear to compromise--
       (A) the ability of the Department of Defense, any employee 
     of the Department, or members of the Armed Forces to carry 
     out any responsibility or duty of the Department in a fair 
     and objective manner; or
       (B) the integrity of any program of the Department of 
     Defense or of any person involved in such a program.
       (3) The Secretary shall prescribe written guidance setting 
     forth the criteria to be used in determining whether the 
     acceptance of a foreign gift or donation would have a result 
     described in paragraph (2).
       (4) Funds accepted by the Secretary under paragraph (1) 
     shall be credited to appropriations available to the 
     Department of Defense for the Asia-Pacific Center. Funds so 
     credited shall be merged with the appropriations to which 
     credited and shall be available to the Asia-Pacific Center 
     for the same purposes and same period as the appropriations 
     with which merged.
       (5) If the total amount of funds accepted under paragraph 
     (1) in any fiscal year exceeds $2,000,000, the Secretary 
     shall notify Congress of the amount of those donations for 
     that fiscal year. Any such notice shall list each of the 
     contributors of such amounts and the amount of each 
     contribution in that fiscal year.
       (6) For purposes of this subsection, a foreign gift or 
     donation is a gift or donation of

[[Page 12483]]

     funds, materials (including research materials), property, or 
     services (including lecture services and faculty services) 
     from a foreign government, a foundation or other charitable 
     organization in a foreign country, or an individual in a 
     foreign country.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Bereuter of Nebraska

                  (Amdt B-33 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. REPORT ON EFFECT OF CONTINUED BALKAN OPERATIONS ON 
                   ABILITY OF UNITED STATES TO SUCCESSFULLY MEET 
                   OTHER REGIONAL CONTINGENCIES.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a report describing the effect of continued 
     operations by the Armed Forces in the Balkans region on the 
     ability of the United States, through the period covered by 
     the current Future-Years Defense Plan of the Department of 
     Defense, to prosecute to a successful conclusion a major 
     contingency in the Asia-Pacific region or to prosecute to a 
     successful conclusion two nearly simultaneous major theater 
     wars, in accordance with the most recent Quadrennial Defense 
     Review.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--The report under subsection 
     (a) shall set forth the following:
       (1) In light of continued Balkan operations, the 
     capabilities and limitations of United States combat, combat 
     support, and combat service support forces (at national, 
     operational, and tactical levels and operating in a joint and 
     coalition environment) to expeditiously respond to, 
     prosecute, and achieve United States strategic objectives in 
     the event of--
       (A) a contingency on the Korean peninsula; or
       (B) two nearly simultaneous major theater wars.
       (2) The confidence level of the Secretary of Defense in 
     United States military capabilities to successfully prosecute 
     a Pacific contingency, and to successfully prosecute two 
     nearly simultaneous major theater wars, while remaining 
     engaged at current or greater force levels in the Balkans, 
     together with the rationale and justification for each such 
     confidence level.
       (3) Identification of high-value platforms, systems, 
     capabilities, and skills that--
       (A) during a Pacific contingency, would be stressed or 
     broken and at what point such stressing or breaking would 
     occur; and
       (B) during two nearly simultaneous major theater wars, 
     would be stressed or broken and at what point such stressing 
     or breaking would occur.
       (4) During continued military operations in the Balkans, 
     the effect on the ``operations tempo'', and on the 
     ``personnel tempo'', of the Armed Forces--
       (A) of a Pacific contingency; and
       (B) of two nearly simultaneous major theater wars.
       (5) During continued military operations in the Balkans, 
     the required type and quantity of high-value platforms, 
     systems, capabilities, and skills to prosecute successfully--
       (A) a Pacific contingency; and
       (B) two nearly simultaneous major theater wars.
       (c) Consultation.--In preparing the report under this 
     section, the Secretary of Defense shall use the resources and 
     expertise of the unified commands, the military departments, 
     the combat support agencies, and the defense components of 
     the intelligence community and shall consult with non-
     Department elements of the intelligence community, as 
     required, and other such entities within the Department of 
     Defense as the Secretary considers necessary.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Castle of Delaware, 
            Mr. Bishop of Georgia, or Mr. Roemer of Indiana

                  (Amdt B-34 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. REPORT ON SPACE LAUNCH FAILURES.

       (a) Report Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to the President and the specified congressional committees a 
     report on the factors involved in the three recent failures 
     of the Titan IV space launch vehicle and the systemic and 
     management reforms that the Secretary is implementing to 
     minimize future failures of that vehicle and future launch 
     systems. The report shall be submitted not later than 
     February 15, 2000. The Secretary shall include in the report 
     all information from the reviews of those failures conducted 
     by the Secretary of the Air Force and launch contractors.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--The report shall include the 
     following information:
       (1) An explanation for the failure of a Titan IVA launch 
     vehicle on August 12, 1998, the failure of a Titan IVB launch 
     vehicle on April 9, 1999, and the failure of a Titan IVB 
     launch vehicle on April 30, 1999, as well as any information 
     from civilian launches which may provide information on 
     systemic problems in current Department of Defense launch 
     systems, including, in addition to a detailed technical 
     explanation and summary of financial costs for each such 
     failure, a one-page summary for each such failure indicating 
     any commonality between that failure and other military or 
     civilian launch failures.
       (2) A review of management and engineering responsibility 
     for the Titan, Inertial Upper Stage, and Centaur systems, 
     with an explanation of the respective roles of the Government 
     and the private sector in ensuring mission success and 
     identification of the responsible party (Government or 
     private sector) for each major stage in production and launch 
     of the vehicles.
       (3) A list of all contractors and subcontractors for each 
     of the Titan, Inertial Upper Stage, and Centaur systems and 
     their responsibilities and five-year records for meeting 
     program requirements.
       (4) A comparison of the practices of the Department of 
     Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
     and the commercial launch industry regarding the management 
     and oversight of the procurement and launch of expendable 
     launch vehicles.
       (5) An assessment of whether consolidation in the aerospace 
     industry has affected mission success, including whether 
     cost-saving efforts are having an effect on quality and 
     whether experienced workers are being replaced by less 
     experienced workers for cost-saving purposes.
       (6) Recommendations on how Government contracts with launch 
     service companies could be improved to protect the taxpayer, 
     together with the Secretary's assessment of whether the 
     withholding of award and incentive fees is a sufficient 
     incentive to hold contractors to the highest possible quality 
     standards and the Secretary's overall evaluation of the award 
     fee system.
       (7) A short summary of what went wrong technically and 
     managerially in each launch failure and what specific steps 
     are being taken by the Department of Defense and space launch 
     contractors to ensure that those errors do not reoccur.
       (8) An assessment of the role of the Department of Defense 
     in the management and technical oversight of the launches 
     that failed and whether the Department of Defense, in that 
     role, contributed to the failures.
       (9) An assessment of the effect of the launch failures on 
     the schedule for Titan launches, on the schedule for 
     development and first launch of the Evolved Expendable Launch 
     Vehicle, and on the ability of industry to meet Department of 
     Defense requirements.
       (10) An assessment of the impact of the launch failures on 
     assured access to space by the United States, and a 
     consideration of means by which access to space by the United 
     States can be better assured.
       (11) An assessment of any systemic problems that may exist 
     at the eastern launch range, whether these problems 
     contributed to the launch failures, and what means would be 
     most effective in addressing these problems.
       (12) An assessment of the potential benefits and detriments 
     of launch insurance and the impact of such insurance on the 
     estimated net cost of space launches.
       (13) A review of the responsibilities of the Department of 
     Defense and industry representatives in the launch process, 
     an examination of the incentives of the Department and 
     industry representatives throughout the launch process, and 
     an assessment of whether the incentives are appropriate to 
     maximize the probability that launches will be timely and 
     successful.
       (14) Any other observations and recommendations that the 
     Secretary considers relevant.
       (c) Interim Report.--Not later than December 15, 1999, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the specified congressional 
     committees an interim report on the progress in the 
     preparation of the report required by this section, including 
     progress with respect to each of the matters required to be 
     included in the report under subsection (b).
       (d) Specified Congressional Committees.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``specified congressional committees'' 
     means the following:
       (1) The Committee on Armed Services, the Select Committee 
     on Intelligence, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate.
       (2) The Committee on Armed Services, the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mrs. Fowler of Florida

                  (Amdt B-35 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. REPORT ON AIRLIFT REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT NATIONAL 
                   MILITARY STRATEGY.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than June 1, 2000, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report, in 
     both classified and unclassified form, describing the airlift 
     requirements necessary to execute the full range of missions 
     called for under the National Military Strategy prescribed by 
     the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the postures 
     of force engagement anticipated through 2015.

[[Page 12484]]

       (b) Content of Report.--The report shall address the 
     following:
       (1) The identity, size, structure, and capabilities of the 
     airlift requirements necessary for the full range of shaping, 
     preparing, and responding missions demanded under the 
     National Military Strategy.
       (2) The required support and infrastructure required to 
     successfully execute the full range of missions required 
     under the National Military Strategy, on the deployment 
     schedules outlined in the plans of the relevant commanders-
     in-chief from expected and increasingly dispersed postures of 
     engagement.
       (3) The anticipated effect of enemy use of weapons of mass 
     destruction, other asymmetrical attacks, expected rates of 
     peacekeeping and other contingency missions, and other 
     similar factors on the mobility force and its required 
     infrastructure and on mobility requirements.
       (4) The effect on mobility requirements of new service 
     force structures, such as the Air Force's Air Expeditionary 
     Force and the Army's Strike Force, and any foreseeable force 
     structure modifications through 2015.
       (5) The need to deploy forces strategically and employ them 
     tactically using the same airlift platform.
       (6) The need for an increased airlift platform capable of 
     deploying outsize equipment or large volumes of supplies and 
     equipment.
       (7) The anticipated role of host nation, foreign, and 
     coalition airlift support and requirements through 2015.
       (8) Alternatives to the current mobility program or 
     required modifications to the 1998 Air Mobility Master Plan 
     update.
                                  ____


    Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Gilchrest of 
                                Maryland

                  (Amdt B-36 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. OPERATIONS OF NAVAL ACADEMY DAIRY FARM.

       Section 6976 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Lease Proceeds.--All money received from a lease 
     entered into under subsection (b) shall be retained by the 
     Superintendent of the Naval Academy and shall be available to 
     cover expenses related to the property described in 
     subsection (a), including reimbursing nonappropriated fund 
     instrumentalities of the Naval Academy.''.
                                  ____


    Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Goodling of 
                 Pennsylvania or Mr. Traficant of Ohio

                  (Amdt B-37 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. INSPECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH 
                   BUY AMERICAN ACT IN PURCHASES OF FREE WEIGHT 
                   STRENGTH TRAINING EQUIPMENT.

       (a) Investigation Required.--The Inspector General of the 
     Department of Defense shall conduct an investigation to 
     determine whether the purchases described in subsection (b) 
     are being made in compliance with the Buy American Act (41 
     U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       (b) Purchases Covered.--The investigation shall cover 
     purchases made during the three-year period ending on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act of free weights for use in 
     strength training by members of the Armed Forces stationed at 
     defense installations located in the United States (including 
     its territories and possessions).
       (c) Report.--The Inspector General shall prepare a report 
     for the Secretary of Defense on the investigation. Not later 
     than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress such 
     report, together with such additional comments and 
     recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``free weights'' means dumbbells or solid metallic disks 
     balanced on crossbars, designed to be lifted for strength 
     training or athletic competition.
                                  ____


    Modification to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Skelton of Missouri

                  (Amdt B-38 in House Report 106-175)

       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. PERFORMANCE OF THREAT AND RISK ASSESSMENTS.

       Section 1404 of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass 
     Destruction Act of 1999 (title XIV of Public Law 105-261; 50 
     U.S.C. 2301 note) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1404. THREAT AND RISK ASSESSMENTS.

       ``(a) Threat and Risk Assessments.--(1) Assistance to 
     Federal, State, and local agencies provided under the program 
     under section 1402 shall include the performance of 
     assessments of the threat and risk of terrorist employment of 
     weapons of mass destruction against cities and other local 
     areas. Such assessments shall be used by Federal, State, and 
     local agencies to determine the training and equipment 
     requirements under this program and shall be performed as a 
     collaborative effort with State and local agencies.
       ``(2) The Department of Justice, as lead Federal agency for 
     crisis management in response to terrorism involving weapons 
     of mass destruction, shall conduct any threat and risk 
     assessment performed under paragraph (1) in coordination with 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and shall 
     develop procedures and guidance for conduct of the threat and 
     risk assessment in consultation with officials from the 
     intelligence community.
       ``(b) Pilot Test.--(1) Before prescribing final procedures 
     and guidance for the performance of threat and risk 
     assessments under this section, the Attorney General shall 
     conduct a pilot test of any proposed method or model by which 
     such assessments are to be performed. The Attorney General 
     shall conduct the pilot test in coordination with appropriate 
     Federal, State, and local agencies.
       ``(2) The pilot test shall be performed in cities or local 
     areas selected by the Attorney General in consultation with 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies.
       ``(3) The pilot test shall be completed not later than one 
     month after the date of the enactment of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.''.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hobson of Ohio or 
                            Mr. Hall of Ohio

                  (Amdt B-39 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title XI (page 307, after line 13), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC 1104. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE EARLY RETIREMENT AND 
                   SEPARATION INCENTIVES FOR CERTAIN CIVILIAN 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Early Retirement Incentive.--(1) An employee of the 
     Department of Defense is entitled to an annuity under chapter 
     83 or 84 of title 5, United States Code, as applicable, if 
     the employee--
       (A) has been employed continuously by the Department of 
     Defense for more than 30 days before the date that the 
     Secretary of Defense made the determination under 
     subparagraph (D);
       (B) is serving under an appointment that is not time-
     limited;
       (C) is not in receipt of a decision notice of involuntary 
     separation for misconduct or unacceptable performance;
       (D) is separated voluntarily;
       (E) has completed 25 years of service or is at least 50 
     years of age and has completed 20 years of service; and
       (F) retires under this subsection before October 1, 2000.
       (2) As used in this subsection, the terms ``employee'' and 
     ``annuity'' shall have the same meaning as the meaning of 
     those terms as used in chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United 
     States Code, as applicable.
       (b) Voluntary Separation Incentive.--(1) The Secretary of 
     Defense may, to restructure the workforce to meet mission 
     needs, correct skill imbalances, or reduce high-grade, 
     managerial, or supervisory positions, offer separation pay to 
     an employee under this subsection subject to such limitations 
     or conditions as the Secretary may require. Such separation 
     pay--
       (A) shall be paid, at the option of the employee, in a lump 
     sum or equal installment payments;
       (B) shall be equal to the lesser of--
       (i) an amount equal to the amount the employee would be 
     entitled to receive under section 5595(c) of title 5, United 
     States Code, if the employee were entitled to payment under 
     such section; or
       (ii) $25,000;
       (C) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be 
     included in the computation, of any other type of Government 
     benefit;
       (D) shall not be taken into account for purposes of 
     determining the amount of any severance pay to which an 
     individual may be entitled under section 5595 of title 5, 
     United States Code, based on any other separation; and
       (E) shall terminate, upon reemployment in the Federal 
     Government, during receipt of installment payments.
       (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``employee'' 
     means an employee serving under an appointment without time 
     limitation, who has been currently employed for a continuous 
     period of at least 12 months, except that such term does not 
     include--
       (A) a reemployed annuitant under subchapter III of chapter 
     83, chapter 84, or another retirement system for employees of 
     the Government; or
       (B) an employee having a disability on the basis of which 
     such employee is or would be eligible for disability 
     retirement under any of the retirement systems referred to in 
     subparagraph (A).
       (c) Additional Contributions to Retirement Fund.--(1) In 
     addition to any other payments which it is required to make 
     under subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States 
     Code, the Department of Defense shall remit to the Office of 
     Personnel Management for deposit in the Treasury of the 
     United States to the credit of the Civil Service Retirement 
     and Disability Fund an amount equal to 26 percent of the 
     final basic pay of each employee of the Department of Defense 
     who is covered under subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 
     84 of title 5, United States Code, to whom a voluntary 
     separation incentive has been paid under this section.

[[Page 12485]]

       (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``final basic 
     pay'', with respect to an employee, means the total amount of 
     basic pay which would be payable for a year of service by 
     such employee, computed using the employee's final rate of 
     basic pay, with appropriate adjustments if the employee last 
     served on other than a full-time basis.
       (d) Applicability.--The provisions in this section shall 
     only apply with respect to a civilian employee of the 
     Department of Defense who--
       (1) is employed at the military base designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense under subsection (e), or who is 
     identified by the Secretary as part of a competitive area of 
     the civilian personnel service population of such military 
     base, during the period beginning on October 1, 1999, and 
     ending on October 1, 2000;
       (2) is one of 300 employees designated by the Secretary of 
     the military department with jurisdiction over the designated 
     base; and
       (3) elects to receive an annuity or separation incentive 
     pursuant to such provisions during such period.
       (e) Designation of Military Base.--Not later than 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall designate a military base to which the 
     provisions of this section shall apply. The base designated 
     by the Secretary shall--
       (1) be a base that is undergoing a major workforce 
     restructuring to meet mission needs, correct skill 
     imbalances, or reduce high-grade, managerial, supervisory, or 
     similar positions; and
       (2) employ the largest number of scientists and engineers 
     of any other base of the military department that has 
     jurisdiction over the base.
                                  ____


   Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Ortiz of Texas

                  (Amdt B-40 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title XI (page 307, after line 13), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1104. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Extension of Authority.--Clauses (i) and (ii) of 
     section 8905a(d)(4)(B) of title 5, United States Code, are 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) October 1, 2003; or
       ``(ii) February 1, 2004, if specific notice of such 
     separation was given to such individual before October 1, 
     2003.''.
       (b) Offset.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated in 
     section 301(5) for Defense-wide activities--
       (1) $9,100,000 shall be available to continue health 
     insurance coverage pursuant to the authority provided in 
     section 8905a(d)(4)(B) of title 5, United States Code (as 
     amended by subsection (a)); and
       (2) the amount available for the Defense Contract Audit 
     Agency shall be reduced by $9,100,000.
                                  ____


     Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Ney of Ohio

                  (Amdt B-41 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1206. ANNUAL REPORT ON MILITARY POWER OF THE PEOPLE'S 
                   REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       (a) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall prepare 
     an annual report, in both classified and unclassified form, 
     on the current and future military strategy and capabilities 
     of the People's Republic of China. The report shall address 
     the current and probable future course of military-
     technological development in the People's Liberation Army and 
     the tenets and probable development of Chinese grand 
     strategy, security strategy, and military strategy, and of 
     military organizations and operational concepts, through 
     2020.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--The report shall include 
     analyses and forecasts of the following:
       (1) The goals of Chinese grand strategy, security strategy, 
     and military strategy.
       (2) Trends in Chinese political grand strategy meant to 
     establish the People's Republic of China as the leading 
     political power in the Asia-Pacific region and as a political 
     and military presence in other regions of the world.
       (3) The size, location, and capabilities of Chinese 
     strategic, land, sea, and air forces.
       (4) Developments in Chinese military doctrine, focusing on 
     (but not limited to) efforts to exploit a transformation in 
     military affairs or to conduct preemptive strikes.
       (5) Efforts, including technology transfers and espionage, 
     by the People's Republic of China to develop, acquire, or 
     gain access to information, communication, space, and other 
     advanced technologies that would enhance military 
     capabilities.
       (c) Submission of Report.--The report under this section 
     shall be submitted to Congress not later than March 15 each 
     year.
                                  ____


   Modification to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert of New York

                  (Amdt B-42 in House Report 106-175)

       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       In the table in section 2301(a) (page 339, after line 18), 
     insert an item relating to the Rome Research Site, New York, 
     in the amount of $3,002,000, and strike the amount identified 
     as the total in the amount column and insert 
     ``$635,272,000''.
       Page 343, line 3, strike ``$602,270,000'' and insert 
     ``$605,272,000''.
       Page 344, line 6, strike ``$6,600,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,602,000''.
       At the end of title XXIII (page 344, after line 10), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 2305. PLAN FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECT TO CONSOLIDATE AIR 
                   FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY, ROME RESEARCH SITE, 
                   NEW YORK.

       (a) Plan Required.--Not later than January 1, 2000, the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to Congress a plan 
     for the completion of multi-phase efforts to consolidate 
     research and technology development activities conducted at 
     the Air Force Research Laboratory located at the Rome 
     Research Site at former Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, New 
     York. The plan shall include details on how the Air Force 
     will complete the multi-phase construction and renovation of 
     the consolidated building 2/3 complex at the Rome Research 
     Site, by January 1, 2005, including the cost of the project 
     and options for financing it.
       (b) Relation to State Contributions.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to limit or expand the authority 
     of the Secretary of a military department to accept funds 
     from a State for the purpose of consolidating military 
     functions within a military installation.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Ose of California

                  (Amdt B-43 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of part III of subtitle D of title XXVIII (page 
     399, after line 7), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 2865. LAND CONVEYANCE, MCCLELLAN NUCLEAR RADIATION 
                   CENTER, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--Consistent with applicable 
     laws, including section 120 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620), the Secretary of the Air Force may 
     convey, without consideration, to the Regents of the 
     University of California, acting on behalf of the University 
     of California, Davis (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Regents''), all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to the parcel of real property, including 
     improvements thereon, consisting of the McClellan Nuclear 
     Radiation Center, California.
       (b) Inspection of Property.--The Secretary shall, at an 
     appropriate time before the conveyance authorized by 
     subsection (a), permit the Regents access to the property to 
     be conveyed for purposes of such investigation of the 
     McClellan Nuclear Radiation Center and the atomic reactor 
     located at the Center as the Regents consider appropriate.
       (c) Hold Harmless.--(1)(A) The Secretary may not make the 
     conveyance authorized by subsection (a) unless the Regents 
     agree to indemnify and hold harmless the United States for 
     and against the following:
       (i) Any and all costs associated with the decontamination 
     and decommissioning of the atomic reactor at the McClellan 
     Nuclear Radiation Center under requirements that are imposed 
     by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or any other appropriate 
     Federal or State regulatory agency.
       (ii) Any and all injury, damage, or other liability arising 
     from the operation of the atomic reactor after its conveyance 
     under this section.
       (B) The Secretary may pay the Regents an amount not exceed 
     $17,593,000 as consideration for the agreement under 
     subparagraph (A). Notwithstanding subsection (b) 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), the Secretary may use amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     the authorization of appropriation in section 2405(a)(7) to 
     make the payment under this subparagraph.
       (2) Notwithstanding the agreement under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary may, as part of the conveyance authorized by 
     subsection (a), enter into an agreement with the Regents 
     under which agreement the United States shall indemnify and 
     hold harmless the University of California for and against 
     any injury, damage, or other liability in connection with the 
     operation of the atomic reactor at the McClellan Nuclear 
     Radiation Center after its conveyance under this section that 
     arises from a defect in the atomic reactor that could not 
     have been discovered in the course of the inspection carried 
     out under subsection (b).
       (d) Continuing Operation of Reactor.--Until such time as 
     the property authorized to be conveyed by subsection (a) is 
     conveyed by deed, the Secretary shall take appropriate 
     actions, including the allocation of personnel, funds, and 
     other resources, to ensure the continuing operation of the 
     atomic reactor located at the McClellan Nuclear Radiation 
     Center in accordance with applicable requirements of the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission and otherwise in accordance 
     with law.
       (e) 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 Secretary.

[[Page 12486]]

       (f) 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.
                                  ____


   Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Scarborough of 
                                Florida

                  (Amdt B-44 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of section 3162 (page 445, after line 17), 
     insert the following:
       (d) Additional Agency Contributions to the Retirement 
     Fund.--For purposes of this section, the requirement of an 
     agency remittance of an amount equal to 15 percent in 
     paragraph (1) of section 663(d) 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) 
     shall be deemed to be a requirement of an agency remittance 
     of an amount equal to 26 percent.
                                  ____


Modification to the Amendment Offered by Mr. McIntyre of North Carolina

                  (Amdt B-45 in House Report 106-175)

       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of title XXXI (page 453, after line 15), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 3167. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COORDINATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
                   ENERGY NATIONAL LABORATORIES.

       (a) Technology Transfer Coordination.--Within 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Energy shall ensure, for each national laboratory, the 
     following:
       (1) Consistency of technology transfer policies and 
     procedures with respect to patenting, licensing, and 
     commercialization.
       (2) That the contractor operating the national laboratory 
     make available to aggrieved private sector entities a range 
     of expedited alternate dispute resolution procedures 
     (including both binding and nonbinding procedures) to resolve 
     disputes that arise over patents, licenses, and 
     commercialization activities, with costs and damages to be 
     provided by the contractor to the extent that any such 
     resolution attributes fault to the contractor.
       (3) That the expedited procedure used for a particular 
     dispute shall be chosen--
       (A) collaboratively by the Secretary and by appropriate 
     representatives of the contractor operating the national 
     laboratory and of the private sector entity; and
       (B) if an expedited procedure cannot be chosen 
     collaboratively under subparagraph (A), by the Secretary.
       (4) That the contractor operating the national laboratory 
     submit an annual report to the Secretary, as part of the 
     annual performance evaluation of the contractor, on 
     technology transfer and intellectual property successes, 
     current technology transfer and intellectual property 
     disputes involving the laboratory, and progress toward 
     resolving those disputes.
       (5) Training to ensure that laboratory personnel 
     responsible for patenting, licensing, and commercialization 
     activities are knowledgeable of the appropriate legal, 
     procedural, and ethical standards.
       (b) Definition of National Laboratory.--As used in this 
     section, the term ``national laboratory'' means any of the 
     following laboratories:
       (1) The Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New 
     Mexico.
       (2) The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, 
     California.
       (3) The Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New 
     Mexico, and Livermore, California.
                                  ____


   Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mrs. Wilson of New 
                                 Mexico

                  (Amdt B-46 in House Report 106-175)

       Page 452, line 22, strike ``subsection (c)'' and all that 
     follows through ``indicates'' on line 24 and insert 
     ``subsection (c), notwithstanding Rule 6(e) of the Federal 
     Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the Secretary has received 
     information indicating''.
       Page 453, strike lines 7 through line 10 and insert the 
     following:
       (c) Specified Committees.--The committees referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) The Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) The Committee on Armed Services and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modifications.
  The Clerk proceeded to read the modifications.
  Mr. SPENCE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments as modified be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the en bloc amendments, and 
I want to speak specifically to amendment No. 32 briefly.
  The purpose of this amendment is to permanently authorize that the 
Asia Pacific Center for Security studies the waiver authority for some 
attendance costs that were granted to it in the fiscal year 1999 
Defense Authorization Act and to enact new, permanent legislation for 
the Center that expands its ability to fund its crucial work in the 
region.
  Specifically, the provisions in this amendment will permit the Asia 
Pacific Center, a component of Pacific Command, to accomplish two 
important objectives:
  First, the provisions will permit the Center to waive reimbursement 
for certain costs of conferences, seminars, and courses of instruction 
for participants of foreign countries when the Secretary of Defense 
determines that such participation is in the national security 
interests.
  This Member strongly concurs with both Admiral Prueher, the previous 
Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, and Admiral Blair, who recently 
assumed this position, that this waiver of charges is critical to the 
Center's ability to attract participants from developing and developed 
countries in the region. The Center complements the Command's strategy 
of maintaining positive security relationships with all nations in the 
region. It enhances cooperation and builds relationships through mutual 
understanding and study of the range of security issues among military 
and civilian representatives of the U.S. and other Asia-Pacific 
nations.
  Second, the provisions will permit the acceptance of foreign gifts 
and donations. No such authority currently exists for the Center, and 
such is key to providing an alternate source of income to defray costs 
or to enhance operations. It will permit the acceptance of donations in 
the form of funds, materials, property, or services from foreign 
sources, within ethical guidelines to be developed by the Secretary of 
Defense.
  Amending H.R. 1401 to permanently authorize the waiver of 
reimbursement and the acceptance of foreign gifts and donations will 
mirror legislative authority previously granted to the George C. 
Marshall European Center for Security Studies. In addition, 
significantly, enactment of these provisions will impose no increase in 
DoD budgetary requirements.
  Secondly, for amendment No. 33, the purpose of this amendment is to 
direct the Secretary of Defense to evaluate and report to Congress the 
U.S. armed forces' ability to successfully prosecute a conflict on the 
Korean Peninsula or a 2-major-theater-war strategy over the next 5 
years while simultaneously engaged in continued operations in the 
Balkans.
  Anyone who has been watching our combat strength erode over the last 
decade or the juggling of equipment and forces to meet Kosovo 
requirements will understand why this is a vitally important national 
security issue.
  U.S. military operations in the Balkans, in this Member's view, will 
include Kosovo for the foreseeable future. U.S. efforts there clearly 
are stretching the already ample divide between our global security 
obligations and military capabilities. The argument that we have heard 
for years--that with the Cold War over, we can spend less on our Armed 
Forces--would be true only if we expected less of our military. 
However, this has not been the case--indeed, our forces have been asked 
to do more and more with less and less.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, President Reagan 
used the military abroad 17 times; President Bush, 14 times, including 
the Persian Gulf conflict. President Clinton, however, has called on 
the military over 45 times, including the ongoing Kosovo operations. 
Such extensive use is unprecedented; moreover, it has been presided 
over by an Administration that not only has trimmed the fat in our 
Armed Forces--to its credit--but has, in the view of many senior 
military officials with whom this Member agrees, cut considerably into 
its ``muscle'' as well. The dramatic increase in ``operations tempo'' 
has taken a significant toll on an already substantially downsized, 
underfunded, and inadequately equipped force. Moreover, the results

[[Page 12487]]

of the Quadrennial Defense Review, recently concluded by the DoD, 
projects an increasing number of military commitments into the next 
century.
  This is a dangerous situation, in this Member's opinion, and calls 
into serious question U.S. capabilities to successfully prosecute one 
or more major contingencies over at least the next several years--major 
contingencies, such as on the Korean Peninsula or in Southwest Asia, 
that are in this nation's vital interests.
  We in Congress first must be fully informed as to our Armed Force's 
capabilities and limitations. Then, we must be willing to address the 
challenges they face if we expect them to continue to meet our global 
challenges. This amendment, requiring the Secretary of Defense to 
report on the U.S. Armed Forces capability to respond to other regional 
contingencies while remaining engaged in the Balkans, will provide the 
baseline analysis we need to ``right-size'' and ``right-equip'' our 
forces in the future.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the en bloc 
amendment to H.R. 1401. This amendment includes an amendment which I 
propose along with the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune). Our 
amendment makes needed improvements to TriCare, the military managed 
health care program.
  Our amendment complements the excellent work done by the Committee on 
Armed Services to better military health care. The Thune-Stenholm 
amendment will improve the claims processing system, reduce paperwork 
and financial burdens to TriCare beneficiaries, and improve coverage 
for active duty members of the armed services. Our amendment has the 
support of the Military Coalition and the National Military and 
Veterans Alliance.
  As we increase military pay and benefits, it is important that we 
also continue in our efforts to provide the highest quality medical 
care for military members and their families, retirees and their 
families, and survivors.
  I urge the support for the Thune-Stenholm amendment as included in 
the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have a great announcement 
to follow up the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who 
announced this earlier.
  For all those naysayers, today the THAAD program had a very 
successful intercept. We hit a bullet with a bullet. Not only did we 
hit the target, we hit it right in the spot where that target would be 
eliminated so that the trajectory of the missile would not continue on 
into where our troops would be held.
  So for all of those people who stood on the House floor and said 
missile defense does not work, the technology is not there, it is a 
failure, guess what, Mr. Chairman, today we hit a bullet with a bullet. 
We solved the problem that people said we could not solve.
  I just want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who had 
the good common sense to understand that American technology can do 
anything, and we are never going to have a case where those 28 brave 
young Americans, half of whom were from my State, came back to their 
homeland in a body bag because we could not defend a missile attack 
against them.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc 
amendment. It contains my amendment to waive the statutory time limit 
and authorize the President to present the Congressional Medal of Honor 
to Alfred Rascon for his brave and heroic actions during the Vietnam 
War. He truly embodies the spirit and sacrifices made by those gallant 
individuals who have earned our Nation's highest military honor.
  In 1966, he was a paramedic and risked his life many times to save 
the lives of his colleagues. When his unit came under intense enemy 
attack, Mr. Rascon on three separate occasions ran through enemy fire 
to jump on soldiers to protect them from exploding grenades or incoming 
rifle and machine gun fire.
  On one occasion, he suffered grenade shrapnel and wounds while 
protecting another solder he was caring for. On two other occasions, he 
dove on soldiers to shield them from several incoming exploding 
grenades, observing the full blast himself each time.
  Regardless of these wounds and an additional wound to his face from 
an exploding grenade, he retrieved the point squad's abandoned machine 
gun and its ammunition while drawing heavy fire.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Chairman's En Bloc 
amendment. The En Bloc package contains my amendment to waive the 
statutory time limit and authorize the President to present the 
Congressional Medal of Honor to Alfred Rascon for his heroic and brave 
actions during the Vietnam War. His case embodies the spirit and 
sacrifice made by those gallant individuals who have earned our 
nation's highest military honor.
  On 16 March 1966, Sp4 Alfred Rascon, distinguished himself by a 
series of extraordinarily courageous acts while assigned as a medic to 
the Reconnaissance Platoon, Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion 
(Airborne), 503d Infantry, 173d Airborne Brigade. While moving to 
reinforce a sister unit under intense enemy attack, the Reconnaissance 
Platoon came under heavy fire from a numerically superior enemy force.
  The intense fire severely wounded several soldiers and repulsed 
repeated attempts by fellow soldiers to rescue their fallen comrades. 
Ignoring this and directions to stay behind shelter, Mr. Rascon 
repeatedly tried to crawl forward to assist the wounded soldiers but 
was driven back each time by the withering enemy fire. Despite the 
risks to his own safety and realizing that the point machine-gunner was 
severely wounded and still under direct enemy fire, he dashed through 
gunfire and exploding grenades to reach his comrade. To protect him 
from wounds, Mr. Rascon intentionally placed his body between the 
soldier and the enemy machine guns and in doing so sustained numerous 
shrapnel injuries and a serious hip wound from an enemy bullet. Despite 
his wounds, he dragged him from the fire-raked trail and then crawled 
back through the area of heaviest fire with ammunition for a machine 
gunner, allowing the soldier to resume life protecting covering fire 
for the beleaguered squad. As Mr. Rascon crawled through the murderous 
fire to retrieve an abandoned machine gun and ammunition, a grenade 
exploded directly in front of him, severely wounding him in the face 
and torso.
  Although weakened by loss of blood and his painful wounds, he 
recovered the machine gun and ammunition for another soldier who was 
then able to provide badly needed suppressive fire for the pinned-
downed unit. As Mr. Rascon went forward to aid a badly wounded 
grenadier, he saw grenades fall near the stricken soldier. With 
complete disregard for his own life, he dove on the wounded man and 
covered him with his body, absorbing the full force of the grenade 
explosion but saving the soldier's life. Although he sustained 
additional fragmentation wounds to his face, back and legs, Mr. Rascon 
continued to treat the wounded. Seeing grenades land near the wounded 
point squad leader, and without regard for the consequences, he again 
rose to his feet and dove on the wounded man, again absorbing the blast 
of the grenades with his own body and suffering additional multiple 
fragmentation wounds. After treating the wounded sergeant, Mr. Rascon 
remained on the battlefield, providing medical aid to the wounded and 
inspiring his fellow soldiers to continue the battle.
  After the enemy broke contact, he treated and directed the evacuation 
of the wounded, and only then allowed himself to be treated. While 
making his way to the evacuation zone, Mr. Rascon collapsed from the 
result of his wounds and blood loss, and was carried from the 
battlefield.
  Because of the selflessness and bravery he demonstrated that day, Mr. 
Rascon's unit members submitted a recommendation for him to receive the 
Medal of Honor. Unfortunately, the written recommendation never made it 
up the chain of command. While we can't erase the mistake that deprived 
him of this award over thirty years ago, we can today finally do 
justice to Mr. Rascon.
  There are many people to thank for their work to recognize Alfred 
Rascon's extraordinary heroism. Gil Coronado, Director of the

[[Page 12488]]

Selective Service System, brought this case to my attention over six 
years ago and has been a consistent champion of this cause. Ken Smith, 
Colonel, US Army (Ret.), President of the Society of the 173rd Airborne 
Brigade, has been a steadfast supporter and brought his years of 
military experience as well as his dogged determination to the table. 
He and the Society were critical to the success of this effort. Gordon 
Sumner, COL, USA Ret., the Chairman of the DC Chapter of the 82nd 
Airborne Division, also assisted at critical times and deserves credit.
  Kelli R. Willard West, former legislative director of the Vietnam 
Veterans of America, helped bring the voice of Vietnam Veterans to this 
endeavor. Her hard work and steadfast support made an impact on this 
effort. John Fales, known as Sgt. Shaft to Washington Times readers, 
let the public know of Mr. Rascon's bravery and the efforts to properly 
honor him.
  Chairman Buyer and Ranking Member Neil Abercrombie should be 
commended for their assistance on bringing this amendment to the floor. 
I would also like to thank the staff of the Military Personnel 
Subcommittee, in particular Mike Higgins, for their efforts over the 
many years of work it took to bring this case to its logical 
conclusion.
  I also thank my colleagues who signed the numerous letters and joined 
in my efforts to honor Mr. Rascon. Specifically, Representatives Roscoe 
Bartlett and Luis Gutierrez should be noted for their support as well 
as Members of Congress who served in the 173rd, including 
Representatives Duncan Hunter, Mike Thompson and Charlie Norwood. My 
colleagues on the Senate side, Senators Spencer Abraham and Strom 
Thurmond must also be commended. Their efforts led to this amendment 
being included in the Senate's version of the FY2000 DOD Authorization 
Act. Stuart Anderson of Senator Abraham's staff should be particularly 
thanked for his efforts.
  Above all, members of Mr. Rascon's unit, the 1-503d Reconnaissance 
Platoon, must be recognized. Without their dogged efforts and those of 
Jacob R. Cook, SFC, USA Ret., Willie Williams, SFC, USA Ret., James K. 
Akuna (Deceased), SFC, USA Ret., Forrest Powers, SFC, USA Ret., Elmer 
R. Compton, SGT, SP4 John Kirk, Neil Haffey, PFC and Larry Gibson, PFC 
(MSG, USANG) this oversight never would have been brought to the 
attention of Congress and the public. Other members up and down the 
chain of command of the 173rd should be thanked as well, including Paul 
F. Smith, MG, USA Ret., John Tyler, COL, USA Ret., Bill Vose, CPT, USA 
Ret., Frank Vavrin, LTC, (Chaplain), USA Ret., Tom Marrinan, SFC, USA 
Ret., Jess Castanon, SGT (Deceased), Bob Berruti, SGT, Bob McCarthy, 
SGT, Ray Penzon, SGT, and Dan Ojeda. A special thanks should go to Roy 
Lombardo, LTC, USA Ret., who initially resubmitted the MOH packet to 
the Department of Defense. Mr. Lombardo, a Captain in the 173rd's 2nd 
Battalion during 1966, took this action when he was made aware, by Mr. 
Rascon's platoon members during the 173d's 1990 25th reunion, that the 
nomination never went forward.
  Other individuals and organizations who deserve credit and thanks 
include: Bishop Joseph Madera, Brig. Gen. Michael F. Aguilar, USMC, 
Suzanna Valdez, the National Council of La Raze, Daniel B. Gibson, Bill 
Dunker, the Heroes and Heritage Foundation, Raul Yzaguirre, Ken 
Steadman, Richard Boylan, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Robert 
Stacy.
  It is my true belief that we do not live up to our nation's sacred 
commitment to our veterans if we do not properly honor the sacrifices 
made by those who went above and beyond the call of duty. Again, I urge 
my colleagues to support the Chairman's En Bloc amendment and this 
important effort to honor Alfred Rascon, a true American hero.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump).
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Procurement.
  Mr. Chairman, section 151 of the authorization bill would prevent the 
Department of Defense from buying a commercial communications satellite 
system or leasing a communications service unless independent testing 
proves that the system or service will not cause harmful interference 
to collocated global positioning system receivers used by the DOD.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the efforts to protect DOD technology, 
including GPS, from harmful interference. However, I am concerned that 
the independent testing requirement in section 151 could have the 
inadvertent effect of precluding DOD's purchase of cellular telephones, 
two-way radios, and other communication services until new standards 
and testing protocols are developed.
  I ask the gentleman if this is the intent of section 151, and I yield 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Stump) that the purpose of section 151 is not to delay the 
acquisition of needed communications or to impose new and unnecessary 
regulations. Our military forces rely very heavily on GPS signals for 
navigation, precision munitions, and other purposes. This section is 
intended to assure that communication systems using the spectrum close 
to that used by GPS do not interfere with GPS receivers.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I believe this 
clarification will help us address DOD needs while being mindful of 
private sector concerns.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the 
gentleman on this matter.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Military Research and Development of the Committee on Armed Services in 
a colloquy regarding the defense of the United States electric power 
grid against information attacks, something that is very prominent at a 
large regional institution in our area, Drexel University.

                              {time}  1645

  A growing number of my constituents have expressed concern over the 
reliability of the U.S. electric power grid when challenged by natural 
disaster, terrorist attack or other threats. A major outage in the 
national electric power grid could severely cripple our society and 
significantly impact the national defense capabilities of this country.
  I raise this issue today because all Department of Defense facilities 
in the contiguous United States depend to a greater or lesser extent 
upon commercially owned and operated electric power grids that are 
managed through computer networks that are increasingly using the 
Internet as a communication and control network. Because of the 
interconnection of the Nation's electric power grid, the increased 
dependence on information systems and technology for control of the 
grid, and the potential threat of cyber-terrorism to the Nation's 
information infrastructure, I have personal concerns about the 
potential threat that targeted or massive outages could pose to the 
national security of the United States.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's 
concerns and applaud him for his outstanding national leadership on 
this issue. The committee's report states that the protection of the 
Nation's critical infrastructure against strategic information warfare 
attacks will require new tools and technology for information assurance 
and dominance. The ability to assess the vulnerability of the domestic 
electric power grid infrastructure to information attack will require 
the development of integrated models that can be used to develop 
strategies and procedures to detect and respond to terrorist attacks on 
the national electric power grid. Because defense information 
infrastructure is closely linked and dependent upon the domestic 
information infrastructure, I believe, and the committee report states, 
and I reinforce, that government, industry and academia should form 
partnerships to cooperatively develop information assurance solutions 
to protect the Nation's critical information systems infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman because he has taken a 
leadership role in developing such a model in the Philadelphia 
metropolitan region.

[[Page 12489]]


  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
and look forward to working with him and I thank him for his 
leadership.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities 
of the Committee on Armed Services in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, during the markup of H.R. 1401 by the Committee on 
Armed Services, I offered an amendment that would have conveyed real 
property at military installations closed under the base closure laws 
at no cost to those communities still in the process of negotiating 
agreements with the Department of Defense governing the terms under 
which the property would be disposed and put back into effective reuse. 
In return, communities which would have received property in this 
manner would be required to invest in reuse that provides job creation, 
effective economic redevelopment, and other public purposes.
  This is an issue of fundamental fairness to me. Base closures can 
have a disastrous effect on communities. As one example, the largest 
county in my district may lose 2 out of every 5 jobs as a result of the 
closure of Fort McClellan. The last thing we should be doing now is 
kicking an area like Calhoun County when it is already down.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdrew my amendment in full committee based on the 
commitment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) to work with me 
to try to find a solution to this problem. I am hopeful that the 
committee will soon hold a hearing on the subject. It is terribly 
important to the communities in Alabama and across the country who 
continue to struggle to recover from the effects of base closures.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RILEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to note the support of the Department of Defense for the basic 
concept articulated by the gentleman from Alabama. Current law compels 
the Department of Defense to maintain these properties at enormous cost 
while expending considerable resources to negotiate acceptable purchase 
prices.
  In my hometown of Fort Smith, Arkansas, the former army installation 
of Fort Chaffee was closed in 1995. Lately, the local redevelopment 
authority has been working diligently with the DOD to negotiate an 
acceptable purchase price. However, it is now clear that if the 
property is transferred at current market value, the purchase price 
will exceed the expected revenues generated from redevelopment.
  A number of unique characteristics of the property make redevelopment 
a costly endeavor. There is little incentive to pursue a redevelopment 
plan if the public trust is unable to recoup the cost of purchasing the 
property.
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment similar to that 
proposed by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley), but I understand 
the concerns expressed by the chairman of the subcommittee that his 
subcommittee has not had adequate time. So I hope we can move forward 
and resolve this issue promptly and look forward to working with the 
chairman.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RILEY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, the chairman of 
the subcommittee.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am acutely aware of the problem which the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Riley) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) have 
raised today. The Department of Defense has also made a proposal to 
expedite the reuse process. I am very sympathetic to the desire of the 
local communities to see effective economic reuse of former military 
installations and see it happen at the earliest possible time.
  As both gentlemen know, this is a complicated area of law. I regret 
the administration did not forward the formal proposal in this area to 
our committee in time for us to really take action on it. We have not 
had the opportunity to have adequate hearings, but we fully intend to 
have those hearings, to have them in a timely fashion, and to have them 
prior to the time that we go to conference on this. I would like for 
both of my colleagues, and others that are interested, to participate 
in these hearings with us.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, because this 
is an important issue and we do intend to address it. I appreciate both 
of my colleagues bringing it to my attention.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I wish to thank the 
chairman for his assurances.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment requiring the 
Secretary of Defense to report to the Congress on the results of 
investigations into the rash of recent failures of several of our space 
launch vehicles.
  I serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and while 
this committee does not have jurisdiction over the Department of 
Defense space launch vehicles, it does exercise oversight over the 
National Reconnaissance Office, which is a primary customer of Air 
Force launch vehicles. Indeed, one of the 4 recent Titan IV launch 
failures involved an extremely expensive NRO satellite and another 
involved the loss of a missile early warning satellite that is of 
considerable interest and importance to the intelligence community.
  I know that many of my colleagues, as well as many individuals in the 
executive branch and industry, and the public at large, are gravely 
concerned about these failures. Within the last year there have been 4 
failures of the Titan IV, two failures of the newly designed Delta III, 
and one failure of the Athena rocket.
  While 4 of these 6 failures entail the loss of commercial satellites 
and, therefore, did not cost the taxpayers anything, the other 4 
failures were extremely costly to the government, in the neighborhood 
of $3 billion, I am told.
  I understand very well that launching large satellites in space is 
inherently risky, and it is inevitable failures will occur from time to 
time, but this many failures in so short a time compels us to question 
our practices. It is doubly important to do so now since we are close 
to the first launches of the new Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, and 
since we have another dozen of the old Titan IVs remaining to be 
launched over the next 5 years. If we need to learn new lessons or 
rediscover old verities, now is the time.
  It appears that there are no common causes for any of these failures, 
although the failure investigations are incomplete. However, I believe 
it is the case that all of the failures involve two companies, the two 
companies that are the prime contractors for all of the government 
launch vehicles.
  It is certainly possible that this string of failures is merely some 
statistical aberration and does not reflect any systemic type of 
problem, or maybe there is really a systemic problem only within one 
program, like the Titan IV or the Delta III, or maybe the Delta III 
failures are just teething pains of a new system and the Athena failure 
is an isolated event.
  Alternatively, and of utmost concern, is the possibility that the 
various pressures operating on the industry at this time are somehow 
causing problems that pose a threat to national security.
  We know that launch rates in the industry for existing boosters are 
up substantially at the same time that new vehicles are being 
developed, which conceivably could stretch available managerial and 
engineering talent and

[[Page 12490]]

attention. We also know that competition is keener than ever, which 
combined with government pressure to reduce costs, conceivably could 
tempt some unwise cost cutting.
  We also need to consider the potential impact of changes in 
acquisition processes, such as the level of oversight and inspection 
conducted by the government, performance incentives by our contractors, 
buying launch services, and even private insurance for government 
launches.
  I know the executive branch and industry are anxious as we get to the 
bottom of this matter, and so I urge that this amendment be adopted.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask for the help of my 
colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), in bringing 
just compensation and closure to the surviving families of a tragic 
accident involving United States servicemen.
  On September 13 of 1997, a German Tupelov aircraft veered off course 
and collided with a United States Air Force C-141 off the coast of 
Namibia. Nine American servicemen perished in the collision. Accident 
investigations conducted by both the United States Air Force and the 
German Ministry of Defense both concluded that the fault of the 
collision lay with the German crew, who had not only filed an 
inaccurate flight plan, but were also flying at the wrong altitude.
  Five months after this accident, as we all know, a United States 
aircraft clipped a ski gondola cable in Italy, causing the deaths of 
20, 7 of whom were German nationals. As has been customary, the United 
States Government is preparing to make financial settlement with the 
families of those victims. Unfortunately, the German Government has 
been slow to show a reciprocal sense of responsibility and concern for 
the loss of 9 American lives.
  Senator Strom Thurmond has attached a resolution to the Senate 
defense authorization bill calling for the German Government to make a 
prompt, fair settlement with the families lost in this tragedy. This is 
similar to a resolution that I, along with 15 other bipartisan 
cosponsors, have introduced in the House.
  I appreciate the strong support the chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services has already given the surviving families of this 
accident, and I ask that when the Defense Authorization Act comes to 
conference the gentleman will accede to the Senate position with regard 
to the families of our lost airmen.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank the gentleman for raising this important issue.
  As the gentleman indicated, I have had a long-standing interest in 
seeing justice done in this case. The gentleman can be assured that I 
support the timely payment of compensation from the German Government 
in response to claims from surviving family members. Accordingly, I 
will support legislation that seeks to achieve that objective when it 
is considered for inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for the Year 2000.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his support.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the committee accepting my 
``buy American'' amendment. If we do not make it here and we go to war, 
who will we buy from; our enemy?
  So I wish to thank the committee for its continued support, and I 
also want to thank the members of the committee for accepting the 
amendment from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and 
myself that deals with weights bought for training measures from China.
  Let me just advise Members of Congress that they have a $67 billion 
trade surplus, and they are buying submarines, tanks and aircraft with 
our money and pointing their missiles at us. So I thank my colleagues 
for accepting my amendments.

                              {time}  1700

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, 
particularly that portion that pertains to the subject the gentleman 
from Georgia moments ago was talking about, the failures of the Titan 
4-A and 4-B rockets and/or their upper stages, resulting in the loss of 
valuable military and intelligence satellites. This is $3 billion we 
have lost in these satellites, and we are counting with respect to 
that.
  As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and as 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, I 
also have jurisdiction over this matter from the intelligence 
perspective, and we have had meetings with the Air Force and other 
personnel concerning this, including the companies involved in the 
failures. And there are investigations under way from the executive 
branch's perspective.
  But the national security interests and billions in costs required 
that appropriate committees in Congress, we believe, received detailed 
reports on failures as well as the reforms being implemented to prevent 
future failures.
  As my colleagues can see, the amendment would require the Secretary 
of Defense to report to Congress and the President on factors involved 
in these failures and what systemic and management reforms are being 
implemented to minimize future failures. This oversight is not only 
desired, but required by us in the Congress to appropriate funds for 
these launches.
  This amendment's requirements, we think, are prudent, and we thank 
the committee for considering them.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McIntyre-Cramer 
amendment and would like to express my appreciation to the chairman, 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their inclusion of this 
amendment in the en bloc package.
  I thank my colleagues for allowing this amendment to go forward. I am 
committed to working with all parties concerned.
  The thrust of the amendment is good government, three components: a 
positive relationship between our national laboratories and small 
business; a proper technology transfer program that enhances efficiency 
and integrity and maintains our global competitiveness in technology; 
and a productive partnership and level playing field between the 
Federal Government and the private sector. A positive relationship, 
proper technology transfer, productive partnership, three ingredients 
that will have a successful relationship between the Federal Government 
and small business.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in a continuing, 
constructive dialogue as we move forward to conference and including 
this in the DOD bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentlemen from California, Mr. 
Calvert and Mr. Horn, want to engage me in a colloquy.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to engage in a colloquy.

[[Page 12491]]

  It is my understanding that the Department of Defense has been 
authorized to purchase a total of 120 C-17s as a follow-on aircraft to 
the C-141, which is in the process of a complete drawdown. It is also 
my understanding that the C-17 aircraft is a key component for 
modernizing our Nation's Active Duty and Reserve component's air 
mobility resources.
  I ask the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), what 
is his opinion of the effectiveness of the C-17 aircraft, especially 
during the current high level of operations.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
want to thank my good friend from California, who happens to have the 
March Air Reserve Base in his district, I want to thank him for 
involving me in this important discussion of the future air mobility 
needs of our military.
  I also agree with him that the C-17 is a very vital tool for our 
Nation's air mobility needs. In fact, it has performed beyond the high 
expectations of the committee and the Department of Defense. With our 
increased reliance on Reserve components, coupled with technological 
advancements, we will become further reliant on flexible, multipurpose 
aircraft, such as the C-17.
  Mr. CALVERT. Finally, would the gentleman comment on what role he 
thinks the Reserve units will play in our military's air mobility 
capacity?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, of course, this is a conversation, too, 
that I know the chairman of the full committee is very interested in; 
he is a very important part of this, and I appreciate this opportunity 
to respond to this inquiry.
  As many Members with Reserve components in their district know, such 
as the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) with March Air Reserve 
Base, the Nation's Reserve components currently play a very key role in 
our Nation's air mobility capacity. We could not be involved in the air 
campaign right now without that Reserve component.
  As has been displayed in this recent conflict, the Reserve units are 
being heavily utilized both in air mobility and other key areas. I 
believe that this trend of relying on Reserve components will only 
continue to increase. But we should ensure that these units are 
outfitted with the most technologically advanced resources available. 
And once again, the C-17 has done a great job.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my two colleagues from California.
  The C-17, as we all know, is one of the great success stories. I am 
proud to say it is built in Long Beach, California. It started with 
Douglas Aircraft, now owned by Boeing Aircraft. They won the top award 
for quality in America last year in manufacturing. That is the Malcolm 
Baldrige Quality Award administered by the United States Department of 
Commerce.
  In Kosovo, C-17s showed that they can deliver both humanitarian goods 
and military goods on time in small airports with short runways. It is 
my hope that we will have more and more C-17s sold to foreign 
governments so their military groups can build up their capacity in air 
mobility and bring needed equipment, supplies, and personnel to the war 
zone.
  I would also hope that civilian cargo airlines could use the C-17s on 
the very small landing fields we have around the world. The C-17 is a 
success story. It ought to be shared. Those sales would help us lower 
the per-unit cost.
  I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for all that he 
has done to procure the C-17.
  Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) believe that the 
Secretary of Defense should explore the recent offer to drastically 
reduce the price of additional C-17s as a means for addressing some of 
the future needs at home and abroad?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, yes. 
And I want to thank both gentlemen from California for their interest 
in this important discussion.
  It is my understanding the Secretary is currently exploring all 
options to modernize our air mobility forces, including the need to 
acquire additional C-17s.
  With respect to selling some of these to our allies, often the answer 
given to us by them when we ask for their support in operations like 
the air campaign that is currently being undertaken where we are doing 
the lion's share of the work and paying the lion's share, that often 
the answer to us is that we have the resources, we have the aircraft. 
And if we can sell some of these C-17s to our allies, with that, along 
with the possession of high-capability aircraft, will go the 
responsibility to use them in joint operations and take some of the 
burden off American forces. I think that is a good thing.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  The amendment I am rising to speak on in favor of is that which 
allows the transfer of the reactor at McClellan Air Force Base to the 
University of California.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence) has expired.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  The amendment allows the transfer of the unwanted reactor at 
McClellan Air Force Base to the University of California (Davis) and 
provides the funding for decommissioning it. This is a reactor owned 
presently by the Air Force for which they have no further use. The 
expectation is that they will pay the decommissioning cost.
  This transfer allows our region, which is suffering through base 
closures, to realize the benefit of 25 additional years of use of this 
small reactor without any additional cost.
  I appreciate the committee making this amendment in order. I look 
forward to its passage. This is a win in our very difficult base 
closing process, and I applaud the Congress for making us part of this.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota 
(Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the committee's 
cooperation and the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for making in order the Thune-Stenholm amendment 
and agreeing to accept it.
  It is very important to a lot of the current members of active duty 
forces in the armed services, military retirees, and their dependents. 
This amendment seeks to help make TriCare, the military health care 
system, a more efficient, more user-friendly military health care 
system.
  Since 1987, 35 percent of the military hospitals in the United States 
have closed. Similarly, the number of doctors, nurses, and medical 
technicians in military services dwindles. However, the number of 
beneficiaries is not dropping at nearly that rate.
  As a result, defense medical leaders needed to find a way to deliver 
health care that would combine military and civilian resources into a 
system that would maintain or improve quality, increase access, and 
control costs for beneficiaries and taxpayers. TriCare is intended to 
fill that need.
  My State, the State of South Dakota, is home to the fine men and 
women of Ellsworth Air Force Base, as well as to a sizable military 
retiree population. Each of those individuals and the many health care 
providers in western South Dakota have a direct interest in TriCare.

[[Page 12492]]

  This amendment does not make massive changes in the TriCare system. 
Rather, it is about fine-tuning the system to make it better for all 
those involved. The language deals with specific areas of concern 
expressed by constituents, military service organizations, health care 
providers, contractors, and the Department of Defense.
  The amendment will help ensure contracts allow for best business 
practices, help provide for a better understanding of the reimbursement 
rate structure in rural areas, improve health care access for military 
personnel deployed in remote and rural locations, and reduce some of 
the paperwork burdens for beneficiaries of the military fee-for-service 
program.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I have spent hours 
receiving comments and reworking the amendment to address many of the 
concerns that we have heard. And again, I would like to thank the 
chairman for including and accepting it.
  These amendments have the support of the National Military and 
Veterans Alliance and the Military Coalition, which together represent 
over 40 military veterans' organizations with a combined membership of 
well over five million people.
  It is important change. It is not going to make the TriCare system 
perfect. But I do believe it will make it better for those who have 
served and continue to serve our great Nation.
  So I thank the chairman for yielding and appreciate his acceptance of 
this amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) had 
to leave, but he was concerned about the multipurpose processor 
program, a program that was developed in his district in one of the 
premier high-tech companies in the country, which is located in 
Northern Virginia, that has reinstated to a large degree the 
superiority of American submarines, giving us some 200 times the 
capability we had in the past with about one-tenth of the cost. It has 
really been a great breakthrough.
  The committee likes this program.
  We want to apologize to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and 
to the Navy because due to a technical error, the program fell out of 
our budget. The other body does have it in their budget. And so, when 
we go into conference, we are going to make sure that we work to 
restore that. It is an outstanding program. It provides enormous 
leverage for the U.S., and we will work during the conference to 
restore it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), 
section 141 of the National defense authorization bill for fiscal year 
2000 contains a provision that would allow nonstockpile chemical 
agents, munitions, or related materials specifically designated by the 
Secretary of Defense to be destroyed at chemical stockpile facilities 
once the affected States have issued the appropriate permits.
  One of those facilities is located in my district at Anniston, 
Alabama. I am concerned and strongly believe that local jurisdictions 
should have a voice in any decision to use chemical stockpile 
destruction facilities for purposes other than the purpose for which 
they were originally constructed, destruction of the stockpile of 
lethal agents and munitions that are stored at the site.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his expression of 
concern and for his leadership in this area.
  In discussing the chemical agents and munitions weapons destruction 
program, the committee report notes and has emphasized the increasing 
practice of meaningful involvement by State and local jurisdictions in 
the development of programmatic and policy decisions that are specific 
to their local stockpile storage sites.
  We will work with the gentleman in this area.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express some concerns that I 
have with the McIntyre Amendment, which is included in the en bloc 
amendment offered by Mr. Spence.
  The McIntyre Amendment would direct DOE laboratories to make 
available a range of expedited dispute resolution procedures to resolve 
differences with private sector entities. The goal of this amendment is 
good. Given the nature of technology transfer, and the demands of 
bringing new technologies to the marketplace in a timely manner, it is 
important that disputes are settled quickly and amicably.
  But I am worried that this amendment's focus on expedited resolutions 
would sometimes exclude more appropriate forums for the resolution of 
disputes. I also believe we need to keep in mind the interest of the 
American taxpayer and not subject federally funded institutions to 
dispute resolution procedures that fail to protect their interests. In 
an effort to provide a speedy resolution to disagreements, I am 
concerned that this amendment may unintentionally fail to ensure access 
to the appropriate venue for resolution.
  There is no evidence, Mr. Chairman, that system-wide deficiencies 
exist in the federal technology transfer process. Indeed, technology 
transfer laws have made it possible for important federally developed 
technologies to reach the commercial marketplace. It is important that 
we not threaten the success we have had in technology transfer by 
making changes in the process that might restrict the ability of our 
laboratories to participate.
  I appreciate the dialogue that Mr. McIntyre and I have had on this 
amendment in recent days and I look forward to working with him to 
address my concerns as this legislation moves forward.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc 
amendment and want to thank the Chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, the Ranking Democrat, and the Chairman of the Procurement 
Subcommittee for their support of my amendment which provides an 
authorization of funding for the procurement of important fire fighting 
equipment used by the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
  Currently, there are twelve Modular Airborne Firefighting Systems 
known as MAFFS in operation, two of which operate in California. These 
units, which are twenty-six years old and which are used exclusively on 
military aircraft to help fight forest fires across the country, are 
now at the end of their useful life and are in urgent need of 
replacement. Our Air Force Reserve and National Guard believe that each 
year these aged and outdated systems continue to be used, the more they 
become a danger to the C-130s they are flown in and the crews that man 
them.
  As you know California and many other areas of the Southwest suffer 
from severe wildfire damage every year. These units are extremely 
important in helping to fight these fires and the replacement of these 
MAFFS units is a high priority among our National Guard.
  Last year, for Fiscal Year 1999, the Defense Appropriations bill 
included $6 million for the procurement and replacement of the first 
several MAFFS units. I understand the Air Force has already begun the 
process of competing these funds for the replacement units.
  My amendment simply authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to 
carry out the remainder of this procurement.
  I understand the many competing, and important programs for which the 
Committees must provide funding and I appreciate the Committee's 
willingness to help support this critically needed firefighting 
equipment by accepting my amendment.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was inspired by a House 
Science Committee Democratic Staff report entitled ``Spinoff or 
Ripoff,'' released on April 9 of this year, which examined many aspects 
of the technology transfer program at a government-owned contractor-
operated National Laboratory. I would like to submit to the record 
Chapter C of the Committee Staff report, which reviews an intellectual 
property dispute, and the technology transfer practices at one of our 
National Laboratories.
  This amendment will help ensure that the transfer of technology from 
our National Labs to American business is working hard as well as it 
should. It will make alternative dispute resolution and mediation 
available to small companies that simply can't afford the time or costs 
associated with a prolonged legal dispute with the government-owned 
Labs. Avoiding a prolonged legal battle will not only save money and 
resources for American companies, but it will also save money for the 
American taxpayers.

[[Page 12493]]

  This amendment will hold the contractor that operates the Lab liable 
for damages to the extent that they are found at fault. This is simply 
assuring appropriate accountability for those who participate in 
technology transfer practices that may cause harm to commercial 
businesses.
  This amendment also addresses the structure of the technology 
transfer policies at each of the DOE National Laboratories. Today, if 
any company in this Nation wanted to enter into technology transfer 
partnerships with multiple DOE National Laboratories, they would have 
to deal with a different set of procedural requirements at each Lab. 
This amendment will ensure consistency of technology transfer policies 
and procedures across the Labs. We hope that this will encourage 
maximum utilization of tax-payer funded research and development by 
commercial industry.
  I would like to make it clear that I believe that most of the people 
working at our National Laboratories are among our most talented and 
patriotic citizens. We are concerned that the technology personnel at 
these Labs receive sufficient training in U.S. law governing technology 
transfer. This amendment requires that personnel responsible for 
patenting, licensing, and commercialization activities--all of which 
are fundamental to a successful technology transfer program--be 
knowledgeable about the appropriate legal, procedural, and ethical 
standards.
  This amendment is intended to help ensure that future technology 
transfer activities at the National Labs are carried out in a manner 
befitting a taxpayer-funded entity, with the goal of strengthening the 
competitive, scientific, and economic stature of American companies and 
research organizations. This amendment will strengthen the role that 
the National Laboratories will play in bringing this great Country into 
the 21st Century. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the 
future of technology transfer and our National Laboratories by 
supporting the McIntyre-Cramer amendment.

                           Spinoff or Ripoff?


technology transfer at department of energy national laboratories: the 
development & commercialization of micropower impulse radar at lawrence 
                     livermore national laboratory

     (C) The Intellectual Property Dispute with TDC
       There are four stories that can be told relating to the 
     intellectual property dispute between the Laboratory and TDC. 
     The first story, and the one that attracted Congressional 
     attention, was a claim by TDC that Thomas McEwan and the 
     LLNL/UC had appropriated TDC's technology and passed it off 
     as their own. The second story is Mr. McEwan's story; not 
     surprisingly, it lies approximately 180 degrees away from the 
     TDC claims. While Democratic Staff will briefly recount these 
     two claims, we do not have the capability to determine where 
     the truth lies. We simply cannot ascertain whose version of 
     the truth is right, and we repeat the tales simply to aid 
     those who would take up further investigation and to create a 
     context in which the third and fourth stories make more 
     sense.
       It is the third and fourth stories, regarding technology 
     transfer practices at the National Laboratories and the 
     Laboratories' response to complaints such as TDC's, that 
     raise important policy questions: Is there adequate guidance 
     for inventors on what prior art they are required to cite 
     when crafting patent applications? Are the Laboratory 
     technology transfer attorneys doing a reliable job of 
     scrubbing and perfecting those applications before submitting 
     them to the PTO? \1\ Is there a policy in place at the 
     Laboratories that directs what the response of a Laboratory 
     should be when it is faced with a complaint like TDC's?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       If the technology transfer process at the Laboratories 
     allows incomplete applications to go forward, it may be that 
     there are cases out there, still unidentified, where the PTO 
     has assigned a patent in good faith to the Laboratory based 
     on incomplete disclosure of prior art. In this event, the 
     taxpayers are at risk for legal costs and damages should a 
     private firm or individual challenge that patent and win at 
     trial. Without judging the merits of the TDC claim against 
     the Laboratory, there may be a system in place at LLNL that 
     could create more TDC-type complaints in the future.\2\
       Finally, a fourth story can be told about the response of 
     LLNL/UC to TDC's claim as well as to repeated requests by 
     Members of Congress both for information and for a resolution 
     to the problem. TDC first brought this matter to the 
     attention of DOE in fall, 1995. It was not until December 
     1997 that LLNL/UC submitted the patent for reexamination to 
     the PTO. Moreover, LLNL/UC have consistently supplied both 
     TDC and Members of Congress misleading or factually incorrect 
     information regarding several aspects of the 
     commercialization of MIR technology, and their submission of 
     this information has consistently taken much longer than it 
     should have. The policy issue raised by this aspect of the 
     case is whether there are options available to a small 
     private sector entity when making a complaint against a 
     National Laboratory to ensure that the complaint is addressed 
     promptly and in good faith by the Laboratory in question.
     (1) TDC's account of intellectual property theft
       In essence, the TDC account is that Thomas McEwan and LLNL/
     UC stole technology from TDC and Larry Fullerton. As Ralph 
     Petroff of TDC stated in a February 9, 1999 letter to Dr. 
     Michal Freedhoff: ``(t)his is not technology transfer; this 
     is the `evil twin' of technology transfer--the government 
     knowingly appropriates technology that it did not invent, 
     sells licenses for technology that does not work, and 
     declares the whole process ``the most successful technology 
     transfer project in DOE history.''
       TDC argues that Mr. McEwan began working on his MIR project 
     immediately upon his return from the March, 1990 LANL meeting 
     on UWB radar where he had heard at least one presentation 
     involving Fullerton, and that ``Mr. Fullerton presented two 
     papers at the Symposium.'' \3\ TDC describes this symposium 
     as a ``small conference'' and quotes another attendee as 
     saying that ``(y)ou could not have attended that conference 
     without being exposed to the Fullerton technology.'' \4\ TDC 
     also notes that Aviation Week & Space Technology, ``a 
     publication that is widely read at LLNL,'' ran two articles 
     subsequent to the conference that emphasized Mr. Fullerton's 
     work and patents.\5\ Finally, TDC notes that several other 
     publications that would probably have been seen by those in 
     the UWB radar community in the early 1990s also mention Larry 
     Fullerton and his inventions.\6\ In short, Mr. McEwan had to 
     have known who Larry Fullerton was, the nature of Mr. 
     Fullerton's work and that Mr. Fullerton held patents in the 
     UWB radar field.
       More proof of Mr. McEwan's awareness of Fullerton is 
     offered by TDC: ``The `never- heard-of-Fullerton' explanation 
     was further contradicted by the comments of two customers 
     (one commercial, one government) who claimed that Lawrence 
     Livermore personnel (including McEwan himself) had contacted 
     them in an attempt to take potential business away from Time 
     Domain. The basic message was `You don't want to (sic) 
     business with Time Domain. Our technology is the same as 
     Fullerton's--only better.' '' \7\
       TDC also claimed that ``McEwan himself made the comment 
     that the `MIR technology was the same as Fullerton's--only 
     better.'' \8\
       Finally, TDC points to a September, 1990 funding proposal 
     co-authored by Thomas McEwan and David Christie. This 
     presentation, titled ``Ultra-Wideband Time Domain Imaging 
     Radar,'' included a graph that TDC's attorneys concluded was 
     a reconstruction of a graph included in the paper co-authored 
     by Fullerton and presented at the March, 1990 LANL 
     meeting.\9\ That presentation, according to TDC: ``utiliz(ed) 
     only slightly reformatted graphs of the same information 
     (emphasis in original) that Fullerton presented at Los 
     Alamos! . . . This proves McEwan knew of the Fullerton 
     technology and was busily preparing presentations within 
     weeks after the Los Alamos Symposium . . . (T)his document 
     proves that McEwan had access to Fullerton's work, and 
     therefore that McEwan derived his invention from Fullerton.'' 
     \10\
       TDC goes on to say: ``This blatant misappropriation of 
     intellectual property was the beginning, we believe, of the 
     pattern of `inventions' by McEwan. McEwan's successful 
     solicitation of financial support from LLNL led the Lab into 
     the field of `reverse technology transfer'--taking technology 
     from the private sector and using public funds to compete 
     against the original inventor (emphasis in original).\11\
       Review of Laboratory documents and other materials by 
     Democratic Staff revealed at least two other occasions when, 
     prior to his 1993 patent application, Mr. McEwan cited the 
     work of Larry Fullerton. A June 27, 1990 internal memo from 
     T.E. McEwan to E.M. Campbell stated: ``A recent Aviation Week 
     article brought out another new area for fast impulses--
     covert and spread-spectrum communications. Apparently some 
     outfit perfected a time-domain encoder which uses picosecond 
     timing to convey information and is both undetectable and 
     undecipherable with conventional gear.'' This quote describes 
     the substance of the June 4, 1990 Aviation Week & Space 
     Technology article that pointed to Fullerton's work in UWB 
     communications.\12\
       On February 11, 1992, Thomas McEwan faxed a copy of a 
     Fullerton paper entitled ``Ultra-Wideband Beamforming in 
     Sparse Arrays'' to Mr. Bruce Winker of Rockwell 
     International.\13\ Mr. Winker had been in discussions with 
     Mr. McEwan and LLNL about licensing a shockline 
     technology.\14\ Mr. McEwan had apparently promised to send 
     Mr. Winker a paper that spoke to a technical issue that 
     Winker had raised--Fullerton's paper is what was faxed out.
       This additional example confirms Mr. McEwan's knowledge of 
     Fullerton and TDC's work in this area as of February, 1992. 
     In August, 1992, McEwan filed his first Invention Disclosure 
     form; in 1993 he filed his first patent applications on UWB 
     for motion-sensing radar technology. As TDC notes, neither 
     the Invention Disclosure nor the patent application makes any 
     mention of Larry Fullerton despite the many occasions on 
     which

[[Page 12494]]

     McEwan was exposed to Fullerton's work. TDC goes on to claim 
     that McEwan was engaged in ``terminology tactics'' designed 
     to obscure the similarities between the device he was 
     submitting for patent protection and the inventions that 
     Fullerton already had patents on--patents going back to 
     1987.\15\
       In sum, TDC argues that Mr. McEwan knew about Mr. 
     Fullerton's work; Mr. McEwan felt Fullerton's work was 
     important enough to cite or mention to others at the 
     Laboratory and to an outside party with whom he was 
     negotiating; Mr. McEwan neglected to cite any of that work in 
     his Invention Disclosure form or patent applications to try 
     to obscure from the PTO the similarity between his and 
     Fullerton's work. With a patent in hand, Mr. McEwan and LLNL/
     UC could then proceed to license ``their'' technology and 
     reap the enormous profits that would come--all at the expense 
     of TDC. To defend its intellectual property, TDC would have 
     to bear the costs of litigation against a Federally-funded 
     entity and the State of California.
     (2) Thomas McEwan's account of intellectual creativity
       Mr. McEwan's account of events is extraordinarily different 
     from the TDC version. It is difficult to form a coherent 
     picture of the McEwan and LLNL/UC account because of 
     differences in claims that have come to us from Mr. McEwan 
     and LLNL/UC and because of holes in the documentary record 
     provided by LLNL/UC. Consequently, some of the following is 
     based on piecing that record together, largely from 
     communications from Mr. McEwan to others, including 
     Democratic Staff.\16\
       Mr. McEwan became interested in UWB applications and 
     decided to attend the March, 1990 LANL meeting. He wrote in 
     his trip report on the symposium that his interest was piqued 
     by an article in Aviation Week & Space Technology \17\ that 
     ``it could defeat stealth technology and the stealth 
     community regards impulse radar as a `very very touchy 
     issue.' '' \18\ In preparation for the March session at LANL, 
     he began reading relevant literature in January, 1990. His 
     Task Progress Report (TPR) for January reads (in part): 
     ``Impulse radar was surveyed in the library, with some papers 
     on subsurface probing found.'' Mr. McEwan's February, 1990 
     TPR reads (in part): ``Impulse radar range calculations were 
     made, and related survey work continued.''
       Mr. McEwan attended the March, 1990 LANL meeting along with 
     10 other LLNL employees. This Symposium included more than 
     200 official participants with 74 papers presented. Mr. 
     McEwan maintains that: ``I did not see or hear Mr. Fullerton 
     at the conference, and can only assume that he made an oral 
     presentation, if any, during the classified session, which I 
     can prove I missed except for the opening paper by Col. 
     Taylor (as I recall).''
       Mr. McEwan also adds that: ``I believe Forrest Anderson 
     orally presented the first [Fullerton] paper on antenna 
     arrays, with Mr. Fullerton cited as a co-author. Mr. 
     Fullerton is not listed as an author or co-author on the 
     second paper,\19\ so I'm confused about TDC's claim that it's 
     Fullerton's paper (don't you have to be an author to claim 
     it's your paper?). Neither paper was mentioned in my 
     extensive trip report, nor Dave Christie's.'' \20\
       Mr. McEwan is right to raise a question about the TDC claim 
     that Fullerton presented two papers. There are references to 
     Fullerton in the text of the Bretthorst paper, but he is not 
     listed as a co-author; TDC's assertion that he had two papers 
     at the conference is misleading. In any case, Mr. McEwan's 
     trip report does not offer clear evidence that he attended 
     either presentation. However, he does mention work being done 
     at Washington University, stating ``They ran probability of 
     detection studies on 300 ps impulse returns.'' \21\ This is 
     certainly a reference to the Bretthorst (Washington 
     University) et al. paper. Whether McEwan attended the 
     presentation or saw a poster regarding this work, or learned 
     of it in some other way, is unclear. But even if he had 
     attended the presentation, it was not given by Mr. 
     Fullerton.\22\
       Mr. McEwan submitted a very detailed, six-page trip report 
     that mentions 23 different organizations or presentations, 
     though it isn't always clear whether he was at a 
     presentation, saw a poster, collected a paper or learned 
     about the work he mentioned in another fashion. One could 
     probably fairly characterize the majority of his discussion 
     regarding applications that relate the possibility that UWB 
     could defeat stealth technology.
       Mr. McEwan returned from LANL excited about the 
     possibilities of developing UWB technologies. In his trip 
     report, he writes: ``There was virtually no mention of work 
     below 100 ps and no mention of high power avalanche shock-
     wave devices. By all appearances, our work in the Laser 
     Program places us well in the lead for high power sub-100-ps 
     pulses . . .'' \23\
       ``Our work in the Laser Program positions us in the areas 
     of waveform generation and transmitters with our avalanche 
     shock-wave devices and in the receiver area with our high 
     speed instrumentation work, e.g., photoconductive sensors and 
     sampling devices. Avalanche shock-wave pulse generation is an 
     area where LLNL retains international leadership. We are 
     currently generating 100 kW pulses with a 25ps risetime and 
     expect to be near the 1MW level within six months. . . . It 
     is possible that avalanche shock-wave techniques could 
     satisfy virtually all impulse radar requirements.'' \24\
       Mr. McEwan wasn't the only one from the group who saw some 
     possibility of applying the work they had been doing for the 
     NOVA laser to solving challenges to UWB applications. Mr. 
     David Christie's trip report reads in part: ``My assessment 
     is that this technology is still in its infancy . . . 
     Clearly, the message was that everything is at an early stage 
     of development, not just the high average power, high rep-
     rate impulse generator technology. This leaves both time and 
     room for us to get involved . . . My opinion is that the 
     `bulk avalanche' GaAs [gallium arsenide] switch is a good 
     candidate for further examination. Its availability at a 
     significant peak power and rep-rate could serve to shape the 
     direction of the impulse radar business. At a minimum, it 
     would give us a clear entry into the early development of 
     impulse radar technology. Power Spectra [a private firm] is 
     known to be developing this technology for radar, 
     countermeasure, and detonator applications. My impression is 
     that they are still struggling with life and reliability 
     issues. The University of Texas has one graduate student 
     working on the avalanche mode switch, and LLNL, as you know, 
     has a small effort funded by Engineering. The physics of the 
     `bulk avalanche' switch are not yet understood, and . . . 
     would be the most important thing to address first.'' \25\
       Mr. McEwan did apply or internal Laboratory funding to 
     develop this technology; he and LLNL/UC have maintained that 
     he never received funding and had to work on the UWB 
     technology in this spare time. However, Democratic Staff are 
     in possession of a series of documents that indicate that he 
     not only proposed and received funding for these efforts in 
     FY 91, FY92, and FY 93, but was also involved in a series of 
     marketing presentations in 1991 and 1992 \26\ (see appendix 2 
     for citations). These presentations raise the possibility 
     that Mr. McEwan possessed the elements for his invention well 
     before the date on his invention Disclosure Form. However, we 
     were unable to examine his lab notebooks to track the 
     progress of his work.
       In any case, Mr. McEwan did not file an Invention 
     Disclosure until August 28, 1992. He portrays the moment as 
     coming from a flash of insight. A July 24, 1998 letter from 
     Mr. McEwan to Mr. Ron Cochran states: ``I invented MIR during 
     1992 while experimenting with a classic impulse radar that is 
     well-described in the technical literature; the radar was 
     similar to ground penetrating radar, but employed sampling 
     technology that I developed for the Nova laser program at 
     LLNL. The idea for MIR came quite by accident and in a flash 
     of inspiration--I still remember the moment. Its subsequent 
     development and refinement relied heavily on my extensive 
     background in high speed electronics, electronic warfare and 
     sampling technology.'' \27\
       After this insight, he reportedly began and completed his 
     30-page Invention Disclosure form (over a very short ten-day 
     period) and worked with the LLNL patent office to prepare his 
     first MIR patent application.
       Mr. McEwan has not denied knowing something about Fullerton 
     and his work. However, he denies that he had an obligation to 
     cite Fullerton in his patents or Invention Disclosure: ``As I 
     understand it, TDC's position is that I should have cited 
     Fullerton on my MIR motion sensor patent. I agree--had I 
     known about the Fullerton motion sensor patent. I disagree 
     with the idea that knowing someone was working in radar would 
     be sufficient grounds to search their patent records. By that 
     logic, I should have searched all 100 presenters at the LANL 
     '90 conference, and (sic) well as 1000s of others in the 
     field of radar. After all, radar is a greatly diversified 
     field.'' \28\
       He goes on to say that: ``The LLNL patent group did not 
     perform a prior art search on the disputed MIR patent. As I 
     understand it, LLNL patent group generally relies on the PTO 
     to conduct a minimal prior art search. There's nothing 
     illegal in not performing a prior art search--you are only 
     required to submit known relevant art.'' \29\
     (3) LLNL/UC technology transfer practices may be inadequate
       It is impossible to determine, based on the materials in 
     our possession, whose version of the story is accurate. But 
     from a policy perspective, our concern rests with the 
     adequacy of the LLNL/UC patenting process. In this sense, 
     this third story begins where Mr. McEwan's defense leaves 
     off.
       Mr. McEwan's defense for not citing TDC rests on his 
     understanding that relevant prior art resides only with 
     patents. It is clear that even as late as October, 1998, 
     three years after the intellectual property dispute with TDC 
     had begun, he was still defending his failure to cite TDC 
     based on his lack of awareness of the TDC patents. The duty 
     of candor that comes with a patent application includes a 
     much broader conception of prior relevant art than Mr. 
     McEwan's position reveals.\30\
       Independent patent experts contacted by Democratic Staff 
     have said that material information could include articles in 
     the press, white papers, presentations at conferences, or 
     publicly available information from any

[[Page 12495]]

     other source, including but not limited to patents.\31\ 
     Consequently, Mr. McEwan's knowledge of the Fullerton patent 
     portfolio is not the sole universe of prior art which he 
     should have been concerned about citing in a patent 
     application. Mr. McEwan could reasonably have been expected, 
     had he understood this broader definition of prior art, to 
     have cited the Fullerton work that he was aware of that TDC 
     can point to as proof that Mr. McEwan had knowledge of Mr. 
     Fullerton's efforts.
       To put this another way, if Mr. Fullerton's work was 
     important enough to cite in internal Laboratory memoranda and 
     faxes to third parties, it was probably something an attorney 
     would suggest be included in his patent applications. The 
     evidence that Mr. McEwan may not, even now, understand this 
     broader responsibility lies in the language of his defense; 
     he does not say he didn't cite Mr. Fullerton's body of work 
     because it was not relevant prior art, nor does he deny that 
     he at least knew something about Mr. Fullerton. He rests his 
     defense on ignorance of Mr. Fullerton's patents. This 
     suggests that neither at the time he was preparing his 
     patents nor to this day has Mr. McEwan been properly 
     instructed by a LLNL/UC patent attorney on the subject of 
     prior relevant art.
       LLNL/UC's technology transfer office had a duty to vet Mr. 
     McEwan's work in a meaningful fashion.\32\ Their guidance and 
     questioning of the inventor should have made clear the scope 
     of materials that would constitute prior relevant art. 
     Further, we would expect that the technology transfer office 
     should have engaged in their own review of the literature and 
     existing patents and Fullerton should have shown up 
     prominently in one place or the other (or both), leading to 
     follow-up with Mr. McEwan.\33\
       This apparently did not happen. If LLNL/UC's patenting 
     process was more rigorous, it is highly likely that at least 
     some of Mr. Fullerton's work would have been cited as prior 
     art. It is also likely that any one of those citations would 
     have triggered the patent reviewers to find and examine Mr. 
     Fullerton's patents for comparison and all parties in this 
     dispute would have had a clearer, fuller ruling from the PTO 
     many years ago. If these is fault here, it perhaps lies not 
     with Mr. McEwan, but with LLNL/UC's patenting process. We 
     strongly recommend that this process be reviewed by DOE and 
     Laboratory management, and that steps be taken to insure that 
     a) every disputed patent owned by LLNL/UC is thoroughly 
     reviewed, and the PTO and general public be immediately 
     notified of any failures to cite relevant prior art and b) 
     every future patent application is thoroughly reviewed and 
     appropriate prior art searches done before the attorneys for 
     LLNL/UC move patents forward to the PTO.
     (4) LLNL/UC's response to TDC and Members of Congress was 
         inadequate
       The fourth story associated with the intellectual property 
     dispute between LLNL/UC and TDC is LLNL/UC's response, both 
     to the dispute and to Congressional inquiries associated with 
     it.
       In September, 1995, a meeting was held in Senator Shelby's 
     office which included DOE personnel and representatives of a 
     precursor entity to TDC. LLNL/UC personnel were reportedly 
     invited but unable to attend. This meeting was the first 
     known instance in which DOE was made aware that the MIR 
     patent claims granted to Mr. McEwan and LLNL/UC were being 
     contested by TDC. It also appears clear from the Taylor/
     McEwan paper cited earlier that Mr. McEwan and LLNL/UC 
     personnel knew about TDC's patents by fall, 1995.\34\
       Appendix 4 lists more than 40 additional attempts by 
     Members of Congress and TDC and/or its precursor entities to 
     resolve this matter with correspondence, meetings and 
     conversations with LLNL/DOE. In the words of TDC: ``Neither 
     LLNL-UC nor DOE has made any serious attempt to resolve the 
     situation. Indeed, there is little incentive for LLNL-UC to 
     ``do the right thing'' under the present structure because 
     they can outlast any private sector challenge by using the 
     almost unlimited legal and financial resources of the state 
     of California and the U.S. Government.'' \35\
       Several of the contacts listed in Appendix 4 are worthy of 
     some mention. The June 19, 1997 document entitled ``Summary 
     of the Dispute Between Time Domain and LLNL'' is 21 pages 
     long with a very lengthy appendix, and was provided by TDC to 
     LLNL at the request of Dr. C. Bruce Tarter.\36\
       On February 2, 1998, Dr. C. Bruce Tarter responded to the 
     June 19, 1997 submission from TDC with a 5-page reply. The 
     response stated that: ``In response to the initial complaint, 
     the matter was fully investigated and no evidence was found 
     to support any of the allegations. . . . Upon receipt of the 
     ``new material,'' we took all the papers and exhibits you 
     submitted and reviewed them in detail. I sought input from 
     several associates, with knowledge of the patenting process 
     and the technical fields. Our unanimous conclusion, after 
     that review, was that the material did not support your 
     representations.''
       When LLNL/UC personnel were asked to provide copies of this 
     investigation, Committee Staff were informed that the results 
     of these endeavors were conveyed to Dr. Tarter orally, and 
     that correspondence between LLNL/UC and its counsel was 
     privileged and could not be shared.
       On September 25, 1998, Congressmen Brown, Cramer, Roemer, 
     Aderholt and Callahan submitted 9 pages of detailed questions 
     to both LLNL/UC and DOE.\37\
       On December 21, 1998 LLNL/UC responded to this letter. The 
     response contained few specific answers to the variety of 
     technical and legal questions posed, referring the requesters 
     to submissions by LLNL/UC to the PTO and other documentation. 
     On February 23, 1999, the DOE responded with no specific 
     answers to these questions.
       The LLNL/UC MIR web site continues to make no mention of 
     this dispute or the status of the PTO reexamination. A 
     prospective licensee who was perusing the site would know 
     neither that the intellectual property was being challenged, 
     nor that the PTO had issued a First Office Action.
       TDC attempted to resolve this matter with LLNL/UC in 1995; 
     Nearly four years later and after numerous attempts on the 
     part of Members of Congress to expedite the resolution of 
     this problem, it remains tied up in what could be a lengthy 
     and costly ruling and appeals process in the PTO--a process 
     that was only started two and a half years after the 
     beginning of the dispute. Dr. C. Bruce Tarter does state, in 
     a September 17, 1998 letter to Congressmen Brown, Cramer and 
     Roemer, that: ``For example, the allegation that LLNL has not 
     done what it should to resolve this issue as quickly as 
     possible is especially troubling in light of the special 
     efforts LLNL has made toward expeditious resolution. In fact, 
     shortly after initial questions were raised more than two and 
     one-half years ago, a request for re-examination was proposed 
     by LLNL. Filing this re-examination request was delayed at 
     the urging of a predecessor to TDS in this area, Pulson, and 
     subsequently of TDS in order to explore other approaches. 
     Nevertheless, in LLNL's view, this PTO process continued to 
     provide the only feasible means available to us to effect an 
     objective and expedient resolution to this issue by an entity 
     with the expertise to deal with the highly technical subject 
     matter.'' \38\
       Democratic Staff believes that if a private sector entity 
     enters into dispute with a Federally Funded entity, that the 
     Federally Funded entity should behave with the utmost haste 
     and integrity in order to see that the matter is resolved as 
     expeditiously as possible and with the least possible expense 
     to the private sector entity. This may not have happened in 
     this case. We believe that before resorting to a PTO process 
     which can take years and cost hundreds of thousands of 
     dollars, Federally Funded entities should attempt to enter 
     into a less expensive, less time-consuming solution such as 
     alternative dispute resolution (ADR). We have been told that 
     both TDS and DOE were willing in principle to enter into some 
     sort of ADR, but that LLNL/UC was not; we don't know the 
     degree to which the option was explored by LLNL/UC before it 
     was rejected, nor do we know why it was ultimately rejected.
       We also note that since beginning to examine the 
     allegations made by TDC against LLNL/UC we have been made 
     aware of three additional disputes, two of which involve 
     LLNL/UC, that have also been in progress for several years 
     without any resolution.\39\
       Another issue is the manner in which LLNL/UC responded to 
     inquiries made by TDC, Members of Congress, and Democratic 
     Staff. The responses were generally late, generally lacking 
     specific answers to the questions asked, and at times 
     including information later established to be incorrect or 
     misleading. One such example (discussed in an earlier 
     section) involves LLNL/UC's response to a question regarding 
     the way the FCC licensing requirements were portrayed. 
     Another involves the genesis of early UWB radar work at LLNL, 
     as Thomas McEwan and LLNL/UC personnel have maintained a 
     version of the circumstances surrounding the development and 
     commercialization of MIR that is often at odds with other 
     documentation obtained by Democratic Staff (see Appendix 2).


                Appendix 2, The Early Development of MIR

       The discovery of MIR was said to have been accidental, not 
     to have been a result of targeted UWB radar R&D, and to have 
     taken place in 1992 during a flash of inspiration experienced 
     by Mr. McEwan. LLNL/UC and Mr. McEwan have made the following 
     statements in regard to this discovery: ``Since the MIR 
     technology was developed in conjunction with work being 
     performed for laser fusion research, there was no separate 
     request for funding in the early stages of the work.\40\
       ``After the LANL `90 conference, LLNL turned down my radar 
     funding requests in the `90-`93 time frame. I ended up 
     developing MIR after hours.'' \41\
       During a meeting with Committee Staff at LLNL on December 
     8, 1998, Dr. Michael Campbell, Director of Laser Programs at 
     LLNL, reiterated the claim that no targeted development of 
     UWB radar technology was funded prior to Mr. McEwan's 
     reportedly accidental discovery of MIR in 1992. According to 
     Dr. Campbell, Mr. McEwan's sole responsibility until the date 
     of that discovery in 1992 was the development of the 
     transient digitizer used in NOVA experiments, and no UWB 
     radar work done by Mr. McEwan or anyone else in the Laser 
     Programs division at LLNL until after the accidental 1992 
     discovery of MIR.

[[Page 12496]]

       However, LLNL/UC documents obtained by Democratic Staff 
     indicate that funding was obtained to conduct this work in 
     FY91, FY92 and FY93:
       January, 1990: ``Impulse radar was surveyed in the library, 
     with some papers on subsurface probing found.'' Tom McEwan's 
     Task Progress Report.
       February, 1990: ``Impulse radar range calculations were 
     made, and related survey work continued.'' Tom McEwan's Task 
     Progress Report.
       March, 1990: ``Attended the four day ``First Los Alamos UWB 
     Radar Conference. . . Several basic impulse radar antennas 
     were built and pulses were propagated. . . Met with other Lab 
     researchers on impulse radar and decided we could all be of 
     mutual benefit.'' Tom McEwan's Task Progress Report.
       April, 1990: ``Wrote an IR&D [Industrial Research and 
     Development] proposals on impulse radar and presented the 
     proposal to the Lucifer group.'' Tom McEwan's Task Progress 
     Report.
       May, 1990: ``A prototype solid-state pulser was built and 
     tested. Pulse amplitude was 1.28 kV into 25m at 200ps FWHM. 
     An annual report was written. Fast pulse/impulse radar 
     potential users were surveyed and related proposal work 
     took.'' Draft of Tom McEwan's Task Progress Report.
       May 10, 1990: ``Mike, this is in response to your recent 
     memo. . . . With the development of higher power avalanche 
     diodes (10MW), we could meet virtually all future impulse 
     radar requirements. . . . Receiver development--picosecond 
     amplifier, detector and sampler design work using the ERD 
     foundry. . . Licensing would be a particularly sensitive 
     issue since to some extent all the individual elements of our 
     pulser have been published by others and so far the 
     technology is completely off-the-shelf. . . we probably don't 
     have a case for a patent. . . What we have is very close to a 
     profitable product which would normally be deemed proprietary 
     in private industry. . . we need some time to work with the 
     Patent Office and the technology transfer people. . .'' Memo 
     entitled Impulse Radar R&D Proposal from Thomas E. McEwan to 
     E. M. Campbell.
       June 27, 1999: ``A recent Aviation Week article brought out 
     another new area for fast impulses--covert and spread-
     spectrum communications. Apparently some outfit perfected a 
     time-domain encoder which uses picosecond timing to convey 
     information and is both undetectable and undecipherable with 
     conventional gear.'' Memo entitled Avalanche Pulser Update 
     from Thomas E. McEwan to E.M. Campbell.
       June 27, 1990: ``Concerning impulse radar interest, I 
     talked to Rick Ziolkowski of ERD's Electromagnetics Group. He 
     said he mentioned our work to several impulse radar funding 
     committee members in Washington, and they are very 
     interested.'' Memo entitled Avalanche Pulser Update from 
     Thomas E. McEwan to E.M. Campbell.
       September 12, 1990: ``The objective of this project is to 
     create a unique capability at LLNL in ultra-wideband time 
     domain imaging radar. . . FY `91 efforts will result in a 
     demonstration of imaging with time domain radar. . . This is 
     an opportunity to generate new programs in a growing 
     technology. . .'' Internal funding proposal entitled ``Ultra-
     Wideband Time Domain Imaging Radar,'' Thomas McEwan and David 
     Christie.\42\
       February 28, 1991: A presentation by Thomas McEwan to 
     General Motors entitled ``Ultra-Short Pulse Radar Proximity 
     Sensor'' described a device that was ``Low cost, <$10 
     projected, Low power (1 microwatt) spread spectrum operation, 
     small size & low cost, Environmental, safety and FCC approval 
     should be assured'' whose applications were the same as those 
     claimed by what would become known as MIR technology to be: 
     ``position sensing, fluid levels, trunk lid position, side & 
     rear obstacle detection, smart highway vehicle spacing, 
     motion sensing, wheel motion, security alarm, and collision 
     detection.'' Also, the presentation stated that LLNL was 
     ``funded to develop a prototype chip,'' \43\ was ``building a 
     short-pulse radar security alarm,'' and had ``most of the 
     base technology in place.''
       March 1, 1991: ``We are moving closer to making serious 
     proposals both within the Lab and through tech. Transfer, in 
     the area of transient digitizers and impulse radars,'' memo 
     entitled ``Monolithic Shock Line Feasibility Study'' from 
     Thomas McEwan to Don Meeker, also at LLNL. The memo also 
     requested funding.
       May 21, 1991: ``Vast market potential exists for these 
     systems,'' that ``Impulse radar shows potential for future 
     automotive sensors'' due to its ``simplicity and low cost,'' 
     and that ``covert operation [of a spread spectrum 
     communications system] is possible, especially if receiver 
     has timing knowledge for multiple pulse integration.'' \44\ 
     Thomas McEwan and Gregory Cooper, also of LLNL, research 
     proposal for an internal Lab-Wide IR&D Competition entitled 
     ``Development of a Transmit/Receive Element for New Sensor, 
     Radar and Communications Systems.''
       July 1, 1991: Thomas McEwan wrote a letter to W.R. Coggins, 
     Commander, Naval Sea System Command, describing the UWB 
     equipment that LLNL ``currently uses or have in design'' to 
     include an ``ultra-low cost, compact 50ps system in design 
     for short range mass-market applications'' in response to the 
     Commander's June 20, 1991 request for such information.
       March 19, 1992: ``A transmit/receive version will be used 
     in a very compact ultra-wideband (UWB) radar sensor,'' ``Mass 
     market UWB radar applications'' include ``door opener, stud 
     detector, motion detector/security alarm,'' the proximity 
     sensor ``antenna and electronics module fit in 1" package,'' 
     ``low cost, <$10 projected,'' ``Low power (1 microwatt) 
     spread spectrum operation'' and ``FCC approval should be 
     assured.'' Excerpts from a presentation by Thomas McEwan and 
     Gregory Cooper, in a Laboratory Directed Research and 
     Development (LDRD) Midyear Review \45\ entitled ``Development 
     of a Transmit/Receive Element for New Sensor, Radar and 
     Communications Systems.''
       May 1, 1992: ``Electrical pulse compression techniques 
     developed under LDRD '92 funding \46\ (short title: 
     ``transmit Element'') provide the foundation for a new sensor 
     technology based on the direct radiation of picosecond pulses 
     for pulse-echo radar. The sensor is expected to have a 2M 
     range, 2mm resolution, physical dimensions on the order of 2 
     cm and a cost of less than $10 . . . Signal processing 
     enhancements will allow extremely low power operation for 
     environmental, safety and FCC compatibility. A fully 
     functional prototype will be built as a precursor to a 
     miniaturized version based on custom integrated circuits. . . 
     .'' FY 93 funding proposed entitled ``Development of a 
     Miniature Ultra-Short Pulse Radar Sensor'' by Thomas McEwan 
     and Gregory Cooper.
       October, 1992: A LLNL viewgraph entitled ``FY93 RISE 
     Electronics Engineering Technology Base Plan'' dated October, 
     1992, lists a project entitled ``Ultra wideband radar motion 
     sensors'' with T. McEwan as the lead researcher. The proposed 
     funding for FY93 was $70,000--which was said to equal the 
     FY92 level.
       August 28, 1992: The first known MIR Invention Disclosure 
     by Thomas McEwan entitled ``Ultra Wideband Radar Motion 
     Sensor'' was filed on August 28, 1992. This 30-page document 
     states that funding had already been provided for the 
     project. The disclosure also states that the earliest 
     documentation of the invention was the first sketch or 
     drawing describing it, done on August 18, 1992, only 10 days 
     before the Invention Disclosure document was written. The 
     first model prototype was said to have been completed 4 days 
     later, on August 22, 1992. So, in the course of 10 days, Mr. 
     McEwan had his idea for MIR, drew complicated circuit and 
     block diagrams describing it, built a working prototype, 
     analyzed operational test data and prepared a 30-page 
     Invention Disclosure document. The disclosure states that 
     ``no past disclosures'' of ``documents that describe the 
     invention, that you have published or prepared for 
     publication, or presented on the subject'' had taken place 
     despite the February, 1991 and March, 1992 UWB radar 
     presentations which also contained verbal and pictorial 
     descriptions of a technology that seems extremely similar if 
     not identical to MIR. No dated pages from laboratory 
     notebooks are included in the Invention Disclosure 
     submission, and no other patents or publications or 
     references thereto are included as prior art references.


                               footnotes

     \1\ Democratic Staff would certainly agree that a Laboratory 
     stealing the innovations of a private sector firm and passing 
     them off as their own would raise a significant policy issue. 
     However, given the documentation in our possession, the facts 
     are not conclusive and we are reluctant to do more than 
     simply recount the competing claims of both sides.
     \2\ In fact, one such complaint has recently been brought to 
     the attention of Democratic Staff. Biosource, a small company 
     with ten issued patents in a particular water purification 
     technology, believes that LLNL/UC has patented and marketed a 
     similar technology without citing the relevant prior art and 
     with full knowledge of the existence of that prior art. 
     Democratic Staff have not conducted a thorough investigation 
     of this claim.
     \3\ TDC's June 19, 1997 submission to Dr. C. Bruce Tarter, 
     Director of LLNL, entitled ``Summary of the dispute between 
     Time Domain and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,'' 
     page 11.
     \4\ ``Summary of the Dispute,'' page 11. The quote used by 
     TDC on the impossibility of attending the conference without 
     seeing Fulllerton is unattributed.
     \5\ Excerpts from these articles, both published in Aviation 
     Week & Space Technology and authored by William B. Scott 
     include: ``Larry R. Fullerton, president of Time Domain 
     Systems, Inc., said his company has secured two patents on 
     UWB-based communications techniques and one for a radar 
     concept. Additional patent applications are `in progress' in 
     the U.S., Europe, Japan, India, Brazil and other countries, 
     he said. These ultra-wideband techniques are applicable to 
     covert communications, commercial/consumer products and an 
     area security system, in addition to standard radar 
     applications. All of these were `reduced to practice' before 
     he filed for patents, Fullerton said . . . Fullerton is part 
     of a small group of researchers that has been working on UWB 
     technologies and applications since the late 1970s.'' March 
     26, 1990, Vol. 132, No. 13, page 55. ``For example, Larry 
     Fullerton, president of Time Domain Systems, Inc., built his 
     first UWB communicator in 1976 and currently has a 
     functioning analog breadboard system in a Huntsville, Ala., 
     laboratory. It comprises a transmitter, receiver with cross-
     correlation front end, antennas, time-coding and all the 
     necessary components and subsystems required of a military-
     glass UWB communications system. Fullerton recently 
     demonstrated short-range, end-to-end transmission, reception 
     and processing of voice information . . .'', June 4, 1990, 
     Vol. 132, No. 23, Page 40. ``GRAPHIC: Photograph, Time Domain 
     Systems-developed ultra-wideband or impulse communicator 
     would find immediate applications as a covert communication 
     device for special forces. A laboratory

[[Page 12497]]

     demonstration system currently is being tested; Graph, Time 
     Domain Systems President Larry Fullerton demonstrates 
     breadboard version of a basic UWB link. Cross-correlator, 
     lock error and modulation recovery circuit boards are at 
     lower center.'' June 4, 1990 Vol. 132, No. 23, page 40.
     \6\ (a) A panel convened to assess the state of UWB 
     technology issued its report, ``Assessment of Ultra-Wideband 
     (UWB) Technology,'' OSD/DARPA Ultra-Wideband Radar Review 
     Panel, on July 13, 1990. The report, which examined public, 
     private and classified work in the field, indicates that 
     Larry Fullerton made a presentation to the panel, and that 
     TDC was working in the UWB-related areas of Switches, 
     Sources, Receivers, Antennas and Ranges. (b) ``The panel [the 
     1990 DARPA panel] listened to many proponents of and 
     contributors to the field of Impulse Radar . . . It heard of 
     interesting, creative work in the field by some of the 
     principal contributors: Gerry Ross of ANRO, Roger Vickers of 
     SRI, Larry Fullerton of Time Domain Systems, to mention some. 
     It learned that commercially available impulse radars were 
     doing terrain profiling, finding buried pipes and doing other 
     jobs where the combination of good range resolution, 
     relatively low frequency and a impulse, inexpensive systems 
     was a clear winner for such short range applications,'' 
     Charles A. Fowler, Chairman, DARPA UWB Radar Panel, in ``The 
     UWB Impulse Radar Caper or Punishment of the Innocent'', IEEE 
     AES Systems Magazine, December 1992 issue, page 3. (c) 
     ``Other panelists included . . . Larry Fullerton of Time 
     Domain Systems . . .'' Yale Jay Lubkin, ``illuminating the 
     Scene with Impulse Radar,'' A&DS, September/October 1990 
     edition, page 15.
     \7\ Summary of the Dispute,'' page 12.
     \8\ Summary of the Dispute,'' page 15.
     \9\ Wideband Beam Patterns from Sparse Arrays,'' by Forrest 
     Anderson, Consultant; Larry Fullerton, TDS; and Wynn 
     Christensen and Bert Kortegaard, LANL, Proceedings of the 
     First Los Alamos Symposium, March, 1990.
     \10\ Summary of the Dispute,'' page 12.
     \11\ ``Summary of the Dispute,'' page 13.
     \12\ There is no definitive proof that Mr. McEwan read the 
     March 26, 1990 Aviation Week & Space Technology article--
     though he did read prior articles and cites the June 4, 1990 
     piece in his memo. The March 26, 1990 article specifically 
     cites Fullerton for having secured two patents on UWB-based 
     communications techniques and one for a radar concept. 
     Additional patent applications were described as being in 
     progress.
     \13\ F. Anderson, W. Christensen, L. Fullerton and B. 
     Kortegaard, ``Ultra-wideband Beamforming in Sparse Arrays,'' 
     IEE Proceedings II, Vol. 138, No. 4, August 4, 1991. This 
     paper appears to be an updated version of the paper bearing 
     the same title that was presented at the March, 1990 LANL 
     meeting. An excerpt of this paper reads ``This research is 
     also of importance to wideband radar. Medical ultrasound 
     steered phase arrays use transmitted pulses consisting of 
     from one to three cycles of a damped sinusoid, which is 
     similar to certain ultra-wideband radar systems . . . This 
     type of transmitted pulse is use in an impulse radar that is 
     commercially available for geophysics applications . . . 
     Wide-band arrays have been constructed and tested by Time 
     Domain Systems . . .''
     \14\ As we understand it, this technology is an impulse 
     generation technology. Rockwell was also, unbeknownst to 
     LLNL, talking to TDC about using their signal processing 
     receiver design, placing Rockwell at the crossroads of 
     integrating LLNL and TDC technologies for the purpose of 
     developing a landmine detection and imaging system.
     \15\ ``Summary of the Dispute,'' page 13.
     \16\ We have chosen to tell Mr. McEwan's version as much as 
     possible, rather than the pre-masticated story LLNL/UC has 
     offered up. Mr. McEwan, as the LLNL inventor, is the central 
     figure and has neither the management nor political concerns 
     to temper his message that may play a role in shaping LLNL/
     UC's pablum. LLNL/UC's role will be discussed in a later 
     section.
     \17\ Early articles that discuss the potential ability of UWB 
     radar to defeat stealth aircraft include ``UWB Radar Has 
     Potential to Detect Stealth Aircraft,'' William B. Scott, and 
     ``Radar Networks, Computing Advances Seen As Keys to Counter 
     Stealth Technologies,'' David F. Bond, Aviation Week & Space 
     Technology, December 4, 1989.
     \18\ T.E. McEwan to J.D. Kilkenny, ``Report and Commentary on 
     the Ultra-Wideband Radar Symposium, March 12, 1990, page 1.
     \19\ ``Radar Target Discrimination Using Probability 
     Theory,'' C. Ray Smith, U.S. Army Missile Command; Lloyd S. 
     Riggs, Auburn University; and G. Larry Bretthorst, Washington 
     University at St. Louis. This second paper references Mr. 
     Fullerton's work, stating that ``The impulse radar used to 
     gather the experimental data used in this simulation is 
     briefly described in the introduction. Due to proprietary 
     restrictions, a complete description of the system cannot be 
     given at this time--contact Mr. Larry Fullerton for further 
     information.''
     \20\ October 7, 1998 email from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Dr. 
     Michal Freedhoff, page 5.
     \21\ T.E. McEwan to J.D. Kilkenny, ``Report and Commentary on 
     the Ultra-Wideband Radar Symposium, March 12, 1990, page 6.
     \22\ While Mr. Fullerton was not a presenter or co-author on 
     this paper, he is reported to have taken an active role in 
     the discussion following the presentation from his seat in 
     the audience. A February 2, 1998 affidavit from Mr. William 
     B. Moorhead, consultant, states ``. . . Fullerton bluntly 
     emphasized that he had some patents on his work . . . 
     Similarly, I observed Larry Fullerton answer questions from 
     his seat when another paper entitled `Radar Target 
     Discrimination Using Probability Theory' was being presented. 
     It was apparent to me that he was fielding the really 
     difficult questions . . .''
     \23\ T.E. McEwan to J.D. Kilkenny, ``Report and Commentary on 
     the Ultra-Wideband Radar Symposium, March 12, 1990, page 4.
     \24\ T.E. McEwan to J.D. Kilkenny, ``Report and Commentary on 
     the Ultra-Wideband Radar Symposium, March 12, 1990, page 6.
     \25\ March 26, 1990 Memorandum from David J. Christie to 
     Georg F. Albrecht entitled ``First Los Alamos Symposium on 
     Ultra-Wideband Radar,'' page 2.
     \26\ While some of these were specifically about the 
     shockline technology (which would be used to generate impulse 
     signal), as in the Rockwell negotiations discussed in the 
     above section, others appear to be general presentations on a 
     complete UWB radar system--not just an impulse source. For 
     example, a February 28, 1991 presentation by Thomas McEwan to 
     General Motors entitled ``Ultra-Short Pulse Radar Proximity 
     Sensor'' described a device that was ``Low cost, <$10 
     projected, Low power (1 microwatt) spread spectrum operation, 
     small size & low cost, Environmental, safety and FCC approval 
     should be assured'' whose applications were the same as those 
     claimed by what would become known as MIR technology to be: 
     ``position sensing, fluid levels, trunk lid position, side & 
     rear obstacle detection, smart highway vehicle spacing, 
     motion sensing, wheel motion, security alarm, and collision 
     detection.'' Also, the presentation stated that LLNL was 
     ``funded to develop a prototype chip,'' was ``building a 
     short-pulse radar security alarm,'' and had ``most of the 
     base technology in place.'' See Appendix 2 for other 
     citations.
     \27\ July 24, 1998 letter from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Mr. Ron 
     Cochran, page 1.
     \28\ October 25 email from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Dr. Michal 
     Freedhoff, page 3.
     \29\ October 25 email from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Dr. Michal 
     Freedhoff, page 3.
     \30\ Mr. McEwan was clearly aware of Mr. Fullerton's patents 
     by November 29, 1995, when Colonel James D. Taylor sent 
     McEwan a draft of an article on MIR that McEwan and Taylor 
     had agreed to co-author the previous winter. The draft 
     article states: ``MIR provides a convenient implementation of 
     a impulse radio link. An impulse radio system using these 
     principles was described by Mr. Larry Fullerton in his 
     patient descriptions for a time domain radio transmission 
     system [25] and a spread spectrum radio transmission [26].'' 
     James D. Taylor and Thomas E. McEwan, draft article. ``The 
     Micropower Impulse Radar.''
     \31\ Chapter 2000 on Duty of Disclosure of the Manual of 
     Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), used as the statutory 
     guideline by all patent examiners handling patent 
     applications at the U.S. PTO, states that: ``All individuals 
     covered by 37 CFR 1.56 (reproduced in MPEP Sec. 2001.01) have 
     a duty to disclose to the Patent and Trademark Office all 
     material information they are aware of regardless of the 
     source of or how they become aware of the information. 
     Materiality controls whether information must be disclosed to 
     the Office, not the circumstances under which or the source 
     from which the information is obtained. If material, the 
     information must be disclosed to the Office. The duty to 
     disclose material information extends to information such 
     individuals are aware of prior to or at the time of filing 
     the application or become aware of during the prosecution 
     thereof. Such individuals may be or become aware of material 
     information from various sources such as, for example, 
     coworkers, trade shows, communications from or with 
     competitors, potential infringers, or other third parties, 
     related foreign applications (see MPEP Sec. 2001.06(a)), 
     prior or co-pending United States patent applications (see 
     MPEP Sec. 2001.06(b), related litigation (see MPEP 
     Sec. 2001.06(c)) and preliminary examination searches.''
     \32\ Chapter 2000 on Duty of Disclosure of the Manual Patent 
     Examining Procedure (MPEP), used as the statutory guideline 
     by all patent examiners handling patent applications at the 
     PTO, states that: ``While it is not appropriate to attempt to 
     set forth procedures by which attorneys, agents, and other 
     individuals may ensure compliance with the duty of 
     disclosure, the items listed below are offered as examples of 
     possible procedures which could help avoid problems with the 
     duty of disclosure. Though compliance with these procedures 
     may not be required, they are presented as helpful 
     suggestions for avoiding duty of disclosure problems. 1. Many 
     attorneys, both corporate and private, are using letters and 
     questionnaires for applicants and others involved with the 
     filing and prosecution of the application and checklists for 
     themselves and applicants to ensure compliance with the duty 
     of disclosure. The letter generally explains the duty of 
     disclosure and what it means to the inventor and assignee. 
     The questionnaire asks the inventor and assignee questions 
     about--the origin of the invention and its point of departure 
     from what was previously known and in the prior art--possible 
     public uses and sales--prior publication, knowledge, patents, 
     foreign patents, etc. The checklist is used by the attorney 
     to ensure that the applicant has been informed of the duty of 
     disclosure and that the attorney has inquired of and cited 
     material prior art. The use of these types of aids would 
     appear to be most helpful, though not required, in 
     identifying prior art and may well help the attorney and the 
     client avoid or more easily explain a potentially 
     embarrassing and harmful ``fraud'' allegation. 2. It is 
     desirable to ask questions about inventorship. Who is the 
     proper inventor? Are there disputes or possible disputes 
     about inventorship? If there are questions, call them to the 
     attention of the Patent and Trademark Office.''
     \33\ Professor Donald Chisum (a nationally recognized expert 
     on patent law whose treatise is often cited in case law), 
     clarifies the duty of candor requirements further in ``A 
     Review of Recent Federal Circuit Cases and a Plea for Modest 
     Reform,'' published in 1997 by the Santa Clara Computer & 
     High Tech. Law Journal: ``The duty of candor requires persons 
     who are substantively involved in a prosecution to disclose 
     only what they know. Courts decisions do not impose a duty to 
     conduct a search of the prior art, but they caution that a 
     person may not cultivate ignorance, that is, `disregard 
     numerous warnings that material information or prior art may 
     exist, merely to avoid knowledge of that information or prior 
     art.' '' It isn't clear from this guidance whether Mr. 
     McEwan, who had at least general knowledge of Mr. Fullerton's 
     work, should have engaged in a more thorough effort to search 
     for his patents. However, we would argue that the patent 
     attorneys at LLNL/UC had a duty to go beyond the bare minimum 
     requirements for prior art searches because of the 
     competitiveness consequences of filing and prosecuting a 
     patent that treads upon existing patents held by private 
     entities. In this regard, the Laboratories should establish 
     patent review and application processes that are so thorough 
     and rigorous so as to be above suspicion.
     \34\ It is worth noting that 18 MIR patents (see appendix 3 
     for a list) that did not include citations of TDC's patents 
     were prosecuted by and granted to Mr. McEwan and LLNL/UC 
     subsequent to fall, 1995, and 19 new MIR license agreements 
     granting rights under LLNL/UC's patents were signed. The 
     Democratic Staff has not attempted to determine which, if 
     any, of the MIR patents granted subsequent to November, 1995 
     should have included citations of TDC's patents, and the PTO 
     has not yet been asked to reexamine any of these patents.
     \35\ February 9, 1999 letter from Mr. Ralph Petroff, 
     President and CEO of TDC to Dr. Michael Freedhoff.
     \36\ The document contains: (1) the history of TDC's 
     inventions and the dispute with LLNL/UC; (2) two claim--by-
     claim patent comparisons of TDC's patents with the MIR 
     patents; (3) estimation of damages to TDC' (4) a proposal for 
     a settlement agreement; and (5) documentation to substantiate 
     their allegations.
     \37\ The questions included requests for: (1) detailed and 
     specific technical differences that led LLNL/UC to state that 
     the MIR inventions were patentably distinct from TDC's; (2) 
     substantiations of statements made by LLNL/UC that the 
     allegations made

[[Page 12498]]

     by TDC were false, including all documentation surrounding 
     the complete investigation into the matter that LLNL/UC 
     claimed to have made; (3) information on how the First Office 
     Action made by the PTO would, if upheld, impact the rest of 
     the LLNL/UC MIR patent portfolio; (4) information on how 
     LLNL/UC would respond to a Final Office Action by the PTO 
     should it be substantially similar to the First Office 
     Action; (5) clarifications of statements made by LLNL/UC in 
     light of the materials in the June 19, 1997 package submitted 
     by TDC to LLNL; (6) clarifications of statements made by 
     LLNL/UC at a July 29, 1998 briefing with Committee Staff; and 
     (7) export control documentation for international LLNL/UC 
     MIR licensees.
     \38\ September 17, 1998 letter from Dr. C. Bruce Tarter to 
     Congressmen Brown, Cramer and Roemer, page 1.
     \39\ The claims have been made by: Ultratech, a stepper 
     company who believes that LLNL/UC illegally disclosed their 
     intellectual property in September, 1997; Biosource, a 
     company with ten issued patents in the area of capacitive 
     deionization of water, who believes that LLNL/UC filed and 
     obtained a similar patent in 1995 even though the LLNL 
     inventor knew about Biosource's prior art; and Mr. Sanford 
     Rose, who has been in litigation with Brookhaven National 
     Laboratory (BNL) since 1993 because he believes he acquired 
     an exclusive license to a cleanup technology developed by BNL 
     that BNL later reneged on in order to further develop and 
     commercialize the technology on its own. We have not 
     attempted to determine the validity of these claims and cite 
     them only to point out that the TDC dispute is not an 
     isolated one. We believe that DOE and the Laboratories 
     involved should take immediate steps to investigate and 
     resolve these additional disputes in the fairest and most 
     expeditious way possible, perhaps through the use of 
     independent mediators.
     \40\ September 17, 1998 letter from Dr. C. Bruce Tarter, 
     Director LLNL, to Congressmen Brown, Cramer and Roemer.
     \41\ October 25, 1998 e-mail from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Dr. 
     Michael Freedhoff.
     \42\ According to Mr. Christie's recollection, the proposal 
     was partially funded for FY 1991. However, Mr. Christie left 
     LLNL in early 1991, and Democratic Staff have not been able 
     to determine how much money was received or what it was used 
     for.
     \43\ It is not clear whether the funding discussed in this 
     presentation was related to the September 12, 1990 funding 
     proposal by Christie and McEwan.
     \44\ Interestingly, the part of the June 4, 1990 article in 
     Aviation Week & Space Technology that Mr. McEwan chose to 
     highlight in his June 27, 1990 memo to Dr. E.M. Campbell was 
     TDC's covert and spread spectrum UWB communications device. 
     This article also described the patented timing system used 
     by TDC in its UWB receiver.
     \45\ The fact that this was a mid-year review suggests that 
     his project did receive funding in FY 1992.
     \46\ This also suggests that funding was received in FY 1992.

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Reynolds, and appreciate his concern for 
the operational readiness of the 82nd Airborne Division.
  The 82nd Airborne Division is the jewel in the crown of the Army, and 
I'm proud that this elite division makes its home at Ft. Bragg in the 
8th District of North Carolina. When conflict arises in any corner of 
the world, it's a safe bet that the United States will call on the 82nd 
Airborne first to defend her interests. Since its inception in 1942 
when it contributed greatly to the Allied victory of WWII, the 82nd 
Airborne has amassed a record of military successes unrivaled by any 
fighting force in the world.
  To maintain the integrity of the 82nd Airborne's warfighting 
capability, Congress must provide them the equipment, weapons and 
training necessary to accomplish the many missions with which they are 
charged. Currently, two obsolete, non-secure hand held radios are in 
use by the 82nd, representing what I believe is an operational risk. As 
outlined in an Operational Needs Statement by the commanding officer of 
the XVIII Airborne Corp, Lt. General Buck Kernan, secure means of 
communications are a critical element of reconnaissance operations. To 
ensure the safety of 82nd Airborne scouts whose surveillance missions 
bring them in close proximity to the enemy, we must provide the our 
reconnaissance teams with lightweight, secure radios.
  I commend my colleague's efforts to see to it that our forces have 
the equipment they need, and I will certainly support his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  The amendments en bloc were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47 printed 
in House Report 106-175.


           Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

  Mr. WELDON 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 B amendment No. 45 offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
       At the end of subtitle B of title III (page 45, after line 
     13), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 312. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF AIR FORCE SPACE LAUNCH 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) Additional Authorization.--In addition to the funds 
     otherwise authorized in this Act for the operation and 
     maintenance of the space launch facilities of the Department 
     of the Air Force, there is hereby authorized to be 
     appropriated $7,300,000 for space launch operations at such 
     launch facilities.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated in section 301(4) for operation and maintenance 
     for the Air Force is hereby reduced by $7,300,000, to be 
     derived from other service-wide activities.
       (c) Study of Space Launch Ranges and Requirements.--(1) The 
     Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study--
       (A) to access anticipated military, civil, and commercial 
     space launch requirements;
       (B) to examine the technical shortcomings at the space 
     launch ranges;
       (C) to evaluate oversight arrangements at the space launch 
     ranges; and
       (D) to estimate future funding requirements for space 
     launch ranges capable of meeting both national security space 
     launch needs and civil and commercial space launch needs.
       (2) The Secretary shall conduct the study using the Defense 
     Science Board of the Department of Defense.
       (3) Not later than February 15, 2000, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     containing the results of the study.

                              {time}  1715

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the Cox Commission report in recommendation No. 24 
recommended that it is in the national security interests of the United 
States that we expand our domestic launch capacity. My amendment 
addresses this issue. I would like to point out that we have no other 
proposal being put forward to address that. The Air Force in its IPT 
report indicated that with $7.3 million--I say million dollars, not 
billion dollars-- you can increase the domestic launch capacity of the 
United States by 20 to 30 percent, a remarkable achievement with such a 
small amount of money. Indeed, the other body has already funded this 
priority in their appropriation bill.
  Now, the Air Force in their unfunded priority list listed this as one 
of their priorities. I believe it was their fourth priority. I believe 
it is the responsibility of this body to decide what are the 
priorities. I believe that we need to ask ourselves what are we going 
to do to address the issue of all of these launches going overseas and 
going overseas particularly to China.
  This amendment is very, very simple. It authorizes the $7.3 million. 
It additionally calls for a study to be conducted by the Secretary of 
Defense to look at how we are going to offer our launch ranges to these 
commercial users in the future years. I would encourage all of my 
colleagues to vote in support of this amendment if they want to do 
something to address this particular recommendation in the Cox 
Commission report. I think it is also well worth pointing out that many 
of the other recommendations in the Cox Commission report, which we are 
ultimately going to try to implement, they are going to cost millions 
and millions more than this recommendation. Indeed some of them will 
cost hundreds of millions. Some of them may actually cost billions of 
dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reinforce the 
point that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) just made. One of 
the central recommendations of the Cox-Dicks report is that we need to 
beef up domestic launch capacity here in the United States as a matter 
of national security. We have a very direct, simple opportunity to do 
that by investing in increased launch capacity in the Vandenberg Air 
Force Base in California and in the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. 
This amendment provides additional funding for a second shift, will 
increase the ability of the Kennedy Space Center and the Vandenberg Air 
Force Base to engage in other commercial launch capacity, exactly what 
is

[[Page 12499]]

being recommended by the Cox-Dicks report. This should be the first in 
a series of steps we take to directly respond to that recommendation. I 
urge adoption of the Weldon amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. If there were a national security issue that 
needs addressing any more important, I cannot quite understand how it 
could be here on the floor. This is a readiness issue and it should 
allow, as does Cox-Dicks, for robust, versatile and capable handling of 
our current demand as well as our future demand. The fact of the matter 
is what my colleague from Florida is proposing will add a second crew 
to cut the 48-hour turnaround time in half and it will result in nine 
additional launches in the United States that may otherwise be launched 
overseas. Do we want them to launch from over yonder or do we want them 
to launch from here?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I understand that the work of this committee is very 
difficult, that we are operating under very tight budget constraints 
and priorities have to be set. But it is really the will of the 
People's House that sets the ultimate priorities. That is the way the 
Founding Fathers intended it. If you support this amendment, you will 
not be helping China's missile program. You will be helping immediately 
to expand our domestic capacity by 20 to 30 percent. You will promote 
more satellites being launched from U.S. soil. It is a very, very 
modest amount of money. I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to support the amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today Congress takes definitive 
action on addressing the recommendations in the Cox Report. My 
amendment addresses the issue that was the catalyst for the 
establishment of the Select Committee--the transfer of missile 
technology under the commercial satellite launch agreements.
  One of the principle reasons American satellites were being launched 
from communist China is due to the fact that our national launch ranges 
(the Eastern and Western Range) could not accommodate these launches--
they simply did not have the capacity. This is because our ranges are 
operating under a tight budget with outdated equipment and they are 
unable to reduce turnaround time. Turnaround time is the amount of time 
it takes to reconfigure the range from one launch to the next launch.
  With the appropriation of $7.3 million for an additional crew at the 
Eastern and Western range will cut turnaround time in half. This will 
lead to a 20% to 30% increase in American launch capacity. This will 
immediately translate into 9 more launches taking place from American 
soil rather than from countries like China.
  Providing this funding is the most important thing we can do in the 
short-term to reduce launches from foreign soil and keep them in the 
U.S. Adoption of this amendment will have a direct and immediate 
positive impact. This is probably the best bang we will get for our 
buck in addressing the issues raised in the Cox Report. This is not the 
long-term solution. It is a short-term action we can take today that 
will have a positive impact toward stemming the flow of critical 
technology to China.
  Due to the fact that range upgrade money has been raided again and 
again, our ranges have fallen into disrepair. This has reduced the 
launch capacity of our ranges, meaning that they cannot accommodate the 
launch demand. Range Standardization and Automation (RSA) program was 
to be completed in 2003. Because of excessive diversions of these 
funds, RSA will not be completed until 2006.
  The failure to adequately fund our ranges also means we have delayed 
the efficiencies we had hoped to achieve. This means the savings we had 
anticipated seeing because of the range upgrades is also delayed.
  My amendment will help to stem the flow of American technology going 
overseas by ensuring that our national launch ranges are robust and 
capable of handling the demand of both government and non-government 
launches.
  Unlike many other military installations, Cape Canaveral Air Station 
(Eastern Range) and Vandenberg Air Force Base (Western Range) provide 
vital, one-of-a-kind services to the United States. Nowhere else in the 
entire United States can military, civil, and commercial assets be 
launched into space.
  Over the past few years, I have devoted a considerable amount of my 
time to issues relating to our national ranges. I cannot over-emphasize 
how important this is for our national security interest.
  My amendment also directs the Secretary of Defense, through the 
Defense Science Board of the Department of Defense to conduct a study 
of our space launch ranges and requirements and report back to the 
Congress by February 15, 2000.
  This study is critical as the ranges' unique position requires the 
Air Force to manage them and make them adaptive along two tracks. The 
first track has been and will continue to be the development and 
testing of national security launch systems and assets. There are and 
will continue to be numerous national security payloads that will be 
launched from the ranges and it is imperative that we maintain these 
critical national security assets.
  The second track--a more recent mission--includes commercial space 
ventures. As these dual purposes continue to mature, Congress and the 
Department of Defense must assess how best to operate the ranges. 
Specifically, we must set forth a plan for managing the ranges in a 
manner that best accommodates the ranges' critical role in meeting our 
national security needs while accommodating a growing commercial 
market. The study requested in my amendment would provide the Congress 
with additional insight on how to move forward on this matter.
  I would like to address the various aspects of the ranges that the 
Science Board is to review under my amendment.
  First (subsection A), the board is to assess anticipated military, 
civil, and commercial space launch requirements. This assessment will 
help us better understand the current and future users of the launch 
ranges. This study is to estimate the number of military payloads, NASA 
and other civil payloads as well as the number of commercial launches. 
This is important as we try to determine how to ensure that the range 
is more user friendly to all of these customers and to determine how we 
can best accommodate the growing demand for launch services.
  Second (subsection B), my amendment directs the board to examine the 
technical shortcomings at the space launch ranges. This recognizes that 
fact that the equipment at our ranges is antiquated and has 
deteriorated. It is simply too old to be operated efficiently and 
hinders the expansion of range capacity. We must move forward with 
modernization in a manner that improves the ranges with interests of 
all parties in mind.
  Third (subsection C), the study is particularly important as we seek 
to gain efficiencies. The Joint Base Operations and Support Contract 
(JBOSC) is generating significant savings for the Air Force and NASA. 
Also, NASA established a contract with United Space Alliance (USA) to 
operate the Space Shuttle program. Similar consolidations and new 
contractual arrangements could help the Air Force operate the ranges 
more efficiently and increase our domestic launch capacity. The study 
should examine ways that will help the Air Force reduce its long-term 
costs and involvement by enhancing the likelihood that some components 
and operations at the ranges can be commercialized, privatized, or 
contracted out for better management, efficiency, and range scheduling.
  Finally (subsection D), the study is to assess the costs associated 
with being able to meet the domestic launch needs of military, civil, 
and commercial users at the ranges. This review should include an 
assessment of the costs that the military might incur if they were to 
upgrade the systems in order to accommodate the increased launch 
demands. Also, the assessment may include an assessment of the costs to 
the private sector and/or state agencies if they were to assume some of 
the operations as the ranges. The study shall examine the use of and/or 
procurement of government space launch assets by commercial or state 
launch entities. Such study should also include an assessment of the 
likelihood, willingness or ability of industry or a state agency to 
assume any operation and/or costs associated with them. In conducting 
this part of the study, the board should receive input from industry 
and state agencies that might be interested in any such contract.
  Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I thank you for your time 
and attention to this matter.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 12500]]




                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 303, 
noes 118, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 188]

                               AYES--303

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--118

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baker
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Capuano
     Chabot
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ewing
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kilpatrick
     Kuykendall
     Latham
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Neal
     Nussle
     Obey
     Owens
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thune
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Whitfield
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Blunt
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Graham
     Hilleary
     Kasich
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Olver

                              {time}  1745

  Messrs. WAMP, SMITH of Washington, SLAUGHTER, OBEY, TAYLOR of North 
Carolina, MORAN of Virginia, Ms. WOOLSEY, Messrs. ARCHER, SCOTT, WATT 
of North Carolina and Ms. DeGETTE changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY and Messrs. FARR of California, SPRATT, GILLMOR, 
EVERETT, CHAMBLISS, and SAWYER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time to explain and apologize for my 
absence during part of the debate on the Skelton amendment earlier 
today. I was involved in negotiations toward a settlement of that 
issue, and I was involved partly in conversations with the President, 
who called me and said that he would commit to us that he would submit 
a request for Kosovo for fiscal year 2000 in a timely manner with the 
funds to be used not to be taken from readiness. That, after all, was 
the object of our having this provision in the bill in the first place.
  Having this assurance from the President and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I am prepared to accept the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit a copy of the letter from the President for 
the Record.


                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, June 10, 1999.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: This letter responds to your inquiry 
     concerning the funding of the Kosovo peacekeeping operations. 
     As was set forth to you in a May 26, 1999, letter from the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, I intend to 
     fund these operations in a manner fully consistent with 
     maintaining the high state of military readiness we require.
       We are in the early stages of a transition from a military 
     campaign to a peacekeeping force. Clearly this will alter the 
     pattern of funding required compared to the assumption of a 
     continued air campaign through the end of the current fiscal 
     year, which was the assumption underlying my FY99 emergency 
     supplemental request.
       I have asked the Secretary of Defense and the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget to conduct a detailed 
     review to reconcile the cost of current operations with the 
     previously funded program. It is critical that my 
     Administration maintain the flexibility which I and previous 
     Presidents have used to deal with emerging situations. To the 
     extent that ongoing requirements exceed an amount that could 
     be managed without harming military readiness, I will submit 
     a further FY00 budget request in a timely manner. I look 
     forward to working with the Congress to ensure that these 
     critical operations are fully funded.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Chairman Spence) for his comments a few moments ago. It is true that 
this matter has been resolved. At least it appears to be. I want a 
supplemental, the gentleman from South Carolina wants a supplemental, 
the President will request a supplemental, and I think every Member of 
this chamber wants a supplemental, and that the funds for any 
continuation of peacekeeping should not come out of readiness in the 
bill we are about to pass.
  I thank the gentleman for his understanding, for hearing us out, for 
his gentlemanly demeanor in the debate.

[[Page 12501]]

As a matter of fact, that goes for everyone who participated in the 
debate today.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent bill. I certainly urge the 
adoption of my amendment. At the end of the day I urge an overwhelming 
vote for the bill so we can let our troops know we really care about 
them.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the 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. 19 by the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) and Amendment No. 21 by the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Skelton

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
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 270, 
noes 155, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 189]

                               AYES--270

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--155

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Crane
     Danner
     Deal
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Graham
     Hilleary
     Kasich
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Olver

                              {time}  1809

  Mr. TAUZIN and Mr. SWEENEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KUYKENDALL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      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 the other amendment 
on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Shays

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
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 five-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 116, 
noes 307, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 190]

                               AYES--116

     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Crane
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Hill (MT)
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Myrick

[[Page 12502]]


     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Owens
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--307

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Graham
     Hilleary
     Kasich
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Olver
     Peterson (PA)

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. RUSH, Mrs. EMERSON and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1410, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. This 
legislation contains several important provisions, including a much 
needed pay raise and revamping of the retirement system.
  As Members of Congress, we have the distinct--almost sacred--
responsibility to preserve our nation's security. This means ensuring 
that our military remains the best trained, best equipped, and most 
prepared in the world.
  We need to provide the men and women of the armed forces, and those 
who have retired, with the support they need to maintain the quality of 
life they deserve. This is especially true at a time when military 
personnel are being deployed more and more frequently all over the 
world.
  During visits to Vandenberg Air Force Base in my district and 
conversations with the base commander, Col. Mercer, I have heard 
firsthand the concerns of our men and women in the military. In 
particular, I have heard about some key issues--supporting an increase 
in military pay, improved health care coverage, and a strengthened 
retirement system.
  H.R. 1410 provides for a 4.8% pay raise and authorizes bonuses and 
other incentives to retain and promote our service men and women. It 
will also change the unfair REDUX retirement plan in order to give 
retirees the choice to return to the more generous pre-REDUX system or 
receive a $30,000 retirement bonus.
  In addition, this important legislation includes $16.8 million to 
continue a critical family housing initiative at Vandenberg Air Force 
Base. This project will replace outdated facilities with the safe, 
modern, and efficient family homes so important for service men and 
women and their families. Such projects increase morale and strengthen 
a sense of community in and around the base.
  The legislation also includes important provisions to support the 
growing commercial space industry at Vandenberg. I am pleased that $3 
million is included for the study, planning, and design of a universal 
space port at Vandenberg. And, in response to the Cox-Dicks Commission 
recommendation that we improve our domestic launch capacity, I am 
pleased that the House today approved the Weldon amendment that will 
increase the amount of funding for space launch operations at 
Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral by $7.3 million.
  This bill incorporates other important recommendations offered by the 
Cox-Dicks Commission to safeguard our weapons facilities and national 
laboratories from Chinese efforts to steal U.S. military technology. It 
institutes new procedures to increase security at sensitive Energy 
Department facilities, requires the president to submit frequent 
reports to Congress on Chinese espionage and military activities, and 
establishes new guidelines to prevent the illegal transfer of 
technology to foreign countries during satellite launches.
  We have an obligation to stand fully and completely behind all 
American service men and women who are putting their lives on the line. 
We need to do everything possible to guard and protect their safety and 
morale. I will always support our fighting men and women, whether in 
peace time or in war. I urge support for this bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am submitting for inclusion in the Record 
a letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Mr. Bliley, 
regarding H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2000. I thank Chairman Bliley for his letter and for his decision 
not to seek sequential referral on several provisions that are of 
jurisdictional interest to the Commerce Committee.

                                        Committee on Commerce,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 1999.
     Hon. Floyd Spence,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am following up on my correspondence 
     of May 21, 1999 concerning H.R. 1401, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. After consultation 
     with the Parliamentarians, we continue to believe that 
     several provisions of H.R. 1401, as ordered reported, may 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. 
     These provisions include:
       Section 321--Remediation of Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint. 
     One reading of this provision would permit a waiver of 
     applicable law with respect to the remediation of asbestos 
     and lead-based paint. I am sure that that is not the 
     legislative intent of the language, however.
       Section 653--Presentation of United States Flag to retiring 
     Members of the Uniformed Services not Previously Covered;
       Section 3152--Duties of Commission. This section, as 
     ordered reported, makes clear that the Commission on Nuclear 
     Weapons Management formed pursuant to Section 3151 will 
     specifically deal with environmental remediation. Such 
     matters are traditionally within the jurisdiction of the 
     Commerce Committee. I understand, however, that you have 
     deleted subsection (a)(9) from this section, and therefore 
     the Committee registers no jurisdictional objection.

[[Page 12503]]

       Section 3165--Management of Nuclear Weapons Production 
     Facilities and National Laboratories. As ordered reported, 
     this section contains a number of provisions which we feel 
     strongly fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction over 
     management of the Department of Energy. In particular, we are 
     concerned about provisions which move functions heretofore 
     carried out by various offices within the Department to the 
     direct control of the Assistant Secretary for Defense 
     Programs. We believe that this kind of wholesale 
     reorganization of DOE functions must be considered by all of 
     the committees of jurisdiction, including the Committee on 
     Commerce.
       However, recognizing your interest in bringing this 
     legislation before the House expeditiously, the Commerce 
     Committee has agreed not to seek a sequential referral of the 
     bill based on the provisions listed above. By agreeing not to 
     seek a sequential referral, the Commerce Committee does not 
     waive its jurisdiction over the provisions listed above or 
     any other provisions of the bill that may fall within its 
     jurisdiction. The Committee's action in this regard should 
     not be construed as any endorsement of the language at issue. 
     In addition, the Commerce Committee reserves its right to 
     seek conferees on any provisions within its jurisdiction 
     which are considered in the House-Senate conference.
       I request that you include this letter in the Record during 
     consideration of this bill by the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Tom Bliley,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, genocide should never be appeased. The 
lesson of Kosovo is that it does not have to be. NATO has shown that it 
is willing and able to keep the peace in Europe. We have stopped the 
genocide. Now we have to return the Kosovars to their homes in security 
and help them rebuild their lives in this troubled land.
  We should salute our men and women in uniform. We should also salute 
our men and women in leadership positions, both military and civilian. 
We should be standing here applauding with our hands, not placing 
handcuffs on our President and our military leaders.
  I favor continued Congressional oversight. There are plenty of 
hurdles yet to overcome and it is time for Congress to come together 
and forge the policies needed to advance our goals in Kosovo. This is 
not the time for rear-guard actions here on the Floor to make it more 
difficult to overcome the challenges ahead in the Balkans.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Skelton amendment and to reject 
the Souder amendment. It is time for peacekeeping. It is time to stop 
the war on the President on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  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, pursuant to House Resolution 200, he reported the bill back 
to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 365, 
noes 58, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 191]

                               AYES--365

     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
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     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)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     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
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--58

     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Holt
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne

[[Page 12504]]


     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rivers
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Stark
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Hilleary
     Kasich
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Norwood
     Olver

                              {time}  1838

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for 
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________



                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on 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, and that I may include tabular and extraneous 
material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________



  PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES TO FILE 
     SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON H.R. 10, FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services to file a supplemental report to 
accompany H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1999.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________



AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO MAKE CORRECTIONS IN ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 1401, 
 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000, OR TO HOUSE 
                      AMENDMENT TO TEXT OF S. 1059

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the 
engrossment of the bill H.R. 1401, or a House amendment to the text of 
Senate 1059, that (1) the Clerk shall insert at the end of the title 
XIV, rather than at the end of the title XII, the sections inserted by 
the action of the Committee of the Whole in adopting amendments 
numbered 6, 8 and 10 of House Report 106-175; and (2) the Clerk may 
make corrections to section numbers, cross references, the table of 
contents, and punctuation and other such clerical corrections as may be 
necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill H.R. 
1401.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________



    REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 850 and H.R. 1732

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
remove my name as cosponsor of the following bills: H.R. 850 and H.R. 
1732.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________



                           MOTION TO ADJOURN

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to adjourn 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 104, 
noes 302, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 192]

                               AYES--104

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weygand
     Woolsey

                               NOES--302

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman

[[Page 12505]]


     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     DeFazio
       

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Bentsen
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Cooksey
     Doyle
     Frost
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hilleary
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kuykendall
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Martinez
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Nethercutt
     Olver
     Rangel
     Shaw
     Wicker
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1859

  Mr. SESSIONS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________



     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1905, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 190 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 190

       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. 1905) making appropriations for the 
     Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2000, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 
     306 or 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 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 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: page 
     18, line 19, through page 19, line 15. No amendment shall be 
     in order except the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and except 
     pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their 
     designees for the purpose of debate. The amendment printed in 
     the report may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
     subject to amendment. Points of order against the amendment 
     printed in the report for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived. 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. 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.

                          ____________________



                              {time}  1900

                           MOTION TO ADJOURN

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion 
to adjourn offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. 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 96, 
nays 298, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 39, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 193]

                                YEAS--96

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bishop
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Skelton
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey

                               NAYS--298

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 12506]]



                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     DeFazio
       

                             NOT VOTING--39

     Bentsen
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Cooksey
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Leach
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Menendez
     Nethercutt
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Roukema
     Sanders
     Scott
     Shaw
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Whitfield
     Wicker

                              {time}  1921

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. HILLIARD and 
Mr. TAUZIN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________



     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1905, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                       APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 
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.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 190 is a structured rule that governs 
the consideration of H.R. 1905, the Legislative Branch appropriations 
bill for Fiscal Year 2000. This type of rule has become customary for 
legislative branch spending bills due to the controversy that often 
surrounds them. Last month, when the Committee on Rules held a hearing 
on this bill, we heard from very few Members who took issue with the 
provisions in the bill, but there are some unrelated issues that may 
disrupt today's debate. Therefore, a structured rule that ensures an 
orderly yet adequate debate is wholly appropriate and fair.
  Under the rule, 1 hour of general debate will be equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The rule waives a limited number of points of order 
against consideration of the bill to address some minor issues related 
to the compensation of specific employees which fall under the 
Congressional Budget Act. The rule also waives points of order against 
some provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 
XXI which prohibits unauthorized or legislative provisions in a general 
appropriations bill.
  I would like to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the Subcommittee on Legislative for 
their hard work to bring this legislation to the floor in a timely 
manner. As a testament to their good work product, only seven 
amendments were filed with the Committee on Rules. Of the seven, two 
were very similar. Both would allow Members who do not use their entire 
budget allowance to return any unused portion to the Treasury. The 
savings would then be devoted to deficit or debt reduction. This 
concept, which has earned broad support in the past, encourages Members 
of Congress to lead by example and be frugal in the use of taxpayers' 
dollars. The Committee on Rules encouraged the cosponsors of these 
amendments to combine their efforts and made in order a Camp-Roemer-
Upton amendment which is printed in the Committee on Rules report. That 
amendment will be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided between a 
proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment. 
Further, the rule waives points of order against the amendment for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Four other amendments were filed with the Committee on Rules which 
addressed juvenile crime and gun laws. Obviously these issues are not 
even remotely related to funding for the Legislative Branch. Therefore, 
the amendments which are not germane to the bill or appropriate in the 
context of this debate were not made in order under the rule, and, as 
my colleagues are well aware, we will have the opportunity to address 
Youth Violence issues next week. Under the rule, the minority will have 
an additional opportunity to make changes to the bill through the 
customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  The Fiscal Year 2000 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill continues 
our efforts which began in 1994 to scale back the Federal Government 
and balance the budget by cutting spending first. As reported by the 
Committee on Appropriations, the funding in H.R. 1905 is 6.6 percent 
lower than the total legislative spending provided in fiscal year 1999. 
The bill cuts some $135 million as well as a total of 98 positions 
throughout the legislative branch.
  We have come a long way since the first year of the Republican 
majority. Since 1994 more than 4,400 positions have been eliminated; 
that is, 16 percent of the legislative work force, and with enactment 
of H.R. 1905 the House would save a total of $1.2 billion over 5 years.
  However, many of my colleagues think that we should go even further 
than H.R. 1905 to reduce spending on the legislative branch. Therefore, 
I will seek to amend the rule prior to its adoption by the House to 
make in order an amendment that will further reduce spending on the 
legislative branch by $54 million. The amendment will be debatable for 
20 minutes, and it will include cuts from the House's salaries and 
expenses as well as reductions in spending for the Architect of the 
Capitol, the Library of Congress and the General Accounting Office. 
This amendment is in line with the Speaker's updated appropriations 
strategy announced earlier this week which will ensure that we allocate 
our scarce resources in an equitable manner among our many spending 
priorities while abiding by the limits agreed to in the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997.
  It is important to keep in mind that the Legislative Branch 
Appropriation bill is about more than funding Members' offices and 
their staffs. H.R. 1905 ensures that the United States Congress runs 
efficiently as a professional institution, and at the same time the 
bill supports the Capitol Building as a tourist attraction and national 
landmark that plays host to thousands of visitors each year. The 
Legislative Branch Appropriations bill provides funding for the 
maintenance of the Capitol building and grounds through the Architect 
of the Capitol; it finances the security provided by the Capitol 
Police, and it ensures access to government documents through the 
Government Printing Office. These organizations serve the public as 
much as they serve the people's elected representatives.
  This rule will provide for sufficient consideration of the substance 
of the legislation in a fair and orderly manner, and with the amendment 
I will offer to the rule the House will have the opportunity to vote to 
further reduce spending on the Legislative Branch by $54 million.
  Our efforts today prove that Congress is willing to look in its own 
backyard and do its part to cut spending to reach our balanced budget 
goals. If the rest of the federal budget had been reduced at the same 
rate as the Legislative Branch, we would have an additional one 
trillion, one hundred billion dollar budget surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule for a reasonable Legislative Branch 
spending bill which continues our commitment to a smaller, smarter 
government that works for the American people. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and my amendment to it so that the House can move 
forward to debate and pass a responsible Legislative Branch 
Appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume and, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for 
yielding me the time.
  This is a structured rule. It will allow for consideration of H.R. 
1905, which is a bill that makes appropriations for the Legislative 
Branch for the

[[Page 12507]]

year 2000. As my colleague has described, this rule provides for 1 hour 
of general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule permits only one amendment. That amendment assures that any 
unspent funds in a Member's representational allowance will be returned 
to the Treasury and used to reduce the national debt. If this amendment 
passes, any Member who feels that his or her office allowance is too 
high can in essence make a cut by not spending that money. This rule 
will allow the House to consider funding for the operations of the 
House of Representatives, the Congressional Budget Office, the 
Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress and Congressional 
Research Service, the Government Printing Office and the General 
Accounting Office. The money provided in this bill funds the office of 
every Member of this body.

                              {time}  1930

  Each Member's office provides service to our constituents and 
represents their interests in Washington, and we depend on CBO and the 
Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service to assist in 
the representational duties assigned to us by the Constitution.
  The Government Printing Office does an extraordinary job by printing 
the bills and reports that are essential to our work and turning out 
the Congressional Record so we have a printed copy of our proceedings 
the day after they happen.
  We also depend on the Government Accounting Office to conduct 
professional nonpartisan reports and analysis of issues facing the 
Congress, and the Architect of the Capitol ensures that this 
magnificent building which we are so privileged to work in is 
maintained, cleaned and preserved.
  I would like to point out that there are a number of serious fault in 
this rule. One, the rule waives all points of order against all 
legislative provisions of the bill except for one. That provision was 
added by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) during the Committee 
on Appropriations markup. The Farr language requires that the Architect 
of the Capitol institute an effective waste recycling program and an 
environmentally sound and perhaps financially rewarding goal. Yet the 
Committee on Rules refused to waive points of order against this 
provision in spite of the fact that the waiver was requested by the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  For that reason and for this amendment that we just heard about in 
the last 15 minutes that is going to be added, if it passes, we will 
urge our colleagues certainly on this side and in the whole body to 
defeat the previous question, and, if the previous question is 
defeated, there will be another amendment offered to the rule to 
protect the provision requiring an effective recycling program in the 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of our colleagues know that most 
of us in this chamber work very hard in committee, we work on a 
bipartisan basis in many committees and subcommittees. I am shocked at 
what I have seen tonight with motions to adjourn when we still have a 
lot of business that needs to be done.
  As I look at our Democratic friends on the other side, 103 voted for 
the motion to adjourn, 92 voted against the motion to adjourn and 
joined the unanimous majority Republican vote of 210, for a total of 
302 versus 104. I would hope those 92 Democrats would send a message to 
the 104 on the other side. They were the half who want to go home. 
Almost half of them do not want to go home. They want to work with us 
to carry on the Nation's business.
  Many know that I am not a partisan type of subcommittee Chair. During 
my four years as chairman, I have had full cooperation of three 
outstanding Democratic ranking Members. All three of them voted against 
the motion to adjourn. That would be typical, because they have been 
hard working Members in the committees. Despite that bipartisan 
relationship at the committee level somehow a few things can go awry on 
the floor.
  We have heard for months that some Democrats planned to disrupt the 
place, so we could not get the appropriation bills through the floor 
process. The ones in opposition seem to feel that slowing down the 
process will enable them to attack this ``do-nothing'' Congress.
  Well, that is just nonsense. This is a ``do'' Congress. It has done 
many good things. When the chips are down, a lot of the Democrats vote 
with us on final passage. The President signs many of those bills, into 
law despite a lot of antics along the way sometimes.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we should get back to work and not have these 
motions to adjourn that just put the whole chamber behind time in the 
schedule. I am glad we are pursuing this appropriations bill tonight.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it is important that the previous speaker 
understand that what has been happening in this House tonight on these 
motions to adjourn has nothing whatsoever to do with whether any of us 
want to work or do not want to work. They do have everything to do with 
procedural fairness and treating the average Member of this House the 
same way the leadership is treated.
  For three out of the four appropriation bills which have been brought 
to the floor this year, we have had the Republican leadership 
unilaterally rewrite committee products with no consultation with the 
minority party.
  The first of those occurred on the original hurricane supplemental, 
where the leadership unilaterally decided to rewrite that bill after it 
had left the committee.
  The second was the agriculture appropriations bill. Again, we had a 
bipartisan bill as it emerged from the committee. It was rewritten 
unilaterally by the leadership of this House, and that caused 
considerable problems, as you know.
  We now had a third bipartisan bill, the legislative appropriations 
bill, and again today the House leadership unilaterally rewrote that 
bill, without any consultation with the minority and without any 
consultation with the Committee on House Administration, which has 
authorization jurisdiction over House accounts.
  Now what we are asked to do is to approve a rule which will allow for 
only one amendment. The practical result of that will be that the 
majority whip will be protected in his 30 percent increase in his 
office account, other leadership Members will be protected with their 
increases in their office accounts, committees will be protected from 
significant reductions, but the rank and file Members of this House 
will have their office accounts frozen. That will mean that the average 
member will have a very difficult time providing a cost-of-living 
increase for their employees in their offices, even though they work 
just as hard as committee employees, but the committees will have no 
trouble providing cost-of-living increases for their staffers, and the 
leadership certainly will have no problem providing cost-of-living 
increases for their staff. That is reason number two why we have had 
these actions.
  Thirdly, at this point this bill has become so politicized that in my 
view it should not be considered until we know how other branches of 
government are treated. This Congress has no right to be treated any 
better than any other branch of government, and it has no obligation to 
be treated worse. We should be treated precisely the same. But at this 
point we have no idea what is going to happen to other agencies of 
government, and so, until we do, in my view, we should not be 
considering this bill at all.
  Fourthly, we have no idea what is going to happen to the American 
public in terms of the programs that affect them. We do know that we 
are going to see substantial cuts in Head Start, we

[[Page 12508]]

are going to see a substantial squeeze on education, we are going to 
see a substantial squeeze on the Environmental Protection Agency 
budgets, and yet the Congress itself is being treated rather modestly 
in this legislation. It seems to me that that is not fair to our 
constituents.
  So, for a lot of reasons, we feel that this bill should not be before 
us tonight. I do not care when you bring it up, but it should not be 
brought up until we know how other branches of government are going to 
be dealt with and until we know how we are going to treat our own 
constituents with respect to programs that are of vital concern to 
them.
  We will not be able to amend tonight the account of the General 
Accounting Office. We will not be able to amend the account for the 
Speaker's office or for the majority leader's office or the minority 
leader's office or the whip's office. We will not be able to amend the 
budget for the Government Printing Office, for the Congressional Budget 
Office or a variety of other offices on the Hill. We will only be 
allowed to vote on that one amendment.
  Last week we had amendment after amendment on the agriculture 
appropriation bill. All of those accounts were subject to cuts. But 
under this rule tonight, very few accounts will be subject to 
reductions under the rule. That, to me, does not seem to be a fair way 
to do business.
  Now, I apologize to the House because taking a stand on principle is 
inconveniencing Members tonight. I am sorry about that. It is also 
inconveniencing me personally. Yesterday was my 37th anniversary. My 
wife and I did not get a chance to celebrate it last night. We expected 
to do it tonight. My wife is not a very happy person right now, and she 
has every right to be unhappy. But there are some matters of principle 
that we need to deal with whenever they arise.
  I knew the Republican leadership believed in trickle-down economics 
for the public. I did not know that the Republican leadership believed 
in trickle-down economics when it came to the House leadership versus 
the way they treat every other Member of the House. I find it 
interesting; I also find it not very healthy for the House.
  So I would say again in closing, this bill should not be before us 
until we know how we are going to deal with other bills that affect our 
constituents, and it certainly should not be before us until we know 
how we are going to treat other departments of government. We should be 
treated no worse than any other branch of government and we should be 
treated no better, and certainly we will have no way of measuring that 
if this bill is brought up on this ill-advised schedule this evening.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, one of the things I think most of us 
respect mostly on this floor is someone that we may disagree with but 
fights for principle, and I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), even though we disagree on some issues, one thing he does, he 
stands up for what he believes in. I respect that very, very much, and 
part of me understands what the gentleman is doing.
  But let me give you just another side of some of our feelings. I did 
not know what they were doing on this particular bill. I am not in the 
leadership. I do not have a staff. I am just a small cog in this whole 
membership. But each year I turn back about 20 percent of my own office 
budget. I try not to put in extra newsletters, do all the things that 
many of the Members do, and try to turn back money to the government to 
set an example, yet I try and take care of my staff very well.
  There are 13 appropriation bills, Mr. Speaker, and there are many of 
us that, when it comes down the line, things like Labor-HHS, I chaired 
a committee hearing for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). I had 
to shut down the hearing twice because the hearing was about children 
that had diseases and their only hope was Labor-HHS and medical 
research. I had to stop. I had so many tears coming down my eyes. I 
will never sit in another one of those hearings. I cannot do it.
  Where we think there are some tough choices, it may be in our own 
accounts, it is a place where we can add money, things like medical 
research and Labor-HHS. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said 
the other day he said he did not think we could double medical 
research. I would sure like to try. I think the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would too.
  I think where we are taking small amounts of each committee, when you 
have got billions of dollars out of each one of these appropriations 
bills, including defense we just did for peacekeeping, then I think if 
we can shift over some of those amounts, and many of us feel the reason 
we want to get out of Kosovo is I think we are spending too much, not 
that that is the only reason, but spending too much money.
  I would say to my friend that, yes, we do want to help Social 
Security and we do want to help Medicare. Education, I want to reform 
it, and I do want to increase medical research. I honestly do as a 
Member.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask one question: If we 
are going to cut Members' accounts, why should the majority whip 
receive a 30 percent increase in his account, while the average Member 
of this House has his account frozen?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I cannot answer 
that, other than with a 5 vote margin, quite often it is very, very 
difficult to bring Members on your side to our way of thinking, and 
sometimes your thinking and the whip organization that tries to bring 
all of this together. Granted, we do not always do that in the best 
way.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, part of why I am in Congress is because I believe that 
the Federal government has an opportunity to be a better partner with 
the rest of America to promote livable communities.
  This is a very small item in the large scheme of things in the debate 
that is going on tonight, but I think it speaks volumes to the level of 
hypocrisy that goes on in Washington, D.C.
  There was a provision that was inserted in the Committee on 
Appropriations by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) that would 
require a meaningful recycling program to be developed for the House of 
Representatives.
  I have been stunned at what we do not do in the House. We have the 
worst performance of any agency in the Federal government. I have Boy 
Scout troops in my district that have made more money recycling cans, 
bottles, and Christmas trees than the House of Representatives has done 
in the last 3 years that I have been in Congress. There are homeless 
people within the sight of this Capitol that make more money in a day 
than the House of Representatives was able to surplus for all the tons 
of paper that pass through this place in the year 1997.
  We are repeatedly assured that we have a recycling program. We have 
the funny little blue cans and cannisters, but it simply does not work. 
The Committee on Appropriations stepped forward to try and help 
encourage it in this bill.
  I note that under this rule, the only provision that is not protected 
is this requirement that we get serious about recycling. It seems to me 
that we have an opportunity to lead by example, to try and promote more 
livable communities. This does not cost any money. In fact, if we would 
grow up and do what we ask the rest of America to do, it would mean 
tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of 
increased money that we make to this House, and it would save disposal 
costs.
  A little thing? I do not understand what is going on tonight with 
some of this folderol. Somebody will explain it to the reporters and I 
can read about it

[[Page 12509]]

tomorrow. But I do know that it is embarrassing that we do not have a 
recycling program, that the House of Representatives is the worst 
performer in the Federal government; that we are being outperformed by 
homeless people and Boy Scout troops. We deserve to do better.
  I would ask that people not play games with this provision, that it 
be not struck down under a point of order. I think that it would be an 
important signal for us to send to the rest of America that we are 
serious about promoting livable communities, and we are willing to lead 
by example and not be hypocritical about it.
  If Members are going to do this, then for heavens sakes get rid of 
all the things that pretend to be recycling, throw them out. Do not 
have staff waste the time and money.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, a couple of different points that I want to 
make here.
  One is that this is a very difficult process. We have a budget 
agreement that the President says he supports, that all of us in 
Congress say we support, that calls for very difficult appropriations 
levels, and quite bluntly, none of us are really happy with it.
  We want to keep the budget caps. We are trying to stay with the 
budget agreement. We all go out home and say we want to save all this 
money for social security. But when it comes to each bill, it is 
always, well, we really need this, we really need that.
  We have been trying to save a little bit of money in each one because 
a number of us strongly felt that while everybody talks about the need 
to stay within the budget agreement, the fact is that the money we had 
on the table for Labor-HHS, for Interior and Veterans, was not 
sufficient, and that every side was kind of doing a wink-wink and 
saying, well, we are trying to try to stay within the caps and within 
the budget agreement, knowing we were not working towards that.
  Every dollar we save in this appropriations bill, the agriculture 
appropriations bill, is going to be able to be used for those programs 
that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others have said they 
are concerned about and will help us preserve social security. That is 
the real trade-off.
  Yes, it will be difficult for Members' offices to live under a 
freeze, which is in effect a reduction. But we also gave each Member of 
Congress flexibility to move their funds around, and most Members do 
not even spend their full account.
  Furthermore, this is another round, in my opinion, of ``pick on the 
majority whip.'' The plain truth of the matter is that the majority and 
minority are both getting the same amount of money in this. We reduced, 
in this agreement, the amendment that will be offered, the money going 
to leadership; not by a lot, but by some. This amendment does not 
really please anybody, but at least it moves the ball forward and 
reduces some funds overall.
  The minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) gets 
the same amount as the majority whip. He can either give it to the 
minority whip or do it elsewhere. The fact is that early on, for many 
different reasons, in the majority side the whip's office was 
disproportionately cut in its budget. That is why the majority is 
choosing to put the money in the whip's office.
  The minority has the same amount of funds. What is good for one side 
is good for the other. We have also reduced the committee spending. We 
need to lead by example. Every dollar we can save in the operations 
that support Congress, in our own operations, in all of the many 
organizations here we can put into educating our children, into the 
health concerns raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham), in the difference diseases. We can put it into our 
national defense.
  That is one of the problems here. We have just seen all of our 
secrets in our military, offensive and defensive, potentially be at 
risk to China. At the same time, unless we spend more money in defense, 
we are completely vulnerable. If we spend more money there, it squeezes 
elsewhere.
  I believe this amount of sacrifice is minimal on our parts, and it is 
courageous, because normally Congress does not allow any amendment on 
the leg branch. I think there should be more, but normally we do not 
allow any. Tonight we are taking a very important step that no other 
Congress has done.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, do we really want to take care of ourselves first before 
the rest of the country? This is the bill that takes care of us, of our 
internal operations. When we finish with this, 97 percent of the 
appropriations process is still undone. Legislative branch may be the 
first appropriations bill. It could be the only appropriations bill 
enacted.
  Do we really want that? Do we really want to be increasing the 
majority whip's organization by 35 percent when we cut Head Start by 20 
percent, when we cut Meals on Wheels for the elderly by 20 percent? Is 
that really the situation that we want to present to our constituents?
  If in fact we are going to increase House operations, is it really 
appropriate to be putting the money into the leadership offices, into 
the committee offices, as deserving as they may be, when we know that 
the people who are most underpaid are the people who work directly for 
us for our constituents, the people who answer constituent letters, the 
people who deal with constituent problems, the people who are out face-
to-face with the people we represent?
  They are the most underpaid of all of the people that work within 
this organization. We can show the Members the statistics. Yet, their 
allocation is frozen so that we can provide the money for the 
leadership, for the whip's operation, primarily. If I am wrong, if the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) can tell me that the office of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) does not get a 35 percent increase in 
this budget. I would be more than happy for that to be explained on the 
floor.
  My understanding is that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) does 
get 35 percent.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, the whip's office took a $300,000 cut the 
first year the majority took over because of differences internally. 
This will put them, inflation-adjusted, about where they would have 
been. The minority is actually getting more than the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), but it goes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Would the knowledgeable gentleman from Indiana 
tell us on the floor how much the whip's organization is funded, and 
how many personnel work for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)?
  Mr. SOUDER. This I think would put them roughly at $1.4 million. It 
was at roughly $1.3 million in 1994 when the Democrats were in. That is 
not much of an increase in the whip operation.
  Furthermore, the Democrats are getting more money for the leader's 
office than the Republicans.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is it 
not correct that the operation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) 
will get a 35 percent increase in this legislative branch 
appropriations bill?
  Mr. SOUDER. It is because they took a 35 percent cut earlier.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. To put that in context, when the majority took over, they 
promised that every agency in the Congress was going to have had a 25 
percent cut.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I appreciate the gentleman putting that 
information on the Record.
  The fact is that all of us, we are going to have to tell our staffs 
that we have to swallow a cost of living increase, which means that we 
are going

[[Page 12510]]

to probably have to make cuts across-the-board.
  This bill freezes what we are going to be allocated for our personal 
staffs. I do not think that is what we want to do, and I do not think 
this is the proper allocation of very limited resources that are 
available to us.
  I do not think we want this bill to be the first and perhaps the only 
appropriations bill that actually gets enacted. I think we ought to be 
taking care of Health and Human Services first; of State, Justice, 
Commerce.
  FBI gets a 10 percent cut. Do we really want to deal with that when 
we have already provided significant increases for the leadership of 
this body? I do not think so. I do not think this shows that our 
priorities are in the right place.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge a no vote on the rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this rule. I do so because the Committee on Rules specifically singled 
out one little provision in the bill and subjected it to elimination. 
The whole rest of the bill is safe. Any points of order against any 
problems in this bill are waived, except for one, just one. It is about 
whether this House ought to recycle.
  The Committee on Rules arbitrarily and with little regard simply 
waved their hand and said, no, the House will not recycle. This is what 
the effect of the rule is: We cannot adopt a mandatory recycling 
program.
  There is no recognition that the House already has a recycling 
program, and that it did not work. There is no recognition that the 
Committee on Appropriations accepted this language, and they accepted 
this language because they realized that it did not work, and they 
accepted this language in a bipartisan way because they realized that 
this is one part of the bill where we can make some money.
  The debate here tonight is about how we cut the costs. This is the 
one part of the bill that allows us to earn something for the trash 
that we produce. There is no recognition that everyone else in America 
has to recycle except the House of Representatives.
  What is so hard about recycling? What is so threatening about 
recycling, that this body has to strike it from this bill? What is it 
about recycling that scares the majority party about separating paper 
waste? You would think we were trying to talk about a tax increase, the 
way they are reacting on it.
  All we are asking is to recycle trash so that the House can conserve 
resources, reduce costs, and earn some money. The language in question 
says that the money earned, that the money earned from this will go to 
help underwrite the activities and operations of the House day care 
center.
  So by leaving this language exposed, we not only admit our reluctance 
to recycling, we deny our children access to better quality care. The 
rule stinks, and I ask for a no vote.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, Will Rogers once said, you can be moving on 
the right track, but if you are not moving fast enough, you are going 
to get run over.
  The budget process right now is such that we have a badly biased 
budget process that is headed for a train wreck, and that train wreck 
is going to crash into our children. The education and labor bill that 
we are going to eventually take up in this body I hope, if we can get 
to it, is about $12 billion shortfunded, $12 billion. That is not my 
particular figure, that is the figure of the Republican chairman, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
  Why is that important? Why should we try to handle this budget 
process now, rather than wait for this train wreck for our children 
later? That particular subcommittee funds NIH, health care, grants to 
help with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and breast cancer.
  That particular $12 billion underfunded bill funds Head Start, where 
we only have 36 percent of our eligible children enrolled.

                              {time}  2000

  That bill funds Pell Grants to get our Nation's high school students 
into college and help them pay for it. That bill funds TRIO programs 
for the poorest of the poor for after-school programs and summer school 
programs.
  Now, why is that important if it is not important for very obvious 
reasons for education? Well, we have got a juvenile justice bill coming 
up next week. We have got gun provisions on that particular bill.
  Now, that gun provision will not be in my first three or four 
immediate solutions to the shooting in Littleton. I think families are 
important, media, violence, school safety.
  School safety. What about TRIO programs? What about Head Start for 
our young people? That is the program in Labor HHS that is $12 billion 
underfunded.
  My good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), I think 
makes some good points. He wants to put some more into defense. He 
wants to make some cuts. Well, we have cut $102 million from the 
agriculture appropriations bill, $54 million from this bill. My figures 
give that $156 towards a $12 billion shortfall. Whether one wants to 
put it into defense or education, let us get to it. Let us have the 
debate now.
  I try to work as much as anybody with the Republicans, and I thank 
the Committee on Rules for the rule for my amendment with the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) to 
return money that we do not spend. I have approached $1 million that I 
have not spent in my office account. That is a decision I made.
  I voted for the agriculture appropriations bill even though it took a 
$102 million hit, even though my farmers are at depressionary prices in 
the Midwest on hog, wheat, corn prices. But let us work in a bipartisan 
way to solve this education problem.
  Let us fix the budgetary problem now and not shut down government 
later. Let us fix the budgetary process now and not let this train 
wreck hit our children later.
  Let us work together across the aisle to try to fix this process and 
not do it piecemeal on this legislative branch bill on a Thursday night 
and let this train wreck happen. We have a juvenile justice bill coming 
up. We have an education bill with NIH and Head Start and preschool 
programs. Let us fix the budgetary process.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), whose amendment 
was made in order by the Committee on Rules, is absolutely right. 
Dollars are short, and that is one reason that the amendment to cut the 
$54 million out of our own account should be approved by this body so 
that we can make that apply across the board, down the line further 
when we do not have the dollars for Labor HHS and some of the other 
very important priorities of this Congress. So I urge us to adopt that 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I know the hour is getting late, and we have 
had a lot of votes, not only tonight, but earlier nights as well.
  I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my friend and colleague on the other side of the 
aisle in celebration of his 37th anniversary. I would like to note that 
we are circulating a card, and all Members can sign this to my friend, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to congratulate him and his 
wife, Joan. We are glad that he is here tonight, and we hope to get him 
back soon.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could wax eloquent about the 37 
years that Joan has put up with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), but

[[Page 12511]]

I will refrain from that and simply say that those of us who have the 
opportunity to serve with him and know Joan know them to be one of the 
most loving, caring couples that we know. We join the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton) in congratulating them on their 37 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to 
this bill. I say to my colleagues in the majority, I do not know in 
whom you are repositing responsibility, but I do know this: There has 
been a lot of talk about working together. There has been a lot of talk 
about a family-friendly Congress.
  We went to Hershey, Pennsylvania, to talk about working together. 
That was apparently an objective of the majority. Well, I happen to 
serve on the Subcommittee on Legislative, which is chaired by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor). I do not suppose there is 
anybody on the other side of the aisle that believes that the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is a profligate spender. Is there?
  Apparently not.
  The gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) looked at this 
bill and I presume made a judgment, a judgment as to what this 
institution needed to run responsibly. In that process, of course we 
adopted a budget that was promulgated by the Republicans, the budget of 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and his Senate counterpart.
  Now, very frankly, I voted against that budget. My belief is there 
are an awful lot of people who voted for that budget who know it will 
not work and know it is going to crash, period, paragraph, 30.
  Now we pursue a charade, and that charade is that we are going to 
nickel-and-dime. This entire bill is four-tenths of a percent of the 
discretionary spending that the appropriators will spend pursuant to 
the budget resolution.
  There is no Budget Act point of order that would lie against this 
bill. Why? Because it is within the budget resolution. This is not 
something that we went outside the constraints of the budget resolution 
and the 302(b) allocations to our committee. We are within the 
allocation.
  But there is now this pretense that somehow we are going to save 
education. We are going to put $2 billion, that is what the chairman of 
our subcommittee wants to do, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), 
2 billion extra dollars in NIH by somehow reconfiguring these figures 
at the last minute.
  The gentleman from North Carolina and I do not always agree, but I 
will tell my colleagues this, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) sat down with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), the 
ranking member on our subcommittee, in a bipartisan fashion and said, 
how do we make this bill work?
  Guess what, Mr. Speaker, their bill passed out of our subcommittee 
unanimously. Then it went to full committee. In a bipartisan fashion, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) conducted the debate. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made his comments, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) made their comments, and it passed by voice vote unanimously 
out of the committee.
  This was not a bill that had great controversy to it. But then, as I 
said the other day on this floor, that happened on the agriculture 
bill. All of a sudden, arising from the bosom of the Republican 
Conference came a hue cry, ``This is not enough''; and without any 
consultation with our side of the aisle at all, totally destroyed the 
bipartisanship that had created a consensus on this legislation.
  We are confronted with these amendments which, yes, do undermine the 
ability of Members, in my opinion, to represent appropriately their 
constituents and to recognize the effort of our employees.
  This will not save education, which, as the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer) pointed out, is $12 billion under what my colleagues say 
we need, what the chairman says we need, not us on our side of the 
aisle, but what my chairman says is necessary to fund adequately 
education and health care in the Labor HHS bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is, as I said earlier, a charade to serve some 
rhetorical argument about fiscal responsibility while, at the same time 
we say we want to save education, we in fact underfund education.
  This is very early in the process. This is an extraordinarily easy 
proposal to make. But the hour will come when the proposals will not be 
so easy, the rhetoric will not be so symbolic, and when the 
consequences will be much more severe. Let us reject this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 14\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the rule, but just want 
to express tremendous reservation that this House that passed the 
congressional accountability bill to get Congress under all the laws we 
impose on the rest of the Nation would not shield the requirement that 
the House have mandatory recycling.
  I think it is a terrible mistake that this House, this Congress, is 
not setting the example for the rest of the country; and I hope that we 
resolve this issue quickly, given it will probably be declared out of 
order in the bill itself.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, if the majority party 
leadership wants to save $50 million, all they have to do is to sit 
down with us and ask us to participate in shaping that cut so that it 
could be fair and balanced and real.
  I would urge them, do not unilaterally take actions that belie their 
claim to want bipartisanship and do not play games with rank and file 
Members and squeeze their budgets while insulating the power centers of 
this body.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I do have great respect for the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I do believe he is a man of principle. But I 
think that the reason we are at this position is that there is a bigger 
principle, and the bigger principle, in 1997, this Congress and the 
President of the United States agreed to spend a certain amount of 
money; and this is the year that the hard, tough cuts come in that.
  Now, for many years, Congresses have said, we will make a deal and 
wink, and we know 2 or 3 years down the road we are not going to honor 
that deal. Well, we have a new dilemma before us, and the new dilemma 
before us is every penny that we spend above that agreement we take 
from the seniors in this country, we take from the working men and 
women in this country, and we take from the children who are going to 
work, because every one of those dollars is going to be stolen from 
Social Security.
  Now, in Oklahoma, we think $54 million is a whole lot of money. We 
think $54 million added to Labor HHS might make the difference in 
somebody's life. I am sorry that the people on the other side do not 
think that that is a significant sum. But I would tell you that $54 
million will make a difference. It is money that we are not going to 
spend now so that we will have it available to take care of those 
people in this country that are depending on us.
  We claim a surplus. The only surplus we have is the excess of the 
payments that are coming into the Treasury over the Social Security 
payments that are going out. It is not our money to spend. We have an 
absolute obligation to make every effort to try to live up to the 
agreement between the Congress of the United States and the President 
that we made in 1997.
  It is unfortunate that it is happening this way, but the fact is that 
every senior out there believes that we should not touch their Social 
Security money.

[[Page 12512]]

Most people who are paying 12.5 percent FICA believe we should not be 
touching their Social Security money. The children that are coming up 
are either going to have to pay 25 percent FICA or they are not going 
to have any Social Security.
  So we can say this is a partisan debate. What the real debate is is 
whether or not we can lead by example.
  Now, the average Member of Congress has $1.5 million, almost $1.6 
million, to spend a year; and that is more than enough to adequately 
represent our districts.
  I noticed that the two gentlemen that I have great respect for, who 
really made a statement that that was not enough, happened to represent 
the bureaucracy in Washington. $1.6 million to employ somewhere between 
18 and 22 people and adequately represent that constituency is far 
greater than what we need.

                              {time}  2015

  But that is where we are. We can live within that budget. If we 
cannot live within that budget, then we ought to have a better 
understanding of what the Social Security recipients out there are 
doing when they get a COLA of 1.3 percent.
  So the real principle is, if we have been elected to represent a 
group of people in this Congress, the least we can do is lead by 
example in our own offices. We do not have to pay high rents in our own 
offices. We can find something less. There will not be one person who 
does not get an increase that is earned by us freezing our Members' 
representational allowance.
  I would ask the Members of this body to support this rule. We are 
spending adequate amounts on the legislative branch. And let us lead by 
example and let us save the money for the Labor-HHS that is coming up 
later.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time 
and would just say that I would urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, we will offer 
an amendment to the rule that extends waivers provided in this rule to 
language in the bill which requires an effective recycling program in 
the House.
  Furthermore, if the amendment to the rule is approved, we will oppose 
the rule. We are taking up a major change in the rule. Our side 
received almost no advanced notice. Occasionally we pass a technical 
amendment to a rule, once in a while it is substantive, but in the 
past, as long as I have been on the Committee on Rules, we have always 
had consultation and we have always had an agreement with the minority. 
This is the first time I can remember that we have passed a rule like 
this.
  For these reasons we will oppose the rule and certainly ask for a 
vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the text of the amendment we 
will offer if the previous question is defeated:

       On page 2, line 12, strike ``except'' and all that follows 
     through ``15'' on page 13.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


  Amendment In The Nature of a Substitute Offered by Ms. Pryce of Ohio

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms. 
     Pryce of Ohio:
       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``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. 1905) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with section 306 or 401 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 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 Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. Points of order against provisions in the bill for 
     failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except 
     as follows: page 18, line 19, through page 19, line 15. No 
     amendment shall be in order except the amendment printed in 
     House Report 106-165, the amendment printed in section 2 of 
     this resolution, and pro forma amendments offered by the 
     chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate. 
     The amendment printed in the report may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, and the amendment printed in 
     section 2 may be offered only by a Member designated in 
     section 2. Each amendment shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for 20 minutes 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 or order against the amendment printed in 
     the report and the amendment printed in section 2 are waived. 
     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. After a motion that 
     the Committee rise has been rejected on a legislative day, 
     the Chairman may entertain another such motion on that day 
     only if offered by the chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or the Majority Leader or their designee. 
     After a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill 
     (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII) has been rejected, 
     the Chairman may not entertain another such motion during 
     further consideration of the bill. 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. 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. 2. (a) The amendment described in the first section 
     of this resolution is as follows:

               Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Florida

       On Page 38 before line 4 add the following new section:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     appropriations under this Act for the following agencies and 
     activities are reduced by the following respective amounts: 
     House of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses, $29,135,000, 
     from which the following accounts are to be reduced by the 
     following amounts:
       House Leadership Offices, $142,000;
       Members' Representational Allowances Including Members' 
     Clerk Hire, Official Expenses of Members, and Official Mail, 
     $28,297,000;
       Committee on Appropriations, $213,000;
       Salaries, Officers and Employees, $483,000 to be derived 
     from other authorized employees;
       Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and Grounds, 
     Capitol Buildings, Salaries and Expenses, $1,465,000;
       Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and Grounds, 
     House Office Buildings, $3,400,000;
       Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and Grounds, 
     Capitol Power Plant, $4,400,000;
       Libary of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 
     Salaries and Expenses, $315,000;
       Government Printing Office, Congressional Printing and 
     Binding, $4,127,000;
       Library of Congress, Salaries and Expenses, $685,000;
       Library of Congress, Furniture and Furnishings, $5,415,000;
       Architect of the Capitol, Library Buildings and Grounds, 
     Structural and Mechanical Care, $4,372,000; and
       General Accounting Office, Salaries and Expenses, 
     $1,500,000: Provided, That the amount reduced under House of 
     Representatives, House Leadership Offices, shall be 
     distributed among the various leadership offices as approved 
     by the Committee on Appropriations: Provided further, That 
     the amount to remain available under the heading Architect of 
     the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and Grounds, Capitol 
     Buildings, Salaries and Expenses, is reduced by $1,465,000; 
     the amount to remain available under the heading Architect of 
     the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and Grounds, House Office 
     Buildings, is reduced by $3,400,000; and the amount to remain 
     available under the heading Architect of the Capitol, Library 
     Buildings and Grounds, Structural and Mechanical Care, is 
     reduced by $4,000,000.
       (b) The amendment printed in subsection (a) may be offered 
     only by Representative Young of Florida or his designee.''.

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this amendment will provide for 
consideration of another amendment which would cut $54 million in 
legislative spending. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) or his 
designee

[[Page 12513]]

will offer the amendment and it will be debatable for 20 minutes. In 
addition, the amendment prevents further dilatory tactics during 
consideration of H.R. 1905 so that we can finish tonight.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
amendment and on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on ordering the 
previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, 
nays 198, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 194]

                               YEAS--213

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     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)

                               NAYS--198

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

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Engel
     Frelinghuysen
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hilleary
     Hunter
     Kasich
     Largent
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Nethercutt
     Oxley
     Payne
     Petri
     Rangel
     Smith (NJ)

                              {time}  2045

  Messrs. NADLER, JOHN, and MARTINEZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. LEWIS of California, COX, ARMEY, and Mrs. JOHNSON of 
Connecticut changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Motion to Reconsider Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the motion 
to reconsider the vote offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).


              Motion to Table Offered by Ms. Pryce of Ohio

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to 
reconsider on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to lay on the 
table the motion to reconsider offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Pryce).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 194, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 195]

                               AYES--218

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)

[[Page 12514]]


     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     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--194

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

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bentsen
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Engel
     Gephardt
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hilleary
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Kasich
     Largent
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Nethercutt
     Oxley
     Rangel
     Scarborough
     Stark
     Wexler

                              {time}  2053

  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 182, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 196]

                               AYES--232

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

                               NOES--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)

[[Page 12515]]


     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bentsen
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Engel
     Gephardt
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hilleary
     Houghton
     Kasich
     Largent
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oxley
     Rangel

                              {time}  2102

  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Motion to Reconsider the Vote Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was just adopted.


              Motion to Table Offered By Ms. Pryce of Ohio

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to 
reconsider on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) to lay on the table 
the motion to reconsider offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 180, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 197]

                               AYES--230

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

                               NOES--180

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wise
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Crowley
     Engel
     Gephardt
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hilleary
     Kasich
     Largent
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oxley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Weygand
     Woolsey

                              {time}  2109

  So the motion to table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 194, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 198]

                               AYES--216

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary

[[Page 12516]]


     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     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--194

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

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Bentsen
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Engel
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hilleary
     Johnson (CT)
     Kasich
     Largent
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     McDermott
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oxley
     Porter
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Weygand
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  2116


                Motion To Reconsider Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
resolution was adopted.


              Motion to Table Offered by Ms. Pryce of Ohio

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to 
reconsider on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the motion 
to table offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5 minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 197, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 199]

                               AYES--218

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

                               NOES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)

[[Page 12517]]


     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bentsen
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Engel
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hilleary
     Kasich
     Largent
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oxley
     Rahall
     Rangel

                              {time}  2124

  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________



                           MOTION TO ADJOURN

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to adjourn 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, is the motion to adjourn in writing?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Obey of Wisconsin moves that the House do now adjourn.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to adjourn 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 90, 
noes 325, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 200]

                                AYES--90

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner

                               NOES--325

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     DeFazio
       

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bentsen
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Engel
     Frank (MA)
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hilleary
     Kasich
     Largent
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oxley
     Rangel

                              {time}  2142

  Mr. ROTHMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________



              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
190 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. 1905.

                              {time}  2141


                     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. 1905) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Hansen 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 North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.

[[Page 12518]]

  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to present the legislative branch 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. I want to begin by thanking 
the members of my subcommittee for all the hard work in writing this 
bill. They include the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp); the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis); the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Granger); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson); the ranking 
minority member, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor); the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha); and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).

                              {time}  2145

  I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the full 
committee chairman, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the 
ranking member on the full committee, for their assistance.
  The bill was considered by the full committee on May 20 and reported 
to the House on May 21. No roll call votes were taken in full 
committee. The Fiscal Year 2000 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill 
totals $1.9 billion in new obligational authority of which $1.178 
billion is for congressional operations exclusive of Senate items.
  The balance of the bill, $739 million is for the operations of the 
other legislative branch agencies.
  The bill, Mr. Chairman, is $116 million below the budget request, a 
5.7 percent reduction. Also, it is $135 million below the current 
fiscal year, including the supplementals, a 6.6 percent reduction. Now, 
if a further amendment is passed, which I will support later tonight, 
it will be reduced by 9.3 percent.
  Major items in the bill: The House of Representatives is funded at 
$769 million. Primarily, this includes funds for staff COLA's, merit 
increases, and benefits. There is also an increase for communications 
costs.
  The Joint Economic Committee is funded at the request level, an 
increase of $104,000. The Joint Committee on Taxation is funded at $6.2 
million. The attending physician is funded at $1.9 million. That is the 
amount requested.
  The funding for the Capitol Police is $85.2 million. That includes 
$78.5 million for salaries and $6.7 million for expenses. The CBO is 
funded at $26.2 million.
  The Architect of the Capitol receives $154 million. The operating 
budget increase of about $4 million will cover staff costs. The capital 
budget is lower than 1999 due to one-time costs for the Capitol 
Visitors Center.
  Except in a few instances, funding has not been provided for projects 
which have not been 100 percent designed. The Architect has asked for 
construction funds for 39 projects that have not been designed, 
including phase 2 of the Dome Project.
  We have several instances where the Architect's design team has 
significantly increased their funding requests after the original 
construction was funded. So a policy not to provide construction funds 
until design is finished will create more discipline and fiscal 
prudence in the process.
  The Dome will not be delayed. We will still be on schedule if funds 
are provided in the Fiscal Year 2001 cycle.
  The Congressional Research Service will receive $71.3 million, and 
the Library of Congress, $315 million. This provides funds for the 
current employment level. We have asked the Library to fund $3.4 
million of requested program increases through savings.
  The Government Printing Office will receive $107 million, and a limit 
of 3,313 FTEs has been set.
  The GAO will be funded at $372 million plus authority to spend $1.4 
million in receipts from audits that they do for other agencies. The 
GAO funds include COLAs for 3,245 FTEs, a slight decrease under the 
current level projected for 1999.
  General administrative provisions have been included. We have also 
made some technical corrections asked for by the Committee on House 
Administration.
  We have included a provision of permanent law, section 101, that 
gives House counsel comparable authority and notification as the Senate 
counsel now has.
  The bill equals the subcommittee 302(b) allocations. The bill 
continues with constraint. The bill is substantially under our 
appropriations of last year, not counting the supplemental, and is 
substantially under the 1995 bill. I urge all Members to support the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following tables for the Record:

[[Page 12519]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JN99.000



[[Page 12520]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JN99.001



[[Page 12521]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JN99.002



[[Page 12522]]

  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to present the legislative branch 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. I want to begin by thanking 
the members of my subcommittee for all their hard work in writing this 
bill.
  They include myself, as Chairman, Zach Wamp of Tennessee; Jerry Lewis 
of California; Kay Granger of Texas; John Peterson of Pennsylvania; and 
Ed Pastor, the ranking minority member from Arizona; John Murtha of 
Pennsylvania; and Steny Hoyer from Maryland. I also want to thank the 
full committee chairman, Bill Young of Florida; and David Obey, the 
full committee ranking minority member from Wisconsin, for their 
assistance.
  The bill was considered by the full committee on May 20 and reported 
to the House on May 21. No rollcall votes were taken in full committee.


                  recommendations for fiscal year 2000

  The fiscal 2000 legislative branch appropriations bill totals $1.9 
billion ($1,916,967,000) in new obligational authority of which $1.178 
billion ($1,178,027,000) is for congressional operations exclusive of 
Senate items.
  The balance of the bill, $739 million ($738,940,000), is for the 
operations of the other legislative branch agencies.
  The bill is $116.2 million ($116,162,000) below the budget request, a 
5.7% reduction.
  Also, it is $135.2 million ($135,150,100) below the current fiscal 
year (including supplementals)--a 6.6% reduction.


                        major items in the bill

  The House of Representatives is funded at $769 million 
($769,019,000).
  Primarily, this includes funds for staff COLA's, merit increases, and 
benefits.
  There is also an increase for communications costs, some of which are 
made necessary by the cyber Congress initiative.
  The Joint Economic Committee is funded at the request level, an 
increase of $104,000 for committee staff COLA's.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation is funded at $6.2 million 
($6,188,000).
  The Attending Physician's funding is $1.9 million ($1,898,000). That 
is the amount requested.
  The funding for the Capitol Police is $85.2 million ($85,212,000). 
That includes $78.5 million ($78,501,000) for salaries and $6.7 million 
($6,711,000) for expenses.
  The Congressional Budget Office is funded at $26.2 million 
($26,221,000).
  The Architect of the Capitol receives $154 million ($154,327,000). 
The operating budget increase of $4 million ($3,973,000) will cover 
staff costs. The capital budget is lower than FY1999 due to one time 
costs for the Capitol Visitors Center.
  Except in a few instances, funding has not been provided for projects 
which have not been 100% designed. The Architect asked for construction 
funds for 39 projects that have not been designed, including phase 2 of 
the dome project.
  We have several instances where the Architect's design team has 
significantly increased their funding requests after the original 
construction funding.
  So, a policy not to provide construction funds until design is 
finished will create more discipline and fiscal prudence in the 
process. The dome will not be delayed--we will still be on schedule if 
funds are provided in the FY 2001 cycle.
  The Congressional Research Service will receive $71.3 million 
($71,255,000) and the Library of Congress $315 million ($314,953,000).
  This provides funds for the current employment level. We have asked 
the library to fund $3.4 million of requested program increases through 
savings.
  The Government Printing Office will receive $107.7 million 
($107,690,000) and a limit of 3,313 FTE's has been set.
  The General Accounting Office will be funded at $372.7 million 
($372,681,000) plus authority to spend $1.4 million ($1,400,000) in 
receipts from audits they do for other agencies.
  The GAO funds include COLA's for 3,245 FTE'S, a slight decrease under 
the current level projected for FY 1999.
  General and administrative provisions: Several standard general 
provisions have been included. We have also made some technical 
corrections asked for by the House Administration Committee.
  And we have included a provision of permanent law, section 101, that 
gives House counsel comparable authority and notification as Senate 
counsel now enjoys.
  Bill summary: BA compared to:
  1999 level: A reduction of 6.6%, or $135.2 million--(-$135,150,000).
  2000 request: A reduction of 5.7%, or $116.2 million--
(-$116,162,000).
  302b: The bill just equals the 302B allocation (Senate excluded).
  Here are some additional interesting comparisons:
  Since 1995, the legislative bill has produced savings of $1.2 billion 
below the trend of appropriations levels during the previous 5 years.
  If all Federal outlays had been constrained at the same rate as the 
legislative budget, the entire Federal budget would have produced a 
cumulative additional surplus beyond those currently projected of $1.1 
trillion during these past 5 years.
  Since 1994, the legislative branch has downsized by 4,412 employees. 
That is a 16% reduction.
  The bill continues that constraint, but it will provide the Congress 
and our support agencies the resources needed to carry out our jobs.
  I urge all Members to support the bill and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) for the purpose of a motion.


                   Motion To Rise Offered By Mr. Obey

  Mr OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The motion during general debate is in order because 
the minority manager yielded for that purpose. The question is on the 
motion to rise offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 130, 
noes 263, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 41, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 201]

                               AYES--130

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--263

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger

[[Page 12523]]


     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     DeFazio
       

                             NOT VOTING--41

     Archer
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Buyer
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     DeLay
     Dixon
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hilleary
     Jefferson
     Kasich
     Largent
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     McKinney
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Olver
     Oxley
     Pombo
     Rangel
     Salmon
     Scott
     Shuster
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  2208

  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I also would like to commend and thank 
the staff that helped us develop this bill and the members of the 
subcommittee who worked on this bill and produced a bill that is fair 
and meets the needs of the House.
  This bill basically deals with the safety of the buildings, Mr. 
Chairman. It also ensures security for the personnel that work in this 
building and those who visit this building. But this building is mainly 
about personnel, and that is how we treat our employees who work in our 
offices to make sure that we are effective and efficient.
  I have to tell my colleagues that I commend the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor). He was 
very fair, very bipartisan. We had the hearings, we developed this bill 
in a bipartisan manner, and we were cognizant of the needs of this 
House. It is a responsible bill.
  Through the subcommittee, as my colleagues were told earlier, by 
unanimous vote, this bill was forwarded to the full Committee on 
Appropriations, and the Committee on Appropriations unanimously, on a 
voice vote, forwarded it to the House.
  It is with great disappointment I must now vote against this bill. We 
thought this was a fair bill; that the Members would accept it and 
adopt it. We did not expect a long time in its debate or in bringing it 
forth. In fact, we were so confident that this bill would be accepted 
that as we talked about the calendar, we thought that it would take a 
few minutes, it would get adopted, and the Members would be able to 
leave early. Well, here we are, late at night, and it is taking a while 
to get this bill through the House.
  It is a fair bill, and the reason I have to ask the members of the 
Democratic Conference to not support this bill is that the late 
developments are that they are requesting a big reduction in the 
Members' allowance. We had in that allowance considered a cost-of-
living increase for our employees. These are the men and women who work 
for us, who make sure that we represent our constituents very well. It 
is our feeling that what was a reasonable bill, a fair bill, now is 
something that we cannot support. I know there will be debate, but it 
is our position that our employees who work very hard for us, long 
hours, also deserve consideration when it comes to a cost-of-living 
increase.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. If the chairman would engage with me in a colloquy, I would ask 
the chairman if he would tell me and the Members of the House how the 
appropriated amount in this bill compares to the amount that was last 
passed when the Democrats were in the majority. That would have been 
fiscal year 1995, I presume.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would tell my 
colleague that since 1995, my predecessors, the last two chairmen, have 
saved over $1.2 billion in this bill. Now, that is a savings trend 
established in the 1990 to 1995 period.
  In addition, the FTEs have been substantially reduced, and we have a 
work force that is about 16 percent lower than it was in 1994, the last 
year that the majority party was in power, which at that time were the 
Democrats.
  So we have had both a savings in substantial dollar savings and in 
FTE employment savings.
  Mr. COBLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
that information.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and respond to the previous comments by saying 
that, as was shown, the bill itself has produced reductions in the past 
and continues to reduce the funding for the legislative branch.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this argument that we have had tonight is not 
about cuts in this bill, it is about the way we make choices or should 
make choices in a bipartisan manner on issues that affect this 
institution and our constituents.
  Last month, the majority passed a budget resolution, which it has 
every right to do, which cut $36 billion below current services for 
domestic programs. The issue is how those cuts are going to be 
distributed both between departments and programs and within 
departments and programs, and it is about whether those cuts will be 
fair or unfair.
  After that budget resolution was passed, the Republican majority 
again, as is its right, divided that money between the 13 subcommittees 
on the Committee on Appropriations, and the committee began to report 
its bills. First, we reported agriculture. We reported a bipartisan 
bill, supported on both sides of the aisle, and I think the committee 
did a good job in distributing the cuts within the Department. But then 
the Republican leadership, in response to concerns expressed by some 
members in its caucus, responded unilaterally by unilaterally changing 
that bill, by cutting agriculture research, by cutting food and drug 
funding without consultation with anyone on this side of the aisle. And 
in the process they turned a bipartisan bill into a partisan one.

                              {time}  2215

  Now we have the same process, unfortunately, being repeated on this 
bill. Again, this bill that funds the Congress itself was reported out 
of committee on a bipartisan basis.
  Again, the Republican leadership now unilaterally made changes in 
that bill only a few hours earlier today. Those changes protect 
committee staff. They leave plenty of room for cost-of-living

[[Page 12524]]

adjustments for people who work for committees. Those changes leave 
plenty of room for staffers who work for the leadership on both sides 
of the aisle. But they really leave very little room for cost-of-living 
adjustments for people who happen to work for rank-and-file Members.
  That is one issue this is about, whether people who work for this 
body are going to be treated fairly and whether the squeeze on the 
budget is going to be distributed equitably between all of the folks 
who work very hard for all of us on both sides of the aisle.
  I have two points I would like to make. First of all, if the majority 
wants to make additional cuts, fine, let us make them. But do not do it 
unilaterally. Sit down with us, sit down with people on both sides of 
the aisle, sit down with the House Committee on Administration that has 
jurisdiction over most of these issues so that we can make sure that 
the cuts that are made are fair.
  I would like to make another more basic point. The cuts that are made 
in this bill are really, with the exception of its impact on the folks 
who work for us, relatively minor. But the cuts that will be required 
for bills that are yet to come will be far deeper in education, they 
will be far deeper in health, they will be far deeper in veterans' 
benefits, especially in the out years. And that, in my view, is not 
fair.
  If these bills are to be changed from the amount that was just agreed 
to in the 302 allocation process, then, in our view, this bill should 
not be considered until we know how other Government agencies are going 
to be treated. Congress should be treated no better and no worse than 
any other Government agency.
  Second, this bill should not be passed until we know how deep the 
cuts are that are being contemplated for veterans, for education, for 
health care, and other areas of major responsibility to our people. 
Because in the end, if this bill is one of the first out of the gate 
and if it is signed into law before those other cuts are made, then the 
American people are really going to have a right to ask whether we are 
more concerned with taking care of ourselves than we are with taking 
care of their own problems.
  The most basic issue we have before us is that we have a long way to 
go in the appropriations process. There are a number of appropriation 
bills which we expect to be handled in a bipartisan manner. It would be 
sad indeed if every bill that is brought before this House winds up 
being dealt with in a partisan manner because the leadership on that 
side of the aisle makes unilateral choices. We were all elected to 
represent our people and it is not right to cut half of us out of that 
process.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill before the 
House but also to personally pay tribute to the House Page Program 
funded in this bill. Especially, I wish to acknowledge the service and 
dedication of this academic year's House Pages.
  Today marks the last legislative day before the end of duty for this 
class, and tomorrow is their last day to be enrolled in the Page 
Program.
  Mr. Chairman, I want these special young people to know how grateful 
I, the members of the Page Board, and all of the Members of Congress 
are for their marvelous efforts on behalf of the American people. Their 
tireless work and dedication to this House allow for work to be done in 
a more efficient and professional manner.
  We are all truly grateful to each individual page for their 
willingness to leave the comfort and security of home to live, work, 
and attend school in an environment that certainly requires a 
tremendous adjustment. These exceptional young men and women, who stand 
in the back of the chamber today, have made an incredible sacrifice, 
Mr. Chairman, by dedicating their minds and enthusiasm during their 
service to our Nation.
  From the beginning, we had great expectations of this Page class. 
They have not disappointed us. We have asked for their loyalty. And 
again, they have not disappointed us. Now, as they return to their home 
communities and schools to continue their studies, we wish them all the 
best of luck and ask them to hold this House in the same high regard 
and esteem as we do their contributions to the House's works.
  It is with great pride and appreciation, as chairman of the House 
Page Board, that I rise to salute our pages and wish them the best in 
their future endeavors.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert into the Congressional Record the official 
listing of names of the departing House pages.


                    1998-1999 u.s. house page class

       Graham Babbitt, Joel Bagwell, Kyle Becker, Nicholas Bronni, 
     Ashley Bumgarner, Dan Cosman, Bernadette Cullen, Becca 
     Dalton, Tina Dannelly, Sheila Davies, Nick Dexter, Mike 
     DiRoma, Leif Erickson, Caroline Evans, Rebecca Forster, 
     Benjamin Foster, Andrea Green, Jay Greenbaum, Lauren Haller, 
     Danny Hanlon, Gillian Hanson, Haley Hobbs, Patrick Janelle, 
     Adam Jones, Glenn Kates, Amy Kennedy, Megan Kennedy, Janel 
     Koehler, Rebekah Krieger, Michael Lanzara, Robert Leider, 
     Scott Levine, Jonovan Luckey, Emilie Mague, Mike Mahoney, 
     Natalie Mariona, Kareem Merrick, Megan Miller, Lindsey Much, 
     Billye Nelson, Cristie Neubert, Dave Newcomb, Frank Nicklaus, 
     Daniel Ortega, Kari Peterson, Patrick Pugh, George Robinette, 
     Tracy Robinson, Katy Rosenberg, Noah Sanders, Jen Sauers, 
     Karen Schulien, Jay Schwarz, Harlan Scott, Jacob 
     Shellabarger, Elizabeth Smith, Kathy Smith, Robert Smith, 
     Tristan Snyder, Cody Specketer, Sara Steines, Michelle 
     Sullivan, Blair Sweeney, Micah Thompson, Darius Underwood, 
     Matt Wagner, Kara Wenzel, Will Whitehead, Robyn Willie, and 
     John Yarborough.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for her comments and our 
pages for the excellent work they have done.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I also would like to commend these young men and women 
and thank them for the great service they did to the membership of this 
House. We wish them the best.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, during my career I have had the opportunity to serve on 
the Page Board. And as I say each year, when we take an opportunity 
such as this to thank the departing pages for the service that they 
have given to this people's House, I had the opportunity to serve as 
president of the Maryland Senate, and in that capacity ran the page 
program in that body. It was one of the best duties that I had.
  Not only do our pages provide extraordinary service, but they learn a 
lot. They observe the dedication of the men and women who have been 
selected by their neighbors to serve in the Congress of the United 
States, in this, the greatest example of democracy in this world.
  Vaclav Havel came and gave a speech on that second rostrum, and he 
pointed out that the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration 
of Independence, the Capitol itself, and the legislative process that 
occurs in this Capitol are inspiration for all the world.
  There are only a few young Americans who can have the opportunity to 
witness democracy in action firsthand. The process of 435 individuals 
coming together, representing roughly 600,000 people each, over 260 
million people collectively, to resolve the questions that confront our 
country is truly extraordinary.
  Our pages have had a unique window on that operation. I believe that 
experience places upon our departing pages a special responsibility, a 
special responsibility to return to their communities, their schools, 
and their neighborhoods, and to impart to their friends what they have 
learned.
  I believe that each of our pages leaves with a conviction that our 
democracy works pretty well and that it produces representatives who 
really care. They may differ, and they may fight, and on C-SPAN 
sometimes they appear overly contentious. But our pages have an 
opportunity to see a

[[Page 12525]]

broader participation than C-SPAN affords most of the public; and, 
therefore, they can impart a much more accurate picture of this 
institution.
  I hope that each of our pages is as proud of this institution as each 
of us who serves within it. I hope that each of them leaves this 
institution with the intention to tell other Americans, whether they be 
young people, or their parents, or their uncles and aunts and 
relatives, and all of their peers, about how precious this democracy is 
and how important to its success is their participation in it.
  We have had a number of people who have served in the Congress who 
started their careers as pages. The late Bill Emerson is a specific 
example. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dale Kildee) is another, who 
used to chair this Page Board. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Kanjorski) is another.
  Any one of our fine pages standing in the well may stand here where I 
stand, or where the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) stands, and 
speak on behalf of his and her neighbors and friends.
  The only way to get to the House of Representatives as a Member is to 
be elected. One cannot be appointed. Our Founding Fathers wanted to 
make sure that it was constituents who selected their representatives, 
not governors, not presidents, but the people. That is why we proudly 
call this the people's House.
  Our pages have served here with us. They have served not only us, but 
America. We urge them to go back and continue to help us build a better 
country for us all. I know they will.
  Thank you and Godspeed.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak for two Members who 
are not here tonight at the moment who I know would like to be here, my 
colleague the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who serves on the 
Page Board, along with my good friend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe). And for all Members, we are so appreciative of all the work 
that you did.
  You do see us long days, long hours, early in the morning, and 
certainly again late at night. I have had the opportunity to appoint a 
number of students, wonderful students, from my district that have 
served. And it is terrific to watch them work and know who the Members 
are and understand a little bit of the process.
  After they have left here, I have often seen them back at their 
schools back at home. And I correspond with them after they have left, 
even many years after they have left. And as I talk to their parents, I 
know that it is an opportunity that they will never ever forget.
  It is a great privilege for all of you to be here. It is a privilege 
for us to have you be here, as well. And even though some of us might 
look like a page from time to time, particularly if we wear a blue 
coat, I just wanted to say for all of us, thank you. You do a wonderful 
job.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) has 16 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has 19\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have here a speech prepared for this bill. Let me 
read the first paragraph.

       Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to support this bill. The 
     gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman 
     from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) have fashioned a bill that will 
     serve the legislative branch well next year.

  That paragraph, of course, was written before a determination was 
made unilaterally to change this bill, to undermine the premise on 
which that paragraph was written.

                              {time}  2230

  I regret that unilateral change which, as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, was not taken in a bipartisan 
way. I said this earlier on another bill. The gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) both 
led this bill through its two phases, subcommittee and full committee, 
in a bipartisan, fair fashion. It was that procedure that I respected 
and that bill that I was going to support. Unfortunately, however, 
after it left the bosom of our committee, other forces were brought to 
bear, the bill will now be changed, and I do not believe it will serve 
this institution as well as it should.
  There are some things in this bill that I am pleased about, such as 
the transit subsidy program for the roughly 4,000 employees of the 
Library of Congress. Approximately 140 Federal agencies, including the 
House and Senate, and numerous private-sector employers, offer their 
employees similar benefits to encourage use of public transportation. 
Last year we extended those benefits to our own employees at the option 
of each Member. That was a good step for us to take. This year we are 
extending it to the employees of the Library of Congress, another 
significant step forward. By expanding this transit-subsidy program to 
Library employees, we can help to ease highway congestion, reduce 
demand for scarce parking, reduce pollution.
  I was very pleased that the bill, as reported, funded the succession 
initiatives in the Library and the Congressional Research Service, and 
hope the reductions to be taken in the Young amendment can be restored 
in conference. Over the next few years, numerous senior Library/CRS 
employees will leave Federal service for their well-earned retirement. 
These succession initiatives would enable the Library to ensure that 
key personnel pass their knowledge and expertise on to successors prior 
to their departure.
  I am also pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the reported bill includes the 
amendment offered in the committee by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr). The committee adopted it by voice vote. But as the 
gentleman from California, I am sure, will observe and as I will 
lament, the only provision in this bill that is not protected by the 
rule is a provision to say that we will protect the environment and 
recycle paper, as we expect every other Federal agency to do.
  It is a shame that the Committee on Rules would not see that as a 
sufficiently important policy position for this bill to take for our 
institution. This is not extraneous. This is about the legislative 
body.
  I would hope that no one would rise to make the point of order. I 
would say that this matter is in the jurisdiction of the committee of 
which I have the privilege of being the ranking member. I would hope 
that we would not claim jurisdiction on this issue. It ought not to be 
controversial.
  As the gentleman from California pointed out, the House recycling 
program does not work as well as it should. One year it earned $7.51. 
Last year, however, it earned $25,000. But it has been suggested, Mr. 
Chairman, that the program could earn $150,000 if we recycled just 60 
percent of our high grade paper. Think of that, $25,000. Now, the good 
news is what happens with this $25,000 under the Farr amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, the bill provides that recycling proceeds would go to our 
child-care center. Is there one of us that does not have an employee 
with a problem getting proper child care, and therefore needs the House 
child care center? Under the Farr amendment, not only do we get the 
opportunity to recycle, and to help our environment by reusing 
materials that are fully reusable, but we can also get to help our 
employees' children and be a more family-friendly institution.
  Mr. Chairman, most Members and staff want to recycle, and they 
deserve a program that will facilitate it.
  Finally, there is one item not in this measure but which I believe 
should appear in the final version. I thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina, our chairman, who has been very receptive to this issue. I 
believe in the final version we should include funding for U.S. Capitol 
Police information technology services. These services are

[[Page 12526]]

mission-critical, but are now provided through the Senate Sergeant at 
Arms at whatever level of funding and support he has available after 
his primary responsibilities to the Senate are met. This item ought to 
be included in our bill and I look forward to working with the chairman 
on this issue in conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to oppose the Young amendment and 
support the bill as originally reported by the subcommittee and full 
committee.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Pastor) for yielding me this time. I want to associate 
myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). As 
a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I was very pleased with 
the bill that was worked out in a bipartisan fashion. In that bill I 
offered an amendment, and the amendment was adopted, and the amendment 
requested that the House put itself into a serious mode of trying to 
recycle, because the recycling program that the House now has is not 
running very well. We are an embarrassment in the Federal system. We 
are really an embarrassment. All other Federal agencies operate under a 
Federal Executive Order 12-873 which requires all Federal agencies to 
implement recycling programs. The legislative branch is the only branch 
that is not required to participate. The reason it is not working is 
because it is totally voluntary here.
  The failure to operate the program has been pointed out by our own 
House Architect, his own numbers. In testimony before the Committee on 
Appropriations last year, he pointed out that in this House building, 
in our employment of the House building, and these are the 1997 
figures, we employed 8,000 workers. That is quite a figure. I do not 
think many people realize that that many people work for the House of 
Representatives. Our 8,000 workers in our building generated 4.4 
million pounds of waste. For this in 1997, we earned $7.51. As was 
pointed out earlier, people collecting bottles on the streets, almost 
any Girl Scout unit earns more than that in a week or a day than we 
earned in an entire year. By comparison, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, which is just down the street, in 1997 employed 7,000 
workers who generated 1 million pounds of waste. And for this they 
earned $29,730. They produced one-fourth the amount of waste that we 
did and earned thousands of times more. They use that revenue for child 
care purposes in the Department of Agriculture.
  So I offered the amendment in the Committee on Appropriations. The 
amendment does four things:
  It requires the House, Members and the administrative offices, to 
participate in the existing recycling program. Requires them to, not 
just it is up to you. It tasks the Architect with developing strategies 
so that the recycling program is flexible, user friendly and effective. 
The third thing it does is require the architect to report semiannually 
to the Committee on House Administration and Committee on 
Appropriations on the status of the program, how is it working, so we 
can get feedback. Fourth, it dedicates the proceeds that we would earn, 
and they could be considerable, from this program to the House child 
care center. Or, we left it in the bill, as may be determined by the 
Committee on Appropriations. So if we want to put that money someplace 
else, we have the flexibility to do it.
  The amendment was adopted by voice vote in a bipartisan fashion. It 
is necessary that we have this program because you cannot run a 
recycling program and just let some offices do it and other offices do 
not. After all, it is the same janitorial staff that cleans all of 
these offices. So in order to eliminate the excuses of why we cannot be 
what we have mandated on the rest of America, why we cannot be what all 
other Federal agencies have done, why we cannot be what America expects 
us to be, we have adopted this amendment.
  Now, we have before us in the rule that was just adopted the ability 
to strike this. No other provision of this bill, they waived all the 
points of order for all the others except this one. I think it is kind 
of a mean, reckless error. What you are saying is that we can waive 
points of order and, my God, we do that every week here. I remember in 
the supplemental just a few weeks ago, we have 3,000 Soviet scholars 
coming to this country, that was certainly the jurisdiction of other 
committees, it was never heard in committee, never debated, it was just 
put in the supplemental, and we all support it and nobody ever raised a 
point of order that it was a jurisdictional issue.
  We do this all the time. I think it is foolish of us to expose 
ourselves to the public on the embarrassment of our House. I think we 
all agree, we ought to be doing it. There was a lot of testimonial in 
the Committee on Appropriations how bad the program is working and how 
we can do a much better job. We know in our own homes that our kids 
force us to do it. We participate in this stuff. We have just praised 
these future leaders of America who have been our pages. Why can we not 
demonstrate to them that there is some meaning in our words by 
demonstrating that we can run this House like most people run their 
homes, like most businesses around this country run themselves and 
certainly like all other Federal agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, I came here with great hope that we could support this 
bill. But with this rule that is adopted and a point of order is 
raised, we are going to have to urge our colleagues to defeat it, and I 
think it will be an embarrassment to the United States Congress.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I rise also to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) who 
through his insistence the full Committee on Appropriations adopted a 
mandatory recycling program. As he explained, a program such as this is 
required in many cases of our constituents and I think that we as 
Members of the House should also have a recycling program that is 
mandatory, efficient and effective and will produce the moneys.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, we all know as Members of this institution 
that this is a troubled House of Representatives. At times in the 
history of this institution it has also been similarly troubled. But I 
have heard from many who have served longer than the 3\1/2\ terms I 
have served that they have never remembered the place being as mean-
spirited, as venal, as partisan as it is now. I think we ought to be 
working on ways to change that, and I know many of the Members on both 
sides of the aisle are men and women of good spirit that would very 
much like to work to get a greater comity of views, even across the 
wide divergence of opinion in this body. That really depends upon 
process, rules of fair play. There is a majority. There is a minority. 
But if the rules of fair play are engaged in, losing votes is something 
the minority will understand, just as long as the process is a fair 
one.
  Now, what is so objectionable about the amendment offered by the 
chairman is that it completely blows up any notion of fairness in the 
appropriations process. The process for appropriations is that you have 
allocations. Each of the subcommittees is given a certain amount of 
money to spend. It is set by the budget that was earlier passed by this 
body. This once again just like the agriculture budget a few days 
before, agriculture appropriations of a few days before, is a budget 
brought that comports with the allocation. Hearings have been held. 
Bipartisan votes have been cast. The subcommittee has reached an 
agreement. They have brought a recommendation to the floor. That is the 
process working as it should.

                              {time}  2245

  Now it totally blows away that process when the majority says, ``Oh, 
by the way, without any advanced notice to you all in the minority, 
we're going to give another whack right across the board without so 
much as a discussion in committee about what we are doing.''

[[Page 12527]]

  The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is a man that we know 
well, he served long, we respect him deeply, and really it is beneath 
his leadership to subvert the process of fair play in the fashion the 
amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill and this amendment 
represent.
  I believe that if this body, if this majority, wants to take 
additional sums out, go back and revise the allocations, send the 
appropriation subcommittees back to work, and at least we again have 
the process functioning; but this last minute, eleventh hour, blind 
side, irrespective of consequences, totally shutting out minority 
opinion, is the very type of foul play that makes the minority feel 
utterly disenfranchised, that makes the constituents we represent 
totally shut out of the process and that creates and contributes to the 
vile, bad spirit that plagues this place.
  Treat us fairly. Adhere to process. Let the legislative function 
work.
  Mr. Chairman, that would mean rejecting this amendment tonight.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Arizona is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to again thank the staff, the 
members of the subcommittee; I would like to thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) for the fairness in developing this bill. 
It was a reasonable bill, it was a fair bill, and due to last-minute 
decisions that were beyond our control, it has now become a very harsh 
bill, especially when it deals with the House Members not being able to 
provide COLAs to our staff.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Democrat side oppose this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when I came here in 1991, this House was much more 
troubled than the last speaker before the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Pastor) indicated. We had a House bank that had been corrupted by 
abuses of some former Members of this body, we had drugs being sold in 
the post office, we had purchases being made by former Members of this 
body. There were a number of perks that were abusive of this body.
  Members of both parties got together and eliminated those abuses. We 
have worked to see that this House is a House that we can all be proud 
of. We have done that in points of law, and we have done that by 
cutting our own budget to respect what is happening in the public 
generally. Most people are having to cut their budgets, and we will 
have to wrestle with a lot of problems in the other 12 bills that will 
be coming before us. We have done it in a bipartisan way, and I am 
proud of our bill that we have now.
  I appreciate the work of both parties of the committee in this area.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 1905 is as follows:

                               H.R. 1905

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Legislative 
     Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for 
     other purposes, namely:

                   TITLE I--CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives, 
     $769,019,000, as follows:

                        house leadership offices

       For salaries and expenses, as authorized by law, 
     $14,202,000, including: Office of the Speaker, $1,740,000, 
     including $25,000 for official expenses of the Speaker; 
     Office of the Majority Floor Leader, $1,705,000, including 
     $10,000 for official expenses of the Majority Leader; Office 
     of the Minority Floor Leader, $2,071,000, including $10,000 
     for official expenses of the Minority Leader; Office of the 
     Majority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Majority Whip, 
     $1,423,000, including $5,000 for official expenses of the 
     Majority Whip; Office of the Minority Whip, including the 
     Chief Deputy Minority Whip, $1,057,000, including $5,000 for 
     official expenses of the Minority Whip; Speaker's Office for 
     Legislative Floor Activities, $406,000; Republican Steering 
     Committee, $757,000; Republican Conference, $1,244,000; 
     Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, $1,337,000; 
     Democratic Caucus, $664,000; nine minority employees, 
     $1,218,000; training and program development--majority, 
     $290,000; and training and program development--minority, 
     $290,000.

                  Members' Representational Allowances

   Including Members' Clerk Hire, Official Expenses of Members, and 
                             Official Mail

       For Members' representational allowances, including 
     Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail, 
     $413,576,000.

                          Committee Employees

                Standing Committees, Special and Select

       For salaries and expenses of standing committees, special 
     and select, authorized by House resolutions, $93,878,000: 
     Provided, That such amount shall remain available for such 
     salaries and expenses until December 31, 2000.

                      Committee on Appropriations

       For salaries and expenses of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, $21,308,000, including studies and 
     examinations of executive agencies and temporary personal 
     services for such committee, to be expended in accordance 
     with section 202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
     1946 and to be available for reimbursement to agencies for 
     services performed: Provided, That such amount shall remain 
     available for such salaries and expenses until December 31, 
     2000.

                    salaries, officers and employees

       For compensation and expenses of officers and employees, as 
     authorized by law, $90,633,000, including: for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Clerk, including not more than 
     $3,500, of which not more than $2,500 is for the Family Room, 
     for official representation and reception expenses, 
     $14,881,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Sergeant at Arms, including the position of Superintendent of 
     Garages, and including not more than $750 for official 
     representation and reception expenses, $3,746,000; for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Administrative Officer, $57,289,000, of which $2,500,000 
     shall remain available until expended, including $25,169,000 
     for salaries, expenses and temporary personal services of 
     House Information Resources, of which $24,641,000 is provided 
     herein: Provided, That of the amount provided for House 
     Information Resources, $6,260,000 shall be for net expenses 
     of telecommunications: Provided further, That House 
     Information Resources is authorized to receive reimbursement 
     from Members of the House of Representatives and other 
     governmental entities for services provided and such 
     reimbursement shall be deposited in the Treasury for credit 
     to this account; for salaries and expenses of the Office of 
     the Inspector General, $3,926,000; for salaries and expenses 
     of the Office of General Counsel, $840,000; for the Office of 
     the Chaplain, $136,000; for salaries and expenses of the 
     Office of the Parliamentarian, including the Parliamentarian 
     and $2,000 for preparing the Digest of Rules, $1,172,000; for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of the Law Revision 
     Counsel of the House, $2,045,000; for salaries and expenses 
     of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the House, 
     $5,085,000; for salaries and expenses of the Corrections 
     Calendar Office, $825,000; and for other authorized 
     employees, $688,000.

                        allowances and expenses

       For allowances and expenses as authorized by House 
     resolution or law, $135,422,000, including: supplies, 
     materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims, 
     $2,741,000; official mail for committees, leadership offices, 
     and administrative offices of the House, $410,000; Government 
     contributions for health, retirement, Social Security, and 
     other applicable employee benefits, $131,595,000; and 
     miscellaneous items including purchase, exchange, 
     maintenance, repair and operation of House motor vehicles, 
     interparliamentary receptions, and gratuities to heirs of 
     deceased employees of the House, $676,000.

                           child care center

       For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives 
     Child Care Center, such amounts as are deposited in the 
     account established by section 312(d)(1) of the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 1992 (40 U.S.C. 184g(d)(1)), 
     subject to the level specified in the budget of the Center, 
     as submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 101. (a) Compliance With Admission Requirements.--The 
     General Counsel of the House of Representatives and any other 
     counsel in the Office of the General Counsel of the House of 
     Representatives, including any counsel specially retained by 
     the Office of General Counsel, shall be entitled, for the 
     purpose of performing the counsel's functions, to enter an 
     appearance in any proceeding before any court of the United 
     States or of any State or political subdivision thereof 
     without compliance with any requirements for admission to 
     practice before such court, except that the authorization

[[Page 12528]]

     conferred by this subsection shall not apply with respect to 
     the admission of any such person to practice before the 
     United States Supreme Court.
       (b) Notification by Attorney General.--The Attorney General 
     shall notify the General Counsel of the House of 
     Representatives with respect to any proceeding in which the 
     United States is a party of any determination by the Attorney 
     General or Solicitor General not to appeal any court decision 
     affecting the constitutionality of an Act or joint resolution 
     of Congress within such time as will enable the House to 
     direct the General Counsel to intervene as a party in such 
     proceeding pursuant to applicable rules of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (c) General Counsel Definition.--In this section, the term 
     ``General Counsel of the House of Representatives'' means--
       (1) the head of the Office of General Counsel established 
     and operating under clause 8 of rule II of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives;
       (2) the head of any successor office to the Office of 
     General Counsel which is established after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (3) any other person authorized and directed in accordance 
     with the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide 
     legal assistance and representation to the House in 
     connection with the matters described in this section.
       Sec. 102. Section 104(a) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-275; 112 Stat. 2439) 
     is amended by striking ``(2 U.S.C. 59(e)(2))'' and inserting 
     ``(2 U.S.C. 59e(e)(2))''.
       Sec. 103. (a) Clarification of Rules Regarding Use of Funds 
     for Official Mail.--
       (1) In general.--Section 311(e)(1) of the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e(e)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``There is established'' and all that follows through ``shall 
     be prescribed--'' and inserting the following: ``The use of 
     funds of the House of Representatives which are made 
     available for official mail of Members, officers, and 
     employees of the House of Representatives who are persons 
     entitled to use the congressional frank shall be governed by 
     regulations promulgated--''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the Allowance'' and 
     inserting ``official mail (except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B))''.
       (2) Limitations on availability of funds.--Section 
     311(e)(2) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 59e(e)(2)), as amended by 
     section 104(a) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 
     1999, is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``The Official Mail Allowance'' and inserting ``Funds used 
     for official mail'';
       (B) by striking subparagraph (A); and
       (C) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       (3) Repeal of obsolete transfer authority.--Section 311(e) 
     of such Act (2 U.S.C. 59e(e)) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (3).
       (4) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 1(a) of House 
     Resolution 457, Ninety-second Congress, agreed to July 21, 
     1971, as enacted into permanent law by chapter IV of the 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1972 (2 U.S.C. 57(a)), is 
     amended by striking ``the Official Mail Allowance'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``official mail''.
       (B) Section 311(a)(3) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e(a)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``costs charged against the Official Mail Allowance 
     for'' and inserting ``costs incurred for official mail by''.
       (b) Repeal of Obsolete References to Clerk Hire 
     Allowance.--
       (1) In general.--Section 104(a) of the House of 
     Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 92(a)) is amended by striking ``clerk hire'' 
     each place it appears.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The heading of section 104 of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 92(a)) is amended by striking ``clerk 
     hire''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to the first session of the One 
     Hundred Sixth Congress and each succeeding session of 
     Congress.

                              JOINT ITEMS

       For Joint Committees, as follows:

                        Joint Economic Committee

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Economic Committee, 
     $3,200,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.

                      Joint Committee on Taxation

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation, $6,188,000, to be disbursed by the Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House.
       For other joint items, as follows:

                   Office of the Attending Physician

       For medical supplies, equipment, and contingent expenses of 
     the emergency rooms, and for the Attending Physician and his 
     assistants, including: (1) an allowance of $1,500 per month 
     to the Attending Physician; (2) an allowance of $500 per 
     month each to three medical officers while on duty in the 
     Office of the Attending Physician; (3) an allowance of $500 
     per month to one assistant and $400 per month each not to 
     exceed eleven assistants on the basis heretofore provided for 
     such assistants; and (4) $1,002,600 for reimbursement to the 
     Department of the Navy for expenses incurred for staff and 
     equipment assigned to the Office of the Attending Physician, 
     which shall be advanced and credited to the applicable 
     appropriation or appropriations from which such salaries, 
     allowances, and other expenses are payable and shall be 
     available for all the purposes thereof, $1,898,000, to be 
     disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House.

                          Capitol Police Board

                             Capitol Police

                                salaries

       For the Capitol Police Board for salaries of officers, 
     members, and employees of the Capitol Police, including 
     overtime, hazardous duty pay differential, clothing allowance 
     of not more than $600 each for members required to wear 
     civilian attire, and Government contributions for health, 
     retirement, Social Security, and other applicable employee 
     benefits, $78,501,000, of which $37,725,000 is provided to 
     the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, to be 
     disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, 
     and $40,776,000 is provided to the Sergeant at Arms and 
     Doorkeeper of the Senate, to be disbursed by the Secretary of 
     the Senate: Provided, That, of the amounts appropriated under 
     this heading, such amounts as may be necessary may be 
     transferred between the Sergeant at Arms of the House of 
     Representatives and the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of 
     the Senate, upon approval of the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate.

                            general expenses

       For the Capitol Police Board for necessary expenses of the 
     Capitol Police, including motor vehicles, communications and 
     other equipment, security equipment and installation, 
     uniforms, weapons, supplies, materials, training, medical 
     services, forensic services, stenographic services, personal 
     and professional services, the employee assistance program, 
     not more than $2,000 for the awards program, postage, 
     telephone service, travel advances, relocation of instructor 
     and liaison personnel for the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, and $85 per month for extra services 
     performed for the Capitol Police Board by an employee of the 
     Sergeant at Arms of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives designated by the Chairman of the Board, 
     $6,711,000, to be disbursed by the Capitol Police Board or 
     their delegee: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the cost of basic training for the Capitol 
     Police at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for 
     fiscal year 2000 shall be paid by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury from funds available to the Department of the 
     Treasury.

                        Administrative Provision

       Sec. 104. Amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2000 for the 
     Capitol Police Board for the Capitol Police may be 
     transferred between the headings ``salaries'' and ``general 
     expenses'' upon the approval of--
       (1) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives, in the case of amounts transferred from the 
     appropriation provided to the Sergeant at Arms of the House 
     of Representatives under the heading ``salaries'';
       (2) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, in the 
     case of amounts transferred from the appropriation provided 
     to the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate under 
     the heading ``salaries''; and
       (3) the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives, in the case of other transfers.

           Capitol Guide Service and Special Services Office

       For salaries and expenses of the Capitol Guide Service and 
     Special Services Office, $2,293,000, to be disbursed by the 
     Secretary of the Senate: Provided, That no part of such 
     amount may be used to employ more than forty-three 
     individuals: Provided further, That the Capitol Guide Board 
     is authorized, during emergencies, to employ not more than 
     two additional individuals for not more than 120 days each, 
     and not more than ten additional individuals for not more 
     than six months each, for the Capitol Guide Service.

                      Statements of Appropriations

       For the preparation, under the direction of the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, of the statements for the first session of 
     the One Hundred Sixth Congress, showing appropriations made, 
     indefinite appropriations, and contracts authorized, together 
     with a chronological history of the regular appropriations 
     bills as required by law, $30,000, to be paid to the persons 
     designated by the chairmen of such committees to supervise 
     the work.

                          OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Compliance, as 
     authorized by section 305 of the Congressional Accountability 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1385), $2,000,000.

[[Page 12529]]



                      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public 
     Law 93-344), including not more than $2,500 to be expended on 
     the certification of the Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses, $26,221,000: Provided, That no part of 
     such amount may be used for the purchase or hire of a 
     passenger motor vehicle.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 105. (a) The Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office shall have the authority to make lump-sum payments to 
     enhance staff recruitment and to reward exceptional 
     performance by an employee or a group of employees.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to fiscal years 
     beginning after September 30, 1999.
       Sec. 106. Paragraph (5) of section 201(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601(a)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(5)(A) The Director shall receive compensation at an 
     annual rate of pay that is equal to the lower of--
       ``(i) the highest annual rate of compensation of any 
     officer of the Senate; or
       ``(ii) the highest annual rate of compensation of any 
     officer of the House of Representatives.
       ``(B) The Deputy Director shall receive compensation at an 
     annual rate of pay that is $1,000 less than the annual rate 
     of pay received by the Director, as determined under 
     subparagraph (A).''.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                     Capitol Buildings and Grounds

                           capitol buildings

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries for the Architect of the Capitol, the 
     Assistant Architect of the Capitol, and other personal 
     services, at rates of pay provided by law; for surveys and 
     studies in connection with activities under the care of the 
     Architect of the Capitol; for all necessary expenses for the 
     maintenance, care and operation of the Capitol and electrical 
     substations of the Senate and House office buildings under 
     the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol, including 
     furnishings and office equipment, including not more than 
     $1,000 for official reception and representation expenses, to 
     be expended as the Architect of the Capitol may approve; for 
     purchase or exchange, maintenance and operation of a 
     passenger motor vehicle; and not to exceed $20,000 for 
     attendance, when specifically authorized by the Architect of 
     the Capitol, at meetings or conventions in connection with 
     subjects related to work under the Architect of the Capitol, 
     $47,569,000, of which $4,520,000 shall remain available until 
     expended.

                            capitol grounds

       For all necessary expenses for care and improvement of 
     grounds surrounding the Capitol, the Senate and House office 
     buildings, and the Capitol Power Plant, $5,579,0000, of which 
     $155,000 shall remain available until expended.

                         house office buildings

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the House office buildings, $40,679,000, of 
     which $7,842,000 shall remain available until expended.

                          capitol power plant

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Capitol Power Plant; lighting, heating, 
     power (including the purchase of electrical energy) and water 
     and sewer services for the Capitol, Senate and House office 
     buildings, Library of Congress buildings, and the grounds 
     about the same, Botanic Garden, Senate garage, and air 
     conditioning refrigeration not supplied from plants in any of 
     such buildings; heating the Government Printing Office and 
     Washington City Post Office, and heating and chilled water 
     for air conditioning for the Supreme Court Building, the 
     Union Station complex, the Thurgood Marshall Federal 
     Judiciary Building and the Folger Shakespeare Library, 
     expenses for which shall be advanced or reimbursed upon 
     request of the Architect of the Capitol and amounts so 
     received shall be deposited into the Treasury to the credit 
     of this appropriation, $39,180,000: Provided, That not more 
     than $4,000,000 of the funds credited or to be reimbursed to 
     this appropriation as herein provided shall be available for 
     obligation during fiscal year 2000.

                        Administrative Provision

       Sec. 107. (a) Participation in Office Waste Recycling 
     Program.--Each Member and each employing authority of the 
     House of Representatives shall comply with the Architect of 
     the Capitol's Office Waste Recycling Program for the House of 
     Representatives (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     ``Program''). The Architect shall provide a convenient, 
     clearly marked, and effective system for the collection of 
     recyclable materials under the Program.
       (b) Report.--The Architect of the Capitol shall submit 
     semiannually to the Committees on Appropriations and House 
     Administration of the House of Representatives a written 
     report on the status and results of the Program.
       (c) Use of Proceeds for Child Care Center.--All funds 
     collected through the sale of materials under the Program 
     shall be deposited in an account established in the Treasury. 
     Amounts in such account shall be used for payment of 
     activities and expenses of the House of Representatives Child 
     Care Center, to the extent provided in appropriations Acts.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                     Congressional Research Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 203 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
     U.S.C. 166) and to revise and extend the Annotated 
     Constitution of the United States of America, $71,255,000: 
     Provided, That no part of such amount may be used to pay any 
     salary or expense in connection with any publication, or 
     preparation of material therefor (except the Digest of Public 
     General Bills), to be issued by the Library of Congress 
     unless such publication has obtained prior approval of either 
     the Committee on House Administration of the House of 
     Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration 
     of the Senate.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                   Congressional Printing and Binding

       For authorized printing and binding for the Congress and 
     the distribution of Congressional information in any format; 
     printing and binding for the Architect of the Capitol; 
     expenses necessary for preparing the semimonthly and session 
     index to the Congressional Record, as authorized by law (44 
     U.S.C. 902); printing and binding of Government publications 
     authorized by law to be distributed to Members of Congress; 
     and printing, binding, and distribution of Government 
     publications authorized by law to be distributed without 
     charge to the recipient, $77,704,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall not be available for paper copies of the 
     permanent edition of the Congressional Record for individual 
     Representatives, Resident Commissioners or Delegates 
     authorized under 44 U.S.C. 906: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for the payment of 
     obligations incurred under the appropriations for similar 
     purposes for preceding fiscal years: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding the 2-year limitation under section 718 of 
     title 44, United States Code, none of the funds appropriated 
     or made available under this Act or any other Act for 
     printing and binding and related services provided to 
     Congress under chapter 7 of title 44, United States Code, may 
     be expended to print a document, report, or publication after 
     the 27-month period beginning on the date that such document, 
     report, or publication is authorized by Congress to be 
     printed, unless Congress reauthorizes such printing in 
     accordance with section 718 of title 44, United States Code.
       This title may be cited as the ``Congressional Operations 
     Appropriations Act, 2000''.

                        TITLE II--OTHER AGENCIES

                             BOTANIC GARDEN

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Botanic Garden and the nurseries, buildings, 
     grounds, and collections; and purchase and exchange, 
     maintenance, repair, and operation of a passenger motor 
     vehicle; all under the direction of the Joint Committee on 
     the Library, $3,538,000.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Library of Congress not 
     otherwise provided for, including development and maintenance 
     of the Union Catalogs; custody and custodial care of the 
     Library buildings; special clothing; cleaning, laundering and 
     repair of uniforms; preservation of motion pictures in the 
     custody of the Library; operation and maintenance of the 
     American Folklife Center in the Library; preparation and 
     distribution of catalog records and other publications of the 
     Library; hire or purchase of one passenger motor vehicle; and 
     expenses of the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board not 
     properly chargeable to the income of any trust fund held by 
     the Board, $256,970,000, of which not more than $6,500,000 
     shall be derived from collections credited to this 
     appropriation during fiscal year 2000, and shall remain 
     available until expended, under the Act of June 28, 1902 
     (chapter 1301; 32 Stat. 480; 2 U.S.C. 150) and not more than 
     $350,000 shall be derived from collections during fiscal year 
     2000 and shall remain available until expended for the 
     development and maintenance of an international legal 
     information database and activities related thereto: 
     Provided, That the Library of Congress may not obligate or 
     expend any funds derived from collections under the Act of 
     June 28, 1902, in excess of the amount authorized for 
     obligation or expenditure in appropriations Acts: Provided 
     further, That the total amount available for obligation shall 
     be reduced by the amount by which collections are less than 
     the $6,850,000: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, $10,438,000 is to remain available until 
     expended for acquisition of books, periodicals, newspapers, 
     and all other materials including subscriptions for 
     bibliographic services for the Library, including $40,000 to 
     be available solely for the

[[Page 12530]]

     purchase, when specifically approved by the Librarian, of 
     special and unique materials for additions to the 
     collections: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, $2,347,000 is to remain available until 
     expended for the acquisition and partial support for 
     implementation of an Integrated Library System (ILS): 
     Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     $5,579,000 is to remain available until expended for the 
     purpose of teaching educators how to incorporate the 
     Library's digital collections into school curricula, which 
     amount shall be transferred to the educational consortium 
     formed to conduct the ``Joining Hands Across America: Local 
     Community Initiative'' project as approved by the Library.

                            Copyright Office

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Copyright Office, 
     $37,639,000, of which not more than $20,800,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be derived from collections 
     credited to this appropriation during fiscal year 2000 under 
     17 U.S.C. 708(d): Provided, That the Copyright Office may not 
     obligate or expend any funds derived from collections under 
     17 U.S.C. 708(d), in excess of the amount authorized for 
     obligation or expenditure in appropriations Acts: Provided 
     further, That not more than $5,454,000 shall be derived from 
     collections during fiscal year 2000 under 17 U.S.C. 
     111(d)(2), 119(b)(2), 802(h), and 1005: Provided further, 
     That the total amount available for obligation shall be 
     reduced by the amount by which collections are less than 
     $26,254,000: Provided further, That not more than $100,000 of 
     the amount appropriated is available for the maintenance of 
     an ``International Copyright Institute'' in the Copyright 
     Office of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training 
     nationals of developing countries in intellectual property 
     laws and policies: Provided further, That not more than 
     $4,250 may be expended, on the certification of the Librarian 
     of Congress, in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses for activities of the International 
     Copyright Institute and for Copyright delegations, visitors, 
     and seminars.

             Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses to carry out the Act of March 3, 
     1931 (chapter 400; 46 Stat. 1487; 2 U.S.C. 135a), 
     $48,033,000, of which $14,032,600 shall remain available 
     until expended.

                       Furniture and Furnishings

       For necessary expenses for the purchase, installation, 
     maintenance, and repair of furniture, furnishings, office and 
     library equipment, $5,415,000.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 201. Appropriations in this Act available to the 
     Library of Congress shall be available, in an amount of not 
     more than $198,390, of which $59,300 is for the Congressional 
     Research Service, when specifically authorized by the 
     Librarian of Congress, for attendance at meetings concerned 
     with the function or activity for which the appropriation is 
     made.
       Sec. 202. (a) No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used by the Library of Congress to administer any 
     flexible or compressed work schedule which--
         (1) applies to any manager or supervisor in a position 
     the grade or level of which is equal to or higher than GS-15; 
     and
         (2) grants such manager or supervisor the right to not be 
     at work for all or a portion of a workday because of time 
     worked by the manager or supervisor on another workday.
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``manager or 
     supervisor'' means any management official or supervisor, as 
     such terms are defined in section 7103(a)(10) and (11) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 203. Appropriated funds received by the Library of 
     Congress from other Federal agencies to cover general and 
     administrative overhead costs generated by performing 
     reimbursable work for other agencies under the authority of 
     31 U.S.C. 1535 and 1536 shall not be used to employ more than 
     65 employees and may be expended or obligated--
       (1) in the case of a reimbursement, only to such extent or 
     in such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts; or
       (2) in the case of an advance payment, only--
       (A) to pay for such general or administrative overhead 
     costs as are attributable to the work performed for such 
     agency; or
       (B) to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in 
     appropriations Acts, with respect to any purpose not 
     allowable under subparagraph (A).
       Sec. 204. Of the amounts appropriated to the Library of 
     Congress in this Act, not more than $5,000 may be expended, 
     on the certification of the Librarian of Congress, in 
     connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses for the incentive awards program.
       Sec. 205. Of the amount appropriated to the Library of 
     Congress in this Act, not more than $12,000 may be expended, 
     on the certification of the Librarian of Congress, in 
     connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses for the Overseas Field Offices.
       Sec. 206. (a) For fiscal year 2000, the obligational 
     authority of the Library of Congress for the activities 
     described in subsection (b) may not exceed $98,788,000.
       (b) The activities referred to in subsection (a) are 
     reimbursable and revolving fund activities that are funded 
     from sources other than appropriations to the Library in 
     appropriations Acts for the legislative branch.
       Sec. 207. The Library of Congress may use available funds, 
     now and hereafter, to enter into contracts for the lease or 
     acquisition of severable services for a period that begins in 
     one fiscal year and ends in the next fiscal year and to enter 
     into multi-year contracts for the acquisition of property and 
     services pursuant to sections 303L and 304B, respectively, of 
     the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (41 
     U.S.C. 253l and 254c).
       Sec. 208. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     regarding the qualifications and method of appointment of 
     employees of the Library of Congress, the Librarian of 
     Congress, using such method of appointment as the Librarian 
     may select, may appoint not more than three individuals who 
     meet such qualifications as the Librarian may impose to serve 
     as management specialists for a term not to exceed three 
     years.
       (b) No individual appointed as a management specialist 
     under subsection (a) may serve in such position after 
     December 31, 2004.
       Sec. 209. (a) Section 904 of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1983 (2 U.S.C. 136a-2) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``Sec. 904. Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       ``(1) the Librarian of Congress shall be compensated at an 
     annual rate of pay which is equal to the annual rate of basic 
     pay payable for positions at level II of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5313 of title 5, United States Code; 
     and
       ``(2) the Deputy Librarian of Congress shall be compensated 
     at an annual rate of pay which is equal to the annual rate of 
     basic pay payable for positions at level III of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States 
     Code.''.
       (b) Section 203(c)(1) of the Legislative Reorganization Act 
     of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 166(c)(1)) is amended by striking the 
     second sentence and inserting the following: ``The basic pay 
     of the Director shall be at a per annum rate equal to the 
     rate of basic pay provided for level III of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States 
     Code.''.
       (c) The amendments made by this section shall apply with 
     respect to the first pay period which begins on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and each subsequent pay 
     period.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                     Library Buildings and Grounds

                     structural and mechanical care

       For all necessary expenses for the mechanical and 
     structural maintenance, care and operation of the Library 
     buildings and grounds, $17,782,000, of which $5,150,000 shall 
     remain available until expended.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                 Office of Superintendent of Documents

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses of the Office of Superintendent of Documents 
     necessary to provide for the cataloging and indexing of 
     Government publications and their distribution to the public, 
     Members of Congress, other Government agencies, and 
     designated depository and international exchange libraries as 
     authorized by law, $29,986,000: Provided, That travel 
     expenses, including travel expenses of the Depository Library 
     Council to the Public Printer, shall not exceed $175,000: 
     Provided further, That amounts of not more than $2,000,000 
     from current year appropriations are authorized for producing 
     and disseminating Congressional serial sets and other related 
     publications for 1998 and 1999 to depository and other 
     designated libraries.

               Government Printing Office Revolving Fund

       The Government Printing Office is hereby authorized to make 
     such expenditures, within the limits of funds available and 
     in accord with the law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 9104 of title 31, United States Code, as 
     may be necessary in carrying out the programs and purposes 
     set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for the 
     Government Printing Office revolving fund: Provided, That not 
     more than $2,500 may be expended on the certification of the 
     Public Printer in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses: Provided further, That the revolving fund 
     shall be available for the hire or purchase of not more than 
     twelve passenger motor vehicles: Provided further, That 
     expenditures in connection with travel expenses of the 
     advisory councils to the Public Printer shall be deemed 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of title 44, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That the revolving fund shall 
     be available for temporary or intermittent services under 
     section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates 
     for individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay for level V of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5316 of such title: Provided further, 
     That the revolving fund and the funds provided under the 
     headings ``Office of Superintendent of Documents'' and 
     ``salaries and expenses''

[[Page 12531]]

     together may not be available for the full-time equivalent 
     employment of more than 3,313 workyears (or such other number 
     of workyears as the Public Printer may request, subject to 
     the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives): Provided further, 
     That activities financed through the revolving fund may 
     provide information in any format: Provided further, That the 
     revolving fund shall not be used to administer any flexible 
     or compressed work schedule which applies to any manager or 
     supervisor in a position the grade or level of which is equal 
     to or higher than GS-15: Provided further, That expenses for 
     attendance at meetings shall not exceed $75,000.

                        Administrative Provision

       Sec. 210. (a) Section 311 of title 44, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, section 
     3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5) shall apply with 
     respect to purchases and contracts for the Government 
     Printing Office as if the reference to `$25,000' in clause 
     (1) of such section were a reference to `$100,000'.''.
       (b) The heading of section 311 of title 44, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``authority'' and inserting 
     ``authority; small purchase threshold''.
       (c) The table of sections for chapter 3 of title 44, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 311 and inserting the following:

``311. Purchases exempt from the Federal Property and Administrative 
              Services Act; contract negotiation authority; small 
              purchase threshold.''.

                       GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the General Accounting Office, 
     including not more than $7,000 to be expended on the 
     certification of the Comptroller General of the United States 
     in connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses; temporary or intermittent services under section 
     3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates for 
     individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the annual 
     rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of such title; hire of one passenger motor 
     vehicle; advance payments in foreign countries in accordance 
     with 31 U.S.C. 3324; benefits comparable to those payable 
     under sections 901(5), 901(6), and 901(8) of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081(5), 4081(6), and 
     4081(8)); and under regulations prescribed by the Comptroller 
     General of the United States, rental of living quarters in 
     foreign countries, $372,681,000: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 9105 hereafter amounts reimbursed 
     to the Comptroller General pursuant to that section shall be 
     deposited to the appropriation of the General Accounting 
     Office then available and remain available until expended, 
     and not more than $1,400,000 of such funds shall be available 
     for use in fiscal year 2000: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation and appropriations for administrative expenses 
     of any other department or agency which is a member of the 
     Joint Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) shall 
     be available to finance an appropriate share of JFMIP costs 
     as determined by the JFMIP, including the salary of the 
     Executive Director and secretarial support: Provided further, 
     That this appropriation and appropriations for administrative 
     expenses of any other department or agency which is a member 
     of the National Intergovernmental Audit Forum or a Regional 
     Intergovernmental Audit Forum shall be available to finance 
     an appropriate share of either Forum's costs as determined by 
     the respective Forum, including necessary travel expenses of 
     non-Federal participants. Payments hereunder to either Forum 
     or the JFMIP may be credited as reimbursements to any 
     appropriation from which costs involved are initially 
     financed: Provided further, That this appropriation and 
     appropriations for administrative expenses of any other 
     department or agency which is a member of the American 
     Consortium on International Public Administration (ACIPA) 
     shall be available to finance an appropriate share of ACIPA 
     costs as determined by the ACIPA, including any expenses 
     attributable to membership of ACIPA in the International 
     Institute of Administrative Sciences.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used for the maintenance or care of private 
     vehicles, except for emergency assistance and cleaning as may 
     be provided under regulations relating to parking facilities 
     for the House of Representatives issued by the Committee on 
     House Administration and for the Senate issued by the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration.
       Sec. 302. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall remain available for obligation beyond fiscal year 2000 
     unless expressly so provided in this Act.
       Sec. 303. Whenever in this Act any office or position not 
     specifically established by the Legislative Pay Act of 1929 
     is appropriated for or the rate of compensation or 
     designation of any office or position appropriated for is 
     different from that specifically established by such Act, the 
     rate of compensation and the designation in this Act shall be 
     the permanent law with respect thereto: Provided, That the 
     provisions in this Act for the various items of official 
     expenses of Members, officers, and committees of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, and clerk hire for Senators and 
     Members of the House of Representatives shall be the 
     permanent law with respect thereto.
       Sec. 304. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 305. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into 
     any contract with, any entity using funds made available in 
     this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       (c) If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal 
     agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription with 
     the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the 
     United States that is not made in the United States, such 
     person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or 
     subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in section 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 306. Such sums as may be necessary are appropriated to 
     the account described in subsection (a) of section 415 of 
     Public Law 104-1 to pay awards and settlements as authorized 
     under such subsection.
       Sec. 307. Amounts available for administrative expenses of 
     any legislative branch entity which participates in the 
     Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council (LBFMC) 
     established by charter on March 26, 1996, shall be available 
     to finance an appropriate share of LBFMC costs as determined 
     by the LBFMC, except that the total LBFMC costs to be shared 
     among all participating legislative branch entities (in such 
     allocations among the entities as the entities may determine) 
     may not exceed $1,500.
       Sec. 308. Section 308 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-275; 112 Stat. 2452) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``(40 U.S.C. 174j-
     1(b)(1))'' and inserting ``(40 U.S.C. 174j-1 note)'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``(40 U.S.C. 174j-
     1(c))'' and inserting ``(40 U.S.C. 174j-1 note)''; and
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``(40 U.S.C. 174j-
     1(e))'' and inserting ``(40 U.S.C. 174j-1 note)''.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 2000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order against the bill?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 107 
on page 18, line 19 through page 19, line 15 of H.R. 1905, on the 
ground that this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 
2 of House rule XXI and therefore is legislation included in a general 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point 
of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I object to the high-handedness 
of my colleagues of the other party who have no qualms at all about 
including in this bill 30, 30 provisions that legislate on the 
appropriations bill. Thirty.
  Were any of these 30 items subject to a point of order? My colleague 
just made only one of them, only one of them, a point of order. Just 
mine, just the recycling program.
  Mr. Chairman, if this House truly believes that the rules ought to 
apply to everyone, then I want to know why the Committee on Rules 
singled this one out. This provision was adopted in a bipartisan 
fashion in the committee. My colleagues did not treat the other 30 
provisions like they treated this.
  The real reason that they are singling this out is they do not like 
it, they do not want to do recycling. They should tell the world they 
do not want it, that they do not want to bother with the program.
  So they certainly kind of found a way to pervert the process so they 
did

[[Page 12532]]

not have to get into the issue, by raising a point of order.
  There are not only 30 provisions in this bill that they are about to 
vote on that legislate on appropriations, there are eight items that 
actually change existing law. None of these were subject to a point of 
order, just one.
  I do not think this point of order has merit, and I would hope the 
chairman would see it as a sham and reject it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other Members who want to be 
heard on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair will rule.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) makes a point of order that the 
provision beginning on page 18, line 19 and ending on page 19, line 15 
changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) and rule XXI.
  Among other legislative prescriptions, the provision mandates 
compliance by each Member and employing office of the House of 
Representatives with the Architect of the Capitol's Office Waste 
Recycling Program.
  The provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of 
rule XXI. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and section 107 
is stricken from the bill.
  No amendment shall be in order except the amendment printed in House 
Report 106-165, the amendment printed in section 2 of House Resolution 
190, and pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, or their designees, 
for the purpose of debate.
  The amendment printed in the report may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report and the amendment printed in section 2 of the 
resolution may be offered only by a Member designated in section 2. 
Each amendment shall be considered read, debatable for 20 minutes, 
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.
  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.
  After a motion that the committee rise has been rejected on a 
legislative day, the Chairman may entertain another such motion on that 
day only if offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
or the majority leader or their designee.
  After a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill has been 
rejected, the Chairman may not entertain another such motion during 
further consideration of the bill.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Camp

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment offered by Mr. Camp:

       Page 10, insert after line 9 the following (and redesignate 
     the succeeding sections accordingly):
       Sec. 104. (a) Requiring Amounts Remaining in Members' 
     Representational Allowance To Be Used For Deficit Reduction 
     or to Reduce the Federal Debt.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any amounts appropriated under this Act for 
     ``HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Salaries and Expenses--Members' 
     Representational Allowances'' shall be available only for 
     fiscal year 2000. Any amount remaining after all payments are 
     made under such allowances for fiscal year 2000 shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction (or, 
     if there is no Federal budget deficit after all such payments 
     have been made, for reducing the Federal debt, in such manner 
     as the Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate).
       (b) Publication.--After each session of Congress or other 
     period for which the amounts described in subsection (a) are 
     made available, there shall be published in the Congressional 
     Record a statement showing, with respect to such session or 
     period, the amount deposited with respect to each Member 
     under subsection (a) and the total deposited with respect to 
     all Members.
       (c) Regulations.--The Committee on House Administration of 
     the House of Representatives shall have authority to 
     prescribe regulations to carry out this section.
       (d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``Member 
     of the House of Representatives'' means a Representative in, 
     or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 190, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I first want to thank my good friend 
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the subcommittee, for 
understanding the importance of this amendment. I also want to thank 
the Committee on Rules and its chairman, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier), for allowing me to bring this important amendment before 
the House today.
  The amendment simply requires that unspent office funds be used for 
deficit or debt reduction. I believe that many Members are now familiar 
with this commonsense amendment that former Congressman Dick Zimmer and 
I first proposed back in 1991. In 1995, a similar amendment was 
approved on the House floor by an overwhelming margin of 403 to 21. In 
1996 and 1997, it was accepted on the floor by the committee chairman. 
Last year the committee brought the bill to the House floor with this 
provision already incorporated into the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment will ensure Members of 
Congress can demonstrate their personal commitment to a balanced 
budget. This amendment requires any unspent office funds at the end of 
the year be used for debt, or if a deficit exists, for deficit 
reduction. It also requires that specific amounts returned by each 
office be printed annually in the Congressional Record. This has been 
an incentive for Members to do the best they can with taxpayers' 
dollars, to be innovative, just as the private sector continues to be.
  I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) again for 
considering the Camp-Roemer-Upton amendment, and I urge all Members to 
support the amendment and the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield 
5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Arizona (Mr. 
Pastor), and obviously as a cosponsor of the amendment, I am not 
opposed to the amendment but wanted to get 5 minutes to speak in favor 
of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I read a book in college a long time ago called the 
Dance of Legislation, and it was written by an intern that was up here 
getting experience on Capitol Hill as the pages that were just in the 
House well, and he tracked a bill through Congress, and it was a little 
bill that he thought made a big difference in the way that he could 
explain in this book the legislative process.
  Similarly before us today, we have a big bill that spends a 
considerable amount of money to my taxpayers in Indiana, back home 
where I am born and raised, where we can make a big difference with 
individual decisions that we make in our offices with our Member 
representational allowances, or MRAs.
  This bill that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and I have worked on for 8 years 
now allows us in our offices to work as an American family does when 
they are trying to balance their budgets at the kitchen tables in 
LaPorte, Indiana; Wakarusa, Indiana; Goshen, Indiana; as a small 
business struggles to make its decisions meet at the year's end, so 
that they have a balanced budget. This bill allows us as Members of 
Congress to function as the American people do across this great 
country.
  Before we got this bill passed several years ago, if a Member worked 
all year long not to do newsletters, not to subscribe to a certain 
number of magazines, not to initiate letters to their constituents, 
that money they saved would simply go back and be reprogrammed and re-
spent in other ways by

[[Page 12533]]

maybe other Members. This small bill makes a big difference in that it 
allows us, when we work hard all year long to save money on newsletters 
or not initiating hundreds of mass mailings to our constituents, and we 
save that money; this bill, this amendment, allows that money to go to 
the Treasury to be reprogrammed, not to be re-spent, but to be spent 
toward the national debt.
  The National Taxpayers Union has said now this is not just a little 
difference. If each Member on average only spends about 89 percent of 
their allowance, we have tens of millions of dollars saved by this 
amendment. Tens of millions of dollars; that is a lot of money in 
Indiana, that is a lot of money to my constituents, and if a Member 
works hard all year long to save that money, they should be able to 
have that go to the national debt or deficit reduction rather than be 
re-spent on another Member's mail.

                              {time}  2300

  I am proud to have worked in a bipartisan way with my friend from the 
Midwest, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton), right next door to me, to show this good 
Midwestern common sense and a working relationship between Democrats 
and Republicans. This amendment is sponsored and supported by the 
National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers 
for Common Sense, Citizens for a Sound Economy and the Concord 
Coalition. So I urge bipartisan support of this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for his 
comments and for his leadership over the years on this issue. He very 
eloquently stated how this gives each individual Member an incentive to 
do the right thing, to be innovative, to take responsibility. The old 
adage ``you better spend all your budget or you won't get it next 
year'' is proven untrue with this proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan, common 
sense amendment. I applaud the efforts of not only our cosponsors, but 
certainly the leadership shown by my good friend the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) as 
well. This has been a good effort, where we have succeeded before.
  There are 13 different spending bills. As we ask others to tighten 
their belts, they first look to the Congress too. We want to lead by 
example.
  I know that there has not been a year that I have been here that I 
have spent all the money that has been allocated to my office. It would 
be a crime to know that that money was reprogrammed without my wishes 
or goes to some other member who might have overspent their budget. 
That is not right. When I do not spend money, I want it to go back to 
where it came from, the Treasury. I want it to benefit the taxpayers of 
this country, to reduce the debt. That is what this amendment does.
  At one point in my life I had the chance to work for the Office of 
Management and Budget. I tell you, when I worked there under David 
Stockman, my predecessor in the Congress, we were able to see the 
Reagan Administration push through a law here in the Congress that 
really looked at what the agencies did with their own budgets, because 
as we looked at their spending, often in September, before the end of 
the fiscal year, all of a sudden they would have a gigantic leap in 
their funds. All of a sudden they would see they were not going to 
spend all of their money and there were just tremendous outlays and 
purchases that they made to spend all their money.
  Guess what? We put a stop to that. We put an amendment forward that 
was adopted that slowed down the purchases at the end of the fiscal 
year so in fact if they did save money, that money was not 
reprogrammed, but it went to reduce at that point the debt and the 
deficit.
  That is what this amendment accomplishes. What this amendment says is 
that we in the Congress, all of the Members here, through our accounts 
are going to spend more than $413 million.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) was right. The average 
Members only spend about 90 percent of their budget. Figure out the 
math. That is tens of millions, tens of millions of dollars each year 
that we can return to the Treasury. We can not only feel good about 
that, but it actually does make a dent in reducing the debt.
  I would ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment. It makes 
sense to most of the Members here, certainly to the groups like the 
National Taxpayers Union and others. It is bipartisan. Clearly we can 
work together. It is a good idea.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment or some 
variation has been included for the past several years in the bill. We 
accept the amendment and we commend the three gentleman for offering it 
tonight.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer). In the spirit of the subcommittee working in a bipartisan 
manner, you have another example of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) working with the Republican side to get a bipartisan amendment 
that has been accepted by the chairman.
  I also happen to have read the same book and I was inspired by the 
same book. My expectation, Mr. Chairman, was taking this simple bill, 
the simplest bill of 13 appropriation bills, and maybe writing about 
this legislation and developing a small booklet so that these pages 
could be taken home. But after the different dance steps I have learned 
in the last couple of days and most recently the last couple of hours, 
I am about to finish filing Number 1.
  Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment 
because it allows Congress to lead by example.
  Members who are frugal and able to return a portion of their office 
allowances should have the right to designate unspent office funds for 
deficit reduction or to pay down the national debt.
  This amendment ensures that unspent Congressional office funds are 
returned directly to the U.S. Treasury rather than accumulating in a 
contingency fund for the leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, our national debt now stands at more than 5.6 trillion 
dollars. The interest payments on this debt are the government's second 
highest budget expenditure.
  One of the best things we can do for our country right now is pay off 
our debts. As our government stops borrowing so much money, there will 
be more money at lower interest rates for the American people.
  I suggest we pass this amendment so that unspent office funds 
contribute to economically strengthening our nation.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Florida

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida:
       On Page 38 before line 4 add the following new section:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     appropriations under this Act for the following agencies and 
     activities are reduced by the following respective amounts: 
     House of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses, $29,135,000, 
     from which the following accounts are to be reduced by the 
     following amounts:
       House Leadership Offices, $142,000;
       Members' Representational Allowances Including Members' 
     Clerk Hire, Official Expenses of Members, and Official Mail, 
     $28,297,000;
       Committee on Appropriations, $213,000;

[[Page 12534]]

       Salaries, Officers and Employees, $483,000 to be derived 
     from other authorized employees;
       Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and Grounds, 
     Capitol Buildings, Salaries and Expenses, $1,465,000;
       Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and Grounds, 
     House Office Buildings, $3,400,000;
       Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and Grounds, 
     Capitol Power Plant, $4,400,000;
       Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 
     Salaries and Expenses, $315,000;
       Government Printing Office, Congressional Printing and 
     Binding, $4,147,000;
       Library of Congress, Salaries and Expenses, $685,000;
       Library of Congress, Furniture and Furnishings, $5,415,000;
       Architect of the Capitol, Library Buildings and Grounds, 
     Structural and Mechanical Care, $3,372,000; and
       General Accounting Office, Salaries and Expenses, 
     $1,500,000:
       Provided, That the amount reduced under House of 
     Representatives, House Leadership Offices, shall be 
     distributed among the various leadership offices as approved 
     by the Committee on Appropriations:
       Provided further, That the amount to remain available under 
     the heading Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and 
     Grounds, Capitol Buildings, Salaries and Exchanges, is 
     reduced by $1,465,000; the amount to remain available under 
     the heading Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and 
     Grounds, House Office Building, is reduced by $3,400,000; and 
     the amount to remain available under the heading Architect of 
     the Capitol, Library Buildings and Grounds, Structural and 
     Mechanical Care, is reduced by $4,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 190, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I plan to not consume much time, because most of the 
debate today has been about this amendment as opposed to the bill 
itself, so I think everyone pretty much understands what the amendment 
does. I would be happy to respond to any questions if someone has 
specific questions.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Chairman Taylor) that he has done a really fine job on this bill. I 
was able to spend some time with the gentleman as he went through this 
process, and this is his first time as chairman of this subcommittee. 
He has done a really good job.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) has been an able partner all 
the way through the process. It was a real joy to watch them as they 
presented this bill to the Committee on Appropriations. In a very 
friendly and very nonpartisan-bipartisan way, the committee took their 
recommendations, and we have the bill before us.
  This amendment does create a little difference of opinion on the bill 
because it makes reductions. It makes reduction of a total of $54 
million out of this bill. Most of the cuts hit practically all of the 
accounts in the bill, and the one major reduction in this amendment has 
to do with Members' representational allowances, the funds that are 
made available to Members to conduct the affairs of their Congressional 
office.
  I want to congratulate and compliment, and I hope people will listen 
to this, the Members of this House because, Mr. Chairman, here is a 
table that shows how much each Member used and actually spent of their 
representational allowance in the last year.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to report that of our 435 Members, 420 of 
our colleagues in this House did not spend all of the money allocated 
to them by this legislative appropriations bill. So they practiced 
fiscal restraint. Some were more restrained than others, but they have 
different responsibilities in their districts and in their 
Congressional offices. But the House has done a good job in keeping 
these expenditures down.
  Mr. Chairman, the reduction that this amendment makes, in my opinion, 
is not going to cause any great harm. As a matter of fact, it is very 
compatible with the amendment just adopted that says the surplus in 
these funds not spent would go to pay down the national debt. Well, the 
effect is basically the same here. The only thing is we take it up 
front rather than at the end of the process.
  By taking it up front, let me report this good news to my colleagues, 
and I hope they will listen to this as well, after having spent about 
four days on two appropriations bills on the floor and having great 
debate over this amendment and one amendment on the agriculture bill, I 
am happy to report to all of my colleagues that after all of that 
straining and working, we will, upon adoption of this amendment, have 
saved $156 million to apply toward that $17 billion number we are 
trying to get to. So with the adoption of this amendment, we only have 
$16,850,000,000 to go in order to arrive where we have to arrive in 
order to stay within the budget cap that all of us have said is exactly 
what we are going to do.

                              {time}  2310

  So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can expedite the consideration of this 
amendment and get on to passing this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition?
  Mr. PASTOR. I rise in opposition, Mr. Speaker.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) is recognized 
for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, they tell me that reasonable men will differ, and being 
reasonable, I am sure that we will have some differences. I do, but 
first before I point out the differences, I would like to also commend 
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young).
  In the way he treats our membership in the two bills that have been 
reported out, agriculture and now the leg branch, he has done it in a 
very bipartisan manner, and I want to commend him for the fairness with 
which he has dealt with our side. He has been a very fair gentleman. I 
want to commend him on that.
  I asked someone to look at the figure of the reduction, which is 
approximately about $28 million, and the reduction of the MRA account. 
It runs about $60,000 to $65,000 per Member. We believe that that cut, 
which will affect our staff, is too drastic.
  When asked to cut this bill in a bipartisan manner, we offered $12 
million, even though we knew it was going to be hard. We were told it 
was not enough, so we offered another amount of dollars that totalled 
$30 million. That was not enough.
  We feel that the additional approximately $30 million is too much and 
will affect the effectiveness of our offices, especially in the ability 
to make sure that our employees, who work long hours, they work very 
hard, will be treated like other employees in the House and the Federal 
government and will be able to receive a fair cost of living 
adjustment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that for the vast majority of us on 
this side of the aisle, our concern is not with the amount that is cut. 
Our concern is where those cuts fall.
  I honestly believe, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) has 
said, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is a very fair-
minded and balanced person. I think that if the committee had been 
allowed to work out on a bipartisan basis where these cuts were made, 
we could have come up with a far more equitable distribution than the 
one that is before us tonight.
  I would also say that I think the leadership on both sides has an 
obligation to treat rank and file Members the way they would like to be 
treated themselves. That has not happened in the way these cuts have 
been laid out tonight.
  I would make one other point. If we compare the salaries that are 
paid to staff persons for rank and file Members of the House versus 
salaries paid to persons with those same responsibilities in the 
Senate, Members will see

[[Page 12535]]

that on average the Senate pays people for those same salaries about 20 
percent more for a legislative director or a legislative assistant and 
for other positions of high responsibility.
  I think there are severe implications to that differential that do 
not adequately represent the interests of this body, and I would urge 
that when these actions are taken, that we remember the context in 
which they are taken. Because if we do not do that, we are asking our 
staff members to make sacrifices that are not being asked of other 
staffers, and in many cases are not being asked of ourselves.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that every Member of this House 
who knows his or her staff the best give some thought to see how this 
amendment would affect their personal staff, and realize that the 
impact and the hardship will be borne by the men and women that we 
bring up here. We ask them to work hard, and they deserve a better 
break.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask opposition to this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask the Members to support this 
amendment, and then to support the bill. Before I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman, I wonder if I could invite my friend, my colleague, and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to meet me at 
the well halfway.
  Mr. Chairman, we are very unhappy that we had to disappoint the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and Mrs. Obey on the planned 
celebration of their 37th wedding anniversary, so we on the majority 
side have provided this handmade card to my friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to him and Joan in recognition of their 37th 
anniversary, signed by the gentleman's colleagues on the other side.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. Let me simply say that 
I am not the only Member of the House tonight trying to celebrate his 
anniversary. One other Member has come up to me with the same problem.
  I would simply thank my colleagues on the other side, and say that I 
hope this is a demonstration of the fact that we can fight over 
substance but still get along as friends.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote on the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Upton) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, 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. 1905) making 
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 190, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read the third time, and was 
read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with 
instructions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1905 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions that the bill 
     not be reported back if it does not reduce the bill by an 
     amount at least equal to the average reduction required 
     pursuant to the budget 302(b) allocation process for all 
     domestic discretionary programs, including veterans medical 
     care, elementary and secondary education, student financial 
     assistance, biomedical research, law enforcement, 
     transportation safety, and environmental protection; and 
     shall make equal reductions in accounts for members' offices, 
     leadership offices, and committees.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the motion speaks for itself. I will 
simply again re-read the language so that the Members understand what 
the motion contains.
  It simply recommits the bill back to the committee with instructions 
that the bill not be reported if it does not reduce the bill by an 
amount at least equal to the average reduction required pursuant to the 
budget 302(b) allocation process for all domestic discretionary 
programs, including veterans' medical care, elementary and secondary 
education, student financial assistance, biomedical research, law 
enforcement, transportation safety, and environmental protection, and 
it requires that when the bill does come back, it also makes equal 
reductions in accounts for Members' offices, leadership offices, and 
the committees, rather than having the full internal cost of these 
reductions fall only on the office of rank and file Members.

                              {time}  2320

  If this is adopted, it would make sure that this bill does not get 
out of the gate before we actually see the hole card and know how much 
people are going to be asking us to cut veterans, to cut education 
programs and other programs of serious concern to our constituents.
  It would be eminently fair to both our constituents and to the rank 
and file Members of this House and most importantly fair to the people 
who work for those rank and file Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Does the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) rise in opposition to the motion to recommit?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there is no dollar amount 
connected with this amendment. The amendment kills the bill. I am going 
to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) in certain areas 
that he brought up. We support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and the work that he has done.
  So I would urge my colleagues to oppose and vote against the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. 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 198, 
nays 214, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 202]

                               YEAS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello

[[Page 12536]]


     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--214

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

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bentsen
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Buyer
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hilleary
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Largent
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Martinez
     Millender-McDonald
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oxley
     Rangel
     Roukema
     Shuster

                              {time}  2341

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 197, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 203]

                               YEAS--214

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

                               NAYS--197

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman

[[Page 12537]]


     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Bentsen
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Buyer
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Dicks
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hilleary
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Largent
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Martinez
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oxley
     Rangel
     Roukema
     Shuster
     Towns

                              {time}  2358

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

                          ____________________



                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 1905, and that I may include tabular and 
extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Upton). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________



   APPOINTMENT AS MEMBER TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RECORDS OF CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, and pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 
2702, the Chair announces the Speaker's appointment of the following 
member on the part of the House to the Advisory Committee on the 
Records of Congress:
  Mr. Timothy J. Johnson, Minnetonka, Minnesota.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________



               COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE

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

                                         House of Representatives,


                                          Office of the Clerk,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 1999.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     The Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the provisions of 44 U.S.C. 
     2702, I hereby appoint as a member of the Advisory Committee 
     on the Records of Congress the following person: Susan 
     Palmer, Aurora, IL.
       With best wishes, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jeff Trandahl,
     Clerk.

                          ____________________



                  ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999

  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House 
adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for 
morning hour debates.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________



     DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS ON WEDNESDAY NEXT

  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business 
in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on 
Wednesday next.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________



                            LEAVE OF ABSENCE

  By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
  Mr. Hilleary (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today on account of 
personal reasons.
  Mrs. Bono (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today and the balance of 
the week on account of attending her son's graduation.
  Ms. Lofgren (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today and the 
balance of the week on account of personal business.
  Mr. Luther (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today after 2 p.m. on 
account of attending daughter's graduation.
  Mrs. Clayton (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today between 2 
p.m. and 8 p.m. on account of personal reasons.
  Mr. Engel (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for after 1 p.m. today on 
account of attending daughter's graduation.
  Mr. Bentsen (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for after 6:30 p.m. 
Thursday, June 10, on account of family business.
  Mr. Green of Texas (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for after 6:30 
p.m. today on account of personal reasons.

                          ____________________



                          ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

  Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that 
the committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill of the House 
of the following title, which was thereupon signed by the Speaker.

       H.R. 435. An act to make miscellaneous and technical 
     changes to various trade laws, and for other purposes.

                          ____________________



                              ADJOURNMENT

  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 59 minutes 
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, June 
14, 1999, at 12:30 p.m., for morning hour debates.

                          ____________________



                     EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

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

       2571. A letter from the Administrator, Agricultural 
     Marketing Services, Department of Agriculture, transmitting 
     the Department's final rule--Peanut Promotion, Research, and 
     Information Order; Procedures [Docket No. FV-98-703-FR] 
     received April 23, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); 
     to the Committee on Agriculture.
       2572. A letter from the Secretary of Defense, transmitting 
     the approval of the retirement of General Johnnie E. Wilson, 
     United States Army, and his advancement to the grade of 
     general on the retired list; to the Committee on Armed 
     Services.
       2573. A letter from the Secretary of Defense, transmitting 
     the approval of the retirement of General Richard E. Hawley, 
     United States Air Force, and his advancement to the grade of 
     general on the retired list; to the Committee on Armed 
     Services.
       2574. A letter from the Ambassador, Embajada De Bolivia, 
     transmitting a report on counter-narcotics efforts; to the 
     Committee on International Relations.
       2575. A letter from the Comptroller General, transmitting a 
     list of reports from the previous month; to the Committee on 
     Government Reform.

                          ____________________



         REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to 
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as 
follows:

       Mr. LEACH: Committee on Banking and Financial Services. 
     Supplemental report on H.R. 10. A bill to enhance competition 
     in the financial services industry by providing a prudential 
     framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and 
     other financial service providers, and for other purposes 
     (Rept. 106-74 Pt. 2).
       Mr. GEKAS: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 916. A bill to 
     make technical amendments to section 10 of title 9, United 
     States Code (Rept. 106-181). Referred to the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union.

                          ____________________


[[Page 12538]]

                      PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

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



           By Mr. LANTOS (for himself, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Porter, 
             Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Berman, 
             Mr. Bonior, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Brown of 
             California, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Davis of Illinois, 
             Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Evans, Mr. Faleomavaega, 
             Mr. Filner, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Frost, 
             Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Hinchey, 
             Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Kilpatrick, 
             Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Lipinski, Ms. 
             Lofgren, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. McKinney, Mrs. Maloney of 
             New York, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Matsui, Mr. George Miller 
             of California, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Ms. Norton, 
             Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Olver, Mr. Owens, Mr. Pastor, Mr. 
             Payne, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Phelps, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Rush, 
             Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. 
             Sherman, Mr. Stark, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Thompson of 
             Mississippi, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Underwood, Ms. 
             Velazquez, Mr. Vento, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. Wynn):
       H.R. 2119. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938 to reform the provisions relating to child labor; to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce.
           By Mr. GREENWOOD (for himself, Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. Johnson 
             of Connecticut, Mr. Waxman, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Brown of 
             Ohio, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Boucher, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, 
             Mr. Towns, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Bilbray, 
             Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Horn, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Boehlert, Ms. 
             DeGette, Mr. Leach, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Shays, Mr. 
             Markey, Mr. Cook, Mr. Clay, Mr. Ose, and Mr. George 
             Miller of California):
       H.R. 2120. A bill to require equitable coverage of 
     prescription contraceptive drugs and devices, and 
     contraceptive services under health plans; to the Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce, 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. BONIOR (for himself, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Barr of 
             Georgia, and Mr. Conyers):
       H.R. 2121. A bill to ensure that no alien is removed, 
     denied a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
     or otherwise deprived of liberty, based on evidence that is 
     kept secret from the alien; to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.
           By Mr. McCOLLUM (for himself and Mr. Hyde):
       H.R. 2122. A bill to require background checks at gun 
     shows, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.
           By Mr. BALDACCI (for himself and Mr. Allen):
       H.R. 2123. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act to provide for a special rule for long existing 
     home health agencies with partial fiscal year 1994 cost 
     reports in calculating the per beneficiary limits under the 
     interim payment system for such agencies; 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. BALLENGER (for himself, Mrs. Johnson of 
             Connecticut, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. 
             Rohrabacher, and Mr. Levin):
       H.R. 2124. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in 
     order to promote and improve employee stock ownership plans; 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself, Mr. Barcia, 
             Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. 
             Rangel, Ms. Lee, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Ms. 
             Berkley, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Reyes, 
             Mr. Menendez, Mr. Meeks of New York, Ms. Kilpatrick, 
             Mr. Engel, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and 
             Mrs. Napolitano):
       H.R. 2125. A bill to repeal the limitation on judicial 
     jurisdiction imposed by section 377 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Ms. BERKLEY (for herself and Mr. Udall of Colorado):
       H.R. 2126. A bill to improve academic and social outcomes 
     for students and reduce both juvenile crime and the risk that 
     youth will become victims of crime by providing productive 
     activities during after school hours; to the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce.
           By Mr. BLAGOJEVICH (for himself, Mr. Waxman, and Ms. 
             Norton):
       H.R. 2127. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to regulate certain 50 caliber sniper weapons in the 
     same manner as machine guns and other firearms; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. BRADY of Texas (for himself, Mr. Kasich, Mr. 
             Turner, Mr. Doggett, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. 
             Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Rodriguez, 
             Ms. Granger, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Hill of Montana, Mr. 
             Goode, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Salmon, 
             Mr. Rogan, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Pitts, 
             Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Doolittle, 
             Mr. Pombo, Mr. Istook, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mrs. 
             Myrick, Mr. Cook, Mr. Souder, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Sam 
             Johnson of Texas, Mr. Combest, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. 
             Blunt, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Minge, Mr. 
             Barton of Texas, Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. Paul, Mr. 
             English, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Lucas of 
             Oklahoma, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon of 
             Florida, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, 
             Mr. Royce, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Campbell, Mr. 
             Nethercutt, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Miller of 
             Florida, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Graham, Mr. Bentsen, Ms. 
             Danner, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Gary Miller of 
             California, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. 
             Stearns, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Sanford, Mr. 
             Bachus, and Mr. Hobson):
       H.R. 2128. A bill to provide for the periodic review of the 
     efficiency and public need for Federal agencies, to establish 
     a Commission for the purpose of reviewing the efficiency and 
     public need of such agencies, and to provide for the 
     abolishment of agencies for which a public need does not 
     exist; to the Committee on Government Reform.
           By Mr. BURR of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. 
             Greenwood, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Upton, Mr. 
             Strickland, Mr. Ehrlich, Mr. Towns, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. 
             Boucher, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Ford, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. 
             Wynn, and Mr. Blunt):
       H.R. 2129. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act to provide for uniform food safety warning 
     notification requirements, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Commerce.
           By Mr. UPTON (for himself, Mr. Stupak, Ms. Jackson-Lee 
             of Texas, and Mr. Bliley):
       H.R. 2130. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to 
     add gamma hydroxybutyric acid and ketamine to the schedules 
     of control substances, to provide for a national awareness 
     campaign, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Commerce, 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. CALVERT:
       H.R. 2131. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 to prohibit the imposition under that Act of any 
     requirement to mitigate for the impacts of activities that 
     occurred in the past; to the Committee on Resources.
           By Mr. COBLE:
       H.R. 2132. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
     Cibacron Red LS-B HC; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       H.R. 2133. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
     Cibacron Brilliant Blue FN-G; to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means.
       H.R. 2134. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
     Cibacron Scarlet LS-2G HC; to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means.
       H.R. 2135. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on MUB 
     738 INT; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. COLLINS (for himself and Mr. Bachus):
       H.R. 2136. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide that the capital gain treatment under section 
     631(b) of such Code shall apply to outright sales of timber 
     held for more than 1 year; to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means.
           By Mr. CRANE (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mrs. Johnson of 
             Connecticut, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, and Mr. Weller):
       H.R. 2137. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to extend the research and development tax credit to 
     research in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the 
     possessions of the United States; to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means.
           By Mr. CRANE (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Romero-
             Barcelo, and Mr. Weller):
       H.R. 2138. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to extend and modify the credits for businesses 
     operating in Puerto Rico and other possessions of the United 
     States; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. CRANE (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Romero-
             Barcelo, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. English, 
             Mr. Foley, and Mr. Weller):
       H.R. 2139. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to repeal the limitation of the cover over of tax on 
     distilled spirits, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
     on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. DEAL of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Collins, and 
             Mr. Lewis of Georgia):
       H.R. 2140. A bill to improve protection and management of 
     the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in the State 
     of Georgia; to the Committee on Resources.

[[Page 12539]]


           By Mr. ENGLISH (for himself and Mr. Hulshof):
       H.R. 2141. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to repeal the dollar limitation on the deduction for 
     interest on education loans, to increase the income threshold 
     for the phase out of such deduction, and to repeal the 60-
     month limitation on the amount of such interest that is 
     allowable as a deduction; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. ENGLISH:
       H.R. 2142. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on 
     fenbuconazole; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       H.R. 2143. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on 2,6-
     dichlorotoluene; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       H.R. 2144. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on 3-
     Amino-3-methyl-1-pentyne; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       H.R. 2145. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on 
     triazamate; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       H.R. 2146. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on 
     methoxyfenozide; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey:
       H.R. 2147. A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the 
     duty on cyclic olefin copolymer resin; to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means.
           By Mr. GREEN of Texas (for himself, Mr. Bliley, Mr. 
             Dingell, and Mr. Clay):
       H.R. 2148. A bill to make technical corrections regarding 
     the applicability of certain amendments made by Public Law 
     105-392 to the Health Education Assistance Program under the 
     Public Health Service Act; to the Committee on Commerce.
           By Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. Greenwood, Mrs. 
             Tauscher, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Kind, Mrs. Morella, Mr. 
             Vento, Mr. Baldacci, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. 
             Wynn, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Luther, Ms. 
             Sanchez, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Mr. Maloney of 
             Connecticut, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Boehlert, 
             Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. 
             Abercrombie, Mr. Bentsen, and Mr. Menendez):
       H.R. 2149. A bill to prohibit certain abortions; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, 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. JENKINS:
       H.R. 2150. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1-
     fluoro-2-nitro benzene; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       H.R. 2151. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
     thionyl chloride; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       H.R. 2152. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TEOF 
     (triethyl orthoformate); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       H.R. 2153. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on PHBA 
     (phydroxybenzoic acid); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       H.R. 2154. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
     myristic acid (tetrabecanoic acid); to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means.
       H.R. 2155. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on THQ 
     (Toluhydroquinone); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. LaFALCE (for himself, Mr. Vento, Mr. Frank of 
             Massachusetts, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Bentsen, and Mr. 
             Inslee):
       H.R. 2156. A bill to amend Title VI of the Consumer Credit 
     Protection Act to permit consumers to restrict the sharing of 
     confidential financial and personal information for purposes 
     of telemarketing, by restricting sharing of credit card and 
     deposit account numbers, by enhancing regulatory enforcement, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and 
     Financial Services.
           By Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky:
       H.R. 2157. A bill to commission a study by the Federal 
     Trade Commission of the marketing practices of the motion 
     picture, recording, and video/personal computer game 
     industries; to the Committee on Commerce.
           By Mr. McCRERY:
       H.R. 2158. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to modify the tax on generation-skipping transfers to 
     eliminate certain traps for the unwary and otherwise improve 
     the fairness of such tax; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. McCRERY (for himself, Mr. Herger, Mr. Jefferson, 
             and Mr. Abercrombie):
       H.R. 2159. A bill to amend the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 
     and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to revitalize the 
     international competitiveness of the United States-flag 
     merchant marine; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 
     addition to the Committees on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, and Armed Services, 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. McNULTY:
       H.R. 2160. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
     certain chemical compounds; to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means.
           By Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD (for herself, Mr. Ehrlich, 
             Mr. Weiner, Mr. Ford, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Hastings of 
             Florida, Mr. Owens, Ms. Danner, Mr. Smith of 
             Washington, Ms. Kilpatrick, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. 
             Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Davis 
             of Illinois, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mrs. 
             Christensen, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Rangel, Ms. DeLauro, 
             Mr. Pallone, Mrs. Clayton, Ms. Carson, Mr. Lantos, 
             Mr. Wynn, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Martinez, Mr. 
             Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Norton, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. 
             Gutierrez, Ms. Rivers, and Mr. Luther):
       H.R. 2161. A bill to amend title 18 of the United States 
     Code to prohibit shipping alcohol to minors; to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. GARY MILLER of California (for himself, Mr. 
             Holt, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. English, Mr. Underwood, Mr. 
             Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Calvert, Mrs. Morella, and 
             Mr. Baker):
       H.R. 2162. A bill to prohibit the use of the equipment of 
     an electronic mail service provider to send unsolicited 
     commercial electronic mail in contravention of the provider's 
     posted policy and to prohibit unauthorized use of Internet 
     domain names; to the Committee on Commerce, 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. NADLER (for himself, Mr. Engel, Mr. Weiner, Mr. 
             Boehlert, Mr. Serrano, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Meeks of New 
             York, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Towns, Mr. 
             Forbes, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Owens, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. 
             Crowley, and Mr. McNulty):
       H.R. 2163. A bill to designate the United States courthouse 
     located at 500 Pearl Street in New York City, New York, as 
     the ``Ted Weiss United States Courthouse``; to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure.
           By Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota:
       H.R. 2164. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to make the dependent care credit refundable and to 
     provide for advance payments of such credit; to the Committee 
     on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. PORTER:
       H.R. 2165. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
     certain compound optical microscopes; to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means.
           By Mr. PORTER (for himself, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. 
             Abercrombie, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. 
             Wynn, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Capuano, Mr. 
             Bereuter, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. 
             Blagojevich, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Gutierrez, Mrs. Lowey, 
             Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, Mr. Bateman, Mr. Tierney, 
             Mr. English, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Stark, Mr. 
             Lipinski, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Dicks, Mr. 
             George Miller of California, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. 
             Lampson, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Frank of 
             Massachusetts, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Leach, Mr. Shays, Mr. 
             Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Franks of New 
             Jersey, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Pallone, Mrs. Morella, Mr. 
             Sherman, Mr. Horn, Mr. Towns, Mr. Boucher, Mr. 
             Andrews, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Brown of 
             California, and Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut):
       H.R. 2166. A bill to conserve global bear populations by 
     prohibiting the importation, exportation, and interstate 
     trade of bear viscera and items, products, or substances 
     containing, or labeled or advertised as containing, bear 
     viscera, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Resources, and in addition to the Committees on International 
     Relations, and 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. RAMSTAD:
       H.R. 2167. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on parts 
     of certain magnetrons; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       H.R. 2168. A bill to temporarily reduce the duty on certain 
     cathode-ray tubes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       H.R. 2169. A bill to temporarily suspend the duty on 
     certain cathode-ray tubes; to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means.
           By Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. Foley, Mr. Cardin, Mr. 
             Matsui, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. 
             Coyne, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Dicks, and 
             Mrs. Meek of Florida):
       H.R. 2170. A bill to amend section 2007 of the Social 
     Security Act to provide grant funding for additional 
     Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Strategic 
     Planning Communities, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. ROEMER (for himself, Mr. Upton, Mr. Camp, Mr. 
             Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Goss, Mr. Deal of Georgia, 
             Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Rivers, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Nethercutt, 
             Mr. Goode, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Luther, Mr. 
             Minge, Mr. McHugh,

[[Page 12540]]

             Mr. Shows, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Stearns, Mr. 
             Sanford, Mr. Foley, Mr. Leach, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. 
             Bentsen, Mr. Strickland, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Cook, Mr. 
             Brown of Ohio, Mr. Hill of Indiana, Mr. Porter, Mr. 
             Castle, Mr. Tiahrt, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Goodling, Mr. 
             Graham, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Inslee, Mrs. 
             Fowler, Mr. Phelps, Mr. Clement, Mr. Souder, Mr. 
             Kuykendall, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Kind, Mr. Quinn, Mr. 
             Coble, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. English, Mr. McNulty, Mr. 
             Pomeroy, Mr. Cramer, and Ms. Carson):
       H.R. 2171. A bill to require any amounts appropriated for 
     Members' Representational Allowances for the House of 
     Representatives for a fiscal year that remain after all 
     payments are made from such Allowances for the year to be 
     deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction or 
     to reduce the Federal debt; to the Committee on House 
     Administration.
           By Mr. SALMON (for himself, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Saxton, 
             Mr. Forbes, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Gilman):
       H.R. 2172. A bill to require the Secretary of State to 
     report on United States citizens injured or killed by certain 
     terrorist groups; to the Committee on International 
     Relations.
           By Mr. SALMON (for himself, Mr. Baker, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
             Cunningham, Mr. Stump, Mr. Paul, Mr. Goss, Mr. 
             Campbell, Mr. Royce, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Souder, Mr. 
             Cooksey, Mr. Coburn, Mr. McCrery, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. 
             Foley, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. 
             Sessions, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and Mr. Calvert):
       H.R. 2173. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act to remove the sunset and numerical limitation on 
     Medicare participation in Medicare+Choice medical savings 
     account (MSA) plans; 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. STARK:
       H.R. 2174. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act to require the governing boards and compensation 
     committees of Medicare national accrediting entities have 
     public representation and the governing boards have public 
     meetings as a condition of recognizing their accreditation 
     under the Medicare Program; to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means.
           By Mr. STARK (for himself, Ms. Norton, Mr. Bishop, and 
             Ms. DeLauro):
       H.R. 2175. A bill to improve the quality of child care, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, 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. THOMAS:
       H.R. 2176. A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
     of the United States to modify the tariff treatment of 
     certain categories of raw cotton; to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means.
           By Mr. UDALL of Colorado:
       H.R. 2177. A bill to designate the James Peak Wilderness in 
     the Arapaho National Forest in the State of Colorado, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Resources.
       H.R. 2178. A bill to designate as wilderness certain lands 
     within the Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of 
     Colorado; to the Committee on Resources.
       H.R. 2179. A bill to provide for the management as open 
     space of certain lands at the Rocky Flats Environmental 
     Technology Site, Colorado, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Resources, 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. WEINER:
       H.R. 2180. A bill to require the establishment of regional 
     consumer price indices to compute cost-of-living increases 
     under the programs for Social Security and Medicare and other 
     medical benefits under titles II and XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 
     addition to the Committees on Commerce, and Education and the 
     Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
     Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself and Mr. Saxton):
       H.R. 2181. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to 
     acquire and equip fishery survey vessels; to the Committee on 
     Resources.
           By Mr. HASTINGS of Florida:
       H. Con. Res. 130. A concurrent resolution expressing 
     congratulations and thanks to United States and NATO troops 
     for successfully bringing peace to Kosovo and halting the 
     brutal ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians; to the 
     Committee on International Relations.
           By Mr. NADLER (for himself, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. 
             Engel, Mr. Gilman, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Pallone, and Mr. 
             Weiner):
       H. Con. Res. 131. A concurrent resolution condemning 
     Palestinian efforts to revive the original Palestine 
     partition plan of November 29, 1947, and condemning the 
     United Nations Commission on Human Rights for its April 27, 
     1999, resolution endorsing Palestinian self-determination on 
     the basis of the original Palestine partition plan; to the 
     Committee on International Relations.
           By Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. Hostettler, 
             and Mr. Schaffer):
       H. Res. 205. A resolution expressing the sense of the House 
     of Representatives with regard to Project Exile and the 
     prosecution of Federal firearms offenses; to the Committee on 
     the Judiciary.

                          ____________________



                               MEMORIALS

  Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as 
follows:

       100. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the House of 
     Representatives of the State of Hawaii, relative to House 
     Resolution No. 118 HD1 memorializing the Congress of the 
     United States to pass laws to prohibit American companies 
     from manufacturing goods using child labor or from purchasing 
     goods from foreign manufacturers that use child labor; to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce.
       101. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the Commonwealth of 
     Pennsylvania, relative to Senate Resolution No. 53 
     memorializing the President of the United States and Congress 
     and the states to support legislation authorizing states to 
     restrict the amount of solid waste being imported from other 
     states and creating a solid waste management strategy that is 
     equitable among the states and environmentally sound; to the 
     Committee on Commerce.
       102. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the State of Hawaii, relative to House Resolution No. 52 
     memorializing the United States Congress to enact legislation 
     that amends the Social Security Act to prohibit the Federal 
     Government from receiving any share of the funds awarded in 
     the tobacco settlement that was reached in 1998 between the 
     states and the tobacco industry; to the Committee on 
     Commerce.
       103. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Arizona, relative to House Memorial 2002 memorializing the 
     Congress of the United States to enact H.R. 472 relating to 
     the establishment of Post Census Local Review for the 2000 
     Census; to the Committee on Government Reform.
       104. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Arizona, relative to House Concurrent Memorial 2003 
     memorializing the United States Bureau of the Census to 
     conduct the 2000 census according to Constitutional and Legal 
     Mandates; to the Committee on Government Reform.
       105. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Arizona, relative to House Joint Resolution 2001 
     memorializing the Policy of the State of Arizona with Respect 
     to the Effect and Application of the Endangered Species Act 
     1973; to the Committee on Resources.
       106. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the Commonwealth of 
     Pennsylvania, relative to Senate Resolution No. 33 
     memorializing the President of the United States and Congress 
     make the $1 billion of Federal moneys already earmarked for 
     abandoned mine land reclamation available to states to clean 
     up and make safe our abandoned mine lands; to the Committee 
     on Resources.
       107. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Minnesota, relative to Resolution No. 3 memorializing the 
     President and Congress to enact laws that will expedite the 
     exchange of intermingled state and federal lands located 
     within the exterior boundaries of the Superior National 
     Forest to consolidate land ownership for the purpose of 
     enabling each government to properly discharge its respective 
     management duties; to the Committee on Resources.
       108. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, relative to Memorializing 
     the Congress of the United States to Enact Legislation 
     Establishing a National Criminal Offender Record Information 
     System; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       109. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the State of Ohio, relative to House Concurrent Resolution 
     No. 4 memorializing Congress to oppose and defeat any 
     legislation requiring Social Security coverage for Ohio 
     public employees who are public employees who are members of 
     one of the state's public employee retirement systems; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
       110. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the State of New Mexico, relative to House Memorial 38 
     memorializing the New Mexico Congressional Delegation to 
     Introduce Legislation to Reinstate the Federal Income Tax 
     Deduction for State Sales and Gross Receipts Taxes; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.




                          ____________________


[[Page 12541]]

                     PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 3 of rule XII,

       Mrs. FOWLER introduced A bill (H.R. 2182) to authorize the 
     Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
     documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in 
     the coastwise trade for the vessel Victory of Burnham; which 
     was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.

                          ____________________



                          ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

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

       H.R. 8: Mr. Chabot.
       H.R. 17: Mr. Pomeroy.
       H.R. 19: Mr. Crane and Mr. Oxley.
       H.R. 72: Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Pickering, and Mr. 
     Engel.
       H.R. 82: Mr. Weldon of Florida, and Mr. Gary Miller of 
     California.
       H.R. 113: Mr. Filner and Mr. Pickering.
       H.R. 116: Mr. Clyburn.
       H.R. 175: Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. 
     Reynolds, and Ms. Kaptur.
       H.R. 234: Mr. Green of Texas and Mr. Cramer.
       H.R. 380: Mr. Borski, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Jones of North 
     Carolina, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Goodling.
       H.R. 393: Ms. Eshoo.
       H.R. 468: Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Bonior, and Ms. 
     Kilpatrick.
       H.R. 580: Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Nethercutt, 
     and Mr. Gary Miller of California.
       H.R. 601: Mr. Stump, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Canady of Florida, and 
     Mr. Smith of Washington.
       H.R. 607: Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.
       H.R. 664: Ms. Pelosi.
       H.R. 671: Mr. Price of North Carolina and Mr. Tierney.
       H.R. 675: Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Holden, and Mr. 
     Gilchrest.
       H.R. 678: Mr. Gonzalez.
       H.R. 692: Mr. Combest.
       H.R. 701: Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Hyde, Mr. 
     Ortiz, and Ms. McKinney.
       H.R. 716: Mr. Lucas of Kentucky.
       H.R. 718: Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.
       H.R. 721: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky.
       H.R. 827: Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Martinez, 
     and Mr. Vento.
       H.R. 835: Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Goodlatte.
       H.R. 842: Mr. Norwood.
       H.R. 845: Ms. Lofgren.
       H.R. 853: Mr. Condit.
       H.R. 854: Mr. Lantos, Mr. LaFalce, and Mr. Evans.
       H.R. 875: Mr. Engel and Mr. Olver.
       H.R. 890: Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Dixon.
       H.R. 906: Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Capuano, Ms. Pelosi, Mrs. Mink 
     of Hawaii, and Mr. Stark.
       H.R. 914: Ms. Velazquez and Mr. Borski.
       H.R. 919: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, Mr. 
     Menendez, and Mr. Evans.
       H.R. 922: Mr. Norwood, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Salmon, and Mr. 
     Ehrlich.
       H.R. 937: Mr. Etheridge.
       H.R. 960: Mr. Coyne.
       H.R. 1046: Mr. Rohrabacher.
       H.R. 1051: Mr. Fattah.
       H.R. 1071: Ms. Kaptur.
       H.R. 1083: Mr. Isakson, Mr. Hilleary, and Mr. Chabot.
       H.R. 1084: Mr. John.
       H.R. 1095: Mr. Berman, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Engel, Mr. Capuano, 
     Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. Rothman.
       H.R. 1102: Mr. Ose, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, 
     Ms. Kilpatrick, and Mr. Rothman.
       H.R. 1111: Mr. Smith of Washington, Mrs. Johnson of 
     Connecticut, Mr. Towns, and Mr. Gary Miller of California.
       H.R. 1122: Mr. Porter, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Herger, 
     Mr. Oxley, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Gary 
     Miller of California, Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, Ms. Dunn, 
     Ms. Rivers, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Sununu, and Mr. Cramer.
       H.R. 1130: Ms. Velazquez.
       H.R. 1138: Ms. Brown of Florida and Mr. Hastings of 
     Washington.
       H.R. 1140: Ms. Lee.
       H.R. 1175: Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Reyes, and Mr. Sisisky.
       H.R. 1177: Mr. Pitts.
       H.R. 1187: Mrs. Capps, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Rothman, 
     Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Weldon of Florida, and Ms. Sanchez.
       H.R. 1188: Mr. Diaz-Balart and Ms. Velazquez.
       H.R. 1193: Mr. Thomspon of Mississippi, Mr. Pickering, Mr. 
     Price of North Carolina, and Ms. Millender-McDonald.
       H.R. 1202: Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Evans, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. 
     Doyle, Mr. Clay, Mr. Weiner, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, 
     and Mr. Kucinich.
       H.R. 1214: Ms. Velazquez.
       H.R. 1219: Mrs. Biggert.
       H.R. 1227: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
       H.R. 1233: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
       H.R. 1234: Mr. Frost, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Packard, Mr. Diaz-
     Balart, and Mr. Hastings of Washington.
       H.R. 1237: Mr. Metcalf and Ms. Eshoo.
       H.R. 1248: Mr. Pastor.
       H.R. 1261: Mr. Stearns.
       H.R. 1273: Mr. Bilirakis.
       H.R. 1303: Mr. Burr of North Carolina and Mr. Etheridge.
       H.R. 1310: Mr. Paul, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Kildee, 
     Mr. Canady of Florida, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Watts of 
     Oklahoma, Mr. Deutsch, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Hinojosa.
       H.R. 1311: Mr. Gary Miller of California, Mr. Schaffer, Ms. 
     Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Shimkus, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Kildee, 
     Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Hastings of 
     Florida, Mr. Deutsch, and Mr. Istook.
       H.R. 1322: Mr. Graham.
       H.R. 1325: Mr. Rangel, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Neal of 
     Massachusetts, and Mrs. Jones of Ohio.
       H.R. 1333: Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Cummings, and Mr. Hinojosa.
       H.R. 1342: Mr. Pastor.
       H.R. 1358: Ms. Kilpatrick and Mr. Barcia.
       H.R. 1387: Mr. Weygand.
       H.R. 1388: Mr. Larson, Mr. Weygand, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Dixon, 
     Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Borski.
       H.R. 1399: Mr. Hinchey, Mr. King, and Mr. Brady of 
     Pennsylvania.
       H.R. 1432: Ms. Woolsey and Ms. McKinney.
       H.R. 1443: Mr. Coyne, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Allen, Mr. Frank 
     of Massachusetts, and Mrs. Morella.
       H.R. 1472: Mr. Cook, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. 
     Meehan, Mr. Towns, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. 
     Duncan, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Weller, Mr. Goodlatte, Ms. Pelosi, 
     Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Hobson, Mr. 
     English, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Kuykendall, Mr. Barrett of 
     Wisconsin, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, and Ms. Kaptur.
       H.R. 1482: Mr. Baldacci.
       H.R. 1494: Mr. Goode.
       H.R. 1495: Mr. Cummings and Ms. Velazquez.
       H.R. 1524: Mr. Thune.
       H.R. 1525: Mr. Doyle, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. LaFalce, and Mr. 
     Sabo.
       H.R. 1561: Mr. Stump, Mr. Hostettler, and Mr. Tancredo.
       H.R. 1572: Ms. Kilpatrick and Mr. Green of Texas.
       H.R. 1579: Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Everett, Ms. 
     Danner, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Berman, and Ms. Sanchez.
       H.R. 1581: Mr. Towns, Mr. Vento, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Nadler, 
     Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Norton, Mr. Olver, Mr. Lewis 
     of California, Mr. Rothman and Mr. Wynn.
       H.R. 1590: Mr. Borski.
       H.R. 1592: Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. 
     Goodling, Mr. Roemer, Mr. Smith of Michigan, Mr. McCrery, Mr. 
     Barcia, Mr. Hoekstra, and Ms. Pryce of Ohio.
       H.R. 1627: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
       H.R. 1629: Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Lewis 
     of Georgia, and Ms. Norton.
       H.R. 1644: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mrs. Capps, Mr. 
     Hoyer, Mr. Stenholm, and Mr. Meehan.
       H.R. 1650: Mr. King, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Peterson of 
     Pennsylvania, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. 
     Dicks.
       H.R. 1660: Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Udall of 
     Colorado, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Jackson 
     of Illinois, Mr. Baird, Mr. Holt, Mr. Kind, Mr. Ney, Ms. 
     Roybal-Allard, Mr. Markey, Mr. Clement, Mr. Klink, Mr. 
     Costello, Mr. Bishop, and Mr. Green of Texas.
       H.R. 1677: Mr. Bonior.
       H.R. 1691: Mr. Camp, Mr. Whitfield, and Mr. Barrett of 
     Nebraska.
       H.R. 1702: Mr. Pastor and Mr. Stark.
       H.R. 1713: Ms. McKinney.
       H.R. 1747: Mr. Metcalf.
       H.R. 1750: Mr. Sabo, Ms. Slaughter, and Mrs. McCarthy of 
     New York.
       H.R. 1760: Mr. Green of Texas and Mr. Cummings.
       H.R. 1857: Mr. Coyne.
       H.R. 1862: Mr. Bentsen and Mr. Borski.
       H.R. 1872: Mr. McInnis.
       H.R. 1887: Mr. Traficant.
       H.R. 1896: Mr. Davis of Illinois and Mr. Blagojevich.
       H.R. 1917: Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Thompson 
     of Mississippi, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Allen, Mr. 
     Clyburn, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Evans, 
     Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Neal of 
     Massachusetts.
       H.R. 1948: Mr. Payne.
       H.R. 1958: Mr. Sherwood, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Brady of 
     Pennsylvania, Mr.  Greenwood, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, 
     Mr. Mascara, Mr. Gekas, and Mr. Goodling.
       H.R. 1969: Mr. Hayworth.
       H.R. 1974: Mr. Brown of California and Mr. Evans.
       H.R. 1975: Mr. Sununu and Mr. Sensenbrenner.
       H.R. 1977: Mrs. Roukema.
       H.R. 1984: Mr. Weiner, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Hinchey.
       H.R. 1993: Mr. Crowley, Mr. Davis of Florida, Mr. Dreier, 
     Ms. Lofgren, and Mrs. Lowey.
       H.R. 1994: Mr. Udall of Colorado.
       H.R. 1998: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
       H.R. 1999: Mr. Pastor.
       H.R. 2033: Mr. English and Mr. Blumenauer.
       H.R. 2052: Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Wu.
       H.R. 2102: Mr. Towns, Mr. Weygand, and Ms. Slaughter.

[[Page 12542]]


       H.J. Res. 14: Mr. Kolbe.
       H.J. Res. 55: Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Young of Alaska, and Mr. 
     Inslee.
       H.J. Res. 57: Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, 
     Mr. Wolf, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, 
     Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Visclosky, and Mr. Tancredo.
       H. Con. Res. 30: Mr. Goodlatte.
       H. Con. Res. 67: Mr. Talent and Mr. Menendez.
       H. Con. Res. 78: Mr. Farr of California.
       H. Con. Res. 99: Ms. McKinney.
       H. Con. Res. 107: Mr. Souder.
       H. Con. Res. 121: Mr. Hefley.
       H. Con. Res. 128: Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Franks 
     of New Jersey, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Holden, Mr. Capuano, Mr. 
     Gutierrez, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Brady of 
     Pennsylvania, and Mr. Levin.
       H. Res. 89: Mr. Borski.
       H. Res. 146: Mr. Leach and Mr. Lampson.

                          ____________________



        DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

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

       H.R. 850: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
       H.R. 1732: Mr. Hastings of Florida.

                          ____________________



                            PETITIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the 
clerk's desk and referred as follows:

       14. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Lennox School 
     District, Lennox, California, relative to Resolution No. 98-
     34 petitioning the California Legislature to Increase Funding 
     for Special Education; to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce.
       15. Also, a petition of Scotts Valley Unified School 
     District, Santa Cruz, California, relative to Resolution No. 
     99-025 petitioning the Congress to restore parity to these 
     two classes of students by appropriating funds for IDEA to 
     the full authorized level of funding for 40 percent excess 
     costs of providing special education and related services; to 
     the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
       16. Also, a petition of the Legislature of Rockland County, 
     New York, relative to Resolution No. 133 petitioning the 
     United States Congress to Pass Legislation Prohibiting 
     Federal Claims to Multistate Tobacco Settlement Funds; to the 
     Committee on Commerce.
       17. Also, a petition of the Diocese of Washington, DC, 
     relative to Resolution No. 10 petitioning the Congress of the 
     United States to pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       18. Also, a petition of the Legislature of Suffolk County, 
     New York, relative to Sense Resolution No. 8 petitioning the 
     United States Congress to repeal co-payment requirement for 
     veterans; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


[[Page 12543]]

             CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 

                United States
                 of America



June 10, 1999





                          EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

                 THE CHILD CARE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Child Care 
Quality Improvement Act of 1999. As more and more families with infants 
and young children are forced to send both parents to work, the need 
for child care--especially infant care and care at non-traditional 
hours--continues to expand. As the need for care grows however, 
startling findings in a study on the cost and quality of child care by 
the University of Colorado at Denver's Department of Economics report 
that more than 80% of child care services in the U.S. is thought to be 
of poor or average quality.
  I want to make sure we're not missing the mark. Although it is true 
that child care is in short supply and is too expensive for many 
families to afford, we must not allow the demand for child care 
services to override the need for quality. It is critical that children 
receive care that promotes their healthy growth and development. We 
cannot allow them to be placed in substandard conditions.
  Today I am introducing the Child Care Quality Improvement Act of 
1999, to help states increase and meet their child care quality goals. 
My bill would provide funding for Quality Improvement Grants to be 
transferred to local child care collaboratives.
  Grants would be made by the Federal government to states which have 
established goals for child care quality improvements in six areas: 
increased training for staff, enhanced licensing standards, reduced 
numbers of unlicensed facilities, increased monitoring and enforcement, 
reduce caregiver turnover, and higher levels of accreditation. States 
would then make grants to local child care collaboratives to make 
quality improvements.
  My bill take a benchmarking approach that helps states define quality 
targets and measures the states' progress toward meeting their long-
term quality goals. State plans would be subject to the U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS) for approval and monitoring. States 
would be required to report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services on their progress in meeting their quality goals in order to 
remain eligible for future funding.
  I am introducing this legislation in response to a report by the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) which found that most states lack 
strong standards for quality child car, such as requiring a sufficient 
educational training level of child care workers, keeping child to 
staff ratios low,and requiring safety and health provision on hand 
washing and playground equipment safety. The report further concluded 
that child care center staff turnover--which hurts the quality of care 
children receive--is very high and is largely due to the extremely low 
level of pay teachers in child care centers receive.
  I have sought the expertise of child care professional and early 
childhood development specialist across the country, including Dr. 
Edward Zigler, Sterling Professor of Psychology, former Director of 
which is now the Administration for Children, Youth and Families at the 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, and founder of the federal 
Head Start Program. Dr. Zigler tells us that a national policy to 
encourage an increase in state quality standards is of great value, and 
that the goal of this legislation--to improve child care services in 
the states--is both necessary and urgent.
  Congress has wrongly refused to require significant quality standards 
for the child care dollars we allocate each year. The federal 
government should give states the resources to raise state quality 
standards and improve child care quality at the local level, but only 
through a system of measurable indicators of desired outcomes. We must 
allocate these funds with the guarantee that incentive grants will 
continue to raise standards and improve the quality of care.
  As the father of a young son, I know the difficulty families face 
when choosing a caregiver for their children. My bill gives families 
peace of mind by encouraging the state and local facilities across the 
country to provide the high quality of care every child deserves.

                          ____________________



     HONORING THE VOLUNTEERS OF ST. MARY'S/GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize 
the volunteer corps who make up the ``backbone'' for St. Mary's/Good 
Samaritan Hospital's Centralia and Mt. Vernon campuses.
  Volunteers such as founding member Pat Bunchman, Mercedes Campbell, 
Barbara Francois, and Pauline Raines, represent some of the longest-
serving members of the volunteer group. These hospital auxiliary groups 
provide volunteer service and funding thus far of $1 million for 
patient and hospital equipment since they began their efforts.
  Pauline Raines said the volunteering needs ``patience,'' 
``commitment,'' and being a ``people-person.'' The ability for these 
tasks to be put to use and the initiative to implement these programs 
are a tribute to what the United States stands for. It is a wonderful 
thing to see American values exhibited in such a benevolent and 
rewarding program such as the hospital auxiliary groups of St. Mary's/
Good Samaritan Hospital.
  I applaud their volunteer service, and site it as a testament of 
volunteerism aiding our communities and enriching our lives.

                          ____________________



              RECOGNIZING LAMBERTVILLE'S 150TH ANNIVERSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Lambertville, 
New Jersey's sesquicentennial. Lambertville is a historic town, which 
has been and continues to be a source of pride for the state of New 
Jersey. I am proud to represent it in Congress.
  Lambertville first grew to prominence as a key stop along the Old 
York Road, the main route from Philadelphia to New York, in the early 
1700's. At the beginning of the 19th century, the building of the 
Delaware and Raritan Canal helped the town become a leading industrial 
center for manufacturing. Railroads began to take on much of the canal 
traffic in the late 1800s, and Lambertville retained its importance as 
a trade center by serving as the headquarters of the Pennsylvania-
Belvidere Railroad. By the turn of the century, more than 3000 factory 
workers produced such items as wooden wagon wheels, rubber boots, 
railway cars, bottled beer, and ceramic white ware within the town's 
borders.
  Although Lambertville's factories and mills are closed today, the 
town continues to thrive. The historic downtown district offers art 
galleries, antique shops, and a variety of wonderful restaurants. 
Lambertville retains a colonial charm, with Victorian, Colonial, and 
Federal styled buildings housing its 4,000 residents. The annual Shad 
festival in April, a two-day event that marks the arrival of spring and 
the run of the shad fish upstream to the Delaware River, salutes 
ongoing efforts to revitalize and maintain the quality of our water.
  Lambertville's celebrations of its anniversary will be taking place 
throughout the summer. In the spring, a documentary on the town will be 
released.
  Lambertville, New Jersey represents the best of small town life. As 
we look for ways to control development and to create livable 
communities, Lambertville offers a vibrant, positive example. I urge 
all my colleagues to join me in recognizing the town of Lambertville on 
its sesquicentennial.




                          ____________________


[[Page 12544]]

              HONORING THE GRADUATES OF THE 90TH PRECINCT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I ask you and 
my colleagues to join me in congratulating special graduates of the 
12th Congressional District of New York. I am certain that this day 
marks the culmination of much effort and hard work which has led and 
will lead them to continued success. In these times of uncertainty, 
limited resources, and random violence in our communities and schools, 
it is encouraging to know that they have overcome these obstacles and 
succeeded.
  These students have learned that education is priceless. They 
understand that education is the tool to new opportunities and greater 
endeavors. Their success is not only a tribute to their strength but 
also to the support they have received from their parents and loved 
ones.
  In closing, I encourage all my colleagues to support the education of 
the youth of America. With a solid education, today's youth will be 
tomorrow's leaders. And as we approach the new millennium, it is our 
responsibility to pave the road for this great Nation's future. Members 
of the U.S. House of Representatives, I ask you to join me in 
congratulating the following Academic Achievement Award Recipients:

       Christian Nitti and Joshua Romero--PS 16.
       Massiel Santana and Josette Dueno--PS 18.
       Pearl Ramos and Andrew Vasquez--PS 19.
       David Rodriguez and Cindy Escoboza--PS 84.
       Lasnette O'Garro and Jose Lozada--PS 147.
       Steven Rodriguez and Jamyra Quinones--PS 196.
       Giselle Burgos and Christina Santiago--PS 250.
       Kimberly Gonzalez and David Quinga--PS 257.
       Michelle Rivera and Ior Kretowicz--Most Holy Trinity R.C.
       Jennifer Pascual and Nicole Medici--St. Nicholas R.C.
       Marcus Copeland and Ann Liriano--PS 380.
       Kaity Cheng and Yu Chen--I.S. 318.
       Sabrina Ramphal and Yamil Tavarez--I.S. 49.
       Fances Dover and Wendy Morel--J.H.S. 50.
       Abner Rodriguez and Monica Aldana--I.S. 71.
       Nella Bastien and Raquel Aponte--H.S. Enterprise Business & 
     Tech.
       Essanai Velasquez and Luis Ramos--El Puente Academy/Peace & 
     Justice.
       Keith Madden and Zorielle Rodriguez--Transfiguration R.C. 
     School.
       Desirae Nazario and Joann Danio--Saint Peter & Paul R.C.
       Jennifer Chavez and Gabriella Padilla--All Saints R.C.

       

                          ____________________



                          WAGING THE DRUG WAR

                                 ______
                                 

                     HON. RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, last week a Narcotics Eradication Task 
Force from the Republic of Colombia visited Washington. The Task Force 
included three retired Colombian Generals, a former Minister of 
Defense, the ex-Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, the Army's former 
Inspector General, journalists, academics and a Magistrate from the 
International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. They came to Washington 
at the request of the bipartisan National Security Caucus with an 
important and powerful message for all of us.
  I hope all of my colleagues will pay careful attention to the 
alarming statistics they provided:
  Eighty percent of the world supply of cocaine is produced or transits 
through Colombia, and over 75 percent of the heroin seized on the U.S. 
East Coast is from that nation.
  Over 20,000 Americans die every year from abusing illegal narcotics. 
Drug abuse is also the main reason America's prison population has 
doubled between 1988 and 1998 and our nation has to spend over $35 
billion on its correctional system.
  There has been a 27 percent increase in drug use among 12-17 year 
olds, and 78 percent of American students report that drugs are bought, 
sold or used in their high schools.
  According to the most recent reports issued by the Clinton 
Administration, there has been an incredible 378 percent annual 
increase in the use of pure Colombian heroin. Heroin use has become an 
epidemic in almost every town, big or small, in our country. It is 
cheaper, purer and easier to obtain than ever before.
  A recent report released by the Colombian Army demonstrates that the 
FARC rebels have earned more than $5.3 billion over the last eight 
years through drug trafficking, kidnapping and extortion.
  Colombia has one of the highest rates of murder and kidnapping in the 
world. Attacks by rebel forces displaced over 300,000 people last year 
and 95 percent of all crimes go unpunished. The number of outstanding 
arrest warrants is over 150,000 and the judiciary has a backlog of over 
3.5 million cases.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we can win the war on drugs but it will take a 
real commitment. We cannot just wish it away, and education alone is 
not going to stop drugs. Furthermore, interdiction alone will not stop 
the drug lords.
  Almost every American family has been affected negatively by drugs, 
including my own, not only from usage but from the sale of drugs. I 
want to tell you how disappointing, how hurtful it is and how damaging 
it is to a family. The Narcotics Eradication Task Force from Colombia 
expressed sincere gratitude for the economic assistance of the United 
States, but they also demonstrated that we need a real and 
comprehensive war on drugs.
  The Task Force members reminded us that many brave Colombian 
soldiers, policemen, judges and statesmen have lost their lives in the 
War on Drugs. They reminded our colleagues of heroes such as Enrique 
Camerino, a Border Patrol agent from just east of my district. He was 
buried alive after being tortured by Mexican drug loads.
  The Narcotics Eradication Task Force met with Senator Jeff Sessions 
(R-AL) and our colleagues Cass Ballenger (R-NC); Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), 
Joe Crowley (D-NY), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Mark 
Sanford (R-SC). According to the Task Force, the Colombian cartels 
processed coca paste flown from Peru and Bolivia for over a decade.
  It was not until the 1990s that the cartels promoted the planting of 
coca in the remote and sparsely populated eastern plains and jungles of 
Colombia, where the guerrillas had strong influence. Initially the 
guerrillas were content to protect laboratories and ``tax'' the 
different phases of the production process. They have since moved into 
direct involvement in the whole production process. They provide a good 
share of the cocaine produced in Colombia and collect protection money 
for the rest. The same holds true for the more recent production of 
heroine.
  However, as their income from drugs increased the guerrillas` 
kidnaping activity did not diminish. Around 1,600 people were reported 
kidnaped in 1997 and over 2000 were abducted in 1998. The true figure 
is unknown but probably much higher, since families are routinely 
ordered not to inform the authorities and many heed this warning. 
Guerrillas are believed to be responsible for 60% of the kidnapping in 
Colombia and collect more than 200 million dollars annually from these 
activities.
  The Colombian guerrillas are thought to be the world`s richest and 
most powerful criminal organization. But guerrillas combatants do not 
operate in a vacuum. Although the various legal Marxist parties have 
had little success at the polls, their unarmed supporters have 
infiltrated many government organizations. They also have permanent 
representatives abroad that run, with the collaboration of the extreme 
left in the United States and Europe, a powerful propaganda and 
disinformation operation.
  The visit of the Narcotics Eradication Task Force was made possible 
by the Colombian non-profit organization, Forum Interamericano. The 
Task Force also expressed its concern over the excessive concessions 
made by President Pastrana to the FARC rebels in a well intentioned but 
badly planned peace initiative. As an inducement to the FARC to sit at 
a negotiating table Pastrana ordered the withdrawal of the Armed Forces 
from a coca producing region the size of Switzerland, 16,000 square 
miles. This has given the terrorist guerrillas a safe sanctuary where 
the rebel group is recruiting combatants, keeping kidnap victims and 
has continued to produce drugs.

                          ____________________



                  HONORING MT. MORIAH CHRISTIAN CHURCH

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to applaud 
the efforts of the Mt. Moriah Christian Church in Centralia, Illinois 
for their strength and dedication in rebuilding after vandals set a 
fire that destroyed the church in August of 1997.
  Mount Moriah believed to be the first church in Marion County was 
built in 1829. The May

[[Page 12545]]

16 rededication ceremony with county historian George Ross as the guest 
speaker told of the great history behind this community asset.
  Credit should go to the dedicated members, Dale Nollman, and 
Carpenter's for Christ for their assistance in the rebuilding process. 
They not only restored the church, but also brought the building up to 
standards including making it wheelchair accessible.
  I am truly pleased to se that the Mt. Moriah Christian Church's 
efforts will keep this part of community history living with new 
chapters to come well in to the future.

                          ____________________



                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, due to a commitment to my family on 
Wednesday, June 9, 1999, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall 
Nos. 182-184.

                          ____________________



                       COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address an 
issue of great importance to me and to many members of the community I 
represent. Fair and equal access to capital and credit should be a 
fundamental right, yet for too long it has been a privilege based on 
race or economic class. The dream of owning your own home or business 
slips away when financial institutions discriminate against 
hardworking, creditworthy Americans.
  Fortunately, blatant discrimination in the lending industry is in 
decline, home ownership and small business opportunities are on the 
rise and we can attribute much of this progress to the Community 
Reinvestment Act (CRA). CRA rates federal banking agencies on how they 
meet the credit and capital needs of all the communities in which they 
are chartered and from which they take deposits. Community 
organizations, elected and religious leaders, and ordinary citizens 
have a right to offer their opinions regarding the CRA performance of 
lenders during CRA exams or mergers of CRA. Additionally, CRA has 
leveraged a tremendous amount of reinvestment for our nation's inner 
cities and rural areas. For example, in 1997, low- and moderate-income 
borrowers received 28 percent of the nation's mortgage loans--up 
dramatically from 18 percent in 1990. According to the National 
Community Reinvestment Coalition, banks have made over $1 trillion in 
commitments to CRA-related loans and investments since the law was 
passed in 1977. In Rhode Island, CRA has revitalized cities throughout 
the state. From Constitution Hill in Woonsocket to the West End of 
Providence to Newport, community based housing and economic development 
activities are taking place because of CRA.
  As we here in the Congress consider financial modernization and H.R. 
10, I will strenuously oppose any effort to weaken CRA. In addition, we 
must strengthen our nation's reinvestment and fair lending laws through 
reopening requirements on policyholders. We should ensure that CRA will 
leverage new business opportunities by helping insurance companies, 
community organizations, and local public agencies identify missed 
market opportunities in traditionally underserved neighborhoods.
  I urge my colleagues to stand firm in support of CRA during the 
debate on H.R. 10. Supporting the measurable progress we have made in 
expanding economic opportunities for all segments of our society is the 
right thing to do.

                                            Rhode Island Community


                                     Reinvestment Association,

                                     Providence, RI, May 24, 1999.
     Hon. Robert Weygand,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Patrick Kennedy,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Weygand and Congressman Kennedy: The RI 
     Community Reinvestment Association (RICRA) is a thirteen-
     year-old organization working to encourage the public and 
     private reinvestment in the housing and community economic 
     development of low and moderate neighborhoods in the state. 
     RICRA provides foreclosure prevention advocacy for individual 
     homeowners.
       The future of CRA is at risk. Given the importance of the 
     Fleet proposed acquisition of BankBoston with 50 bank 
     branches to be sold. One example, the City of Pawtucket has 
     on the table all Fleet and BankBoston branches to be sold. 
     CRA is revitalizing our cities in Rhode Island. From 
     Constitution Hill in Woonsocket to the West End of Providence 
     to Newport and South County, community-based housing and 
     economic development activities are taking place because of 
     CRA. CRA must be preserved. Financial Modernization should 
     benefit all segments of our communities and individual 
     households. Financial Modernization should not be just for 
     depositors with daily balances in the six-figures income. 
     Financial Modernization must include community reinvestment.
       RICRA is requesting that as our Congressional Delegation in 
     the House of Representatives that you join the procession for 
     a one-minute statement on CRA. We've enclosed the text for 
     your consideration. If you agree to do a one-minute speech, 
     please work with Rep. LaFalce's staff (Tricia Haisten 202-
     225-4247).
       Thanking you in advance for your consideration of working 
     to save CRA.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Ray Neirinckx,
                                                      Coordinator.

     

                          ____________________



             EXCHANGE PRIVILEGES FOR 30% DISABLED VETERANS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support allowing veterans 
with a service-connected disability of 30% or more to use military 
exchanges. I am pleased that the House Armed Service Committee approved 
report language urging the Pentagon, in coordination with the Veterans 
Administration, to study the feasibility of providing exchange 
privileges to veterans with a disability of 30% or more. I want to 
reiterate my support for this policy, and I hope that the Pentagon will 
favorably report back the results of their study to the Armed Services 
Committees in both the House and Senate before the end of this year.
  Today, as many as one million disabled and deserving veterans are 
unjustly denied the ability to patronize military exchanges. Exchange 
privileges are granted to veterans who incur a serious disability while 
in service that warrants medical retirement, but veterans whose 
disabilities increase after separation from military service are denied 
this privilege.
  I support extending exchange privileges to disabled veterans whose 
service-related injuries exacerbate over time. Many veterans who 
incurred service-connected injuries that did not appear initially to be 
serious enough to warrant medical retirement, but these injuries often 
have a delayed effect and develop later in life into more severe 
disabilities that significantly impair their health.
  The Department of Defense can afford to give exchange privileges to 
veterans with service-connected injuries which have led to a disability 
of 30% or more. I do not believe that allowing these deserving veterans 
exchange privileges will greatly burden exchange operations or the 
appropriated funds budget. Already, employees of the military exchange 
systems, who have never served a day in uniform, enjoy exchange 
shopping privileges. Disabled veterans deserve no less.
  We should grant exchange privileges to this group of patriots because 
it is the right, fair and honorable thing to do. I am pleased that the 
bill we are considering today urges the Pentagon to correct this 
injustice.

                          ____________________



              RECOGNIZING WCXO IN CLINTON COUNTY, ILLINOIS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to 
congratulate WCXO in Clinton County which will begin broadcasting in 
mid-June from a state-of-the-art FM facility.
  This station will not only provide music entertainment: it will also 
give a valuable resource to local residents by its commitment to the 
community through its broadcasting of boys' and girls' high school 
sporting events, local and headline news reports, and farm reports.
  Owned by Joy Publishing, the station will be headed by General 
Manager Annette Bevel. Under her guidance and their dedicated staff 
composed mostly of Clinton County's own, I am confident that the 
station will be a great asset to Clinton County.
  I applaud these efforts to improve communication, entertainment, and 
information within Clinton County and wish them well.




                          ____________________


[[Page 12546]]

                       IN HONOR OF MR. WHIT CLARK

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Whit Clark the 
principal of Col. John Glenn School.
  Whit Clark has been a very successful educator for 33 years and an 
effective principal at Col. John Glenn for the last 13 years. Whit 
Clark has done an outstanding job as an educator for the last 33 years. 
For his exceptional efforts, he received a commendation from Mayor 
Gerald Trafis.
  He has been a wonderful example in his community for truly being a 
man for others. His dedication to his profession is something that 
sticks out and should be recognized. He has a love for his position 
unlike anyone I have ever seen. He will be greatly missed when he 
retires on June 6th of this year.
  My fellow colleagues, please join me in honoring one of Cleveland's 
great educators Mr. Whit Clark.

                          ____________________



          ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Rocky 
Mountain National Park Wilderness Act of 1999. This legislation will 
provide important protection and management direction for some truly 
remarkable country, adding nearly 250,000 acres in the park to the 
National Wilderness Preservation System.
  The bill is essentially identical to one my predecessor, 
Representative David Skaggs, introduced in October of last year, which 
in turn was based on similar measures he had proposed in the 103rd and 
104th Congresses. It also reflects previous proposals by former Senator 
Bill Armstrong and others. I am grateful to have the opportunity to 
press forward in the effort to complete the work they began.
  Over the last several years my predecessor worked with the National 
Park Service and others to refine the boundaries of the areas proposed 
for wilderness designation and consulted closely with many interested 
parties in Colorado, including local officials and both the Northern 
Colorado Water Conservancy District and the St. Vrain & Left Hand Ditch 
Water Conservancy District. These consultations provided the basis for 
many of his bill's provisions, particularly regarding the status of 
existing water facilities, and I have drawn on them in shaping the bill 
I am introducing today.
  Covering 94 percent of the park, the new wilderness will include 
Longs Peaks and other major mountains along the Great Continental 
Divide, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine 
tundra and wet meadows, old-growth forests, and hundreds of lakes and 
streams, all untrammeled by human structures or passage. Indeed, 
examples of all the natural ecosystems that make up the splendor of 
Rocky Mountain National Park are included in this wilderness 
designation.
  The features of these lands and waters that make Rocky Mountain 
National park a true gem in our national parks system also make it an 
outstanding wilderness candidate.
  The wilderness boundaries are carefully located to assure continued 
access for use of existing roadways, buildings and developed areas; 
privately owned land, and areas where additional facilities and 
roadwork will improve park management and visitor services. In 
addition, specific provisions are included to assure that there will be 
no adverse effects on continued use of existing water facilities.
  This bill is based on National Park Service recommendations, prepared 
25 years ago and presented to Congress by President Nixon. It seems to 
me that, in that time, there has been sufficient study, consideration, 
and refinement of those recommendations so that Congress can proceed 
with this legislation. I believe that this bill constitutes a fair and 
complete proposal, sufficiently providing for the legitimate needs of 
the public at large and all interested groups, and deserves to be 
enacted in this form.
  It took more than a decade before the Colorado delegation and the 
Congress were finally able, in 1993, to pass the most recent bill to 
designate additional wilderness in our state's national forests. We now 
must take up the urgent question of wilderness designations of lands 
managed by the Bureau of Land Management. And the time is ripe for 
finally resolving the status of the lands within Rocky Mountain 
National Park that are dealt with in this bill.
  All Coloradans know that the question of possible impacts on water 
rights can be a primary point of contention in Congressional debates 
over designating wilderness areas. So, it's very important to 
understand that the question of water rights for Rocky Mountain 
National Park wilderness is entirely different from many considered 
before, and is far simpler.
  To begin with, it has long been recognized under the laws of the 
United States and Colorado, including a decision of the Colorado 
Supreme Court, that Rocky Mountain National Park already has extensive 
federal reserved water rights arising from the creation of the national 
park itself.
  Division One of the Colorado Water Court, which has jurisdiction over 
the portion of the park that is east of the continental divide, has 
already decided how extensive the water rights are in its portion of 
the park. In December, 1993, the court ruled that the park has reserved 
rights to all water within the park that was unappropriated at the time 
the park was created. As a result of this decision, in the eastern half 
of the park there literally is no more water for either the park or 
anybody else to claim. This is not, so far as I have been able to find 
out, a controversial decision, because there is a widespread consensus 
that there should be no new water projects developed within Rocky 
Mountain National Park. And, since the park sits astride the 
continental divide, there's no higher land around from which streams 
flow into the park, so there is no possibility of any upstream 
diversions.
  As for the western side of the park, the water court has not yet 
ruled on the extent of the park's existing water rights there, although 
it has affirmed that the park does have such rights. With all other 
rights to water arising in the park and flowing west already claimed, 
as a practical matter under Colorado water law, this wilderness 
designation will not restrict any new water claims.
  And it's important to emphasize that any wilderness water rights 
amount only to guarantees that water will continue to flow through and 
out of the park as it always has. This preserves the natural 
environment of the park, but it doesn't affect downstream water use. 
Once water leaves the park, it will continue to be available for 
diversion and use under Colorado law regardless of whether or not lands 
within the park are designated as wilderness.
  These legal and practical realities are reflected in my bill--as in 
my predecessor's--by inclusion of a finding that because the park 
already has these extensive reserved rights to water, there is no need 
for any additional reservation of such right, and an explicit 
disclaimer that the bill effects any such reservation.
  Some may ask, why should we designate wilderness in a national park? 
Isn't park protection the same as wilderness, or at least as good? The 
answer is that the wilderness designation will give an important 
additional level of protection to most of the park. Our national park 
system was created, in part, to recognize and preserve prime examples 
of outstanding landscape. At Rocky Mountain National Park in 
particular, good Park Service management over the past 83 years has 
kept most of the park in a natural condition. And all the lands that 
are covered by this bill are currently being managed, in essence, to 
protect their wilderness character. Formal wilderness designation will 
no longer leave this question to the discretion of the Park Service, 
but will make it clear that within the designated areas there will 
never be roads, visitor facilities, or other manmade features that 
interfere with the spectacular natural beauty and wildness of the 
mountains.

  This kind of protection is especially important for a park like Rocky 
Mountain, which is relatively small by western standards. As 
surrounding land development and alteration has accelerated in recent 
years, the pristine nature of the park's backcountry becomes an 
increasingly rare feature of Colorado's landscape.
  Further, Rocky Mountain National Park's popularity demands definitive 
and permanent protection for wild areas against possible pressures for 
development within the park. While only about one tenth the size of 
Yellowstone National Park, Rocky Mountain sees nearly the same number 
of visitors each year as does our first national park.
  At the same time, designating these carefully selected portions of 
Rocky Mountain as wilderness will make other areas, now restricted 
under interim wilderness protection management, available for overdue 
improvements to park roads and visitor facilities.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this bill will protect some of our nation's finest 
wild lands. It will protect existing rights. It will not limit any 
existing opportunity for new water development. And it will affirm our 
commitment in Colorado to preserving the very features that make our 
State such a remarkable place to live. Thus, the bill deserves prompt 
enactment.

[[Page 12547]]

  I am attaching a fact sheet giving more details about the bill:

              Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act


                    1. Rocky Mountain National Park

       Rocky Mountain National Park, one of the nation's most 
     visited parks, possesses some of the most pristine and 
     striking alpine ecosystems and natural landscapes in the 
     continental United States. This park straddles the 
     Continental Divide along Colorado's northern Front Range. It 
     contains high altitude lakes, herds of bighorn sheep and elk, 
     glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine 
     tundra, old-growth forests and thundering rivers. It also 
     contains Longs Peak, one of Colorado's 54 fourteen thousand-
     foot peaks.


2. Congressman Udall's Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Proposal

       Former Congressman David Skaggs from the Second District 
     had been working for years to designate certain areas within 
     the Park as wilderness. Congressman Skaggs introduced a bill 
     last year, and this proposal by Congressman Udall is 
     essentially identical.
       The Udall proposal would designate nearly 250,000 acres 
     within Rocky Mountain National Park, or about 94 percent of 
     the Park, as wilderness, including Longs Peak--the areas 
     included are based on the recommendations prepared over 24 
     years ago by President Nixon with some revisions in 
     boundaries to reflect acquisitions and other changes since 
     that recommendation was submitted; designate about 1,000 
     acres as wilderness when non-conforming structures are 
     removed; and add non-federal inholdings within the wilderness 
     boundaries to the wilderness if they are acquired by the 
     United States.
       The Udall proposal would NOT create a new federal reserved 
     water right; instead, it includes a finding that the Park's 
     existing federal reserved water rights, as decided by the 
     Colorado courts, are sufficient, nor include certain lands in 
     the Park as wilderness, including Trail Ridge and other roads 
     used for motorized travel, water storage and conveyance 
     structures, buildings, developed areas of the Park, and 
     private inholdings.


                      3. Existing Water Facilities

       Boundaries for the wilderness areas are drawn to exclude: 
     existing storage and conveyance structures, thereby assuring 
     continued use of the Grand River Ditch and its right-of-way; 
     the east and west portals of the Adams Tunnel and gauging 
     stations of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project; Long Draw 
     Reservoir; and lands owned by the St. Vrain & Left Hand Water 
     Conservancy District, including Copeland Reservoir.
       The bill includes provisions to make clear that its 
     enactment will not impose new restrictions on already allowed 
     activities for the operation, maintenance, repair, or 
     reconstruction of the Adams Tunnel, which diverts water under 
     Rocky Mountain National Park (including lands that would be 
     designated by the bill), or other Colorado-Big Thompson 
     Project facilities. Additional activities for these purposes 
     will be allowed, subject to reasonable restrictions, should 
     they be necessary to respond to emergencies.

     

                          ____________________



                  RETURN OF VETERANS MEMORIAL OBJECTS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD

                                of guam

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to an 
amendment to the Senate version of the FY2000 Defense Authorization 
Bill. Section 1066 of the Senate version prohibits the return of 
veterans memorial objects to foreign nations without specific 
authorization in law.
  Although it might seem to be a well-intentioned attempt to protect 
veterans memorials, this amendment is, in fact, an underhanded attempt 
infringe upon the chief executive's authority to, in good, return 
questionably acquired items to their rightful owners.
  We all agree that this nation had been involved in a number of unjust 
conflicts. Regrettably, our troops have been involved in dubious 
actions, both here and in foreign lands. Without, taking dignity away 
from those who have fallen and those who followed orders, we should 
strive towards preserving our ability to right certain historical 
wrongs.
  Under the cloak of protecting veterans memorials, this amendment is 
actually an attempt to impede the facilitation of a compromise between 
the United States and the Republic of the Philippines. F.E. Warren Air 
Force Base plays host to a memorial comprised of two church bells 
seized from the Philippines. As the bells are equally important to 
Filipinos, they have requested the repatriation of one.
  I have worked in the last Congress to bring this compromise. Veterans 
groups, church officials, and members of this body have expressed 
support. Section 1066 of the Senate version is designed to undermine 
the progress we have made on this issue.
  I urge the members of the conference committee to be mindful of this. 
Let us be straightforward and put the real issue on the table. I urge 
the members of the conference committee to act accordingly on this 
matter.

                          ____________________



                       HONORING WILLIAM H. WALKER

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to honor an 
individual who served our great Nation in war time, and served our 
children in peace. William H. Walker not only served our Nation as one 
of the famed Tuskegee Airmen, but also served as an educator at Lincoln 
Elementary School in Centralia, Illinois.
  The Illinois native from Carbondale passed away at age 83. During his 
life, he was a patriot and an inspiration to the civil rights movement, 
City of Centralia, and children of Lincoln Elementary School. Mr. 
Walker is also an inductee in the Centralia Historical Hall of Fame.
  Dan Griffin, Superintendent of the Centralia City School District in 
which William Walker served said of Mr. Walker, ``He was well-respected 
by the black community and white community alike, and by all educators. 
. . . The best way I can sum up Bill Walker is that he was a 
gentleman's gentleman.''
  I commend him on his life-time service to the Nation. His life should 
be a reminder to us all about what service to the Nation means.

                          ____________________



        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. MAXINE WATERS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 9, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
Gilman-Goss amendment.
  This foolish and dangerous amendment would prohibit the use of funds 
to maintain a U.S. military presence in Haiti after December 31 of this 
year. The effect of this amendment is to gut US Support Group Haiti, an 
important humanitarian, engineering and civic affairs operation, and 
deny our President the flexibility he needs to determine our nation's 
troop deployments.
  Haiti is currently planning to hold elections later this year. This 
elections follow months of political instability. It is vital that the 
United States show our support for the democratic process in this 
country.
  Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Members on the other 
side of the aisle have attempted to interfere in our nation's support 
for democracy in Haiti. Last month, Republicans led an effort to squash 
a human rights observation mission that represented the one credible 
human rights organization in Haiti during this difficult time.
  Now, these same critics of our nation's policy toward Haiti are 
attempting to force our troops to leave at a time when their presence 
is especially important to support stability and aid in democratization 
efforts.
  The people of Haiti are looking forward to having elections later 
this year. Requiring the courageous and dedicated men and women of our 
nation's armed forces to leave the country now would send a terrible 
message to the Haitian people about our willingness to support the 
democratic process in this country. Now is not the time to consider 
withdrawing these men and women at this critical point in Haiti's 
history.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Gilman-Goss amendment.

                          ____________________



                      IN HONOR OF CHARLES REYNOLDS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Charles 
Reynolds for his

[[Page 12548]]

commitment to educating and shaping the lives of our youth. Mr. 
Reynolds is retiring from his position as principal at Benedictine High 
School in Cleveland, Ohio.
  Mr. Reynolds' school spirit and enthusiasm for sports was 
demonstrated in the 1950s as a student at Benedictine where he was an 
All Scholastic basketball and football player for the Benedictine 
Bengals. After receiving a Bachelor's Degree from Purdue University, 
Mr. Reynolds returned to his alma mater as a teacher and football and 
basketball coach. From there he went to Warrensville High School as 
head football and assistant basketball coach.
  Mr. Reynolds continued his career in education by serving as 
assistant principal at Monticello Junior High. He later became Unit 
Principal at Cleveland High School. Finally, he accepted the position 
of principal at Warren High School where he remained until he retired.
  However, his retirement was short-lived. After Father Dominic 
Mondzelewski stepped down as principal at Benedictine, Mr. Reynolds was 
persuaded to come out of retirement to become Benedictine's first lay 
principal. During his tenure, he upgraded the school technology and 
implemented many new programs, including Project Real, the Renaissance 
Honors program. In addition, he has instilled a renewed pride and 
school spirit among the student body.
  Mr. Reynolds took great pride in his leadership role at Benedictine, 
a school that excels in educating young men and sends 99 percent of its 
graduates to college. Benedictine is known not only for academics, but 
also athletics. The high school currently holds the record in the lower 
48 states of winning five state athletic championships over two 
academic years.
  I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Reynolds 
for his career as an outstanding educator. Benedictine will celebrate 
his retirement at a dinner on June 5, 1999. I wish Charles Reynolds and 
his family the very best.

                          ____________________



         TAIWAN EXTENDS A HELPING HAND TO THE KOSOVAR REFUGEES

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. PHIL ENGLISH

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to 
honor President Lee Teng-hui of the Republic of China on Taiwan.
  President Lee has announced that he will sponsor an aid package 
amounting to US$300 million for the refugees in Kosovo. He should be 
highly commended for his leadership. President Lee's generosity should 
inspire other wealthy nations of the world to open their hearts and 
pockets to help the war-torn region.
  Taiwan is a geographically small nation, yet its government and 
people have large, unselfish hearts. They recognize the need for 
generosity toward the Kosovars, and they are always more than willing 
to help the less fortunate throughout the world.
  President Lee's offer of financial assistance to Kosovo is very 
generous, and Taiwan should be recognized by the United States and the 
entire world for this selfless, charitable action.

                          ____________________



                   A FITTING HONOR FOR SHEILA DECTER

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on July 27 I will be here on 
the floor of the House. Ordinarily that would be a source of pride to 
me, because I very much enjoy serving in this institution and 
appreciate the privilege of doing so which I receive from my 
constituents. But on July 27, I will be here with some regret, because 
my presence in the House will mean that I will be absent from the event 
honoring Sheila Decter, Executive Director of the American Jewish 
Congress in Boston.
  From my days in the Massachusetts Legislature in the 70s, through my 
current service in the House, I have relied on Sheila Decter's wisdom, 
knowledge, and commitment to fairness for all people in my effort to do 
my job. Sheila Decter is one of the great natural resources of 
Massachusetts, and no one better deserves the honor she will be 
receiving on July 27 than she.
  In her work through the American Jewish Congress Sheila Decter 
exemplifies the notion set forward by the great Rabbi Hillel, because 
she shows that working to protect the rights of Jews in this country 
and elsewhere are not only compatible with a strong commitment to 
universal human rights, but in fact reinforces and strengthens that 
commitment. Sheila Decter exemplifies the point that fighting injustice 
against any one group is best done by putting that in the context of 
the fight against injustice everywhere. She has enriched the life of 
our community, and she has made my job a lot easier. And while I know 
that our rules require us to address all remarks to the Speaker, I hope 
I will be permitted an exception so I can say: Mazel Tov, Sheila.

                          ____________________



     CELEBRATING THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF LeCLAIRE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
congratulate the LeClaire Christian Church of Edwardsville, Illinois 
which is celebrating its 40th anniversary.
  Throughout the years, the church has seen great change as it has 
moved from Odd Fellows' Hall to Garfield Street to its present location 
on Esic. The church has also seen their membership grow by four times 
throughout the years. Through this growth the church has expanded 
construction in order to provide greater facilities for congregation 
and community use.
  The Anniversary Committee, chaired by Twila Ellsworth said the 
celebration has brought back former members as well as ministers from 
the past.
  I am happy to see the steps the anniversary committee has made to 
celebrate their past as well as continuing their steps to offer quality 
programs and services to the community.

                          ____________________



                         YUMA AGRICULTURE FORUM

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, this spring I held a widely-attended 
agriculture forum in Yuma, Colorado to hear from a panel of citizens 
representing Colorado's agriculture industry. Panelists shared their 
thoughts regarding the worsening agriculture economy in America and 
provided valuable suggestions for improving the industry's chances for 
success.
  Record-low commodity prices, disease and weather-related problems, 
coupled with declining export opportunities and a weak demand, have 
taken a devastating toll on America's agriculture industry. Farm income 
has fallen dramatically over the past two years and it is difficult to 
predict how soon it might rebound. While Congress recently helped stave 
off disaster in rural America with an emergency assistance package, it 
is quite evident serious long-term policy decisions must be implemented 
to ensure the lasting future of rural agriculture.
  Upon returning to Washington, D.C. from Yuma, I shared this report 
with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry Combest, my colleagues 
on the House Agriculture Committee and other key Members of Congress in 
order to provide them with the valuable information and suggestions I 
received from my constituents. This information has already proven 
quite helpful in prioritizing the agricultural policy agenda for the 
106th Congress and I have been asked to distribute it to all Members.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit for the Record, the 
summarized comments and suggestions of Colorado's agriculture 
community.

                dave frank, owner, mainstreet insurance

       When Mainstreet Insurance first began issuing multi-peril 
     insurance policies to producers, the 1985 farm program was in 
     effect which mandated participating farmers own crop 
     insurance to cover potential nominal and catastrophic losses. 
     This policy of mandatory coverage was reinforced under the 
     Freedom to Farm Act of 1995, which imposed additional 
     restrictions and sanctions upon uninsured producers. This is 
     good for agriculture, because it encourages sound risk 
     management practices among producers and can help prevent the 
     need for frequent taxpayer-funded government bailouts.
       However, following a year of historically low commodity 
     prices, natural disasters, and lost export opportunities due 
     to a worsening economic crisis in Asia and eroding markets in 
     Europe and Latin America, Congress in

[[Page 12549]]

     late 1998 found it necessary to provide nearly $6 billion in 
     farm disaster and market loss assistance for American 
     producers. Rather than provide higher relief payments to 
     those producers who purchased crop insurance than to those 
     who did not, Secretary Glickman provided the same level of 
     relief to all qualifying producers. There is little incentive 
     for some to invest in crop insurance if it is determined the 
     government will step in and provide the same level of 
     ``emergency'' assistance to all producers, regardless of 
     coverage.
       There are a number of ways to improve our current federal 
     crop insurance program. First of all, the federal government 
     should refrain from providing emergency or disaster relief to 
     producers who signed non-insured waivers giving up their 
     rights to any disaster payments. Much as an uninsured store-
     owner would not expect the government to take responsibility 
     for his or her losses in the event of a fire, an equally 
     uninsured farmer should not expect the government to cover 
     losses stemming from another unforeseen disaster.
       Secondly, the government should encourage higher levels of 
     crop insurance coverage among producers. Currently, the Risk 
     Management Agency (RMA) subsidizes the 50%, 55%, and 65% 
     coverage level premiums at 32% of cost, while only 
     subsidizing the 70% and 75% levels at 18% of cost. It is 
     difficult to encourage farmers to move from the 65% to 70% 
     coverage level if their indemnity will only increase a few 
     dollars while their premiums almost double. Instead, the RMA 
     should invert the subsidy schedule to encourage higher level 
     of coverage. Many U.S. counties are now testing coverage 
     plans up to 80% and 85%. The RMA should consider testing 
     plans up to 90%, 95%, or even 100% of farmers' Actual 
     Production History (APH).
       The RMA also must become more customer service-oriented and 
     more attentive to the changing needs of producers operating 
     under a new, market-drive agriculture program. Crop 
     production and crop practices have changed rapidly and 
     dramatically since the 1995 Farm Bill. Many farmers are 
     changing their rotations and planting different crops, while 
     others are planting continuous crops. There are a number of 
     clients who live in one county, yet their land extends over 
     into the next county. In many cases, the RMA allows a crop to 
     be insured in one but not the other. The land is the same, 
     the crop is the same, and the farmer is the same, yet only 
     part of the crop is allowed to be covered by crop insurance. 
     Discrepancies such as these discourage sound management 
     practices at the very time the government should be 
     encouraging them.


                RANDY WENGER, insurance agent, producer

       One of the biggest problems clients encounter centers 
     around the use of the Average Production History (APH). When 
     farmers have three or four years of losses in a row, the APH 
     suffers considerably. Furthermore, even though the APH is 
     capped at 20 percent, producers are assessed a 5 percent 
     surcharge in order to cap their policies, and therefore 
     suffer twice.
       The first way to improve the APH would be to eliminate the 
     5 percent surcharge. Secondly, the 20 percent cap on the APH 
     should be removed. Thirdly, the APH should not be allowed to 
     fall below the transitional year yields stated in the 
     actuarials. Many companies are aggressively pursuing new 
     and innovative policies for higher subsidies, but such 
     policies are often quite costly to acquire.
       It would also be very helpful to extend the insurance sales 
     deadline past March 15th, possibly until April 15th or May 
     1st. Such an extension would allow uninsured producers, or 
     those with policy caps, to sit down and discuss various 
     policy options with insurance providers to determine the most 
     appropriate and efficient plan.


        ELENA METRO, Executive Director, Colorado Pork Producers

       Agriculture producers are suffering considerably from 
     overly-burdensome federal environmental regulations often 
     based upon emotion rather than upon sound science. 
     Furthermore, environmental regulations, whether based upon 
     science or emotion, significantly drive up the price of 
     agricultural goods. Consumers increasingly want goods which 
     are convenient, nutritious, environmentally sound, and 
     inexpensive. While it is certainly the consumers right to 
     want these things, it is becoming more and more difficult, 
     even with new technology and increased efficiency, to provide 
     such products at the low prices consumers prefer. Burdensome 
     regulations needlessly drive up production costs and 
     subsequently consumer prices.
       America must work ever harder to open foreign export 
     markets for our producers and ensure free and fair trading 
     policies at home and abroad. Not only is it vital to secure 
     expanding overseas market-share for domestic goods, but we 
     must also guarantee fair competition at home. Statistics show 
     Americans are eating over four pounds of additional protein 
     per year. Such an increase suggests more of this protein will 
     be purchased from foreign producers, which in turn means we 
     must assure fair import policies and a fair competitive 
     environment for Colorado and U.S. producers.
       Urban encroachment is another issue of major concern to 
     farmers and ranchers and the future of agriculture. We are 
     losing more and more agricultural land to development each 
     year and in the process sacrificing valuable farmland which 
     can never be reclaimed for production agriculture. As an 
     illustration, there is a man who farms two miles away who had 
     just finished spraying his wheat field for pests. The next 
     day, he was walking on his land when he spotted two women 
     riding horses through his property. ``Excuse me ma'am, but 
     this is my land you are riding on,'' he said. ``But it's just 
     a field,'' one of the riders replied. ``No,'' the farmer 
     responded, ``I just sprayed chemicals on my crops yesterday 
     which could be hazardous to your horses.'' One of the women 
     spun her horse around to face him and said, ``Well, where do 
     you expect us to ride then?'' The farmer replied, ``If you 
     want to ride, then buy more land.''
       This story represents a common occurrence, where farmers 
     and ranchers, having kept to themselves and worked their land 
     in an often secluded, rural environment for generations, are 
     now experiencing encroachment from an ever-increasing 
     population. Old homesteads are being replaced and surrounded 
     by homes, businesses, shopping centers and apartment 
     complexes. If such growth is not somehow managed, planned, or 
     organized, the repercussions on the farming industry could 
     be great.
       For one thing, unemployed farmers and ranchers cannot 
     simply walk across the street to find a new job like people 
     who live in Denver. The loss of the hog industry to Eastern 
     Colorado would create mass unemployment and economic 
     depression. It would be similar to the loss of US West to 
     Denver. Secondly, the reduction in domestic agricultural 
     production would naturally lead to more reliance upon 
     imported food. There is the possibility such products would 
     not have the same high level of food safety expected of 
     domestic products.


      Larry Palser, Vice President, Colorado Wheat Administration

       There are many reasons for the wide-spread discouragement 
     among wheat producers today. U.S. producers are experiencing 
     the lowest wheat prices in eight years, coupled with the 
     largest stock since 1988. While acknowledging low prices can 
     be attributed to the cyclical nature of commodity markets, we 
     should also be working to turn the corner toward price 
     improvement by selling and exporting more wheat. There are 
     many reasons why export sales are not at the levels we would 
     prefer to see, but the two primary areas include overall 
     trade policy and sanctions reform.
       One of the primary aims of the Freedom to Farm bill was 
     increased market access for production. Over the past four 
     years, wheat imports by six countries (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, 
     Libya, North Korea, and Sudan) have more than doubled. 
     Unfortunately, however, the United States has imposed strict 
     trade sanctions prohibiting the export of U.S. agriculture 
     products to every one of these countries. This represents 
     approximately 15 percent of global demand for U.S. wheat 
     exports and amounts to the largest self-imposed market-loss 
     since the 1980 U.S.S.R. embargo. American farmers in 1998 
     harvested the largest supply of wheat this decade and now 
     face the lowest levels of serviceable imports to account for 
     the demand of the decade. This greatly contributes to the 
     price-depressing carryovers we are currently experiencing. 
     Access to these and other restricted markets is essential to 
     the long-term success of the wheat industry.
       Even with record-low prices for American wheat, foreign 
     competitors are capable of undercutting U.S. prices through 
     export subsidies such as those employed by the European 
     Union. In addition, the Canadian and Australian Wheat Boards 
     have utilized trade agreements to garner better tariff rates 
     and higher wheat prices. The U.S. government should be 
     fighting harder than ever to improve the competitive ability 
     of domestic producers by strengthening our negotiating 
     authority and securing more advantageous trade agreements. We 
     should also level the playing field somewhat by fully 
     utilizing the export enhancement programs, market development 
     programs, PL480 and others to regain our rightful percentage 
     of the world market. Finally, there should be in place a 
     permanent mechanism to reimburse producers for market losses 
     caused by U.S.-imposed sanctions and restrictions.
       In regards to crop insurance, the other panelists are 
     correct in their assessment we must do everything possible to 
     strengthen and enhance risk management programs for 
     producers. The federal funding mechanism should be inverted 
     so that higher costing coverage policies have their 
     premiums subsidized at a better rate. This would encourage 
     producers to purchase higher coverage policies. 
     Furthermore, if the United States moves away from federal 
     disaster assistance programs, the crop insurance program 
     and other risk management tools must provide adequate 
     coverage at an economical price for producers.


     STEVE THORN, Former Officer, Colorado Corn Growers Association

       Trade sanctions and trade policy issues have already been 
     mentioned by other panelists, but these are definitely very 
     vital issues for producers today. With over 70 global 
     economies off-limits to U.S. producers due to trade 
     sanctions, farmers and ranchers are subsequently denied 
     access to nearly 50% of the total world market. In the past 
     it has

[[Page 12550]]

     been said that three out of every four bushels of corn will 
     be used here in the United States, but that the price is 
     tagged to the one bushel we sell overseas. Whatever the 
     percentage is today going overseas, the prices we receive for 
     our products are a whole lot less than they used to be. While 
     U.S. producers are the most efficient coarse grain and 
     feedstuff growers in the world, they are certainly not 
     treated that way at home or abroad.
       Part of the problem stems from the very nature of 
     government-led farm programs. Once legislation is drafted, 
     debated by committees, and voted on by the entire Congress, 
     it ends up under the authority of unelected bureaucrats with 
     little or no accountability to the producers they are charged 
     with serving. The legislative proposal that once sounded so 
     simple and helpful ends up as a convoluted mess by the time 
     it works its way to the implementation stage. Most of the 
     expenditures do not end up going where they were intended to 
     go and policies rarely turn out right when implemented by the 
     agencies. County Farm Service Agency (FSA) representatives, 
     for instance, have had to postpone appointments for weeks 
     sometimes because of delays in receiving proper information 
     and support from the USDA.
       It is very important to provide producers with a strong and 
     viable safety net, but whatever policy is enacted must be 
     clearly delineated for agency follow-through and must allow 
     for significant Congressional oversight. Lawmakers are 
     capable of crafting successful legislation, but if it gets 
     passed off to bureaucrats with little care or understanding 
     of the original intent of the bill then it simply turns into 
     another worthless piece of paper.
       In addition, while Congress by nature must establish rules, 
     regulations, laws and initiatives which apply to the entire 
     country, there needs to be an understanding that what is 
     right for Iowa is not necessarily right for northeast 
     Colorado. Planting and harvesting times are different as are 
     decisions regarding financial planning and insurance 
     coverage. Colorado producers must be taken into consideration 
     along with the rest of the country when deadlines are 
     determined.
       Finally, it is important to enact Fast Track trade 
     negotiating authority for the president in order to ensure 
     clean, effective trade negotiations and to help secure fair 
     trade agreements for American producers. The North American 
     Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) sounded good on the surface, but 
     there are several aspects which have turned out to be 
     different than anticipated. The Mexican government, for 
     instance, has not been importing dry beans at the level 
     they said they were going to import. Not only that, but 
     they have set up a permit system to restrict the level of 
     imports and have not even been taking delivery on the 
     beans for which they purchased the permits. Dry beans may 
     store for longer periods of time than some wheat and some 
     corn, and certainly longer than pork and beef, but they 
     will not store forever. Facing such restrictions and 
     uncertainties is harmful to American producers.


        ROGER HICKERT, President, Colorado Livestock Association

       Cattle prices historically run in ten-year cycles. The last 
     ten years, however, between natural occurrences and various 
     issues within the industry, have brought significant changes 
     to those cycles. In the early 1990's, specifically the winter 
     of 1992, the industry saw big losses in the feeding industry 
     along the high plains of the Texas Panhandle, Oklahoma, and 
     Southwest Kansas. This resulted in a gap in the market and 
     extremely high prices in 1993. As soon as the inventory was 
     there, however, the market immediately corrected itself and 
     that created extreme lows and major losses for the industry. 
     Those losses now have extended for approximately five years 
     and have been stretched out somewhat by the concentration in 
     the industry. This concentration appears to have extended to 
     the feeding industry as well as the packing industry and has 
     created a whole new business atmosphere with different 
     players and different reporting practices.
       The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) in its 
     last convention moved to support mandatory price reporting of 
     all live sales. This issue is a two-edged sword because not 
     only would the high prices being eliminated need to be 
     reported, but so would the unreported low prices. Most 
     producers probably would not come in and say ``well, I sold 
     cattle today for $0.58 even though the price is $0.62.'' 
     Those are going to show up and probably change the average, 
     so again, it is a two-edged sword. But it would help to 
     determine what the good cattle are selling for.
       Many of the problems faced by the industry, particularly 
     the equity loss incurred over the past twelve months, have 
     been some of the most tremendous ever faced by the feeding 
     industry. Much of it can be attributed to indications the 
     cattle industry was at a bullish point in the cycle and many 
     in the industry moved away from risk management and dropped 
     positions on the futures board. For many big companies, like 
     Coke Industries, the loss was just too extreme to stay in the 
     feeding business.
       Another issue is the movement toward more alliances. 
     Producer, feeder, and packer alliances are beginning to 
     become the branded product, and as the industry moves toward 
     branded products, producers and feeders will have to be very 
     careful which brand or alliance they get into. Dr. Gary Smith 
     of Colorado State University (CSU) suggests that in the next 
     five years, those not involved in an alliance will probably 
     not be here in the next five years, and that choosing an 
     alliance will probably be the most important decision they 
     make within that time period.
       A significant concern for the industry right now is the 
     European Union (EU) hormone ban on beef, particularly since 
     exports account for 10 percent of the industry's business. 
     This ban is nothing more than a trade barrier because there 
     is no scientific evidence anything is wrong with the meat. It 
     is simply a way to deny market-share to U.S. producers. The 
     American beef producer can compete with anybody in the world 
     on a level playing field, but they cannot compete against 
     Canadian producers who benefit from heavy grain subsidies and 
     can feed cattle for half the price. It is not fair that 
     Canadian producers benefit from this subsidy and then haul 
     their live cattle to local areas to be slaughtered and 
     stamped by the USDA.
       While the Colorado Livestock Association has officially 
     taken a neutral stance on the country-of-origin labeling 
     issue, it is certainly one with which the industry must 
     contend. There are many in and out of the industry calling 
     for such labeling, but such a policy, if enacted, could work 
     both ways for the U.S. industry. The more informed consumer, 
     it is believed, will prefer to purchase U.S. beef, which is 
     widely considered to be the best and cheapest product 
     available in the world. But there are some among the public 
     who may decide for whatever reason to purchase Australian or 
     Argentinean grass-fed beef instead.
       Congress must also work to pressure federal agencies to cut 
     down on unnecessary regulatory burdens. Environmental 
     regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, in 
     particular, have grown ever more restrictive and 
     significantly cut into agriculture profits. The industry is 
     working hard to stay ahead of the regulations, but many 
     smaller feed lots find it very difficult to afford the 
     $15,000 to $20,000 just to keep up with the environmental 
     regulations.


                 JERRY SONNENBERG, Colorado Farm Bureau

       It is important any environmental regulations promulgated 
     by the EPA be based upon sound science. These regulatory 
     burdens do cost a lot of money and do cut down on 
     profitability and productivity, but if they are deemed to be 
     absolutely necessary, they must work for everybody and be 
     backed by sound science.
       Country-of-origin labeling is an important policy to 
     implement. There are some who may prefer Australian or 
     Argentinean beef, but the fact is most consumers believe 
     American producers raise the best and safest commodities and 
     food in the world and we should be confident and proud to put 
     our name on it.
       It is imperative the United States works to open foreign 
     markets. As mentioned earlier, the more than 70 countries 
     currently sanctioned by the U.S. government represents a 
     significant market for the U.S. agriculture industry. 
     Agriculture generally takes the brunt of most imposed 
     sanctions, and when U.S. products are denied access to a 
     market, another exporting country will supply the product in 
     our place.
       We must not eliminate and sanction foreign markets at a 
     time when world population is forecast to increase, and 
     possibly double, within the next 50 to 60 years. The United 
     States has a surplus of agricultural products, yet 25 percent 
     of the world is considered to be under-nourished. The U.S. 
     must find ways to deliver its goods to that 25 percent, 
     whether through the utilization of the Export Enhancement 
     Program (EEP) or through other means.
       The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has really tied the hands 
     of American producers domestically through its use of 
     ambiguous and disputable policies and restrictions. In 
     particular, the designation and regulation of potential 
     Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse habitat land has not been based 
     upon known facts or sound science. For example, at the same 
     time the Fish and Wildlife Service documents the mouse never 
     strays beyond 150 feet from waterways, the EPA is calling for 
     a 300-foot buffer. The EPA's regulation simply does not 
     correspond with the known facts and science as documented by 
     the agency with jurisdiction over the issue. The burden of 
     proof must lie with the federal government in proving beyond 
     a doubt the presence of this species, in addition to 
     documented proof it is in fact threatened, before imposing 
     burdensome regulations on America's farmers and ranchers.


      RON OHLSON, Director, Yuma County Farm Service Agency (FSA)

       The role of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is to work face 
     to face with local producers and help them utilize available 
     programs and tools. When assisting with programs such as the 
     Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program, the fewer levels of 
     bureaucracy the program must pass through on the way to the 
     producer, the better. This program, for instance,

[[Page 12551]]

     looks nothing like the plan originally passed by the Congress 
     because of all the bureaucracy. There should be some way for 
     local FSA representatives to make minor policy changes and 
     avoid duplication with other agencies in order to better 
     serve producers. Over the past seven or eight years there has 
     also been a deterioration in the grass-roots nature of 
     coordination and assistance. Now, local control is 
     increasingly considered to be an area, state, or regional 
     office. This assistance must continue to be administered by 
     those who know the producers and their needs best.
       While a number of farm programs are supposed to be phased 
     out under the Farm Bill, agency staff is being reduced faster 
     than the programs they are expected to administer. Ongoing 
     programs are difficult to maintain, particularly when 
     insufficient staff is available to administer and implement 
     the large, ad-hoc programs that develop quickly and 
     unexpectedly like this Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program. 
     County offices must be given the time and ability to 
     implement the programs correctly and efficiently the first 
     time. The implementation software for this particular 
     program, for instance, did not arrive from Washington, D.C. 
     in a timely manner and it made things very difficult.
       It is getting to the point that many offices do not know 
     how they are going to handle the high workload. The counties 
     of Eastern Colorado have among the largest workload around. 
     The seven counties in this district have a higher workload 
     than Utah and Nevada. Large programs and tasks are delivered 
     to the understaffed offices as priority items but none of 
     their other projects can be set aside or delayed. The level 
     of paperwork is immense too--it might be helpful to revisit 
     the Paperwork Reduction Act to determine if it is being fully 
     implemented.
       Many producers in this area are also very concerned about 
     the Kyoto treaty. This treaty, if approved and implemented, 
     will have a severe impact on the agriculture industry, 
     which is expected to shoulder a large share of the burden.


  deb nichols, executive administrator, irrigation research foundation

       The Irrigation Research Foundation is a privately owned, 
     non-profit, independent research and demonstration site. It 
     is the only research station focusing on irrigation and is 
     located over the Ogallala Aquifer. The primary purpose is to 
     find ways to make production more economical and to 
     demonstrate wise water use.
       Earlier this decade, a group of local producers wanted to 
     see studies useful to their own production and throughout the 
     region. It was important to know what populations to plan, 
     ways to work with soil compaction to produce better yields, 
     different options for setting up variety trials, how to make 
     more of a profit, and a way to see all of the different 
     companies side-by-side to inspect their premier varieties. Ed 
     and Jessie Troutman purchased a quarter of land north of Yuma 
     in January 1994 from the Dekalb Seed Company and established 
     the Irrigation Research Foundation. Today, the foundation has 
     a board made up of diversified, farm-oriented individuals, 
     both retired and working, who represent the banking industry, 
     the insurance industry, dairy associations, cattle producers, 
     commercial fertilizer sales people, and individuals from the 
     University Cooperative Extension.
       Some of the crops raised in 1998 were corn, wheat, 
     sunflowers, soybeans, pinto beans, milo, sugar beets, millet, 
     canola, field peas, and cotton. There is a silage plot, Iowa 
     corn, transgenetic corn resistant to specific insects, a corn 
     population study, herbicide-resistant corn, and the premier 
     corn study is the water and nutrient management study.
       The Irrigation Research Foundation works with Dr. Maudie L. 
     Casey, a water specialist from Colorado State University 
     (CSU), on a study which looks at variable fertilizer rates, 
     population levels, and irrigation rates. This study is 
     designed to determine the optimum which will produce the 
     greatest profit, not necessarily the greatest yield.
       In 1998, the foundation acquired a 5-year lease of dry land 
     from the City of Yuma. While the primary focus of the 
     Irrigation Research Foundation is on water, dry land research 
     is also very important to many members. Evolving technology 
     has presented new ways to manage dry land. The foundation is 
     demonstrating ways to use continual cropping with various 
     rotations to not only produce an annual yield, but also to at 
     the same time preserve the soil, reduce wind erosion, and 
     help wildlife.
       The Irrigation Research Foundation also provides various 
     forms of public service to the community. The foundation is 
     currently arranging to hold several classes for the community 
     through Morgan Community College, there are sugar beet 
     planter test days where producers can have their equipment 
     tested free of cost, training is available for commercial 
     applicators and emergency personnel in the handling of 
     hazardous products, such as fertilizers, chemicals, 
     pesticides, and herbicides. The foundation also produces for 
     the public an informative annual report and holds several 
     field days throughout the year. Wheat field days are held 
     in June, sugar beet days are held in September, and the 
     premier show is the Farm Show held in August which allows 
     affiliated companies to showcase their products, provides 
     an opportunity for producers to learn about the 
     foundation's studies, and presents an opportunity for many 
     individuals in the industry to interact with one another.


     Ross Tuell, Member, Yuma County Economic Development Committee

       The Yuma County Economic Development Committee is funded by 
     the County of Yuma and the two cities of Yuma and Wray. The 
     committee focuses primarily on retaining and expanding 
     existing businesses by serving as an information service, 
     helping write business plans, locate funding sources, and 
     complete documents and forms. The committee also looks to add 
     value to existing operations and add new businesses to the 
     community. The most important effort is keeping producers on 
     the farm, otherwise we lose them and the stores in town that 
     serve them. One challenge is balancing the positives and 
     negatives of expanding economic growth. The bigger the farms 
     get, which they presently are, the larger the pieces of 
     equipment they require, which means fewer implement dealers, 
     fewer employees, and fewer businesses in town.
       From a producer's standpoint, the policies that would help 
     agriculture the most are those which would expand markets and 
     reduce burdensome regulations and expenses. Specifically, the 
     Congress and the president should work to enact Fast Track 
     trade negotiating authority, eliminate the death tax, cut 
     capital gains taxes, and lower the marginal income tax rate.
       While some opposed to cutting capital gains taxes and the 
     death tax claim it benefits only the extraordinarily rich in 
     the country, it is simply not the case. The extremely wealthy 
     do not worry much about these taxes. If they have something 
     they want to sell or bequeath, they are going to do it anyway 
     and the tax is not going to affect them much. But family 
     farms are different. Families must sell the farm just to pay 
     the taxes and then nothing is left.
       Furthermore, as mentioned earlier in the forum, the U.S. 
     must revise its policy regarding the sanctions currently 
     imposed on over 70 countries. As Dr. Barry Flinsbaugh from 
     Kansas State University (KSU) has stated, if the U.S. is 
     going to continue using food as a weapon, we ought to change 
     the way we do it. Instead of holding it back, we should 
     simply give it to them. We are not fighting the people who 
     are starving, we are fighting governments, and the 
     governments do not care that the people are starving, which 
     is why we have human rights concerns in the first place. It 
     is much easier to throw forty metric tons of wheat at them 
     than it is to throw a million-dollar piece of electronic 
     hardware at them.


                 Dave Thomas, Yuma County Commissioner

       Commissioner Thomas addressed his comments to me. He said, 
     ``Congressman, I would like to thank you for coming to Yuma 
     County and for being our voice in Washington because we have 
     a lot of concerns here today. I know you will carry those 
     forward. All of the concerns mentioned today affect Eastern 
     Colorado and I know you will be our voice.''


          Cindy Hickert, Former Washington County Commissioner

       While not a resident of Yuma County, Commissioner Hickert 
     does conduct business here. For one reason or another, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been exerting more 
     pressure on the Health Department to develop more of a paper 
     trail. It should really be more important to get things done 
     correctly than to concentrate more staff on creating a paper 
     trail. As was mentioned earlier in the forum, any new 
     regulations and restrictions must be based upon sound 
     science.
       Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by thanking all of the 
     participants for their input. Mr. Tim Stulp moderated the 
     forum and did an outstanding job of drawing many helpful 
     thoughts and comments from our expert panel of speakers. I 
     might also point out Mr. Speaker, that mid-way through the 
     forum, Mr. Combest of Texas addressed the crowd, by telephone 
     and loudspeaker, and assured Colorado producers of efforts in 
     the House to strengthen America's agriculture economy.

     

                          ____________________



               INTRODUCTION OF ROCKY FLATS OPEN SPACE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Rocky 
Flats Open Space Act. This legislation will preserve important open 
space and wildlife resources of this former nuclear weapons production 
facility in the heart of a major metropolitan area.
  The Rocky Flats facility sits on land purchased by the federal 
government in the early 1950s for the production of nuclear weapons 
components. Since 1992, Rocky Flats' mission has changed from 
production of nuclear weapons components to managing wastes and 
materials and, cleaning up and converting the site

[[Page 12552]]

to beneficial uses in a manner that is safe, environmentally and 
socially responsible, physically secure, and cost-effective.
  The land at Rocky Flats is generally divided into a buffer zone of 
about 6,000-acres and an industrial area of about 385-acres. The 
industrial area contains the building and facilities that were used to 
manufacture nuclear weapons components. The buffer zone has been 
generally used as an open space perimeter around the centrally located 
industrial area.
  Since it was established in 1951, the Rocky Flats buffer zone has 
remained essentially undisturbed. This land possesses an impressive 
diversity of wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. It 
also represents one of the last sections of critical open space that 
makes up the striking Front Range mountain backdrop.
  The concept of preserving this land as open space is not new. 
Recently, the city of Westminster, Colorado, just east of Rocky Flats, 
conducted a citywide poll asking residents how they thought the Rocky 
Flats site should be managed into the future. The results of that poll 
were released in February 1999 and they show that people overwhelmingly 
support the preservation of Rocky Flats as open space. In fact, 88 
percent of the respondents picked open space as the preferred land use. 
Additionally, from 1993 to 1995, The Rocky Flats Future Site Use 
Working Group, composed of a broad range of local community 
representatives and the public, evaluated the potential future uses of 
the Rocky Flats site. In 1995, the Group issued a set of 
recommendations, which included keeping the buffer zone in open space. 
Furthermore, the 1996 Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement and corresponding 
Rocky Flats Vision Statement, the documents which govern cleanup of the 
site, contemplate open space uses for the buffer zone. In short, my 
bill reflects the preferences of the citizens who live around the site 
by designating the buffer zone as open space.
  Just last month, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson designated about 
800 acres of the northwest section of the buffer zone as the Rock Creek 
Reserve to preserve and protect the important wildlife, cultural and 
open space resources of this area. My bill complements the Secretary's 
action by acknowledging the important wildlife and open space 
opportunities of the entire buffer zone. Because a number of future 
management decisions still need to be made, my bill also creates a 
Rocky Flats Open Space Advisory Council, composed of representatives of 
the communities, citizens and state and federal agencies, to make 
recommendations as to how the buffer zone should be managed as open 
space.
  It is important that there be a rational and more predictable process 
for addressing land use and the open space potential of Rocky Flats. My 
bill ensures that state and local government will have a seat at the 
table in determining the future of land use at Rocky Flats.
  In addition, it is important to underscore that my bill will not 
affect the ongoing cleanup and closure activities at Rocky Flats. My 
bill encourages DOE to remain on track for the cleanup and closure of 
the site by the year 2006. It also directs that the bill's provisions 
for open space management cannot be used to establish cleanup levels 
for the site, and instead directs that the appropriate cleanup levels 
be based on public health and safety considerations.
  Specifically, the Rocky Flats Open Space Act would declare that the 
lands owned by the federal government at Rocky Flats will remain in 
federal ownership, and that the lands comprising the buffer zone (about 
6,000-acres) remain as open space. Additionally, the bill would create 
an Open Space Advisory Council, comprised of representatives of the 
local community and citizens, to make recommendations on the 
appropriate entity to manage the wildlife, wildlife habitat and open 
space resources of the buffer zone. The advisory council would also 
provide any other advice on how this open space resource should be 
managed. Furthermore, the bill would stipulate that the U.S. Department 
of Energy continues with all required cleanup and closure activities.
  The bill would not establish the Rocky Flats industrial area as open 
space, but that would not be precluded by the bill if the communities 
find such use appropriate. Similarly, the bill won't affect the scope 
and schedule of cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats--it does not hamper 
achieving a cleanup and closure by the year 2006--or affect the 
historic former Lindsey Ranch Homestead facilities that presently exist 
in the buffer zone. It also won't affect the recently created Rock 
Creek Reserve established by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service for about 800-acres in the northwest area of 
the buffer zone.

                          ____________________



      CONGRATULATING CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER FIVE ANTONIO B. ECLAVEA

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD

                                of guam

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend and congratulate 
Chief Warrant Officer Five Antonio B. Eclavea, a native son of Guam, on 
his very distinguished career and well-earned retirement. CW5 Eclavea 
has made his contribution to the strength and security of our nation 
through his faithful and professional military service.
  By having been one of the first soldiers ever to be promoted to the 
grade of Chief Warrant Officer Five (CW5), Antonio B. Eclavea has 
brought great recognition to himself, the island of Guam and her 
people. Although the first warrant officers promoted to the rank of CW5 
were selected in 1992, it was not until 1993 that the United States 
Army first appointed active duty CW5's. CW5 Eclavea holds the 
distinction of being the first Army warrant officer promoted to CW5 in 
the Adjutant General Corps.
  Born on September 9, 1934, in the city of Hagatna, CW5 Eclavea 
initially served in the military through the United States Air Force. 
Attaining the rank of Master Sergeant, he made a career move and joined 
the Army in 1969. After eleven years, he traded his Air Force stripes 
for warrant officer's bars.
  For over four decades CW5 Eclavea served at various posts, including 
tours of duty in Vietnam, Taiwan, Germany, and the Republic of Korea. 
He was also stationed at a number of stateside locations, earning the 
respect and admiration of superiors and troops. In addition to 
completing the Army Adjutant General Course and the Master Warrant 
Officer Course, he also received a Bachelor of Science degree in 
Economics and Business Administration from Marymount College. Awards 
and decorations conferred to him include, among others, the 
Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious 
Service Medal, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, the Army 
Commendation Medal, and the Army Achievement Medal. Currently the most 
senior warrant officer in the United States Army, he is serving in his 
final assignment as the Assistant Executive Officer to the Army Chief 
of Staff.
  CW5 Eclavea's distinguished military career is a source of pride for 
the people of Guam. I congratulate CW5 Eclavea on his outstanding 
achievements. Together with the people of Guam, I join his wife, Rose 
Marie, and his sons Johnny, Anthony, Michael, and Mark, in proudly 
celebrating his great accomplishments. I hope that he enjoys his well-
earned retirement and wish him the best in his future endeavors.

                          ____________________



                    IN HONOR OF NELSON CINTRON, JR.

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the first Hispanic 
Councilman in the City of Cleveland, Nelson Cintron, Jr.
  Mr. Cintron has had many extraordinary accomplishments as a city 
councilman. He expanded the Puerto Rican Parade from 1 day to 4 days 
thus creating the Puerto Rican Society of Cleveland. Fulfilling a 
promise he made to his father, he brought the first 24 hours a day 
Hispanic Radio Station to Cleveland through Cablevision in 1991. He was 
also the first to win local primaries for Cleveland City councilman 
1989, 1993, and to win the election in 1997, thus fulfilling another 
one of his life long dreams.
  Mr. Cintron has also been an outstanding leader in his community. He 
is currently a member of several clubs and community organizations 
including: Alma Yaucana Club, Azteca Club, San Lorenzo Club, the Puerto 
Rican Society of Cleveland, Spanish American Committee, the Ohio Latin 
Broadcasting Inc, St. Michael Church, Latinos Unidos and the Hispanic 
Club.
  Through his hard work and dedication to helping the Puerto Ricans in 
Cleveland, Mr. Cintron has set an example of what can be accomplished 
and has been a positive role model for the Hispanic community in 
Cleveland. Mr. Cintron is a tremendous inspiration to all Americans. 
Through his strong devotion he has been an exceptional leader in the 
Puerto Rican Community and has helped them make a name for themselves.
  My fellow colleagues, please join me in honoring Nelson Cintron, Jr., 
a dear friend and the


first Hispanic Councilman for the City of Cleveland.

                          ____________________


[[Page 12553]]

                     TAIWAN TO AID KOSOVAR REFUGEES

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. DANA ROHRABACHER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend President Lee Teng-
hui of Taiwan, who has announced Taiwan's decision to provide $300 
million in aid for Kosovar refugees and the reconstruction of war-torn 
areas of Kosovo. The aid includes emergency food and shelter for 
Kosovar evacuees in Macedonia, as well as short-term occupational 
training in Taiwan to help refugees speed the reconstruction of war-
ravaged areas.
  President Lee and the government and people of Taiwan are to be 
congratulated for voluntarily participating in the international relief 
effort for the people of Kosovo. Their actions are in stark contrast to 
People's Republic of China's hostile attitude toward the United States 
and NATO and their political obstruction to maintaining peace in the 
fragile democratic nation of Macedonia. This generous humanitarian 
action by Taiwan, a nation of 21 million freedom loving people, who 
live in the threatening shadow of tyranny imposed on mainland China, 
emphasizes the reason that the United States must remain a loyal friend 
and unwaveringly support the defense of freedom for the Taiwanese 
people.
  I am enclosing for the record a copy of President Lee's June 7, 1999 
presidential statement regarding assistance to Kosovar refugees.

    Presidential Statement Regarding Assistance to Kosovar Refugees

       The huge numbers of Kosovar casualties and refugees from 
     the Kosovo area resulting from the NATO-Yugoslavia conflict 
     in the Balkans have captured close world-wide attention. From 
     the very outset, the government of the ROC has been deeply 
     concerned and we are carefully monitoring the situation's 
     development.
       We in the Republic of China were pleased to learn last week 
     that Yugoslavia President Slobodan Milosevic has accepted the 
     peace plan for the Kosovo crisis proposed by the Group of 
     Eight countries, for which specific peace agreements are 
     being worked out.
       The Republic of China wholeheartedly looks forward to the 
     dawning of peace on the Balkans. For more than two months, we 
     have been concerned about the plight of the hundreds of 
     thousands of Kosovar refugees who were forced to flee to 
     other countries, particularly from the vantage point of our 
     emphasis on protecting human rights. We thereby organized a 
     Republic of China aid mission to Kosovo. Carrying essential 
     relief items, the mission made a special trip to the refugee 
     camps in Macedonia to lend a helping hand.
       Today, as we anticipate a critical moment of forth-coming 
     peace, I hereby make the following statement to the 
     international community on behalf of all the nationals of the 
     Republic of China:
       As a member of the world community committee to protecting 
     and promoting human rights, the Republic of China would like 
     to develop further the spirit of humanitarian concern for the 
     Kosovar refugees living in exile as well as for the war-torn 
     areas in dire need of reconstruction. We will provide a grant 
     aid equivalent to about US $300 million. The aid will consist 
     of the following:
       1. Emergency support for food, shelters, medical care, and 
     education, etc., for the Kosovar refugees, living in exile in 
     neighboring countries.
       2. Short-term accommodations for some of the refugees in 
     Taiwan, with opportunities of job training in order for them 
     to be better equipped for the restoration of their homeland 
     upon their return.
       3. Furthermore, support the rehabilitation of the Kosovo 
     area in coordination with international long-term recovery 
     programs when the peace plan is implemented.
       We earnestly hope that the above-mentioned aid will 
     contribute to the promotion of the peace plan for Kosovo. I 
     wish all the refugees an early return to their safe and 
     peaceful Kosovo homes.

     

                          ____________________



        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. MAXINE WATERS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 9, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this unjust and unfair 
rule. The Majority Leadership is still refusing to allow several 
Democratic amendments to be considered by this House. I am especially 
opposed to this rule because my amendments to extend Section 2323 of 
Title X of the U.S. Code were not ruled in order.
  Section 2323 established a five percent contract goal for small 
disadvantaged businesses and certain institutions of higher education, 
including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-
serving institutions. Achieving this modest goal is the objective of 
the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard and NASA. This important law 
is scheduled to expire in the year 2000.
  I proposed two amendments to extend Section 2323 beyond the year 2000 
and improve the implementation of this important provision of law. My 
colleague, Ms. Velazquez, also proposed two amendments to extend and 
modify Section 2323. So there were four different proposals regarding 
contracting for small disadvantaged businesses and minority 
institutions and none of them were ruled in order by the Republican 
leadership.
  Recent trends have provided compelling evidence for the continuing 
need for affirmative action goals in Federal contracting. Following the 
Adarand v. Pena decision by the Supreme Court, the Federal Government 
undertook a review of affirmative action programs, and subsequently, 17 
of these programs were altered or eliminated.
  These changes have led to a significant drop in the number of Federal 
contracts awarded to minorities and women. For example, in 1995, the 
Department of Energy, which contracts out 80 percent of its purchases 
of goods and services, awarded $215.8 million in contracts to women and 
minority-owned businesses. In 1997, the amount dropped to $66.1 
million. It would be extremely unfortunate if a similar decrease in 
Federal contracting with minority-owned businesses were to occur at the 
Department of Defense, the Coast Guard and NASA.
  Section 2323 is a modest goal to encourage contracts with minority-
owned businesses and other small businesses. As a result of this 
provision, many businesses owned by socially and economically 
disadvantaged individuals have been able to compete for, have been 
awarded and have executed Defense, NASA and Coast Guard contracts. 
Section 2323 has allowed small disadvantaged businesses and minority 
institutions of higher education to make a positive contribution to the 
national security of the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this unjust rule and support a fair 
rule that will allow the Members of this House to consider the 
extension of Section 2323.

                          ____________________



                  A TRIBUTE TO THE LATE MICKEY MENDOZA

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late 
Mickey Mendoza of Saddle Brook, New Jersey, a young man whose life was 
ended in a tragic incident in Ecuador on April 11, 1999. Regrettably, 
to this day, no full explanation has been offered by Ecuadorian 
officials to describe the circumstances surrounding Mickey's death. All 
that we know for sure is that a bullet from a gun belonging to a police 
officer in Guayquil, Ecuador senselessly ended the life of a promising 
fourteen-year-old American citizen.
  I met with Mickey's parents, Galo and Doris and their three children 
shortly after this death and I know the pain they are enduring. Today I 
have come to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to say that 
I fully share the Mendoza family's desire to get to the bottom of how 
Mickey died. They are owed this answer and I intend to continue my work 
with U.S. officials in Ecuador to ensure that they get a full 
accounting of what led to Mickey's death.
  Mickey Mendoza was, in almost all respects, living the American 
dream. He was a bright and energetic student at Saddle Brook Middle 
School. He was active in sports, taking part in his school's wrestling 
team and playing soccer in a recreational league. In addition, after 
school, Mickey was attending confirmation classes at Mount Virgin Roman 
Catholic Church in Garfield, New Jersey. His creativity, his energy, 
his thoughtfulness, and all this has been taken from us.
  Father Paul Bochicchia, pastor of Mickey's church, after learning of 
his death, recounted

[[Page 12554]]

that Mickey was especially protective of his little nine-year-old 
sister, Isabella. What better tribute than to remember Mickey as a 
fourteen-year-old boy who cared for his little sister. This tells us 
everything we need to know about who Mickey was and why his death has 
touched the lives of so many people.
  Among the many messages of sympathy that the Mendoza family have 
received, I read one that I would like to share with my colleagues. 
This letter was written by Anthony Maneri, Mickey's classmate at Saddle 
Brook Middle School; ``Mickey was a great pal. He always could make you 
laugh, even at sad times. He always knew the right things to say to 
make people laugh. He was a great friend and I am going to miss him. I 
will never forget him.''

                          ____________________



   PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS: A MODEL IN SCHOOL VIOLENCE 
                               PREVENTION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. STENY H. HOYER

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate 
the Prince George's County School System as one of our Nation's most 
innovative and successful school violence prevention programs. In the 
wake of the tragedies at Columbine and Conyers High School, it is 
important to highlight those schools which serve as a model for other 
school districts to follow.
  As the 18th largest school district in the nation, the faculty and 
staff of the Prince George's County Public School system educates one 
of the most diverse student populations of any district in the Nation. 
This week, as we continue our dialogue and focus on solutions to making 
our schools a safer place to learn, perhaps we can look to many of the 
programs already in place in Prince George's County and across the 
State of Maryland.
  Under the direction of retiring Superintendent Dr. Jerome Clark and 
Dr. Patricia Green, Chief, Divisional Administrator for Pupil Services, 
Prince George's County has implemented a regimen of programs including 
peer mediation, early intervention, and placement of probation 
specialists within schools.
  The Peer Mediation program has been one of the most successful. By 
placing a peer mediation teacher on staff at each of the 20 high 
schools and 26 middle schools, students are learning now to intervene 
and peacefully resolve conflicts. The program has recently been 
instituted on the elementary school level where teachers and guidance 
counselors at more than 100 of the district's elementary schools are 
trained on the importance of creating a healthy learning environment.
  Another program, called the ``Justice in Cluster Program'' has been 
so successful that the State of Maryland used the program as the model 
to create the statewide ``Spotlight on Schools.'' By teaming up with 
the Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice, each cluster of schools is 
able to provide two probation specialists who work with the local high 
school, middle school, and elementary schools to assist guidance 
counselors, peer mediation teachers, school psychologists, and 
administrators in working with troubled students and ensuring that they 
remain out of the juvenile justice system.
  Early intervention programs are also proving to be successful. 
``Second Step,'' a program featured in a 1997 study by the University 
of Washington, teaches children to change attitudes which may lead to 
violent behavior. Through learning empathy, impulse control and anger 
management, students in kindergarten through grade six are learning how 
to react nonviolently to various situations. The program is currently 
in place in 67 elementary schools and the Prince George's County School 
System has been asked by the Maryland State Department of Education to 
become the regional training center so that other school districts can 
replicate this successful program.
  These are just three of the many positive programs being implemented 
just beyond the borders of our Nation's Capitol. With a number of 
successful federal programs in place like D.A.R.E., G.R.E.A.T., and the 
COPS program, we are in a position to provide a comprehensive plan for 
reducing school violence. I salute the Prince George's County Public 
School System for its dedication to safety and encourage my colleagues 
to look to this school system as one which may have solutions to the 
many problems facing our education system.

                          ____________________



       IN HONOR OF SAINT ALOYSIUS PARISH ON ITS 100TH ANNIVERSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Saint 
Aloysius Parish of Cleveland, Ohio on its 100th anniversary.
  The church serves its parishioners and the communities of Glenville 
and South Collinwood through education, social services and the 
preservation of faith values. Two schools, St. Aloysius and St. 
Joseph's, offer education to students in kindergarten through eighth 
grade. The schools are known for their excellence in academics and the 
strong sense of community between teachers, students and parents. St. 
Aloysius reaches out to community members of all faiths through its 
social services operations. The church runs a food distribution program 
that provides 700 to 800 bags of food to needy families in the area 
once a month. Working with nearby parishes and local food banks, the 
church also provides a hot meal program every Tuesday which serves up 
to 700 hot meals.
  St. Aloysius was founded in 1898 by Rev. Msgr. Joseph Smith for the 
area's predominantly Irish-American population. As the population in 
the area changed, the pastors worked to improve racial relations in the 
area. Today, the parish serves the present African-American community.
  In 1974, the parish merged with neighboring St. Agatha Church. The 
tight-knit parish community worships in the church known as ``the 
Cathedral of Glenville'' and prides itself on knowing all its members.
  St. Aloysius has been celebrating its 100th anniversary since last 
summer. Parishioners have been commemorating their church's history by 
celebrating Mass, holding cultural events and creating a memories wall 
with photos of past and present members.
  As a honorary committee member of the St. Aloysius parish I take 
great pride in commending the entire congregation on its century of 
serving the community through faith, education and outreach programs. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in wishing the St. Aloysius community 
many years of continued success.

                          ____________________



         INTRODUCTION OF THE JAMES PEAK WILDERNESS ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the James 
Peak Wilderness Act of 1999. This legislation will provide important 
protection and management for some striking mountain open space along 
Colorado's Continental Divide west of Denver. These lands, which 
include the 13,294-foot James Peak, are the heart of the largest 
unprotected roadless area on the northern Front Range.
  The James Peak area that will be protected by my bill offers 
outstanding recreational opportunities for hiking, skiing, fishing, and 
backpacking, including the popular South Boulder Creek trail and along 
the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. James Peak is one of the 
highest rated areas for biological diversity on the entire Arapaho 
National Forest, including unique habitat for wildlife, miles of 
riparian corridors, stands of old growth forests, and threatened and 
endangered species. The area includes a dozen spectacularly situated 
alpine lakes, including Forest Lakes, Arapaho Lakes, and Heart Lake. 
Many sensitive species such as wolverine, lynx, and pine marten only 
thrive in wilderness settings. Adding James Peak to the chain of 
protected lands (wilderness and National Park lands) from Berthoud Pass 
to the Wyoming State line will promote movement of these species and 
improve their chances for survival.
  My bill will designate 22,000-acres of the James Peak roadless area 
as wilderness. This area will be added to the Colorado Wilderness Act 
of 1993--the last major wilderness legislation passed for federal 
public lands in Colorado. Last year, my predecessor, Congressman David 
Skaggs, introduced a similar bill that would have protected 15,850-
acres of the James Peak roadless area as wilderness. The increase in my 
bill is due to the inclusion of lands with Grand County that were 
excluded from the Skaggs bill. These acres were included to preserve 
the integrity of the James Peak area and protect important lands within 
this roadless area in Grand County. My bill also does not include 7 
small wilderness additions that were in Skaggs' bill. I am evaluating 
these lands for a possible future bill.
  My bill also includes provisions encouraging the Forest Service to 
acquire two in holdings

[[Page 12555]]

within the proposed wilderness in Grand County. These lands are a 
section of State Land Board Land and a private mining claim. My bill 
will also address the need to provide facilities at the Alice Township 
and St. Mary's Glacier. This area is experiencing increasing use as a 
forest access point, and there is a need to supply adequate services 
for visitors in this area. My bill will also direct the Forest Service 
to remove an abandoned radio tower facility on Mt. Eva near James Peak.
  As my bill will be an addition to the Colorado Wilderness Act of 
1993, the James Peak Wilderness will be subject to the water provisions 
of that Act thus avoiding potential conflicts related to water. In 
addition, James Peak is a headwaters area, so there will be no 
conflicts with existing water rights.
  As wilderness, the James Peak area also will be subject to the 
Wilderness Act of 1964. Under this Act, activities such as hiking, 
horseback riding, hunting, fishing, rafting, canoeing, cross-country 
skiing and scientific research are allowed. In addition, use of 
wheelchairs, treatment of diseases and insects, fire suppression 
activities and research and rescue activities will be allowed. 
Activities that would be excluded include motorized vehicle use, 
mining, timber harvesting, oil and gas drilling, road building and the 
use of motorized and mechanized equipment. In addition, my bill has 
been drafted in such a way as to avoid conflicts and to address 
concerns that were expressed during the development of Representative 
Skaggs' bill. Specifically, my bill addresses the following issues:
  Private Lands. My bill is drawn to avoid potential conflicts with 
private interests by excluding private lands and facilities.
  Recreation: My bill does not include the Rollins Pass road between 
the James Peak roadless area and the existing Indian Peaks Wilderness 
Area to the north. This road is used for recreational access for 
mountain bikers and snowmobiles. In addition, areas along the proposed 
western boundary within Grand County have been excluded from my bill to 
address recreational access to area and trails used by mountain bikers 
and snowmobiles. These areas include the Jim Creek drainage and the 
area south of the Rollins Pass road on the Grand County side.
  Search and Rescue. As already provided by the Wilderness Act, 
activities related to the health and safety of persons within the area 
will be allowed, including the need to use mechanized equipment to 
perform search and rescue activities.
  Timer and minerals. About one-third of the area is timbered--or 
8,300-acres--and one-third of this is old growth. Steep slopes and lack 
of road make the area's timber uneconomic to harvest. The area has low 
mineral potential.
  Grazing. The area contains only one active grazing allotment with a 
yearly stocking level of 60 cows and calves. Under the Wilderness Act 
grazing can continue.

                          ____________________



          101ST ANNIVERSARY OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE PHILIPPINES

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD

                                of guam

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, June 12, 1999, the 
Republic of the Philippines and Filipinos all over the world will 
commemorate the 101st anniversary of the proclamation of their 
independence from Spain.
  Outside the group of ecstatic, enlightened and freedom-loving 
patriots from within the archipelago's more than 7,000 islands, very 
few people were even remotely aware of the implications of the summer 
day's events of June 12, 1898. A century later, we have come to 
recognize the significance of the proclamation read from a balcony in 
Kawit, Cavite, 101 years ago.
  This manifesto, closely resembling the document our forefathers 
signed in 1776, has come to symbolize a people's aspiration, desire and 
capacity to stand their ground, take control and chart their own 
destiny. On June 12, 1898, the Filipino people boldly declared that the 
desire to be a free republic is not a uniquely Western concept. The day 
General Emilio Aguinaldo first unfurled the Filipino flag amidst the 
inspiring strains of the Philippine National Anthem signalled the birth 
of the first republic in Asia, an event witnessed by jubilant Filipinos 
and curious foreign observers alike. For the first time, a political 
system dedicated to the ideals of democracy and popular representative 
government was instituted in a part of the world that, until that day, 
had automatically been associated with tyranny and despotism.
  Although short-lived, this declaration is testament to a freedom-
loving nation's devotion to the ideals of liberty and democracy. The 
events of June 12, 1898, rejected oppression and foreign domination. It 
has served as an inspiration to other peoples suffering from 
colonialism.
  The people of Guam share deep cultural and historical ties with the 
Philippines. The island's population includes a large number of 
Filipino immigrants. Over the years, as in numerous other locales, they 
have integrated themselves with the island community and made 
themselves a vital force in the development and growth of Guam.
  I am honored to join the Filipino people in the commemoration and 
celebration of their history. I extend my congratulations to them on 
the 101st anniversary of the declaration of Philippine independence.

                          ____________________



   INTRODUCTION OF THE EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES 
                        ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce bipartisan 
legislation to revitalize low-income communities throughout our Nation. 
The bill would provide grant funding for the communities recently 
designated as Round II Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities and 
Strategic Planning Communities. In combination with various tax 
incentives, this direct funding will help stimulate job growth and 
economic revitalization in inner-city, rural, and Native American 
communities that have yet to benefit from our Nation's growing economy.
  As the result of a bipartisan collaboration between myself and Jack 
Kemp in 1993, Congress created nine Empowerment Zones (6 urban/3 rural) 
and 94 Enterprise Communities (65 urban/29 rural), which provided 
several tax incentives for businesses to invest and locate in 
economically depressed inner-city and rural areas. OBRA 1993 also 
provided these same communities with approximately $1 billion in direct 
Social Services Block Grant funds, which are being used to address 
particular barriers to increased employment and economic development, 
such as shortages in job training, child care, housing, and 
transportation. By 1997, the Round I EZs and ECs used their grant funds 
and tax incentives to create nearly 20,000 new jobs for people who 
previously had little or no economic opportunity.
  A second round of 20 Empowerment Zones (EZs) was authorized by the 
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to build on the success of the original 9 
EZs. However, unlike the original EZs, Round II Zones have not yet been 
provided with Social Services Block Grant funding.
  To provide Round II designations with the same advantages as the 
original EZs, the Empowerment Zone Enhancement Act would provide $97 
million over 9 years for each urban Empowerment Zone, and $38 million 
over 9 years for each rural Empowerment Zone. In addition, the bill 
would provide one-time allocations for other needy rural and urban 
areas: $3 million in FY 2000 for each of the 20 new Rural Enterprise 
Communities and $3 million in FY 2000 for each of the 15 urban 
Strategic Planning Communities. Along with the tax incentives and 
bonding authority already approved by the last Congress, this new grant 
funding is expected to help create and retain about 90,000 new jobs and 
stimulate $20.3 billion in private and public investment over the next 
ten years.
  Mr. Speaker, the Empowerment Zone concept, which emphasizes business 
development and community renewal, is a clear success story. In my home 
town of Harlem, I have witnessed first hand the ability of Empowerment 
Zones to help renew investment and economic development. Other regions 
of the country are waiting for a similar economic revival. I therefore 
strongly urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to provide 
increased economic opportunity for more Americans.




                          ____________________


[[Page 12556]]

     EDITOR DAN WARNER RETIRES AFTER 44 YEARS IN THE NEWS BUSINESS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MARTIN T. MEEHAN

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to one of the 
nation's finest newspaper editors, Dan Warner, who is retiring after 44 
years in the news business and 27 years as Editor of The Eagle-Tribune, 
in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Under the leadership of publishers Irving 
E. Rogers Jr., who passed away last year, and Irving E. ``Chip'' Rogers 
Ill, who is steering the business into the new millennium, Dan has 
guided one of the last independent, local, family-owned newspapers in 
America through a period of unprecedented growth, change and success.
  As editor and in his Sunday columns, Dan was always a tireless 
advocate for Eagle-Tribune readers, the community and the people and 
institutions of the Merrimack Valley. He believed in the intrinsic 
value of factual reporting and its ability to provoke and inspire 
readers to get more involved in their community. He created an ethic 
among reporters that their solemn duty to both readers and subjects was 
to cover the news fairly and aggressively and always to present the 
human dimension of a story. Dan also was a pioneer in the use of bright 
colors, bold graphics and innovative design to deliver the news in a 
more attractive and reader-friendly package. He leaves his successor, 
Steve Lambert, a publication that has been recognized as one of the 
best regional newspapers in the United States.
  Under Dan Warner's stewardship, The Eagle-Tribune received the 
highest honor in journalism, the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for general news 
reporting for its probe of the Massachusetts prison furlough program. 
He also led the newspaper to be honored twice as a Pulitzer Prize 
finalist for exposing corrupation in international hockey and telling 
the story of the tragic fire that nearly destroyed Malden Mills in the 
heart of Lawrence's poorest neighborhood, and the heroic effort to 
rebuild the business. Dan also guided The Eagle-Tribune to 11 awards as 
New England Newspaper of the Year and scores of prizes for exemplary 
reporting, photography, commentary, design and public service.
  Born and raised in Ohio, Dan adopted the Merrimack Valley as his home 
30 years ago and displays the love and caring for the region of a 
native born citizen. He is a devoted friend and dedicated family man. 
Even when he disagrees with you, as I have experienced more than once, 
Dan always gives you a fair hearing to present your point of view.
  Mr. Speaker, Dan Warner is a man who prodded leaders of government, 
industry and community to do better, and always remembered that the 
people he spoke for did not always have a voice in the corridors of 
power. On behalf of the people of the Merrimack Valley, I wish him a 
happy retirement with his wife, Janet, his two children and his beloved 
little dog, Rewrite.

                          ____________________



TRIBUTE TO PALISADES PARK, NEW JERSEY ON THE OCCASION OF ITS CENTENNIAL 
                              ANNIVERSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to recognize the Borough of 
Palisades Park on the occasion of its centennial anniversary.
  During the last decade of the last century, the New Jersey State 
Legislature passed legislation which made it possible for any community 
to organize itself into a Borough. The residents living in the area 
that would become Palisades Park took advantage of this opportunity and 
filed the requisite papers with the court in Hackensack. In 1899, the 
Borough of Palisades Park was created.
  Over the past 100 years, Palisades Park has grown into a vital part 
of Bergen County and the State of New Jersey. While its tree-lined 
streets evoke memories of a simpler time in our nation's history, the 
hustle and bustle of its main thoroughfares make it clear that 
Palisades Park has grown into a modern and thriving community.
  Over the course of the past one hundred years, Palisades Park has 
grown into one of New Jersey's most vibrant towns. It has developed 
into a vital economic force and can boast of being called home by a 
rich mosaic of cultures. The countless gifts and special talents of its 
residents have helped make it a terrific place to live and raise a 
family.
  The many individuals whose tireless efforts and contributions have 
imbued Palisades Park with its unique spirit of community should be 
commended for giving her sons and daughters a rich legacy from which to 
learn. Palisades Park's future is bright and I anticipate hearing news 
of its newest successes and triumphs in the years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues in the U.S. House of 
Representatives to come and visit Palisades Park to experience the 
Borough's beauty firsthand.

                          ____________________



          HOYER-GREENWOOD BILL RESTRICTING LATE-TERM ABORTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. STENY H. HOYER

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, abortion is one of the most difficult and 
divisive issues facing the public today. Like most Americans, I would 
prefer that there were no abortions. Also, like most Americans, I 
believe the decision is one that is for the woman and family involved, 
not the Government.
  However, I oppose late-term abortions, except for the most serious 
and compelling of reasons. I am specifically and adamantly opposed to 
what some refer to as ``abortion-on-demand''--after the time of 
viability. For that reason, I and others have introduced the ``Late 
Term Abortion Restriction Act of 1999.''
  The specific intent of this legislation is to adopt as Federal 
policy, a prohibition on post-viability, late-term abortions. Critics 
of this legislation point out that there are exceptions. They are 
correct. We believe that in the event that the mother's life is in 
danger or where the continuation of the pregnancy will pose a threat of 
serious, adverse health consequences to the woman, then and only then 
can this prohibition on late-term abortions be overcome.
  I introduced this legislation in both the 104th and the 105th 
Congress. I did so then because I am opposed to abortions being 
performed after the viability of a fetus, except for the most serious 
of health risks if the pregnancy is continued.
  This prohibition is similar to restrictions on late-term abortions in 
41 of our States, including my own State of Maryland. Those States 
believed that it was appropriate policy to prohibit late-term abortions 
``on demand.'' We share that view.
  Those who oppose abortion under almost all circumstances at any time 
during the course of pregnancy have criticized this legislation as 
meaningless. They do so because they believe that some doctors will 
contrive reasons to justify a late-term abortion. I do not doubt that 
may happen. But if it does, it will be illegal under this act and 
subject the doctor to the penalties set forth in the bill and to such 
professional sanctions as are imposed by the appropriate medical 
societies and regulatory bodies.
  This legislation is much broader than the partial-birth abortion 
bills introduced by others in the 104th and 105th Congress. Those bills 
and the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 1999 recently introduced in the 
Senate had and continue to have at their purpose, the elimination of a 
particular procedure to effect an abortion at any time during the 
course of the pregnancy.
  To that extent it is inaccurate and misleading to define it as many 
proponents and press reports have, as a prohibition on late-term 
abortions. It is both much narrower and, at the same time, broader than 
that. It is my belief that its terms would not prohibit the performance 
of a single abortion. They would simply be performed by a different 
procedure.
  Congressman Jim Greenwood and I are introducing this legislation 
today with 14 other bipartisan original cosponsors. This bill, in 
contrast to the partial birth abortion bills, would prohibit all late-
term post-viability abortions by whatever method or procedure that 
would be employed. While there are exceptions to this general 
prohibition, we believe that our bill will, in fact, prohibit all post-
viability, late-term abortions that are not the result of a serious 
cause.
  This legislation establishes a clear Federal policy against late-term 
abortions. We would hope that the Judiciary Committee would hold an 
early hearing on this legislation and bring it to the floor so that the 
Federal Government could adopt this sensible prohibition, which is 
similar to that adopted by over 80 percent of the States. They did so 
because their legislatures wanted to make it clear that late-term 
abortions were, in almost all circumstances, against public policy and 
against the law.
  We should do the same.




                          ____________________


[[Page 12557]]

      IN HONOR OF FATHER McNULTY'S 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF ORDINATION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Father McNulty's 
25th Anniversary of his Ordination as a Priest.
  Father McNulty was born in October of 1948. He attended Borromeo High 
School, Borromeo College, Wickliffe and St. Mary's Seminary. Throughout 
the last 25 years Father McNulty has dedicated himself to helping 
others in his community. He has been involved in a number of different 
assignments in the greater Cleveland area. He is currently the pastor 
at SS. Philip and James in Cleveland as well as the Chaplain for the 
Ancient Order of Hibernians, the Ladies Ancient Order of Hibernians and 
is the Deputy National Chaplain for the Ladies Ancient Order of 
Hibernians.
  His work has proven time and time again to be a tremendous help to 
the community and is a very well known and respected priest in the 
Cleveland area. Through his dedicated efforts the community has grown 
together. His work should be recognized as having a very influential 
and positive effect on the people in the greater Cleveland area.
  My fellow colleagues, please join me in honoring Father McNulty's 25 
years of service to the greater Cleveland community.

                          ____________________



                     WHITE HOUSE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. CHARLES F. BASS

                            of new hampshire

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to a recipient of 
the distinguished 1998-1999 White House Fellowship Program--Lieutenant 
Commander Mark Montgomery of Sunapee, New Hampshire.
  Established in 1965, the White House Fellowship program honors 
outstanding citizens across the United States who demonstrate 
excellence in academics, public service, and leadership. It is the 
nation's most prestigious fellowship for public service and leadership 
development. Each year, there are 500-800 applicants nationwide for 11 
to 19 fellowships. Past distinguished U.S. Navy White House Fellow 
alumni have gone on to become exceptional military leaders and I have 
no doubt Commander Montgomery will be successful in his future 
endeavors.
  This award is well-earned by an individual who carries himself with 
great professionalism and distinction in the finest traditions of our 
country's military history. Lieutenant Commander Montgomery was most 
recently Executive Officer of the destroyer U.S.S. Elliot. He was one 
of only a handful of liberal arts majors to complete the naval nuclear 
power program. Lieutenant Commander Montgomery has completed two 
overseas deployments on the nuclear powered cruiser U.S.S. Bainbridge. 
He also led a team of thirty Bainbridge sailors to provide disaster 
relief on the island of St. Croix after Hurricane Hugo. He later was 
assigned as Operations Officer of U.S.S. Leftwich and then to the 
reactor department of the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt, where he was 
deployed to Bosnia during air strikes. Commander Montgomery will be 
Commissioning Commanding Officer of U.S.S. McCampbell. In addition to 
his military service, Commander Montgomery is involved with the Big 
Brother organization.
  Commander Montgomery's distinguished military career made him a 
perfect candidate for his current White House Fellowship assignment 
with the National Security Council. In this capacity, he manages the 
operation for the Critical Infrastructure Coordination Group, which is 
responsible for implementing presidential decision directives on 
critical national infrastructures. He also coordinates the interagency 
development of a National Infrastructure Assurance Plan, which 
formulates the Administration's efforts to protect our government and 
private sector infrastructures from terrorist attack. Commander 
Montgomery was a member of the U.S. delegation that traveled to the 
United Arab Emirates on a mission regarding security cooperation. Other 
responsibilities include working on the Counter-Terrorism Security 
Group and coordinating NSC policy on international Y2K issues.
  The people of this nation can feel secure in the knowledge that 
individuals like Commander Montgomery are working for them. For his 
efforts, and in recognition of the well-deserved honor of serving as a 
White House Fellow, I am privileged to commend and pay tribute to 
Commander Montgomery.

                          ____________________



                         HOSPITAL ACCREDITATION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Healthcare facilities must comply with 
certain conditions in order to participate in the Medicare program. The 
Health Care Financing Administration relies on accrediting 
organizations to certify that healthcare facilities provide quality 
services to Medicare beneficiaries. The Joint Commission on 
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) is one such 
organization. A facility that receives JCAHO accreditation 
automatically meets the Medicare Conditions of Participation.
  I believe that there is a serious conflict of interest between the 
mission of accrediting agencies and their internal governance. 
Currently, the majority of members of these governing boards are 
representatives of the very industries that the agency accredits. While 
the accrediting agencies are likely to object and claim that the 
members of their governing boards are beyond reproach, I remain 
skeptical and wish to establish several basic checks and balances.
  Because accrediting agencies have a prominent role in certifying 
Medicare facilities, I believe that we have a vested interest to ensure 
that the accrediting process is as rigorous and quality-oriented as 
possible. Doing so will help ensure that all citizens may expect high-
quality, safe, and effective medical treatment at any medical facility 
they use.
  Others share my skepticism. A July 1996 report from the Public 
Citizen Health Research Group charged that the JCAHO is ``a captive of 
the industry whose quality of service it purports to measure'' and 
``fails to recognize the often conflicting interests of hospitals and 
the public''.
  In my home state of California, 29 JCAHO-approved hospitals had 
higher-than-expected death rates for heart attack patients. In some 
cases the rate was as high as 30-40% compared to a state-wide average 
of approximately 14%. What is particularly troubling is the fact that 
two of these hospitals received JCAHO's highest rating.
  In an analysis of New York hospitals, the non-profit Public Advocate 
presents strong evidence that hospitals circumvent JCAHO's annual 
announced survey visits--simply by hiring extra staff to make 
operations look smoother than they really are. In too many cases, the 
report finds that JCAHO's accreditation scores mask the truth--some 
accredited hospitals do not meet basic standards of care. For example, 
15 accredited hospitals showed problems ranging from substantial delays 
in treatment of emergency room patients to outdated and broken 
equipment to overcrowded, understaffed clinics and unsanitary 
conditions.
  Given the critical role of health care facilities to our society, we 
must ensure that these facilities and the agencies that certify them 
are held publicly accountable. For this reason, I am introducing a bill 
that requires all Medicare-accrediting organizations to hold public 
meetings and to ensure that half of the governing board consists of 
members of the public.
  The intent of the bill I am introducing today is to ensure the 
accountability of accrediting boards--to guarantee that the public 
voice is represented in the organizations responsible for the safety 
and quality in Medicare's healthcare facilities. With these checks and 
balances we can assure all patients that they will receive high quality 
treatment in all Medicare-approved facilities.
  This bill has two simple provisions. First it requires that half of 
the members of an accrediting agency be members of the public who have 
been approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. These 
individuals are specifically prohibited from having a direct financial 
interest in the health care organizations that the agency certifies. 
Second, the legislation would require all meetings of the governing 
board be open to the public.
  Medicare and health care organizations operate in the public trust. 
Our tax dollars fund all Medicare benefits delivered by health care 
organizations as well as countless other medical benefits and programs. 
Therefore, the accreditation and certification of hospitals and other 
health care organizations must represent the interests of the public.




                          ____________________


[[Page 12558]]

                   HUGO AND LAMAR AGRICULTURE FORUMS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, last month during the April district work 
period, I had the opportunity to hear from many of my constituents 
regarding the economic challenge in agriculture. Specifically, on April 
7, 1999, I held two agriculture forums, one in Hugo, Colorado, and one 
in Lamar, Colorado, to discuss some of the challenges facing 
agricultural producers. The purpose of these forums was to allow 
individuals and organizations to provide advice and suggestions about 
the problems currently facing today's farmers and ranchers. We heard 
from a number of experts who made presentations and fielded questions 
at the well-attended events.
  For example, at the earlier meeting in Hugo, we heard from Mr. 
Freeman Lester, President of the Colorado Cattlemen's Association 
(CCA). He mentioned country-of-origin labeling, packer concentration, 
the European ban on hormone enhanced beef, estate taxes, wilderness 
legislation, and reform of the Endangered Species Act as his main areas 
of interest and concern. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I hereby include 
the ``Colorado Cattlemen's Association Key Issues for the 106th 
Congress'' in the record.

       Taxes.--CCA supports the repeal of the death tax and 
     reductions in capital gains taxes. Death taxes are extremely 
     punitive with onerously high rates, and are the leading cause 
     of the breakup of thousands of family-run ranches, farms and 
     businesses. Congress' Joint Economic Committee has concluded 
     that death taxes generate costs to taxpayers, the economy and 
     the environment that far exceed any potential benefits 
     arguably produced.
       Country-of-Origin Labeling.--CCA supports efforts to let 
     consumers know the origin of the beef they purchase. Consumer 
     surveys have consistently shown that the majority of 
     consumers support country-of-origin labeling for meat. 
     Imported beef is labeled by country-of-origin, either on the 
     product or on shipping containers, when it enters the U.S. to 
     facilitate inspection. However, these labels are lost during 
     further processing. Country-of-origin labeling will provide a 
     ``brand-like'' mechanism for the beef industry. Currently 
     most beef is marketed as unbranded generic ``beef'' 
     regardless of where it is produced. Other countries require 
     U.S. beef to be labeled by country-of-origin. Japan has 
     required all meat imports be labeled by country-of-origin 
     effective July 1, 1997 and Europe will likely require 
     labeling comparable to that required for domestic product, 
     once access to the European market is achieved.
       Price Reporting.--CCA supports mandatory price reporting by 
     any U.S. packer controlling more than 5 percent of the live 
     cattle market. CCA also supports price reporting on boxed 
     beef and imports. It is vital to keep the playing field level 
     especially given that four major packers slaughter 80 percent 
     of the fed cattle and market approximately 85 percent of the 
     boxed beef. Openly assessable up-to-date information and 
     market transparency are necessary to keep the highly 
     concentrated processor sector from having insider or 
     privileged information that could give packers a significant 
     advantage over sellers or others in the beef trade. Secretary 
     Glickman has publicly indicated that the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture (USDA) would welcome authorization to implement 
     mandatory price reporting.
       Water Quality.--CCA believes that water quality regulations 
     address site-specific as well as species-specific needs and 
     are based on sound science, taking into account current 
     cattle industry environmental and economic practices that 
     have been successful for generations.
       Property Rights.--CCA supports passage of a law to require, 
     at minimum, the federal government to prepare a takings 
     implication assessment (TIA) prior to taking an agency 
     action. Such TIA should: define the point at which a 
     reduction in the value of the affected property, due to a 
     regulation, constitutes a compensable taking; set clear 
     takings guidelines, and provide a mechanism for landowners to 
     avoid lengthy and costly litigation.

  Also on hand was Mr. Brad Anderson, Executive Director of the 
Colorado Livestock Association (CLA). Mr. Anderson expressed his 
disappointment with the lack of fairness in implementation of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Specifically, he felt our 
government should do more to expose Canada's subsidies and that we 
needed to do a better job of opening more markets around the world for 
Americans agricultural products.
  He also mentioned his concern with Amendment 14, a recently passed 
state ballot initiative, he said would ``put hog producers out of 
business.'' Amendment 14 sets the air particle ratio, an odor 
measurement, for hog farms at 2-1, a standard which is virtually 
impossible to meet. The air particle ratio for industry is 7-1, leading 
him to believe that agriculture is being unfairly targeted.
  Mr. Anderson also mentioned the shortage of workers and the need to 
eliminate the sales tax on agricultural products, which was recently 
accomplished at the state level at the end of this year's session of 
the General Assembly in Colorado.
  The panel also included Mr. Greg King of the Lincoln County Farm 
Service Agency (FSA). Mr. King mentioned his frustration with the 
Freedom to Farm Act passed by Congress in 1996. He felt it would not 
work as originally designed, unless our government was willing to open 
more markets for trade. ``We are currently shut out of 108 markets 
because of embargoes,'' he said.

  In addition, Mr. King also spoke of the need to reform the Endangered 
Species Act. He specifically mentioned the possibility of devastating 
impacts to the agricultural industry should the proposed listing of the 
mountain plover and the black-tailed prairie dog move forward. The 
irony is that the Natural Resource Conservation Service under (USDA) 
has worked with farmers and ranchers for years to develop 
``environmentally friendly'' ranching and farming practices. Now, 
however, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has stepped in and 
said farmers and ranchers need to manage their land for these species, 
the mountain plover and the black-tailed prairie dog. if this were to 
occur, ranchers would be forced to manage at least a portion of their 
land in a way which could include overgrazing and other practices 
harmful to the environment.
  Mr. Ron Clark, Secretary-Treasurer of the Colorado Association of 
Wheat Growers, was another member of the panel. Mr. Clark observed 
wheat prices are very low. Low wheat prices combined with two above 
average wheat crops in the last two years have caused an extreme 
hardship for wheat farmers. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I will include 
for the Record Mr. Clark's remarks:

       Thank you Congressman Schaffer for the opportunity to 
     provide comments at this Ag. Forum. My name is Ron Clark and 
     I am a wheat producer from Matheson, Colorado, and Secretary-
     Treasurer of the Colorado Association of Wheat Growers.
       Wheat prices are at their lowest level in eight years as a 
     result of two above average U.S. wheat crops and ending 
     stocks of wheat significantly above historic levels. Because 
     of this difficult situation, the National Association of 
     Wheat Growers has developed a 1999 Wheat Action Plan which I 
     would like to highlight for you.
       First, let me discuss the domestic part of the plan. We 
     need a safety net. This can be accomplished by the following 
     legislative action: lifting loan caps and reauthorizing '99 
     market loss payment; advancing year 2000 agricultural 
     marketing transition act payments; and reforming crop 
     insurance to develop affordable alternatives that will 
     protect against crop and revenue losses.
       Now, let me discuss the export part of the plan. We 
     recommend the following legislative action to move more U.S. 
     wheat into export markets.
       Request that the administration immediately approve Niki 
     Trading Company's request to buy $500 million of U.S. 
     agricultural products for Iran, including two million metric 
     tons (or 73.5 mil. bu.) of wheat.
       Seek an end to trade sanctions that currently preclude U.S. 
     wheat from 11 to 15 percent of the world wheat market.
       Fund existing export programs to the full extent authorized 
     in the 1996 Farm Bill.
       Fund discretionary export programs like PL-480 Title I and 
     the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program at Fiscal 
     Year 1999 program levels or greater.
       Fund the Market Access Program at the Fiscal Year 1999 
     level.
       Fund the Export Enhancement Program at the Farm Bill 
     authorized level of $579 million and strongly urge the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to use it.
       Approve trade negotiating authority (or fast track) 
     immediately.
       Approve the United States Agricultural Trade Act of 1999 
     (S. 101), to promote trade in U.S. agricultural commodities, 
     livestock, and value-added products and to prepare for future 
     bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations.
       Approve the Food and Medicine Sanctions Relief Act of 1999 
     (S. 327), to exempt agricultural products, medicines, and 
     medical products from U.S. sanctions.
       The Colorado wheat industry sincerely appreciates your 
     leadership and support that you have shown as a member of the 
     House Agriculture Committee. We look forward to hosting the 
     annual wheat tour for you again this year on June 5. I would 
     be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank 
     you.

  Another member of the panel was Mr. Carl Stogsdill of Lincoln County, 
representing the Farm Bureau. Mr. Stogsdill spoke of his concerns 
relating to the Endangered Species Act and its impacts on farmers and 
ranchers. Following are the Farm Bureau's ``Priorities For the 106th 
Congress:''


[[Page 12559]]

       Food Quality Protection Act.--Farm Bureau has declared the 
     proper implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act as 
     its top priority. Farm Bureau will work with the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), land grant 
     universities and local officials to get the act implemented 
     as Congress originally intended.
       Budget and Tax Reform.--Farm Bureau will continue to work 
     for the elimination of the ``Death Tax'' and reduction of the 
     capital gains tax. Other issues include: Farmer and Rancher 
     Risk Management accounts, the balanced budget amendment, 
     elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax for agriculture, 
     income averaging, unemployment tax exemption and Individual 
     Retirement Accounts for farmers.
       Environmental Issues.--Farm Bureau will continue to push 
     for private property rights protection and elimination of 
     disincentives in regard to endangered species, clean water, 
     clean air and wetlands.
       Trade.--Farm Bureau will be heavily involved in gaining 
     ``Fast Track'' authority for the administration and 
     eliminating existing trade barriers. Also, Farm Bureau hopes 
     to be active in this year's round of the World Trade 
     Organization's discussions.
       Regulatory Reform.--Farm Bureau will attempt to pass 
     legislation requiring standardized risk assessments and cost/
     benefit analysis on all proposed regulations. There will also 
     be a push for a reform of the Department of Labor's H-2A 
     program.

  Mr. Mark James of the Lincoln County Stockmen also served on the 
panel and expressed his concern with aspects of the Endangered Species 
Act. Mr. James thought it was silly black-tailed prairie dogs would be 
added to the Endangered Species List. ``Prairie dogs? Get reasonable,'' 
he said. Mr. James' comments were echoed by many of those in 
attendance.
  Later that evening, at the forum held in Lamar, Mr. John Schweizer, 
District Representative for the Colorado Farm Bureau, spoke about 
issues facing farmers in the southeastern portion of the state. Mr. 
Schweizer cited his hope there would be continued tax relief for 
farmers such as complete elimination of the ``death tax.'' He was quick 
to point out, however, that even though times are tough, ``(farmers) 
are not looking for handouts.'' In fact, he expressed support for the 
1996 Farm Bill which was supposed to remove government from the farm. 
Unfortunately, according to Mr. Schweizer, ``rather than cut the cord, 
the government tightened the noose.''
  Mr. Schweizer also said the Administration and Congress needed to do 
more to open markets abroad. One way in which this could be 
accomplished, he felt, would be to fully fund and utilize the Export 
Enhancement Program. He also questioned the effectiveness of shutting 
American farmers out of world markets by using political sanctions 
against other countries.
  Chad Hart of the Prowers County Farm Service Agency also offered his 
perspective. His main concern was the administration of the disaster 
assistance program which is running way behind. Cuts in funding have 
adversely impacted their ability to do their job in that the speed of 
response to emergencies has been greatly reduced. They are forced to do 
much more with far fewer employees.
  Another member of the panel was Mr. Bob Arambel of the Northeast 
Prowers County Conservation District. He runs a farm northeast of 
Holly, Colorado, and has had concerns regarding water quality on the 
lower Arkansas River. Although they have received some money to 
increase their compliance with water quality statutes, he was concerned 
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act may have adverse impacts on 
farming and ranching in the region if standards cannot be met right 
away. Mr. Arambel also had concerns about the direction of the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. Vernon Sharp, President-elect of the Colorado Cattlemen's 
Association, mentioned taxes as his issue of greatest importance. He 
felt estate taxes and capital gains taxes were big problems, that they 
were punitive in nature and punished people for making good business 
decisions. He also felt the government should provide some sort of 
income tax relief in the near future. ``This year I spent $900.00 to 
have someone do my taxes to find out I have no income,'' he said.
  Mr. Sharp went on to say property rights were also a very important 
issue and the federal government should fully compensate landowners 
when impeding their ability to use their land as they see fit. He cited 
the Endangered Species Act as a major threat to farmers and ranchers 
and their ability to manage their land.
  Also on the panel was Mr. Jim Geist, Executive Director of the 
Colorado Corn Growers Association. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I refer 
the House to the remarks of Mr. Geist.

       On behalf of Colorado's corn farmers, I appreciate the 
     opportunity to express corn's policies and positions on 
     issues that will have direct and indirect effects on the 
     state's corn industry.
       Demand for corn grows when our customers are satisfied. To 
     increase demand and customer satisfaction, the United States 
     must become a dependable supplier of commodities. Some of the 
     issues that can assure U.S. corn and its products full access 
     to world trade markets include the following: sanction 
     reform; Fast Track authority; support of IMF funding and 
     trade negotiations, including the specific objective of 
     mutual acceptance of genetically enhanced agricultural 
     products; continued leadership in the World Trade 
     Organization; and Free Trade Area of the Americas 
     negotiations.
       Corn producers continue to strive for a fair deal from the 
     government. They are looking for market-driven farm programs, 
     minimal consistent regulations, federal tax policy reform and 
     sufficient financial and credit program so that this country 
     can maintain its food security.
       Improving our national transportation infrastructure in 
     order to maintain a competitive advantage is becoming a high 
     priority for grain producers nationwide. Upgrading rivers, 
     locks and dam systems, improving the nation's railroad system 
     and maintaining adequate highway funds for states will enable 
     grain producers to move commodities to domestic and 
     international customers when needed.
       We support an active research and education commitment by 
     all segments of the corn industry and government. Research 
     and commercialization of corn products adds to the value of 
     corn. Investing in technological advancements, working with 
     the marketplace, and educating and communicating with 
     consumers about the value of corn in their daily lives will 
     enable our nation to have a stronger rural economy and 
     greater national economic strength.
       Leaving our world in better shape than when we found it has 
     been a top priority in  agriculture for generations. In using 
     Best Management Practices (BMP) to build soil through 
     conservation programs, BMP implementation to improve water 
     quality, and utilizing the best crop protection practices 
     available, corn producers are truly planting a crop that 
     can help clean up the environment, from both a water and 
     air quality standpoint. The growing concern within 
     agriculture is the small, vocal, hard-line environmental 
     groups trying to impose regulations on production 
     agriculture that are uneconomical, unproven and that could 
     have the effect of driving our nation's food production 
     capabilities off our shores.
       Agricultural producers in Colorado are struggling with poor 
     economic conditions in the marketplace due to burdensome 
     supplies--supplies that could be sold in international 
     markets--and environmental regulations that will choke off 
     sustainable food production capabilities. Much has to be done 
     in short order to protect one of our nation's most valuable 
     resources--America's farmers and ranchers.
       Again, thank you for the opportunity to express to you just 
     some of the issues and concerns that Colorado corn producers 
     will be focusing on in the near future.

  Our last panelist of the evening was Ms. Elena Metro, State Executive 
Director of the Colorado Pork Producers Council. Her thoughts focused 
on the state initiative, earlier alluded to, Amendment 14. Ms. Metro's 
presentation included this statement which I ask to be included in the 
Record:

       The Colorado pork industry has been singled out by 
     individuals and groups to be ``controlled'' by harsh rules 
     and regulations. Amendment 14 here in Colorado is the result 
     The Colorado Pork Producers Council on behalf of the pork 
     industry in Colorado asks that if rules and regulations are 
     written and become law, whether on a state or national level, 
     that these rules be based on ``sound science,'' be fair and 
     equitable, and not ``socially engineered.''

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by thanking all of the 
participants for their input. Former Speaker of the Colorado House of 
Representatives, Mr. Carl ``Bev'' Bledsoe moderated the forum in Hugo. 
Ms. Sparky Turner moderated the forum in Lamar. Both did an outstanding 
job and helped draw many helpful thoughts and comments from all 
speakers.
  It's obvious after hearing from my constituents that more needs to be 
done to expand trade with foreign countries. We need to bring some 
sanity to the Endangered Species Act, and we need to use sound science 
when making decisions about regulations which will affect a very 
important segment of our population--the farmer.

                          ____________________



                REAFFIRM OUR COMMITMENT TO OUR VETERANS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN E. SWEENEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1401, the bill to authorize our all-important national defense programs 
and in support of the en bloc amendment which includes language that 
addresses a crisis in our veterans community.

[[Page 12560]]

  Throughout their lives, the men and women of our armed services make 
great sacrifices in the service of our country. Yet, many families 
requesting honor guards at the burials of veterans are being told 
``NO''--that we do not have the resources to honor those who have 
served so nobly. As Americans, the very least we can do is make sure 
that our veterans are given a proper burial when they die.
  My amendment strengthens the current language in the bill by 
requiring, not just permitting, the Secretary of Defense to provide 
necessary materials, equipment, and training to support non-
governmental organizations--namely our VFW, Disabled American Veterans, 
American Legion, and other veterans groups--in providing honor guard 
services.
  Mr. Speaker, the newest of our National Cemeteries, Saratoga National 
Cemetery, will be opening in the heart of my district this July and 
will conduct funerals every thirty minutes for the next several years. 
Our active duty and reserve servicemen and women cannot keep up. Mr. 
Speaker--this is unacceptable!
  Everyone who served in the armed forces gave something. Some who 
served gave everything. And we have a responsibility to give back!
  Our veterans are eager to fill this void on a volunteer basis, but 
they do not possess the resources to do so. The committee bill will 
give private individuals the tools necessary to provide honor guard 
services, thereby reducing the demand on active duty servicemen or 
reservists.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and reaffirm our 
commitment to our veterans.

                          ____________________



                     IN HONOR OF DR. DAVID KIRCHER

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today in tribute to 
Dr. David Kircher, Superintendent of Fairview Park Schools in Rocky 
River, Ohio. As he celebrates his retirement, I ask all of my 
colleagues to join with me in saluting his outstanding service and 
leadership in the Fairview Park Schools.
  Dr. Kircher has dedicated a substantial portion of his life to the 
betterment of the Fairview Park Schools. For the past 30 years, Dr. 
Kircher has served as an important figure for the Fairview Park School 
district. He has held several positions throughout his tenure, but none 
as important as Superintendent of Fairview Park Schools, a position 
from which he will be retiring as of August 1, 1999.
  As the fifth superintendent in the history of the Fairview Park 
Schools, Dr. Kircher worked his way up from an Earth Space Science 
teacher to Superintendent in 1996. Throughout his career he has been 
recognized for his hard work and dedication in the Fairview Park 
Schools. Many students and staff members are not only inspired by his 
motivation and hard work, but also appreciate the fact that he has 
helped create excellent schools. That is why in 1998 he was nominated 
for the National Superintendent of the year. The following year he 
received a resolution from the city of Fairview Park recognizing his 30 
years of dedicated service to the Fairview Park Schools.
  Education has always been Dr. Kircher first priority. He earned a 
Ph.D. in educational administration at Kent State University. His 
wisdom and educational background helped him become one of the most 
influential superintendents in Fairview Park Schools.
  Although his work puts extraordinary demands on his time, Dr. David 
Kircher has never limited the time he gives to his most important 
interest, his family, especially his lovely wife, Maryann.
  I ask that and my distinguished colleagues join me in commending Dr. 
David Kircher for his lifetime dedication, service, and leadership in 
Fairview Park Schools. His large circle of family and friends can be 
proud of the significant contribution he has made. Our community has 
certainly been rewarded by the true service and uncompromising 
dedication displayed by Dr. David Kircher.

                          ____________________



                      INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. PHILIP M. CRANE

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing three bills which 
reflect my long-time interest in helping the economy and the people of 
Puerto Rico. Rather than spending taxpayer money on government 
programs, these bills will provide tax incentives for the private 
sector to help the economy of Puerto Rico.
  In 1996, Congress phased out Section 936 over my objections. As a 
result, the economic incentives for U.S. companies to do business in 
Puerto Rico have dwindled, negatively impacting the economy. In an 
effort to reverse that trend, the Government of Puerto Rico reduced 
their tax burden by 19 percent in recent years. However, they need more 
help. We in Congress can play an important role in that effort by 
putting in place long-term tax incentives to spur private sector growth 
on the Island.
  The first bill, the Puerto Rico Economic Activity Credit Improvement 
Act of 1999, will modify and extend the existing economic credit, which 
is due to expire at the end of 2005. My bill will build upon the 
replacement for Section 936, Section 30A, by extending the wage tax 
credit until the economy in Puerto Rico meets certain economic 
objectives designed to bring the Island up to a level more on par with 
the mainland. The credit will also be available to new companies 
locating in Puerto Rico. Companies already in Puerto Rico and utilizing 
the existing income credit will be given a one-time option to switch 
over to the wage credit before the termination date of the income 
credit.
  The second bill will make the research and development (R&D) tax 
credit available to companies operating in Puerto Rico. The R&D credit 
has never been accessible in Puerto Rico, but, until the demise of 
Section 936, the lack of an R&D credit was of little tax consequence to 
companies operating on the Island. My bill will provide this small, but 
important, tax credit for Puerto Rico and the other U.S. possessions as 
a matter of fairness.
  The third bill will repeal the limitation of the rum tax cover over. 
Under current law, a tax is collected on rum entering the U.S. mainland 
from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. A portion of this tax is 
returned (covered over) to the governments of Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin Islands. Because of a dispute in 1984, the cover over was 
limited to $10.50 of the total $13.50 per gallon tax. My bill will 
restore the cover over to the full amount. In particular, the 
government of the Virgin Islands desperately needs the revenue from the 
full cover over as they are currently in critical economic straits.
  In addition to restoring the cover over, this bill will also provide 
funding for the Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico. The Fund has 
been very successful in preserving the natural resources of the Island 
for the people of Puerto Rico. In conjunction with the Governor of 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Department of the Interior, we developed a 
plan to direct 50 cents of the per gallon rum tax to the Trust Fund for 
5 years. This funding would allow the Trust to finish building their 
endowment in order to fund their operations in perpetuity.
  I want to thank my colleagues who have lent their support in 
different ways to these proposals: Charlie Rangel, Carlos Romero-
Barcelo, Jerry Weller, Donna Christensen, Nancy Johnson, Phil English, 
J.D. Hayworth and Mark Foley. I urge the rest of my colleagues to 
support us in these efforts.

                          ____________________



                 HONORING TOLEDO METAL SPINNING COMPANY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MARCY KAPTUR

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Toledo Metal 
Spinning Company (TMS), a business in my district recently honored as 
one of only six recipients of the Blue Chip Enterprise Initiative 
Award. This award, given to companies who have overcome both internal 
and external struggles throughout their organization, was extended to 
TMS in recognition of their exceptional ability to cope and rebuild 
virtually their entire business after a fire ravaged their operation.
  TMS Vice Presidents Eric and Craig Frankhauser are to be commended 
for their efforts to restore their corporation. After a disastrous fire 
that destroyed much of the plant in February 1998, the two brothers 
worked tirelessly to fulfill customer orders and remain in production 
mode. Remarkably, five days after the fire, the company was back online 
and serving its customers with the same level of professionalism and 
courtesy as before the tragedy. Clients turn to TMS for a wide range of 
products including parts for missiles, passenger jets, and military 
aircraft, as well as stainless steel, cone-shaped hoppers used for 
countless purposes from releasing fruit into yogurt to processing 
pills.
  As the Frankhausers rebuilt their facility their innovation and 
ingenuity led the way. Forced to rebuild not only their physical 
building but also their business structure, the

[[Page 12561]]

Frankhausers revamped their entire production operation. They 
redesigned the company's production system, stressing flexibility of 
machinery and workers. The two owners realized both the importance of 
giving their employees more responsibility and the success that results 
as workers interact with each other.
  Despite the terrible fire, their improved operation successfully kept 
sales at 83 percent of 1997 levels. The Frankhausers and all of those 
employed at TMS have created a family business by which all companies 
should follow. TMS will be paid a tribute this week as it receives the 
Blue Chip Enterprise Initiative Award, which is co-sponsored in part by 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  On behalf of the citizens of Ohio's Ninth Congressional District, I 
rise to congratulate TMS, the Frankhausers, and the many employees for 
their outstanding success and innovation as they stood in the face of 
disaster. The TMS example is certainly a business model to be followed 
as we enter the next millennium.

                          ____________________



                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN M. McHUGH

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the Record reflect 
that an error occurred with regard to my vote on Mr. Goss's amendment 
which prohibits DOD funding to maintain a permanent U.S. military 
presence in Haiti beyond December 31, 1999. On June 9, I was recorded 
as voting ``nay'' on rollcall No. 183 when in fact I voted ``aye'' on 
the amendment.

                          ____________________



            COMMEMORATING THE BICENTENNIAL OF CAYUGA COUNTY

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JAMES T. WALSH

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to join me in 
recognizing the 200th Anniversary of Cayuga County, located in my home 
district in upstate New York. It has a proud and distinguished history.
  Cayuga County was established by the State Legislature as the 28th 
designated county in New York State. Many of the first settlers were 
veterans of the Revolutionary War, such as Colonel John Hardenbergh, 
whose settlement grew to become the City of Auburn. Auburn eventually 
became the largest community in the State west of Utica in the early 
years, as it served as a junction of the major turnpikes traveled by 
the westward settlers.
  Many prominent political and historical figures who helped to shape 
our nation were citizens of Cayuga County, including Millard Fillmore, 
the 13th President of the United States; William H. Seward, the 
Governor of New York State from 1838-1842, a United States Senator from 
1849-1861, and the Secretary of State for Presidents Lincoln and 
Johnson; Enos Throop, who served as a representative in Congress from 
1814-1816, the Lieutenant Governor, and later as Governor of New York 
State; John Tabor, the last Republican full Appropriations Committee 
Chairman from New York State from 1952-54, and abolitionist Harriet 
Tubman. Additionally, inventions that have invaluably contributed to 
our way of life and which stem from Cayuga County include harvesters, 
carriage axles, threshing machines, adding machines, and motion picture 
sound.
  Today, Auburn is the industrial center of Cayuga County with the 
production of shoes, carpets, rope, railroad locomotives, air 
conditioners, and electronic components. Cayuga County has three state 
parks, encourages higher education through Wells College and Cayuga 
County Community College, and is home to the Cayuga Museum of History 
and Art and the Schweinfurth Art Center.
  The Cayuga County Legislature recently held its May monthly meeting 
at Wells College in Aurora, the city where the county's first 
government meeting took place on May 28, 1799. A Harriet Tubman 
pilgrimage and a Red Cross barbecue were held during the Memorial Day 
weekend to commemorate the bicentennial, and upcoming anniversary 
events this summer include the Southern Cayuga Garden Club Tour, The 
Wall that Heals Vietnam Memorial at Emerson Park, and a Civil War 
sampler at the Morgan Opera House.
  In the words of the county legislature, Cayuga County's quiescent, 
yet noble history, its diversified resources and its scenic beauty 
reveal that the region remains as impressive and promising today as it 
undoubtedly appeared to the entrepreneurial settlers 200 years ago.
  It is my distinct honor to represent the descendants and subsequent 
residents of this outstanding community.

                          ____________________



      IN HONOR OF THE NINTH ANNIVERSARY OF CROATIAN STATEHOOD DAY

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, today I rise, as a Croatian-American, to 
join my fellow brothers and sisters in honor of the ninth anniversary 
of Croatian Statehood Day.
  Nine years ago Croatia took a monumental step towards democracy and 
independence, fulfilling the life-long dream of many, by declaring 
statehood. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, Communism's grip over 
Eastern Europe began to crumble, and by the late 1980's democratic 
movements developed in many countries. In Croatia, a progressive 
movement was started with the goal to form an alternative to the 
Communist Party which had been in power since 1945.
  In April of 1990 elections were held in which the Communist Party was 
defeated in a landslide, and representatives from many new political 
parties were elected to the Parliament. The first meeting of this new 
democratically elected Parliament was on May 30, 1990. This occasion is 
a reason for Croatians all over the world to celebrate their country's 
historic movement towards independence and democracy.
  I ask my fellow colleagues to join me, and my Croatian brothers and 
sisters, in celebrating Croatia's Statehood and congratulating them on 
nine years of independence.

                          ____________________



               A TRIBUTE TO THE LATE DR. STANLEY WISSMAN

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. MARK E. SOUDER

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, many members of the community in my district 
were saddened at the recent untimely death of Dr. Stanley Wissman of 
Fort Wayne.
  Dr. Wissman made many valuable contributions to the Northeast Indiana 
medical community and was particularly known for his kindness to his 
patients and their families. I would like to extend my condolences to 
his family and to include in the Record a recent editorial from the 
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette discussing his life and work.

             [The Journal Gazette, Thursday, May 27, 1999]

             Wissman Set Examples Both Unique and Universal

       Death--especially unexpected death--has a perverse ability 
     to highlight a life, to bring its finest qualities to the 
     surface and leave them shining in the memories of friends and 
     loved ones.
       In so doing, it honors those traits in us all.
       Stanley Wissman's sudden death is having that affect at 
     Parkview Hospital this week. The beloved neurologist and 
     patient champion was only 52 when he died Monday, and the 
     shock is still rippling across the hospital and the regional 
     medical community.
       In a time of national anguish about values and character, 
     Wissman demonstrated why people still have hope for our 
     cantankerous species.
       The resume is only part of the story. Yes, Wissman was an 
     avid medical researcher. Yes, he was a visionary 
     administrator for the hospital's rehabilitation unit. And, 
     yes, he was an enthusiastic educator; he and his wife, Mary 
     Ann, worked together on a program called ``Brain Attack'' to 
     teach medical workers and the public that damage from strokes 
     can be reduced by quick response.
       But it is Stanley Wissman's easy approachability--his warm 
     humaneness--that his colleagues recall so sadly.
       Rebutting all the stereotypes of aloof and busy physicians 
     in the era of managed care, he is remembered as a gentleman 
     who found time to really listen to patients--as well as to 
     co-workers on any step of the hospital hierarchy.
       Being brilliant and accomplished and acclaimed are all 
     quite wonderful--and rare. In the end, however, anyone can be 
     like Stanley Wissman. All it takes is a little kindness.
       Stanley D. Wissman, M.D., 52, died Monday at Parkview 
     Hospital. Born in Fort Wayne, he was a doctor with Fort Wayne 
     Neurological Center since 1976. He was also a medical 
     director of the rehabilitation unit and chairman of the 
     neurology subcommittee at Parkview Hospital and associate 
     clinical professor of Neurology at Indiana University

[[Page 12562]]

     School of Medicine in Indianapolis. Surviving are his wife, 
     Mary Ann; two daughters, Jennifer Rosenkranz of Reno, Nev., 
     and Alicia Jordan of Nashville, Tenn.; a son, Stephen of 
     Nashville; a stepdaughter, Andrea Tone of Fort Wayne; a 
     stepson, Alex Tone of Fort Wayne; his mother, Ruth L. Wissman 
     of Fort Wayne; two brothers, William W. of Indianapolis and 
     Gary L. of Fort Wayne; a sister, Karen Lewis of Fort Wayne; 
     and a grandchild. Services at 11:30 a.m. Thursday at St. 
     Charles Borromeo Catholic Church, 4916 Trier Road, with 
     calling an hour before services. Calling also from 2 to 8 
     p.m. Wednesday at D.O. McComb & sons Maplewood Park Funeral 
     Home, 4017 Maplecrest Road. Burial in Catholic Cemetery. 
     Memorials to Bishop Dwenger High School Tuition Assistance or 
     Ryan Kanning Muscular Dystrophy Fund.

     

                          ____________________



           THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ESOP PROMOTION ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. CASS BALLENGER

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to 
introduce legislation to promote more employee ownership in America. I 
believe this is a modest proposal which can be deemed technical and 
clarifying in many respects. Entitled the ``ESOP Promotion Act of 
1999,'' this bill builds on legislation I introduced in the 102nd, 
103rd, 104th and 105th Congresses with bipartisan support. Nearly 100 
sitting members of this House have cosponsored this legislation over 
the years and, if former members are included, the number is over 200.
  Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the last Congress aided the 
creation of employee ownership through Employee Stock Ownership Plans 
(or ESOPs) by enabling a Subchapter S corporation to sponsor an ESOP. 
This provision was added to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 
105-34) by Senator John Breaux in the Senate Finance Committee and has 
been part of my ESOP bills since 1990. The effort to have these small 
businesses offer employee ownership to their employees started in 1987. 
Many private sector groups, representing both professionals and 
businesses, have supported permitting Subchapter S corporations to 
sponsor ESOP's. I am grateful to my colleagues for their support of 
this important change in the code.
  I encourage my colleagues in the 106th Congress to stand up for 
employee ownership and enhance the positive record for one of the most 
encouraging economic trends in America today--ownership by employees of 
stock in the companies where they work through an ESOP. As many of my 
colleagues know, I came to Congress first and foremost with a small 
business background, having created an ESOP plan for the company I 
founded over 40 years ago. The ESOP provides a method for current 
owners of stock to sell, at fair market value, their stock to a trust 
that holds the stock for eventual distribution to employees upon their 
death, disability or retirement. I believe the employee ownership which 
we promoted at my company will continue to be a valuable retirement 
asset for our employees and their families for years to come.
  I believe that employee ownership, properly managed, creates a win-
win situation for all involved. America and our economic system benefit 
as we increase competitiveness through employee ownership and provide 
more opportunity for ownership for those who, frankly, would not have 
much of a chance to acquire stock ownership otherwise. Since 1989, the 
House has shown strong support for ESOP's, and I think it is important 
to confirm this support in the 106th Congress.
  Allow me to explain each section of my bill:
  Section 1: Names the bill ``The ESOP Promotion Act of 1999.''
  Section 2: Current law permits a corporate deduction for dividends 
paid on ESOP stock that are passed through to the employees in cash or 
used to pay the ESOP stock acquisition debt [Internal Revenue Code 
Section 404(k)]. Section 2 would amend Section 404(k) to permit the 
deduction if the employees participating in the ESOP are allowed, as 
their choice, to have the dividend reinvested in more employer stock. 
In fact, current ESOP and 401(k) sponsors can nearly accomplish the 
same result under current law with a convoluted system that requires an 
IRS letter ruling.
  Why is this simplification? Because under very complex chain of 
events which the IRS has approved in a series of letter rulings, the 
employee can have ``constructive receipt'' of the cash dividend, and 
then ``constructively'' take the dividend money back to the payroll 
office and reinvest it. Since the employee has received the dividend in 
cash, the deduction is allowed, although in reality it was reinvested. 
This legislation says cut to the chase. Where the employee has made 
clear a desire for the dividends to be reinvested, why have an 
expensive, confusing system that the IRS has to review after the ESOP 
sponsor spends dollars on designing the new system? The ESOP sponsor 
can put these resources to more productive use, and the employees can 
put their dividends to use in further bolstering their retirement 
savings with this change.
  Section 3: From 1984 until 1989, an estate with share of certain 
closely-held corporation could transfer stock in the corporation to the 
corporation's ESOP, and the ESOP would assume the estate tax liability 
on the value of the transferred stock [former Internal Revenue Code 
Section 2210]. Unfortunately, the Tax Act of 1989 repealed this law 
which was an effective way to create more employee ownership. The 
proposed legislation would restore this incentive for stock to be 
transferred to an ESOP. No estate tax is being avoided here, it is just 
shifted from the estate to an American, closely-held corporation that 
has employee ownership through an ESOP.
  Section 4: This section would current what I believe is an anomaly in 
the current law. Internal Revenue Code Section 1042 provides that if a 
seller of closely-held stock reinvests his/her proceeds from the sale 
in the equities of a U.S. operating corporation, the gain on the sale 
to the ESOP is deferred until the replacement property is disposed of, 
if and only if the ESOP holds at least 30% of the outstanding shares of 
the corporation when the sale of stock to the ESOP is completed. This 
provision of current law plays a major role in the creation of over 50% 
of the ESOP companies in America. Current law benefits owner-founders, 
and outside investors of closely-held companies, but it does not permit 
holders of stock in a closely-held corporation who acquired the stock 
as a condition of employment, from a plan other than an ERISA plan, to 
sell that stock to an ESOP and receive a deferral of the tax on the 
gain. Section 4 would end the different treatment for shares acquired 
from a compensation arrangement as a condition of employment compared 
to stock acquired otherwise.
  Section 4 would expand the list of permissible reinvestment to U.S. 
mutual funds that represent U.S. operating corporation securities. This 
change would apply to an owner-founder or outside investor, as well as 
an individual who acquired the stock as a condition of employment.
  Section 4 also would correct another technical anomaly in current 
law. As presently written, Section 1042 provides that any holder of 25% 
or more of any class of stock in a company cannot participate in an 
ESOP established with stock acquired in a Section 1042 transaction. My 
bill would change the measure so that the 25% would be measured by the 
voting power of the stock, or the value of the stock in terms of total 
corporate value. This kind of measure is used in other sections of the 
code.
  Section 5: Amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit limited 
distributions from ESOPs, without incurring a 10-percent penalty on 
early withdrawals, for high education expenses and first-time home 
purchases. The limitations relate to how much can be distributed and a 
requirement that the person have at least five years of participation 
before making the request for the distribution. The early withdrawal 
provision would be discretionary with the plan sponsor.
  I urge those of my colleagues who want to encourage employee 
ownership in America to join me by cosponsoring the ``ESOP Promotion 
Act of 1999'' and working hard to include these provisions in the tax 
bill that will soon be considered by the House Ways and Means 
Committee.

                          ____________________



                       TRIBUTE TO JAMES HARRISON

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MARION BERRY

                              of arkansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fine young 
man who resided in the 1st Congressional District of Arkansas and was 
taken from this world last week, James Harrison from Paragould. A bass-
baritone, James was a singer at Ouachita Baptist University, and was 
returning on Flight 1420 from a choir tour in Germany and Austria.
  Although James was only 21, he certainly lived a wonderful life. He 
was a responsible, trustworthy person. His love and concern for others 
very likely could have cost him his life.
  Along with his contributions to the Ouachita Singers, James was the 
music minister at First Baptist Church of Royal. His friends say he 
could look at any piece music and sing it. He played the guitar and 
saxophone and was in

[[Page 12563]]

charge of setting up before concerts at Ouachita. ``Arv'' as he was 
called, for his middle name Arvin, was a patient, level-headed young 
man who devoted his life to Christ.
  I ask that all Americans join us as we pray for the families and 
friends of the passengers and crew members who perished in the crash, 
that they might gain some measure of solace and understanding about 
their profound and very public loss.

                          ____________________



                       IN HONOR OF KEVIN SHANAHAN

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kevin Shanahan, one 
of the founders of Irish Dancing in the Cleveland area.
  Kevin Shanahan came to the Cleveland area from his home in Dublin, 
Ireland in 1953. The thriving Irish community in Cleveland welcomed his 
expertise in Irish Dancing. And because of Shanahan's efforts, Irish 
Dancing has transformed over the years into a popular and creative 
expression of Irish culture.
  Under the auspices of the West Side Irish America Club, Mr. Shanahan 
organized the first Cleveland Feis in 1957. Through his beginning 
efforts and the Club's hard work, the Cleveland Feis has become a 
premier Irish event. Even today, it is a festival to which everyone in 
the Irish community looks forward each year.
  While Mr. Shanahan has returned to Dublin, to live in the house where 
he was born, his legacy lives on in the Cleveland area. The students he 
taught during his time in Cleveland continue to carry on the Irish 
Dance traditions they learned from the master.
  My fellow colleagues, please join me in honoring a man who has kept 
traditional Irish Dancing alive in the Cleveland area, Mr. Kevin 
Shanahan.

                          ____________________



       THANKS AND CONGRATULATIONS TO THE 143RD INFANTRY REGIMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. CHET EDWARDS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 
outstanding members of the 143rd Infantry Regiment and to recognize the 
proud tradition of that body upon their annual Regimental reunion. I 
would especially like to recognize the war veterans of the regiment, 
including one who has been with the group since World War I.
  This unique regiment has a strong and deep connection with the Waco 
community, which is in my Texas Congressional District. Throughout its 
long history, it has been made up primarily of Central Texans. The 
Regiment began as a Militia Company in 1873 and has seen many different 
designations and missions throughout its history. These have included 
service in the Spanish American War, World War I, and World War II. In 
World War II the 143rd distinguished itself as a truly outstanding 
military unit by becoming one of the first American detachments to land 
in Europe and then later one of the first to enter Rome.
  After World War II, the Regiment helped Waco recover from a 
devastating tornado, working around the clock in rescue and patrol 
operations. In the 1960's the Regiment was reorganized into an Airborne 
Unit and exists today as an active National Guard unit.
  The superb all volunteer paratroopers of the unit are among America's 
best, and today they continue the proud tradition of the 143rd 
Infantry.
  I ask Members to join me and offer our heartfelt thanks and 
congratulations to an outstanding American Regiment--the 143rd 
Infantry.

                          ____________________



  TRIBUTE TO PRESLEY SAM, KENNETH TAKEUCHI, BARBARA TANIGUCHI, IZUMI 
                 TANIGUCHI, CAMILLE WING, GERYOUNG YANG

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Presley 
Sam, Kenneth Takeuchi, Barbara Taniguchi, Izumi Taniguchi, Camille Wing 
and Geryoung Yang, for being selected the 1999 Portraits of Success 
program Honorees by KSEE 24 and Companies that Care. In celebration of 
Asian-American Heritage Month for May, these six leaders were honored 
for their unique contributions to the betterment of their community.
  Presley Sam, a refugee from Cambodia, came to Fresno knowing no one. 
Through the offices of the Lao Family of Fresno, he became a Community 
worker and was later hired by the Police Department in Elkhorn Juvenile 
Boot Camp Facility. Presley serves as an executive member of the Board 
of Directors for the Cambodian Buddhist Society of Fresno.
  Kenneth Takeuchi worked for 32 years for the Fresno County Parks 
Department. He is a member of the San Joaquin River Parkway Trust, the 
Shinzen Garden Committee and the Fresno Buddist Church. Mr. Takeuchi is 
a marathon and ultra-marathon runner and race organizer. Over the past 
16 years, he has directed runs for many fund raisers for organizations 
such as United Cerebral Palsy, the American Heart Association and 
Special Olympics.
  Barbara Taniguchi has been a member of the Japanese American Citizens 
League since 1955. Very involved in her community, Barbara has served 
on the Fresno Unified School District Desegregation Task Force, the 
Central California Nikkei Foundation and on several library boards.
  Izumi Taniguchi, Professor Emeritus of Economics at California State 
University Fresno since 1993, has been a board member of the Central 
California Nikkei Foundation since its inception. He has held many 
offices in the Japanese American Citizens League at the local, state 
and national levels and is active in numerous other community 
organizations.
  Camille Wing has served on the Board of Hanford's Taoist Temple 
Preservation Society since 1979 and has become a valuable resource on 
the history of early Chinese immigrants in Hanford. She is also active 
in serving Kings County Library, the Hanford Visitors Agency and 
community recycling efforts.
  Geryound Yang maintains a successful Fresno dental practice. He 
established a California State University, Fresno Hmong Student 
Association and has been active in the Sky Watch Project. Mr. Yang's 
goal is to be a mentor and role model for Hmong young people.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I pay tribute to the KSEE 24 
Companies that Care 1999 Asian American Portraits of Success honorees. 
I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing these honorees many more 
years of success.

                          ____________________



                         TRIBUTE TO GARY GLOVER

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MARION BERRY

                              of arkansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great Arkansan, a man 
who served his community as a minister of youth and music, and who was 
a devoted father and husband, Mr. Gary Glover.
  Mr. Glover spent much of his life as a dedicated church member, 
sharing his faith and conviction in God with others. He received his 
ministry license in 1988 after attending Southwestern Baptist 
Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, and served Levy Baptist 
Church in North Little Rock at this time. Before settling in Arkansas, 
Mr. Glover served as director of housing and Christian training at 
Happy Hill Farm Academy and Home in Granbury, Texas. Here he supervised 
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary students. After Mr. Glover 
came to Arkansas he served as youth minister at Sylvan Hills First 
Baptist Church in North Little Rock.
  Clearly, Mr. Glover was a caring and giving man. Even after his 
passing, Mr. Glover continues to give through the donation of his 
organs. His family, including his wife, Becky, and his three sons, 
Drew, Daniel, and D.J., decided Mr. Glover would have wanted to 
continue helping others and felt this donation is something he would 
have wanted.
  Gary Glover was a man of great influence and inspiration for many. He 
was a strong voice for the Christian community in Arkansas and 
elsewhere. May we attempt to live our lives as generously as he.

                          ____________________



                 HONORING TAIWAN'S ASSISTANCE TO KOSOVO

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to learn that NATO and 
Yugoslavia have reached an agreement and the Kosovars can

[[Page 12564]]

finally return to their homeland. Yet there is more good news on the 
way. Dr. Lee Teng-hui, President of the Republic of China on Taiwan 
just announced that Taiwan will provide the Kosovar refugees with $300 
million in aid. This aid includes food and medical care that are 
urgently required, as well as job training and rehabilitation programs 
to promote the reconstruction of Kosovo in the long run. we welcome 
such generosity from the Republic of china, and applaud its 
contribution to peace and stability in the international community.
  Under the dynamic leadership of President Lee Teng-hui, the Republic 
of China has become a prosperous, full-fledged democracy, and it has 
demonstrated on numerous occasions its willingness to help the needy. 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in expressing 
our appreciation to President Lee and the people of the Republic of 
China for their generosity to the Kosovar refugees and contributions to 
the international community.

                          ____________________



                    HONORING JOSE ORLANDO MEJIA, MD

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Jose Orlando 
Mejia, the Chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and the 
Director of the Medical Intensive Care Unit at Woodhull Medical and 
Mental Health Center, and Assistant Professor in the Department of 
Medicine at the State University of New York Health Science Center at 
Brooklyn.
  Board certified in three specialities--Internal Medicine, Pulmonary 
Medicine, and Critical Care Medicine--Dr. Mejia is an expert in asthma, 
emphysema, smoking-related illness, and diseases of the lungs, 
respiratory system and heart.
  Graduated from the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo School of 
Medicine in the Dominican Republic, he has received advanced training 
through a Pulmonary Medicine Fellowship at the Long Island College 
Hospital, and a Critical Care Medicine Fellowship at the Albert 
Einstein College of Medicine Montefiore Hospital.
  For nearly twenty years, Dr. Mejia has dedicated his work to caring 
for the people of our communities. He has taken a holistic approach to 
care-giving--not only working to heal the patient, but care for the 
community as well. He is a keen diagnostician and excellent 
communicator--speaking to patients in both English and Spanish. As 
such, he can provide a unique type of care--providing a level of 
comfort and support emotionally while healing people physically.
  Dr. Mejia's special interest in asthma is particularly important to 
the communities I represent in New York's 12th Congressional District, 
where air pollution is an enormous problem. Due to the traffic and 
waste-transfer sites that are located throughout Brooklyn, asthma and 
other respiratory problems are particularly high--especially among 
children. Dr. Mejia's work addresses these problems in a direct and 
critical way.
  Many times people who make valuable contributions to our communities 
go unrecognized. I would like to urge my colleagues to join me in 
congratulating Dr. Mejia for the work he has done, the people he has 
helped, and the strength he has given to our communities. Because of 
his work the 12th Congressional District is a better place, and I thank 
him and wish him continued success.

                          ____________________



                       TRIBUTE TO BEVERLY GARLAND

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Beverly Garland, 
who is being honored as 1999 NoHo Citizen of the Year at the 7th Annual 
NoHo Theatre & Arts Festival. Through the years Ms. Garland has played 
an invaluable role in helping NoHo emerge as a thriving center of 
music, dance and theater in what had been a declining section of North 
Hollywood. As a successful businesswoman and actress, Ms. Garland is 
the perfect representative for NoHo. The Festival could not have made a 
more appropriate choice for its citizen of the year.
  Much of the world knows Beverly Garland for her role as Fred 
MacMurray's wife in the long-running television series ``My Three 
Sons,'' and as Kate Jackson's mother in ``The Scarecrow and Mrs. 
King.'' That was then. Today she continues to lead a very busy life as 
a television actress. Her recent movies for TV include ``Finding the 
Way Home'' with George C. Scott and ``The World's Oldest Living 
Bridesmaid,'' with Donna Mills. She has also appeared as a guest star 
on ``Friends,'' ``Ellen'' and ``Diagnosis Murder,'' and recently became 
``engaged'' to Grandpa Charles on the popular weekly series ``7th 
Heaven.
  With more than 200 television and film roles to her credit, it comes 
as no surprise that Ms. Garland has received a star in her name on the 
famous Hollywood Walk of Fame.
  Those of us who live in the east San Fernando Valley also know Ms. 
Garland for her business skills and civic involvement. She and her 
family own and operate Beverly Garland's Holiday Inn on Vineland Avenue 
in North Hollywood, a 258-room hotel that recently teamed with Holiday 
Inn Worldwide. The hotel is not only popular with visitors to the area, 
but is a central location for community meetings, chamber of commerce 
events and other important local activities.
  Ms. Garland has not at all been hesitant to use her skills as a 
public speaker to promote the area. She holds the position of Honorary 
Mayor of North Hollywood and lends her presence at many public 
functions. She has also served on the California Tourism Corporation 
Board of Directors and is a member of the Greater Los Angeles Visitors 
and Convention Bureau.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Beverly Garland, whose 
devotion to her community, commitment to the arts and dedication to her 
craft are an inspiration to us all. She has contributed greatly to the 
rise of NoHo and its emergence as one of the ``hot spots'' of Los 
Angeles.

                          ____________________



 RECOGNIZING ROBERT TAYLOR AND THE FRESNO CHAPTER OF THE MONTEREY BAY 
                                JAGUARS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Robert Taylor, 
coach of the Fresno chapter of the Monterey Bay Jaguars, for his 
outstanding achievements and dedication to the youth of his community. 
The Monterey Bay Jaguars is a track and field club for children ages 
six and up.
  Taylor, a Fresno parole officer, devotes his time twice a week, 
between February and July, to his ``star athletes.'' He started with 
about 15 athletes from Bethune Elementary school in Fresno, where he 
was a tutor. The chapter now has more than 40 athletes from Fresno 
County. Taylor recruited co-workers and parents to help him run the 
growing program. Despite what some may think, this is not an ``inner-
city'' group of kids. ``We have a mixture,'' Taylor says. ``Most of 
these kids are on the honor roll. Some of those kids down there have 
some money. But I don't want it to be like they're the rich kids. These 
kids are talented.''
  Indeed they are. Most of Taylor's kids had not participated until 
this year, but have won a combined 700 awards at the state and national 
levels since February. Taylor's secret to this success is a regimen of 
discipline and mental stability. Taylor designed a program that teaches 
the children the fundamental aspects of the sport and puts them through 
a college level workout twice per week. Taylor says he believes all of 
his athletes can compete in college and beyond and boasts about their 
speed. ``I've got a gold mine here,'' Taylor says. ``They're the all-
star team.''
  Mr. Speaker, I rise, with great pleasure, to recognize Robert Taylor 
and his team of ``all-stars.'' It is evident by the dedication of both 
coaches and athletes that there is a mutual respect, and genuine 
concern for the positive development of the community. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in recognizing the Fresno chapter of the Monterey 
Bay Jaguars for many more years of continued success.

                          ____________________



 INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE DECREASES OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR NATION'S 
                                 YOUTH

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend Bruce Bartlett's ``Minimum 
Wage Hikes Help Politicians, Not the Poor'', which recently appeared in 
The Wall Street Journal, to all of my colleagues. Mr. Bartlett's 
article provides an excellent overview of the evidence that an increase 
in the federally-mandated minimum wage reduces teenage employment. 
Since those shut out of entry-level work are unlikely to obtain higher-
paying jobs in the future, an

[[Page 12565]]

increase in the minimum wage reduces employment opportunities for 
millions of Americans. This point was also highlighted by Federal 
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in testimony before the Senate in 
January when he pointed out that ``All the evidence that I've seen 
suggests that the people who are the most needy of getting on the lower 
rungs of the ladder of our income scales, develop skills, getting the 
training, are unable to earn the minimum wage. As a consequence, they 
cannot get started. And I think we have to be very careful about 
thinking that we can somehow raise standards of living by mandating an 
increase in the minimum wage rate.'' I hope all of my colleagues will 
carefully consider how increasing the minimum wage decreases 
opportunities for our nation's youth and refrain from reducing economic 
opportunity for those at the bottom of the economic ladder by raising 
the minimum wage.
  Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow at the NCPA. He was Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Economic Policy in the Treasury Department from 1988 to 
1993, and Senior Policy Analyst at the White House from 1987 to 1988. 
He is an expert commentator on taxes and economic policy, the author of 
two books and, a syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in 
many papers including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. 
He regularly appears on national television and radio programs.

           Minimum Wage Hikes Help Politicians, Not the Poor

                          (By Bruce Bartlett)

       It now appears likely that the Republican Congress will 
     soon raise the minimum wage for the second time in three 
     years. In 1996 the minimum increased to the present $5.15 an 
     hour from $4.25; the increase now being considered would 
     bring the figure up to $6.15 by 2002. This is bad news, for 
     as many as 436,000 jobs may disappear as a result of the 
     increase.
       During the last debate, two arguments were advanced in 
     favor of raising the minimum wage. The first claimed that the 
     minimum wage had fallen sharply in real (inflation-adjusted) 
     terms since the previous increase in 1991. But with inflation 
     having all but vanished in the 19 months since the last 
     increase, this argument does not hold true today.
       The second argument, based almost exclusively on a 1995 
     study by economists David Card and Alan Krueger, was that 
     raising the minimum wage actually reduced unemployment. Since 
     then, however, virtually every study done on the subject has 
     confirmed longstanding research showing that raising the 
     minimum wage invariably has a negative impact on employment, 
     particularly among teenagers and minorities.
       The federal minimum wage was first enacted in 1938, but 
     applied only to the small minority of workers who were 
     engaged in interstate commerce. The first data we have on 
     teenage unemployment are from 1948. From then until a 
     significant expansion of the minimum wage in 1956, teenage 
     unemployment was quite low by today's standards and was 
     actually lower for blacks than whites. Between 1948 and 1955 
     unemployment averaged 11.3% for black teenage males and 11.6% 
     for whites.
       Beginning in 1956, when the minimum wage rose from 75 cents 
     to $1, unemployment rates between the two groups began to 
     diverge. By 1960, the unemployment rate for black teenage 
     males was up to 22.7%, while the white rate stood at 14.6%.
       Despite such evidence, supporters continued to push for 
     ever higher and more inclusive minimum-wage rates, which were 
     raised almost yearly between 1961 and 1981. At each point the 
     unemployment rate for black teenagers tended to ratchet 
     higher. By 1981, the unemployment rate for black teenage 
     males averaged 40.7%--four times its early 1950s level, when 
     the minimum wage was much lower and its coverage less 
     extensive. That year, the federally-mandated Minimum Wage 
     Study Commission concluded that each 10% rise in the minimum 
     wage reduces teenage employment by between 1% and 3%.
       Subsequent research, based on the effects of the previous 
     two minimum-wage increases, continues to confirm this 
     estimate. A study of the 1990-91 increases, which raised the 
     rate by 27%, found that it reduced overall teenage employment 
     by 7.3% and black teenage employment by 10%. Similarly, a 
     study of the 1996 increases found a decline in employment of 
     between 2% and 6% for each 10% increase in the minimum wage.
       In a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San 
     Francisco, economist Kenneth Couch Translated these 
     percentages into raw numbers. At the low end of the range, at 
     least 90,000 teenage jobs were lost in 1996 and another 
     63,000 jobs lost in 1997. At the higher end, job losses may 
     have equaled 268,000 in 1996 and 189,000 in 1997. He 
     estimates that a $1 rise in the minimum wage will further 
     reduce teenage employment by between 145,000 and 436,000 
     jobs.
       The fact is that the vast bulk of economic research 
     demonstrates that the minimum wage has extremely harmful 
     effects on the very people it is designed to aid--the poor:
       The minimum wage unambiguously reduces employment. The 
     September 1998 issue of the Journal of Economic Literature, 
     an official publication of the American Economic Association, 
     contains a survey of labor economists on the employment 
     effects of the minimum wage. When asked to estimate the 
     impact of raising the minimum wage, the average effect was 
     estimated at minus 0.21%, meaning that a 10% rise in the 
     minimum wage will reduce overall youth employment by 2.1%. 
     This puts to rest any notion that economists have changed 
     their view that in general higher minimum wages reduce 
     employment.
       Increases in the minimum wage have a disproportionate 
     impact on teenagers and the poor. The minus 2.1% figure cited 
     above is an overall impact. For those currently earning less 
     than the new minimum wage, the impact is much greater. For 
     example, prior to the 1996 increase, 74.4% of workers between 
     the ages of 16 and 24 already earned more than $5.15, and 
     4.3% were legally exempt from the minimum wage law. Thus the 
     employment losses were concentrated among the 21.3% of 
     workers making the minimum wage or slightly more. When one 
     attributes total employment losses entirely to this group, it 
     turns out that the employment loss figure is minus 1%, 
     according to economists David Neumark, Mark Schweitzer and 
     William Wascher. This means a 10% rise in the minimum wage 
     reduces employment among this group by 10%.
       Increases in the minimum wage add almost nothing to the 
     incomes of poor families. There are two reasons for this. 
     First, employment losses reduce the incomes of some workers 
     more than the higher minimum wage increases the incomes of 
     others. Second, the vast bulk of those affected by the 
     minimum wage, especially teenagers, live in families that are 
     not poor. Thus a study by economists Richard Burkhauser and 
     Martha Harrison found that 80% of the net benefits of the 
     last minimum-wage increase went to families well above the 
     poverty level; almost half went to those with incomes more 
     than three times the poverty level. (The poverty level is 
     about $17,000 for a family of four.)
       The minimum wage reduces education and training and 
     increases long-term unemployment for low-skilled adults. 
     Messrs. Neumark and Wascher found that higher minimum wages 
     cause employers to reduce on-the-job training. They also 
     found that higher minimum wages encourage more teenagers to 
     drop out of school, lured into the labor force by wages that 
     to them seem high. These teenagers often displace low-skilled 
     adults, who frequently become semipermanently unemployed. 
     Lacking skills and education, these teenagers pay a price for 
     the minimum wage in the form of lower incomes over their 
     entire lifetimes.
       A raise in the minimum wage has always been an easy sell in 
     Washington. But whatever the political realities may be, it's 
     still a bad idea.

     

                          ____________________



VALLEY HOSPITAL IN RIDGEWOOD, NEW JERSEY IS A LOCAL SPONSOR OF THE 12TH 
                      ANNUAL CANCER SURVIVORS DAY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MARGE ROUKEMA

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my thanks to Valley 
Hospital in Ridgewood, New Jersey, for being a local sponsor of the 
12th annual National Cancer Survivors Day. This event helps those 
stricken with this tragic disease find hope, and emphasizes the 
progress medical science has made in fighting cancer. The organizers 
possess the understanding and sensitivity that help support the 
patients and families faced with this challenge.
  This event, dedicated to curing and surviving cancer, has very 
poignant relevance to my own family. We lost our son, Todd, to leukemia 
in 1976 at the age of 17. At that time, bone marrow transplants and 
other techniques that offered hope were only in their experimental 
stages. Since then, many advances have been made that have spared 
thousands of other parents the heartbreak we faced. This is why a 
commemoration of National Cancer Survivors Day serves such a meaningful 
purpose for all who, like our family, have faced the trauma of this 
disease.
  This year, National Cancer Survivors Day will be celebrated for the 
10th time at Valley Hospital. About 200 people are expected to attend 
the ceremony, including leading oncologists and patients who have faced 
cancer and survived to tell their stories.
  But Valley Hospital's involvement in fighting cancer goes far beyond 
speeches or ceremonies. Valley is a regional leader in the oncology 
field, treating more cancer patients than all other hospitals in Bergen 
and Passaic counties combined. A full range of oncology services are 
available, including a special program in pediatric oncology and 
endoscopic ultrasound technology. Valley's affiliation with Columbia-
Presbyterian Medical Center and the

[[Page 12566]]

Southwest Oncology Group offer patients access to the newest treatment 
protocols. The radiation oncology service is the busiest in the state 
and the center offers free annual screenings for skin, prostate, breast 
and oral cancer. The oncology center goes beyond medical treatment, 
offering weekly support groups for patients, a comprehensive calendar 
of educational programs and extensive home care programs that aid not 
just cancer patients but their families as well.
  A distinguishing characteristic of Valley's cancer programs is the 
availability and quality of radiation seed implant therapy for prostate 
cancer. Valley has attracted patients from around the world as the 
result of its unique prostate implant program, pioneered by urologist 
Howard Sandler, M.D., and radiation oncologist David Greenblatt, M.D. 
Physicians from across the country have come to Valley to learn 
brachytherapy from Drs. Sandler and Greenblatt and Dr. Michael Wesson, 
also a radiation oncologist.
  During our lifetime, we have seen cancer go from a virtual death 
sentence to a disease that is often treatable, survivable and 
preventable. The overall survival rate for all forms of cancer--
including the worst varieties--now stands at 60 percent. The survival 
rate for some of the better-understood cancers, such as breast cancer, 
is 81 percent. And if all Americans participated in screenings that 
could catch cancer at its early stages, experts estimate that 95 
percent of cancer patients would survive. Since 1990, cancer death 
rates have been dropping an average 0.6 percent per year, according to 
the National Cancer Institute.
  Despite these advances, more than 1.2 million new cancer cases are 
expected to be diagnosed this year and more than half a million people 
are expected to die--about 1,500 each day. Cancer is the second-leading 
cause of death in the United States, exceeded only by heart disease, 
and one of every four deaths is from cancer.
  Sadly, many of these deaths occur even though they are preventable. 
Tobacco and alcohol related cancer account for nearly half of all 
cancer cases and are completely avoidable simply by not smoking and 
drinking only in moderation. Many skin cancers are caused by excessive 
exposure to sunlight and can be prevented by the simple use of suntan 
lotion and reduced exposure. Screening is available for many forms of 
cancer, including breast, colon, rectum, cervix, prostate, testis, oral 
and skin. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of detecting cancer 
as early as possible--early treatment can mean the difference between 
life and death.
  Today, we are within grasp of a cure for many forms of cancer but 
much research remains to be done. I thank God for those who are willing 
to labor toward this goal and pray that with their help a cure can be 
found and that no one will ever again have to suffer from this terrible 
disease.

                          ____________________



          ROC TO DONATE $300 MILLION TO HELP KOSOVAR REFUGEES

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN E. SWEENEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on June 7, 1999, after chairing a meeting 
concerning the Kosovo crisis, President Lee Teng-hui announced that the 
Republic of China will donate $300 million to help Kosovar refugees 
rebuild their homes. I would like to applaud the ROC for playing an 
active role in the ``world arena'' and working together to maintain 
world peace. Humanitarian aid to Kosovar refugees is a common goal for 
all countries. In recognition of their honorable deed I am submitting 
President Lee Tenug-hui's statement regarding assistance to Kosovar 
refugees.

    Presidential Statement Regarding Assistance to Kosovar Refugees

       The huge numbers of Kosovar casualties and refugees from 
     the Kosovo area resulting from the NATO-Yugoslavia conflict 
     in the Balkans have captured close world-wide attention. From 
     the very outset, the government of the ROC has been deeply 
     concerned and we are carefully monitoring the situation's 
     development.
       We in the Republic of China were pleased to learn last week 
     that Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic has accepted the peace 
     plan for the Kosovo crisis proposed by the Group of Eight 
     countries, for which specific peace agreements are being 
     worked out.
       The Republic of China wholeheartedly looks forward to the 
     dawning of peace on the Balkans. For more than two months, we 
     have been concerned about the plight of the hundreds of 
     thousands of Kosovar refugees who were forced to flee to 
     other countries, particularly from the vantage point of our 
     emphasis on protecting human rights. We thereby organized a 
     Republic of China aid mission to Kosovo. Carrying essential 
     relief items, the mission made a special trip to the refugee 
     camps in Macedonia to lend a helping hand.
       Today, as we anticipate a critical moment of forth-coming 
     peace, I hereby make the following statement to the 
     international community on behalf of all the nationals of the 
     Republic of China:
       As a member of the world community committed to protecting 
     and promoting human rights, the Republic of China would like 
     to develop further the spirit of humanitarian concern for the 
     Kosovar refugees living in exile as well as for the war-torn 
     areas in dire need of reconstruction. We will provide $300 
     million. The aid will consist of the following:
       1. Emergency support for food shelters, medical care, and 
     education, etc. for the Kosovar refugees, living in exile in 
     neighboring countries.
       2. Short-term accommodations for some of the refugees in 
     Taiwan, with opportunities of job training in order for them 
     to be better equipped for the restoration of their homeland 
     upon their return.
       3. Furthermore, support the rehabilitation of Kosovo area 
     in coordination with international long-term recovery 
     programs when the peace plan is implemented.
       We earnestly hope that the above-mentioned aid will 
     contribute to the promotion of the peace plan for Kosovo. I 
     wish all the refugees an early return to their safe and 
     peaceful Kosovo homes.

     

                          ____________________



                          A TRIBUTE TO ODUNDE

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ROBERT A. BRADY

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Odunde, 
Philadelphia's oldest and largest community-based festival, on the 
occasion of its 24th anniversary. The word Odunde originates from the 
Yoruba people of Nigeria, West Africa, and means Happy New Year. The 
festival is a recreation of traditional West African cultural festivals 
that celebrate the coming of another year through music, dance and 
prayer. Held in one of South Philadelphia's historically significant 
African American neighborhoods, Odunde attracts over 300,000 people 
annually and it has gained the reputation of being one of the largest 
African American street festivals in the United States.
  Known for its authentic African marketplace with vendors selling a 
variety of artifacts, African clothing, educational materials and 
African, Caribbean and African American food, Odunde represents a 
tremendous economic opportunity for entrepreneurs.
  Odunde is a vital cultural and educational experience that has become 
an important part of the Philadelphia experience. Odunde celebrates the 
rich cultural legacy of Africans of the diaspora and the experience 
enriches us all.

                          ____________________



                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. MARY BONO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, in light of my absence on Thursday, June 10, 
1999, I wish to announce my position on the following amendments for 
the record: the Buyer to H.R. 1401 (rollcall vote No. 185)--Yes; the 
Traficant to H.R. 1401 (rollcall vote No. 186)--Yes; the Souder to H.R. 
1401 (rollcall vote No. 187)--No; the Skelton to H.R. 1401 (rollcall 
vote No. 188)--Yes; the Shays to H.R. 1401 (rollcall vote No. 189)--No; 
the Weldon to H.R. 1401 (rollcall vote No. 190)--Yes.
  And last, I announce my strong support for final passage of 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 to 2001, and for other 
purposes.

                          ____________________



        VIRGINIA BEACH PROCLAMATION OF RABBI ISRAEL ZOBERMAN DAY

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. OWEN B. PICKETT

                               of virgnia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, the City of Virginia Beach recently issued 
the following proclamation honoring Rabbi Israel Zoberman, the founding 
Rabbi of Beth Chaverim, the Reform Jewish Congregation of Virginia 
Beach:


[[Page 12567]]

       Whereas Rabbi Zoberman was honored at a special reception 
     on April 23, 1999 at Beth Chaverim; and
       Whereas Rabbi Zoberman is the founding Rabbi of Beth 
     Chaverim, the Reform Jewish Congregation of Virginia Beach; 
     and
       Whereas Rabbi Zoberman has been in the ministry for twenty-
     five years and was awarded the honorary doctor of divinity 
     degree from his alma mater, the Hebrew Union College--Jewish 
     Institute of Religion, Cincinnati Campus; and
       Whereas Rabbi Zoberman is the first rabbi to serve as 
     chairman of the Community Relations Council of the United 
     Jewish Federation of Tidewater. He is a contributing editor 
     to the Jewish Spectator. He is also the past president of the 
     Hampton Roads Board of Rabbis and Virginia Beach Clergy 
     Association; and
       Whereas Beth Chaverim was the only Jewish congregation in 
     the world to meet regularly in a Catholic Church; the Church 
     of the Ascension in Virginia Beach and a close bond was 
     established between the two organizations; and
       Whereas Rabbi Zoberman has been a force for good as his 
     ministry has touched not only the citizens of Hampton Roads, 
     but many others throughout the world;
       Now, Therefore, I, Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor of the City 
     of Virginia Beach, Virginia, do hereby proclaim April 23, 
     1999 Rabbi Israel Zoberman Day in Virginia Beach, and call 
     upon all citizens to recognize his many contributions to the 
     city.
       In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
     the Official Seal of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to 
     be affixed this Twenty-third day of April, Nineteen Hundred 
     and Ninety-Nine. Meyera E. Oberndorf

     

                          ____________________



TRIBUTE TO JUDGE JOHN R. HARVEY UPON HIS RETIREMENT FROM HIS OFFICE AS 
 CHIEF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, ATLANTIC JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ON MAY 31, 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JACK KINGSTON

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, quite simply, what separates civilized 
countries from countries which know only official corruption, abuse of 
power, and economic misery is the rule of law.
  Without respect for the rule of law, countries with stunning natural 
resource wealth, extraordinary human capital, and even formidable 
military might are nothing more than failed models.
  The Soviet Union, and now Russia, possessed all of these attributes.
  And yet the Soviet Union was never more than a declining power and a 
model from which its citizens tried to flee by the thousands.
  It was never one to which millions yearned to come to, and realize 
new and exciting possibilities.
  Although the Soviet Union is an extreme case, too little regard for 
the rule of law is the norm, and it characterizes regimes on every 
continent.
  America however, has always been different.
  Historians have spoken of American Exceptionalism since the days of 
Alexis de Tocqueville over 150 years ago, and one of the most important 
ingredients in this belief about our special, even God-given role in 
the world is our regard for the rule of law.
  Judge John Harvey, who retired from the bench as Chief Superior Court 
Judge of the Atlantic Judicial Circuit on May 31st of this year, is a 
man whose entire professional life inspires faith in the rule of law.
  A man of probity and regard for honor, Judge Harvey brought to his 
life's work a quiet determination and unceasing commitment to do right.
  We Americans believe in the basic framework of our rule of law as 
embodied in the Constitution, a document which has stood the test of 
time.
  Despite the steady erosion in the freedoms guaranteed in this 
document over the past several decades, we still revere the 
Constitution as a reflection of what we believe in as a people, what 
the relationship between the ruled and rulers should be, and what is 
right and good about the most successful experiment in democracy the 
world has ever seen.
  But the Constitution is not enough.
  A piece of paper can never alone ensure respect for the rule of law.
  It cannot protect us from encroachments on our freedom.
  And it can never forfend the inevitable tendency of rulers to abuse 
their power.
  For the rule of law to triumph, honest men and a virtuous people must 
insist that it triumph, and they must step forward and demand that 
threats to our freedom be vanquished.
  The Constitution provides us with the road map; but honest judges, 
dedicated police officers, lawyers with integrity, and ethical federal 
administrators, are the ones who must make the rule of law a reality, a 
system to which all citizens can appeal, and from which all citizens 
can receive justice.
  If even the least among us is denied justice under our system of 
laws, faith in our rule of law is undermined, and our freedoms are no 
longer safe.
  Absent people who are committed to the rule of law, citizens will not 
have faith that their grievances will be addressed, or that the law-
abiding will be protected from those who wish to do us harm.

  Judge Harvey possesses the kind of even temperament and fair-minded 
approach to every case that send a signal to plaintiffs and defendants 
alike that in this case, in this court, before this judge, the law will 
be upheld and every attempt will be made for the truth to triumph.
  Judge Harvey was a popular judge who was respected for his sharp 
legal mind and judicious demeanor.
  But he was esteemed and admired even more for his reverence for the 
law and for his integrity.
  His early success in his life as a distinguished jurist--becoming 
superior court judge at the age of 38--did nothing to lessen his 
commitment to his youthful ideals of serving as an honest lawyer in a 
noble profession.
  Indeed, his achievement merely spurred him to take his 
responsibilities even more seriously and with even greater care.
  Judge Harvey always wanted to be a lawyer.
  Some lawyers engender respect for the rule of law; others bring our 
system of laws into disrepute and cause people to lose faith in the 
very government we elect to serve us.
  Judge Harvey always dreamed of becoming a lawyer in the first 
category, a lawyer who will make the system work the way it is supposed 
to.
  America will cease to be a country where the rule of law is respected 
without people like Judge John Harvey.
  Rising before the sun and leaving the office after colleagues decades 
his junior, Judge Harvey adhered to work habits and ethical that 
touched the lives of countless individuals who are responsible for 
making sure that our Constitution is more than a piece of paper of an 
inspired origin.
  His profession, his task, is to make sure that the system works and 
to create in the citizenry a regard for the rule of law that is all too 
rare in most countries of the world.
  In that task, his efforts were singularly successful, and his 
departure from the bench is a great loss to us all.
  But the example he set for others remains, and his impact will long 
outlive his tenure as a sitting judge.
  Judge Harvey makes me proud to be an American, and it is my great 
honor to pay tribute to him today.
  Judge Harvey, thank you for your outstanding service to the United 
States of America; we will miss you.

                          ____________________



                          CONFLICT IN KASHMIR

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BILL McCOLLUM

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because of concerns for the 
increased tensions in the Kashmir region of India. From the accounts 
that I've seen, it is my understanding that the current fighting near 
Kargil, Kashmir, is the most dangerous escalation since the Indo-Pak 
war of 1971. The current crisis apparently began when a heavily armed, 
and considerably large force comprised of Islamic terrorists and 
Pakistani regulars, including some of Osama bin Laden's followers, 
crossed the ``Line of Control'' into India, occupying Indian military 
positions that had been temporarily abandoned for the winter season. 
Indian security forces took prompt action to remove these infiltrators 
and defend Indian territory. Units of the Pakistani Army quickly joined 
the fighting, providing the infiltrators with heavy artillery fire as 
well as firing at Indian aircraft and helicopters striking the 
infiltrators' positions.
  There should be no doubt that this operation could not have taken 
place without the direct support from, and authorization of, the 
highest levels of government in Islamabad. The Islamist terrorists 
involved, including supporters of bin Laden's, have received 
specialized training and equipment in camps in Pakistan since the Fall 
of 1998. The infiltrating force itself--a composite grouping of 
Pakistani

[[Page 12568]]

regulars and Islamist terrorists (Kashmiris, Pakistanis, Afghans and 
Arabs) is reportedly operating in close cooperation with the local 
units of the Pakistani Armed Forces. There should be little doubt that 
these forces conduct a war-by-proxy on behalf of Pakistan.
  No less troubling are the recent claims by Pakistani officials that 
the fighting in the Kargil area is actually taking place on Pakistani 
territory. The essence of this claim is challenging the validity of the 
Line of Control (LOC) as defined by the Simla Accords of 1972. One 
cannot hope to reduce tension and build mutual trust--commonly 
regulated in international treaties and agreements--when one of the 
protagonists unilaterally challenges the validity of well established 
bilateral and international agreements.
  Thus, these recent developments are particularly troubling given the 
agreement between India and Pakistan earlier this year, the Lahore 
Declaration, that sought to promote regional stability and security, 
and most importantly peace, in South Asia. However, the actions of 
these terrorists are precisely what those concerned about India and the 
security of the region have raised as being a potential problem.
  It is certainly in the United States' best interest to ensure 
stability in this region. India is important to our national security 
in an increasingly dangerous area. India and the United States share 
common bonds in fighting terrorism. We also share growing concerns with 
China, too. India is justified in taking action to remove these 
terrorists from within its borders. If these infiltrators are allowed 
in with no action to expel them, it will only embolden others to take 
their place.
  I am hopeful that discussions scheduled for this weekend between 
India's Prime Minister Vajpayee and Pakistan's Prime Minister Sharif 
will resolve this issue. In any event, the U.S. should support the 
peaceful resolution to this conflict.

                          ____________________



        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. NANCY PELOSI

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 9, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment. American women have a constitutionally 
protected right to choose. We must protect this right.
  The Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment would reverse the ban on 
privately funded abortion services at U.S. military bases overseas. 
This amendment would provide servicewomen and military wives who live 
on American overseas military bases, the same access to health care as 
their United States based colleagues. The women we station overseas are 
already making great sacrifices for their country by leaving behind 
their family, friends, and community. We should not deny them their 
constitutional rights nor access to reproductive services.
  This amendment would not expend Federal funds for abortion services. 
This amendment would not require health care professionals who oppose 
abortion to provide this medical service owing to their moral principle 
or as a matter of conscience. This amendment would return this policy 
to where it previously stood for many years under both Republican and 
Democratic administrations. The Department of Defense supports this 
amendment. Simply put, this amendment would allow women stationed 
overseas to use their own funds at overseas military hospitals to 
exercise their constitutional right to obtain abortion services. 
Current policy forces women who seek reproductive services to wait 
until they return to America or to seek out illegal and unsafe 
procedures near where they are stationed. Therefore current policy 
often jeopardizes their health and lives.
  While I certainly respect my colleagues' views on the question of 
abortion, the fact is that women do have a right to choose that option, 
in consultation with their family, their doctors, and their God, and we 
should not make that decision more dangerous for them.
  In the interest of making abortions safe when necessary, I urge my 
colleagues to vote to support the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment. By 
allowing the Department of Defense to move ahead on this, we will 
ensure the safety of the American women we have stationed overseas. We 
have a responsibility to do this.

                          ____________________



    ANDREW TOWNE, LeGRAND SMITH SCHOLARSHIP WINNER OF PITTSFORD, MI

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. NICK SMITH

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that it is with 
great respect for the outstanding record of excellence he has compiled 
in academics, leadership and community service, that I am proud to 
salute Andrew Towne, winner of the 1999 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This 
award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly 
committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future.
  As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Andrew is being honored 
for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, 
responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that 
distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan.
  Andrew Towne is an exceptional student at Pittsford High School and 
possesses an impressive high school record. Andrew's involvement in 
football, basketball and track began his freshman year and continued 
through his freshman year and continued through his senior year. He 
excelled both academically and athletically as Captain of the Quiz Bowl 
and Basketball Team. Outside of school, Andrew participated in several 
volunteer activities to improve the community.
  Therefore, I am proud to join with his many admirers in extending my 
highest praise and congratulations to Andrew Towne for his selection as 
a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is also a testament 
to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong 
support and active participation contributed to his success. To this 
remarkable young man, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all 
his future endeavors.

                          ____________________



     CONGRATULATING THE GLENWOOD SCHOOL FOR RECEIVING THE TITLE I 
                       DISTINGUISHED SCHOOL AWARD

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. RICHARD E. NEAL

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate 
the Glenwood School of Springfield, Massachusetts. The Glenwood School 
was recently included as one of 88 schools nationally awarded the Title 
I Distinguished School Award. This award recognizes schools operating 
in high-poverty attendance areas that have been successful in raising 
the level of achievement of their students. This award is a tribute to 
the collective efforts of the dedicated educators, parents, 
administrators, and most of all the students. The backbone of the 
operation is the principal of the school, Mr. Daniel J. Warwick. He 
worked in conjunction with United Cooperative Bank, the PTO, and 
volunteers to ensure that the students would be given the best 
opportunity to achieve such an academic turnaround.
  All parties involved displayed mutual hard work to earn this 
recongintion as an exemplary school nationwide. The steps taken at 
Glenwood School will help to lessen the gap of achievement between 
advantaged and disadvantaged students. The hard work that all the 
members of the Glennwood School community portrayed will help to show 
that all children can learn to high standards.
  This community has also shown a set of priorities that other schools 
with high concentrations of children in poverty can abide by.These 
priorities included an emphasis on challenging academic content and 
performance centers, a teaching/learning environment characterized by 
curricula aligned to standards and an assessment system, and a 
commitment to ongoing professional development, family, and community 
involvement.
  The Glenwood School has successfully overcome socioeconomic problems 
(82% poverty level) to achieve academic excellence. It has shown all 
children that they have the opportunity to learn and realize their true 
potential. By incorporating the entire student body and community the 
Glenwood School has overcome the odds. Their recent success should be 
commended. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have such a hard working school 
in my district. Glenwood School's inaugural success has sparked a 
desire to continue moving


forward. This sole reason perhaps more so than any other, deserves our 
respect and congratulations.

                          ____________________


[[Page 12569]]

      HONORING TAIWAN FOR ITS COMMITMENT TO THE REFUGEES OF KOSOVO

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. PETER T. KING

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Taiwan's continuing 
commitment to peace and stability in the Balkan region. Classified by 
China as a renegade province with no right to diplomatic recognition, 
Taiwan is excluded from the United Nations and deprived of relations 
with many nations. Despite this diplomatic embargo, Taiwan unveiled 
this past Monday, June 7, a $300 million aid package to assist the more 
than 782,000 ethnic Albanians who have been forced to leave as a result 
of Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal campaign.
  This aid package will include emergency supplies for Kosovar refugees 
and contributions to long-term reconstruction efforts by the 
international community in Kosovo once a peace plan is accepted and 
implemented. In addition, it also offers to arrange for Kosovar 
refugees to receive short-term technical training in Taiwan.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize Taiwan's sincerity and commitment 
to join the international drive to help the Kosovar refugees.

                          ____________________



     DR. HAROLD P. FURTH: A SCIENTIFIC LEADER AND A GREAT AMERICAN

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Harold P. Furth 
who has been appointed an Emeritus Professor of Princeton University, 
effective July 1st.
  Dr. Furth, who served for 10 years as the director of the Princeton 
Plasma Physics Laboratory, has been a world leader in our nation's 
effort to recreate on earth the fusion process that powers the stars. 
As Dr. Furth has long understood, fusion can provide an abundant, safe, 
and environmentally attractive energy source to meet America's long 
term needs.
  Dr. Furth conceived of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR), the 
world's most successful fusion experiment, and oversaw its design and 
scientific program. TFTR achieved all of its research objectives, 
including the production of world-record amounts of fusion power in 
1994. Discoveries made on TFTR increased substantially the basic 
understanding of fusion. These results are providing the insights 
necessary for the success of advanced fusion experiments now underway.
  Beyond his renowned scientific prowess, I have for years admired his 
adept leadership in the science community. During the last year in 
which Dr. Furth was the Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics 
Laboratory, I was privileged to serve as the Assistant Director. As a 
scientific director, he established the right symbiotic relationship 
between theory and experiment. Dr. Furth's knowledge of all aspects of 
the field of fusion science and plasma physics and his erudite manner 
have made him a truly outstanding leader of the fusion community.
  As a Congressman now, I deeply appreciate his ability to lead both in 
the details of a major scientific program and his ability to provide 
direction for the field as a whole. His shrewd judgment allows him to 
be an effective steward of our nation's resources. He continues to show 
extraordinary ability to gauge all aspects of the fusion program, 
scientific, political, and economic, and to see the proper direction of 
the program.
  We will continue to rely on the outstanding contributions of 
Americans such as Harold Furth as the foundation for our national 
security and economic well-being in the 21st century.

                          ____________________



                      INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JIM McCRERY

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction 
of the United States-Flag Merchant Marine Revitalization Act of 1999. 
This bipartisan legislative initiative, which I am introducing along 
with Congressman Herger of California, Congressman Jefferson of 
Louisiana, and Congressman Abercrombie of Hawaii, is critically 
important to the modernization and growth of the United States maritime 
industry, our nation's fourth arm of defense.
  History has repeatedly proven--and Congress has repeatedly affirmed--
that the United States needs a strong, active, competitive and 
militarily-useful United States-flag commercial maritime industry to 
protect and strengthen our nation's economic and military security. In 
times of war or other emergency, as vividly demonstrated during the 
Persian Gulf War, United States-flag commercial vessels and their 
United States citizen crews respond quickly, effectively and 
efficiently to our nation's call, providing the sealift sustainment 
capability necessary to support America's armed forces overseas.
  In 1992, General Colin Powell, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, told the graduating class of the United States Merchant Marine 
Academy at Kings Point that:

       Since I became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I 
     have come to appreciate firsthand why our merchant marine has 
     long been called the nation's fourth arm of defense . . . The 
     war in the Persian Gulf is over but the merchant marine's 
     contribution to our nation continues. In war, merchant seamen 
     have long served with valor and distinction by carrying 
     critical supplies and equipment to our troops in far away 
     lands. In peacetime, the merchant marine has another vital 
     role-contributing to our economic security by linking us to 
     our trading partners around the world and providing the 
     foundation for our ocean commerce.

  I am convinced that the best way to ensure that our nation continues 
to have the militarily-useful commercial vessels and trained and loyal 
United States citizen crews we need to support our interests around the 
world is to enact those programs and policies that will better enable 
our maritime industry to flourish in peacetime. I am equally convinced 
that one important way to do so is to provide a tax environment for our 
maritime industry which more closely reflects the favorable tax 
treatment other maritime nations provide to their own merchant fleets. 
The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today will in fact 
strengthen the competitiveness of United States-flag vessel operations 
by providing a greater opportunity for American vessel owners to 
accumulate the private capital necessary to build modern, efficient and 
economical commercial vessels in American shipyards.
  This bill amends the existing merchant marine Capital Construction 
Fund (CCF) program contained in section 607 of the Merchant Marine Act, 
1970 and section 7518 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The 
existing program allows an American citizen to deposit the earnings 
from various United States built, United States-flag vessel operations 
into a tax-deferred Capital Construction Fund to be used exclusively in 
conjunction with an approved United States shipbuilding program. The 
deferred tax is recouped by the Treasury through reduced depreciation 
because the tax basis of vessels built with CCF monies is reduced on a 
dollar-for-dollar basis.
  In order to better reflect the significant tax-related disadvantages 
American vessel owners face as compared to their foreign competition, 
and to continue to ensure our nation has the most militarily useful and 
economically viable domestic maritime industry, this legislation would 
amend the existing CCF program to expand the type of earnings eligible 
to be deposited into a CCF and the purposes for which a qualified 
withdrawal can be made. Significantly, these amendments do not in any 
fashion alter or weaken the existing requirement that vessels build 
with CCF monies must be built in the United States and operate under 
the laws of the United States with United States citizens crews.
  Specially, this legislation amends the CCF program to:
  Allow earnings from United States-flag foreign built vessels to be 
deposited into a CCF in order to increase the amount of capital 
available to build vessels in an American shipyard;
  Allow CCF monies to be withdrawn to build, in an American shipyard, a 
vessel for operation under the United States-flag in the oceangoing 
domestic trades in order to further enhance the modernization and 
growth of this important segment of the maritime industry;
  Allow CCF monies to be withdrawn to acquire United States-built 
containers or trailers for use on a United States-flag vessel in order 
to better ensure that cargo moves on American vessels in a safe and 
efficient fashion;
  Allow CCF monies to be withdrawn in conjunction with the lease of a 
United States-built vessel, trailer or container in order to better 
reflect the realities of current ship financing arrangements;

[[Page 12570]]

  Allow a vessel owner to deposit into a CCF the duty arising from 
foreign ship repairs to ensure that the duty is used to the benefit of 
United States shipyards; and
  Remove the CCF as an alternative minimum tax adjustment item so that 
the full intended benefits of the program--the accumulation of private 
capital for the construction of commercial vessels in United States 
shipyards--are realized.
  The United States-Flag Merchant Marine Revitalization Act of 1999 is 
critically important to the modernization and growth of the United 
States-flag merchant marine and should be supported and enacted. It 
will generate significant commercial vessel construction in United 
States shipyards and help American flag vessel operators compete more 
equally with their foreign flag vessel counterparts.

                          ____________________



    HONORING CHRISTINA WRIGHT, LeGRAND SMITH SCHOLARSHIP WINNER OF 
                              MARSHALL, MI

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. NICK SMITH

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that it is with 
great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has compiled 
in academics, leadership and community service, that I am proud to 
salute Christina Wright, winner of the 1999 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. 
This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are 
truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future.
  As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Christina is being 
honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, 
responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that 
distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan.
  Christina Wright is an exceptional student at Marshall High School 
and possesses an impressive high school record. Christina has received 
numerous awards for her involvement in Debate and the Performing Arts. 
Outside of school, she has served the community through many church 
activities and the United Way.
  Therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my 
highest praise and congratulations to Christina Wright for her 
selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is 
also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal 
interest, strong support and active participation contributed to her 
success. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt 
good wishes for all her future endeavors.

                          ____________________



    CONSUMER TELEMARKETING FINANCIAL PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to 
restrict the sharing of credit card account numbers and other 
confidential information for purposes of telemarketing to consumers. My 
legislation responds to widespread negative-option telemarketing 
schemes that were brought dramatically to the public's attention this 
week in a speech by the Comptroller of the Currency and in a major 
lawsuit announced yesterday by the Minnesota Attorney General. I am 
pleased to join in sponsoring this legislation with my colleague from 
Minnesota, Bruce Vento, the Ranking Member of the Financial Services 
Subcommittee, and my Banking Committee colleagues Barney Frank, Paul 
Kanjorski, Ken Bentsen and Jay Inslee.
  While negative option telemarketing schemes appear to have been in 
operation for several years, their significance and breadth only 
recently came to light in news stories and state Attorneys General 
investigations. They remained hidden largely because most consumers 
don't realize they have been victimized and, for those who do, many 
assume the problem is a random mistake. Most consumers find it hard to 
believe that their bank or credit card company would systematically 
sell their private account numbers to questionable marketing 
operations. This is not the way banking has traditionally been 
conducted.
  Consumers should have confidence that their credit card and bank 
account numbers will not be sold to the highest bidder. They should not 
feel they have to scrutinize their credit card statements for 
unauthorized charges. And they should not have to fear that every sign 
of interest or request for information in a telemarketing call will 
lead to automatic charges on their credit cards. This is unfair to 
consumers and potentially damaging to our banking system.
  These telemarketing schemes operate in the following manner. A bank 
will enter into an agreement with an unaffiliated firm that provides 
telemarketing services to companies offering a variety of discount, 
subscription, service or product sampling memberships. The bank 
provides extensive confidential personal and financial information 
about its customers in return for a fee and commissions on sales made 
by the telemarketing firm. The information goes far beyond the names 
and addresses of customers, including specific account numbers, account 
balances, credit card purchases and credit scoring information. This 
information enables the marketer to profile the bank's customers and 
offer ``trial memberships'' that are targeted to each customer's 
interests, income and buying habits.
  What makes the whole thing work is the fact that the telemarketer 
already has access to the consumer's credit card account. If the 
consumer indicates any interest in a ``trial'' membership, or even in 
receiving additional materials, their credit card account is 
automatically charged for the membership without the customer ever 
disclosing their account number or even knowing that they have 
authorized the charge. In many instances, the customer never notices 
the charge, or only sees it when it automatically converts into a 
continuing series of monthly membership or product charges. The 
consumer then has to take actions to stop the charges (hence the term 
``negative option'') and attempts to have the charges refunded to their 
account.
  According to state officials, consumers typically have considerable 
difficulty obtaining refunds for these charges, or even getting their 
bank to remove continuing charges from their account. Many have had to 
contact their State Attorney General before the bank or telemarketer 
would refund the charges.
  While the Comptroller of the Currency this week identified this 
practice as an example of banking practices ``that are seamy, if not 
downright unfair and deceptive'', they do not appear to violate any 
federal law or regulation. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) 
currently exempts from regulation any information that a bank derives 
from its routine transactions and experience with customers. This 
permits a bank to provide credit related information to credit bureaus 
without itself being regulated as a credit bureau. Until recently, 
banks did not routinely share confidential customers information out of 
concern for maintaining customer confidence. Clearly, this has changed. 
The other applicable federal statute, the federal Telemarketing Act and 
the FTC's Telemarketing Rule, also provide only limited protection 
since telemarketers are required only to show some taped expression of 
interest or consent before charging a consumer for a membership or 
service. However, few consumers understand that agreeing to a ``trial'' 
offer will lead to automatic and repeated charges to their credit card 
account.
  Banking regulators also have been limited in their ability to respond 
to this problem as a result of amendments made to the Fair Credit 
Reporting Act in 1996 that restrict regulatory agencies from conducting 
bank examinations for FCRA compliance except in response to specific 
complaints. Even then, the statute limits the regulator's ability to 
monitor compliance only to regularly scheduled bank examinations. 
Authority to interpret FCRA to address such practices also is limited 
to the Federal Reserve Board, which often does not have direct 
regulatory contact with most of the institutions involved.
  The absence of federal regulation has permitted bank involvement in 
negative option telemarketing to become far more widespread than first 
assumed. The action brought yesterday by the Minnesota Attorney General 
cited several bank subsidiaries of US Bancorp. Newspaper articles have 
described identical operations involving other national telemarketing 
firms and a number of major national banks and retailers. Documents 
filed with the SEC last year by the telemarketing company cited in the 
Minnesota action claimed that the company had ``over 50 credit card 
issuers'' as clients, ``including 17 of the top 25 issuers of bank 
credit cards, three of the top five issuers of oil company credit cards 
and three of the top five issuers of retail company credit cards.''

  Comptroller Hawke was entirely correct in citing this as a widespread 
problem that raises potential safety and soundness concerns for the 
banking system and also as an example of ``practices that cry out for 
government scrutiny.''
  The bill I am introducing today would address this problem from 
several perspectives. First, it amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to 
limit the current exemption for sharing of

[[Page 12571]]

confidential transaction and experience information about customers. 
Under the bill, information can be shared for purposes of telemarketing 
only if (1) the information to be shared does not include any account 
numbers for credit cards or other deposit or transaction accounts and 
(2) the bank provides clear and conspicuous disclosure to the consumer 
of the type of information it seeks to share with a telemarketer and 
provides the consumer with an opportunity to direct that the 
information not be shared.
  Second, the bill addresses the limitations on current regulatory 
enforcement by removing the 1996 limitations on the ability of bank 
regulators to undertake examinations and enforcement actions to assure 
FCRA compliance. It broadens FCRA rulemaking authority to provide for 
joint rulemaking by the OCC, OTS and FDIC as well as the Federal 
Reserve. And it extends rulemaking authority for the National Credit 
Union Administration for purposes of compliance by federal credit 
unions.
  Mr. Speaker, my bill does not attempt to take on the entire issue of 
financial privacy. It is narrowly targeted to address only the problem 
of sharing information for purposes of telemarketing. However, it 
offers meaningful privacy protections that are urgently needed by 
consumers and which Congress can, and should, enact into law at the 
earliest opportunity.
  I urge the Congress to adopt this important and needed legislation.
  The text of the bill follows:

                                 H.R.--

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer 
     Telemarketing Financial Privacy Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON THE SHARING OF CONFIDENTIAL 
                   INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OF TELEMARKETING TO 
                   CONSUMERS.

       Section 603(d)(2)(A)(i) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting before 
     the semicolon at the end thereof the following:

     ``, and any communication of that information by the person 
     making the report to any other person for the purpose of 
     telemarketing to the consumer, if--
       ``(aa) it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the 
     consumer the information that may be communicated to such 
     persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the 
     time that the information is initially communicated, to 
     direct that such information not be communicated among such 
     persons; and
       ``(bb) the information to be communicated does not include 
     an account number or other form of access for a credit card, 
     deposit or transaction account of the consumer for use in 
     connection with any telemarketing to the consumer''.

     SEC. 3. ENHANCEMENT OF FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.

       Section 621 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1681s) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), by striking everything following the 
     end of the second sentence; and
       (2) by striking subsection ``(e)'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following;
       ``(e) Regulatory Authority.--
       ``(1) The Federal banking agencies referred to in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) shall jointly 
     prescribe such regulations as necessary to carry out the 
     purposes of this Act with respect to any persons identified 
     under paragraph (1) and (2) of subsection (b), or to the 
     holding companies and affiliates of such persons.
       ``(2) The Administrator of the National Credit Union 
     Administration shall prescribe such regulations as necessary 
     to carry out the purposes of this Act with respect to any 
     persons identified under paragraph (3) of subsection (b).''.

     SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

       The Federal banking agencies referred to in paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) of subsection (b), not later than the end of the 6-
     month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, shall issue joint regulations in final form to implement 
     the amendments made by this Act. The Administrator of the 
     National Credit Union Administration, not later than the end 
     of the 6-month period beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, shall issue regulations in final form to implement 
     the amendments made by this Act with respect to any Federal 
     credit union.

     

                          ____________________



INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 2119--``THE YOUNG AMERICAN WORKERS' BILL OF RIGHTS 
                                 ACT''

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced comprehensive domestic 
child labor reform legislation--H.R. 2119, ``The Young American 
Workers' Bill of Rights Act.'' I am delighted to report that this 
legislation has been cosponsored by 57 other Members of the Congress, 
including my distinguished fellow Californian, Congressman Tom Campbell 
of San Jose, and our distinguished colleague, Congressman John Porter 
of Illinois, who is Co-Chairman with me of the Congressional Human 
Rights Caucus.
  It is a shocking fact, Mr. Speaker, that the occupational injury rate 
for children and teens in this country is more than twice as high as it 
is for adults. A young person is killed on the job in this country 
every five days. A young worker is injured on the job every 40 seconds. 
These deaths and these injuries to our nation's children are totally 
unacceptable.
  Mr. Speaker, as America prepares to enter the 21st Century, we must 
ensure that our children work under safe conditions. We must ensure 
that the work available to them does not limit their educational 
opportunities, but helps them achieve healthy and productive lives. The 
Young American Workers' Bill of Rights will help to make certain that 
job opportunities available to our young people are safer and do not 
interfere with their education.
  Unfortunately, the exploitation of child labor in our country is not 
a thing of the past. It is a national problem that continues to 
jeopardize the health, education, and lives of many of our nation's 
children and teenagers. In farm fields and in fast-food restaurants all 
over this country, employers are breaking the law by hiring under-age 
children. Many of these youth put in long, hard hours and often work 
under dangerous conditions. Our legislation seeks to eliminate the all-
too-common exploitation of children--working long hours late into the 
night while school is in session, and working under hazardous 
conditions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2119--The ``Young American Workers' Bill of Rights 
Act''--addresses two major aspects of child labor: the deaths and 
serious injuries suffered by our young workers and the negative impact 
which working excessive hours during school can have on a child's 
education.
  The legislation establishes new, tougher penalties for willful 
violations of child labor laws that result in the death or serious 
bodily injury to a child. Not only does the bill increase fines and 
prison sentences for such willful violation of our laws, but it will 
assure that the names of child labor law violators are publicized. 
Nothing will deter corporate giants more than negative publicity, and 
bad press is one of the few effective sanctions that are available to 
us.
  Mr. Speaker, our legislation also increases protection for children 
under the age of 14 who are migrant or seasonal workers in agriculture. 
Current labor laws allow children--even those under 10 years of age--to 
be employed in agriculture. Farm worker children can work unlimited 
hours before and after school, and they are not even eligible for 
overtime pay. At the age of 14, or even earlier, children working in 
agriculture can use knives and machetes, operate dangerous machinery, 
and be exposed to toxic pesticides. In no other industry are children 
so exploited as they are in agriculture.
  H.R. 2119 also requires better record keeping and reporting of child 
labor violations, prohibits minors from operating or cleaning certain 
types of unsafe equipment, and prohibits children from working in 
certain particularly hazardous occupations.
  Mr. Speaker, our legislation will reduce the problem of children 
working long hours when school is in session, and it strengthens 
existing limitations on the number of hours children under 18 years of 
age can work on school days. The bill would eliminate all youth labor 
before school, and after-school work would be limited to 15 or 20 hours 
per week, depending on the age of the child. This is important, Mr. 
Speaker, because the more hours children work during the school year, 
the more likely they are to take easier courses, and the more likely 
they are to do poorly in their studies. Studies have shown that 
children who work long hours also tend to use more alcohol and drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, too many teenagers are working long hours at the very 
time that they should be focusing on their education. It is important 
for children to learn the value of work, but education, not minimum-
wage jobs, are the key to these young people's future. Our legislation 
is an important step in focusing attention back upon education.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join as cosponsors of this 
legislation. The future of our nation depends upon the strength of our 
young people. It is important that we assure a safe place to work and 
that we be certain that work not interfere with education.




                          ____________________


[[Page 12572]]

 HONORING MEGAN ROONEY, LeGRAND SMITH SCHOLARSHIP WINNER OF CONCORD, MI

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. NICK SMITH

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that it is with 
great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has compiled 
in academics, leadership and community service, that I am proud to 
salute Megan Rooney, winner of the 1999 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This 
award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly 
committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future.
  As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Megan is being honored 
for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, 
responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that 
distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan.
  Megan Rooney is an exceptional student at Concord High School and 
possesses an impressive high school record. Megan's involvement in 
student government and school activities began her freshman year and 
continued through her senior year. She served as President of the 
student body and Vice-President of S.A.D.D. Megan excelled athletically 
as well on the basketball and softball teams.
  Therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my 
highest praise and congratulations to Megan Rooney for her selection as 
a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is also a testament 
to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong 
support and active participation contributed to her success. To this 
remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all 
her future endeavors.

                          ____________________



THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SHOULD PURCHASE FREE WEIGHT STRENGTH TRAINING 
    EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES, NOT COMMUNIST CHINA

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, the United States has long been the leader 
in manufacturing. Our ingenuity and efficiency drove our economy from a 
largely agrarian society to the bustling 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 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 may 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 suffer.
  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 
predominantly 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 tried offering 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. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee did 
not rule this amendment in order.
  As a result, I offered 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 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 that 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.

                          ____________________



               RETURN UNSPENT CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE FUNDS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TIM ROEMER

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce important, 
bipartisan legislation to require Congressional office funds be 
returned directly to the Department of the Treasury at the end of the 
year to help pay down the national debt. I offer this legislation with 
Representatives Fred Upton, Dave Camp and 52 original cosponsors.
  At this time, Congress is making tough decisions about federal 
spending as we debate the appropriations legislation for Fiscal Year 
2000. We are working hard to keep the overall spending levels within 
the caps implemented by the Balanced Budget Amendment, which I 
cosponsored and voted for in 1996. We are making difficult choices and 
sacrifices, and it is appropriate for Members of Congress to lead by 
example.
  That is why I have introduced this legislation to show American 
taxpayers that Congress is tightening its own belt by returning money 
allocated to Members for official expenses, staff salaries and mail 
funds. I have introduced this bill in each of the past three Congresses 
and the language of my legislation has been attached to each 
Legislative Branch Appropriations bill dating back to fiscal year 1996.

[[Page 12573]]

  This year, I have modified my legislation. Since both the 
Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget 
have forecast budget surpluses for the current fiscal year, my bill no 
longer requires Congressional office savings to be redesignated for 
deficit reduction. Instead, the bill requires unexpended funds 
contained in the Members' Representational Allowance (MRA) account--
formerly known as the official expenses, clerk hire and franking 
accounts--to be applied toward reducing the federal debt. In the event 
that the United States returns to a budget deficit, the legislation 
specifically requires the Treasury to apply any remaining Congressional 
office funds to deficit reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that many of my colleagues have shared my 
concerns and frustrations that money saved by Members of Congress was 
not applied to deficit reduction or reducing the federal debt before my 
legislation was enacted. Rather, funds were simply ``reprogrammed'' for 
other budget items, thereby defeating the frugal intentions of many 
Members. The unspent funds would remain available for reprogramming for 
the following three years, including the year for which those funds 
were appropriated. At the end of the three years, unspent money 
immediately reverted from the House account to the General Fund of the 
U.S. Treasury.
  My legislation would ensure that taxpayers truly benefit from savings 
accrued by Members, who in turn would receive the credit they deserve 
for not spending their entire office allowance. Since I have served in 
Congress, I have saved more than one million dollars. There are many 
Members who have worked just as hard not to spend as much as they were 
entitled to spend based on their official allocation.
  In fact, an analysis of Congressional spending conducted by the 
National Taxpayers Union indicated that Members have spent an average 
of 89.1 percent of their allowances since 1995. Since the Legislative 
Branch Appropriations bill for FY 2000 contains $413.5 million for the 
MRA account, the potential savings could amount to tens of millions of 
dollars. These are significant savings, and they should be used to help 
pay down the national debt. This debt currently exceeds $5.5 trillion, 
and interest of the debt remains the second largest expenditure in the 
entire federal budget. This amount is being paid in full by the 
American taxpayers every year.
  Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation clearly demonstrates that 
Congress is leading from the top down and is working hard to find ways 
to lower the national debt. I am pleased that this legislation was 
adopted as part of the FY 2000 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. 
I am hopeful that the bill I introduce today will make this practice a 
permanent law. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the bill, 
and I urge its approval by the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________



          TRIBUTE TO VALLEY VIEW HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT SPEAKERS

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the 
achievements of two outstanding young students from my congressional 
district in Southern California. April Fields and Jamie Gordon from 
Valley View High School in the City of Ontario have been selected as 
student speakers for the last graduating class of this century and 
deserve to be recognized for this laudable achievement.
  I am proud of all of my Inland Empire region's graduating students in 
the Class of 1999, as they represent some of the best and brightest of 
future generations. I am especially proud, however, of those students, 
such as April and Jamie, who have risen above adversity and overcome 
challenges and obstacles that may have threatened to hinder their path 
to success. I am very proud to represent such fine young students.
  Education is the most important foundation we can have for life, and 
April and Jamie have realized that potential. They have already 
accomplished a great deal and stand to reap even more success as the 
years go by. My best wishes to them and hopes for a bright and 
prosperous future.

                          ____________________



HONORING JOSHUA GILLETTE, LeGRAND SMITH SCHOLARSHIP WINNER OF MICHIGAN 
                               CENTER, MI

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. NICK SMITH

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that it is with 
great respect for the outstanding record of excellence he has compiled 
in academics, leadership and community service, that I am proud to 
salute Joshua Gillette, winner of the 1999 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. 
This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are 
truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future.
  As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Joshua is being honored 
for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, 
responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that 
distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan.
  Joshua Gillette is an exceptional student at Michigan Center High 
School and possesses an impressive high school record. Joshua's 
involvement in football, basketball and track began his freshman year 
and continued through his senior year. He excelled both academically 
and athletically as President of the Student Council and Captain of the 
Football and Track Teams. Outside of school, Joshua participated in 
several volunteer activities to improve the community.
  Therefore, I am proud to join with his many admirers in extending my 
highest praise and congratulations to Joshua Gillette for his selection 
as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is also a 
testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, 
strong support and active participation contributed to his success. To 
this remarkable young man, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for 
all his future endeavors.

                          ____________________



                     TIMBER TAX SIMPLIFICATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MAC COLLINS

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which 
corrects an inequity in the Internal Revenue Code which affects the 
sale of certain assets.
  Under current law, landowners that are occasional sellers of timber 
are often classified by the Internal Revenue Service as ``dealers.'' As 
a result, the seller is forced to choose between a ``lump sum'' payment 
method or a pay-as-cut contract which often results in an under-
realization of the fair value of the contract. While electing the pay-
as-cut contract option provides access to capital gains treatment, the 
seller must comply with special rules in Section 631(b) of the Internal 
Revenue code. The provisions of Sec. 631(b) require these sellers to 
``retain an economic interest'' in their timber until it is harvested. 
Under the retained economic interest requirement, the seller bears all 
the risk and is only paid for timber that is harvested, regardless of 
whether the terms of the contract are violated. Additionally, since the 
buyer pays for only the timber that is removed or ``scaled'' there is 
an incentive to waste poor quality timber, to under scale the timber, 
or to remove the timber without scaling.
  The legislation I have introduced will provide greater consistency by 
removing the exclusive ``retained economic interest'' requirement in 
IRC Section 631(b). This change has been supported or suggested by a 
number of groups for tax simplification purposes, including the 
Internal Revenue Service. I urge my colleagues to join in this tax 
simplification effort and strongly urge its passage.

                          ____________________



                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DONALD A. MANZULLO

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 186, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

                          ____________________



   HONORING KRISTA CARPENTER, LeGRAND SMITH SCHOLARSHIP FINALIST OF 
                               HUDSON, MI

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. NICK SMITH

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I call this resolution to your 
attention.

[[Page 12574]]

  Whereas, it is with great respect for the outstanding record of 
excellence she has compiled in academics, leadership and community 
service, that I am proud to salute Krista Carpenter, a recipient of the 
1999 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This Scholarship is awarded to young 
adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing 
important roles in our Nation's future.
  Whereas, in being named as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship, 
Krista Carpenter is being honored for demonstrating that same 
generosity of spirit, depth of intelligence, responsible citizenship, 
and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand 
Smith of Somerset, Michigan.
  Whereas, Krista Carpenter is an exceptional student at Hudson High 
School and possesses an impressive high school record. Krista has 
excelled both athletically and academically, being involved in three 
varsity sports teams, while being a member of the National Honor 
Society. Outside of school activities, she has been active in her 
church, as well as receiving special honors for her involvement in 4-H.
  Be it resolved, That as a member of Congress of the United States of 
America, I am proud to join with your many admirers in extending our 
highest praise and congratulations as a winner of the LeGrand Smith 
Scholarship. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt 
good wishes for all her future endeavors.