Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 for May 24, 2000

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Issue]
[Pages 8991-9238]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 8991]]

106

VOLUME 146--PART 7

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

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

SENATE--Wednesday, May 24, 2000

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

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Blessed God, here we are at the beginning of another day. Help us to
believe that what we commit to You this day will come to pass if You
deem it best for us. We need to experience the peace of mind and body
that comes when we do what You guide us to do and then leave the
results to You.
Bless the Senators with the profound peace that comes from giving You
their burdens and receiving Your resiliency and refreshment. May this
be a great day because they, and all of us who work with them, decide
to rest in Your presence and wait patiently for Your power to
strengthen us. Through our Lord and Saviour. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable Lincoln D. Chafee, a Senator from the State of Rhode
Island, led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

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

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The able Senator from Rhode Island is
recognized.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of
morning business until 11 a.m. and will begin consideration of S. 2603,
the legislative branch appropriations bill. It is hoped that an
agreement regarding debate time and amendments can be made so that a
vote on final passage can be scheduled for this afternoon. Under a
previous consent agreement, there are 40 minutes remaining on FEC
nominees Brad Smith and Danny McDonald. Votes on those nominations, as
well as the judicial nominations debated yesterday, are expected to be
stacked this afternoon. Senators will be notified as those votes are
scheduled.
I thank my colleagues for their attention.
I yield the floor.

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

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

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be a
period for the transaction of morning business for not to extend beyond
the hour of 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to
5 minutes each.
Under the previous order, the time until 10:30 a.m. shall be under
the control of the Senator from Illinois, or his designee.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

____________________

CROP INSURANCE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate today
because--and I speak with some sense of timing--I come from an
agricultural State.
In the next several days we could very well have a crop insurance
reform conference report out here on the floor. There is at least some
discussion, some thought, and maybe some probability that included in
that conference report will be about $7 billion of economic assistance
for family farmers, which essentially will be more AMTA payments.
When the Budget Committee allowed for up to $7 billion to go to
assistance for family farmers in the country, whether it be Minnesota,
whether it be Montana, or any other State, I think all of us believed
and hoped that this would be far superior to emergency appropriations,
and that we would have the agriculture authorization committee do some
fairly important investigation and analysis of the best way to get this
financial assistance out to family farmers.
In my rush to come down to the floor, I did not bring with me the
exact statistics, but basically the reports that we now see on what are
called AMTA payments suggest that entirely too much of this money goes
to those in least need. In other words, it is a subsidy program. Last
year, it was to the tune of about $16 billion in inverse relationship
to need. The top 10 percent of the producers--some of the big
corporations--received over 60 percent of the benefits, and then the
farmers received the rest, so that a family farm in Minnesota would be
lucky to get maybe $2,000 worth of assistance; whereas, those huge
operations were raking in $100,000 worth of assistance.
If we just take the $7 billion and put it into this conference report
without any committee hearings and without taking at least several
weeks after we get back to do some evaluation and some important
analysis about how to get this assistance out to the people who need it
the most, then I think we have not lived up to our responsibility as
Senators.
I say to my colleagues that I think we could at the very minimum, for
example, make sure that this money goes to producers. Those who own the
land but aren't involved in the production receive too much of the
benefits. The benefits ought to go to the producers.
I would also say to my colleagues that there is no reason in the
world that for fiscal year 2001 we can't focus on equity and get the
loan rate up at least to the rate for soybeans, in which case corn
would be $2.11 and wheat would be $3.10. Let me tell you that is the
direction we need to go for a State such as mine.
I sent a letter yesterday to Chairman Lugar, my colleague, a Senator
for

[[Page 8992]]

whom I happen to have a tremendous amount of respect. I will certainly
get a chance to talk with him today. I believe that we are making a big
mistake if we simply put this money into a conference report, which
means there will not be any real discussion and no real debate. We will
not have paid any attention whatsoever as to how we can allocate this
financial assistance out there in the countryside so that the lion's
share of the benefit goes to the farmers who are in greatest need.
Why in the world do we want to use the same AMTA formula which gets
subsidies out to farmers in inverse relationship to need? Why not some
careful consideration and some careful discussion? Isn't that what we
are about as legislators?
Too many times now in the Senate we see the same pattern of important
decisions not being made by virtue of taking, in this particular case,
what I think is an important question and just putting it into a
conference report with no opportunity for amendments and no opportunity
for discussion. I think that would be a big mistake. Instead, we can
surely decide on a better formula for getting the money out there to
the people. At the very minimum, it ought to go to the producers. It
ought not go to landowners who are not even involved in production.
Again, we have an opportunity for fiscal year 2001 to literally talk
about equity and at least get the loan rate up for other farmers and
other grain farmers that are equal to what we do for soybeans.
As a Senator from Minnesota, as a Senator from an agricultural State,
I come to the floor today to take issue with the direction in which we
are going and to urge my colleagues not to put this financial
assistance money into the crop insurance bill. But instead let's do the
kind of work that we ought to do as legislators. Let's do the kind of
evaluation we ought to do as legislators so we can get the help out
there to people who need it.
Farm income is going to go down 17 percent again this year. There are
a lot of farmers in my State. Many are going to be driven off the land.
If we are not going to write a new farm bill as an alternative to
this ``freedom to fail'' bill, which is one of the worst pieces of
legislation ever passed by the Congress or ever signed by a President,
then I don't think we are going to write a new farm bill until after
the election. At the very minimum, we ought to do our best to get the
assistance to the people who need it the most.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of S. 2617
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time remains on the Democratic side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes to speak in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, sometimes we use morning business to
have a chance to speak about legislation we introduce. Sometimes we use
morning business to make a plea to colleagues. Sometimes we use morning
business to convey a message. I want to convey a message to some
Senators about conference reports and the way we have been conducting
our business.
Right now with the conference reports--and I am specifically talking
about the bankruptcy bill--we don't have a conference committee. We
have a shadow committee because Democratic Senators are not involved at
all in the deliberations. There are some rumors going around in the
Senate that Republicans will basically reach an agreement on the
conference report on bankruptcy. Democrats will not be involved in this
deliberation at all. So we have not had a conference committee meeting.
We will know what is in that conference report when it is on our desk.
That conference report dealing with bankruptcy, believe it or not,
American public, could be put into an unrelated conference report such
as a conference report dealing with crop insurance. There is no longer
any scope of conference rule so it can be completely unrelated. Again,
that is a new way of doing business in the Senate. My argument is that
is no way to do business in the Senate.
I believe the minority should be involved in the conference. That is
a real conference. I do not believe the way to do business is for
Democrats to find out what is in the bill when it is put on our desk. I
certainly don't think this bankruptcy bill --which is so harsh and so
egregious in its effect on the most vulnerable citizens in the country,
while basically calling for no accountability or responsibility on the
part of the big credit card companies--should be put into an unrelated
conference report such as one dealing with crop insurance.
I use my time as a Senator today to say to Senators that if that
happens, and I hope it won't, if that should happen tomorrow, for
example, when we are supposed to go on recess, I think that would be
outrageous. I will oppose it. I will speak out against it and do
everything I can to block it. We would be here for days. I think there
are other colleagues who will be also outraged, especially at this
effort to put a shadow conference report on bankruptcy, with Democrats
not even being involved--and all the reports are that the bill is
getting harsher and harsher, not better--into an unrelated conference
report with a day to go before we are supposed to go into recess. If
that happens, I want to be clear, I don't intend to be jammed. I do not
intend to roll over on it. I intend to speak out against it. I intend
to point out to the American people all the ways in which this is
egregious legislation and the impact it will have on them and their
families. That will take time. I think other Senators will join me.
I hope we do not conduct our business that way in the Senate. I hope
I do not have to do that. I hope, instead, we will do what we need to
do with the legislative branch and with judicial nominations, with the
nomination of Brad Smith, have those votes, get onto other work, but
not have last minute efforts to sort of jam legislation into unrelated
legislation and attempt to ram it through here without the deliberation
and without the discussion.
I do not think that is the Senate at its best. I certainly, as a
Senator from Minnesota, cannot represent people in my State and people
in the country that way, and I will not. I will challenge it. So I hope
it does not come to that.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding we have until 10:30
in morning business on the Democratic side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

____________________

GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, a little over a year ago in Littleton, CO,
at Columbine High School, there was a shooting incident which shocked
America. We saw in that high school an event which we did not believe
could happen in the United States, where students could get guns
through a gun show, go into a high school filled with other students,
and open fire, killing 12 or 13 students and injuring many others. It
shocked America's conscience.
As a result, the Senate began to consider gun control legislation--
frankly,

[[Page 8993]]

more gun safety legislation--to keep guns out of the hands of those who
would misuse them. We are a nation of 200 million guns. Many of us
believe guns should be kept out of the hands of criminals and children.
So we considered legislation on the floor of the Senate to do a
background check at gun shows so kids and criminals would not have
access to guns through these gun shows. We know the Brady law requires
a background check at gun dealers. We think the same should apply to
gun shows.
We also thought handguns should have a trigger lock so children who
were looking around for something that was unusual and different or
challenging would not find a loaded gun and hurt themselves or a
playmate. We read about that almost every day. A trigger lock is a way
to make sure that gun is securely stored away from children.
In another part of the bill, we dealt with the whole question of
these high-capacity ammo clips, imported into the United States from
overseas, that have absolutely no value whatsoever for any legitimate
sportsman or hunter. They are people killers.
We considered that bill on the floor of the Senate. The vote on that
bill was 49-49, a tie vote. As provided under the Constitution of the
United States, the Vice President came and cast the tie-breaking vote.
We sent that bill over to the House in the hopes we could reduce some
of the gun violence in America after Columbine High School.
The National Rifle Association got its hands on that bill over in the
House, and that was the end of it. They stripped from that bill
virtually any of the provisions I described to you and sent it to a
conference where it has languished for almost 8 months. During that
period of time many more people have been killed by gun violence in
America.
Just a few weeks ago, the Million Mom March across the United States
brought out mothers on Mother's Day who gave up a celebration with
their family to come out and talk about the need in America for gun
safety, for gun control, sensible gun control. Yet this Congress has
turned a deaf ear. We have refused even to acknowledge that this gun
violence is rampant in America as in no other nation on Earth.
Every day now, for the last week, Members of the Senate have come to
the floor to memorialize those who died a year ago today, after
Columbine, after Littleton, CO, after Jonesboro, AR, and all of the
other cities where we saw the gun violence that captured our
imagination and basically stunned America. We come to the floor each
day to read the names of some of the victims. These are victims whose
names were collected by the U.S. Conference of Mayors from cities large
and small to remind us that a year ago today these people, whose names
I am about to read, died because of gun violence--people who had
otherwise normal lives and families and aspired to all the good things
we do in life. They lost their lives because of gun violence.
Many times, issues on the floor of the Senate and the House really do
not become very personal. They are statistics. We just refer to them in
the abstract. This is not about statistics. It is not about abstract
thought. It is about real human lives that have been lost to gun
violence a year ago today and, sadly, will be lost to gun violence
again today.
Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by
gunfire 1 year ago, on May 24, 1999: Michael Calim, age 32, Houston,
TX; Mark Raiffie, age 47, St. Louis, MO; Gary Ricks, age 51, Detroit,
MI; Bobby L. Williams, age 40, Houston, TX; Ronald Williams, age 47,
Miami-Dade County, FL; an unidentified female, San Francisco, CA.
Today in America there will be more gun deaths. We must remember that
among those gun deaths will be 12 children who will die. The National
Rifle Association at their recent convention said: We know who those 12
kids are; they are the gang bangers, drug gangs, and all the rest. You
can expect that.
They are wrong. Included among those 12 children are those who commit
suicide with guns, those who play with guns, little infants killing
themselves or a playmate, certainly those who are victims of gang
bangers and, believe me, I have seen innocent young men and women who
have been maimed. I have talked with the parents of people who have
been killed on the streets of one of my cities in Illinois, Chicago.
These were children waiting for a schoolbus when somebody came by and
sprayed bullets from one of these weapons and injured or killed
students.
For the National Rifle Association to say we basically should ignore
these 12 children who die every day in America because they are part of
drug gangs is a sad commentary on this organization and a sad
commentary that they are out of touch with the reality of gun violence
as it affects every family in America today. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time from 10:30
a.m. until 11 a.m. shall be under the control of the Senator from
Wyoming, or his designee.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes
of the time allocated to the Senator from Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.

____________________

REBUTTAL ON SOCIAL SECURITY

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, yesterday the Senator from California,
Mrs. Boxer, came to the Senate floor to discuss Social Security reform.
In her discussion, she took on the issue of some of the Texas
municipalities that had chosen to opt out of Social Security and
attempted to show they were doing less well than anyone in the Social
Security system today. I want to refute some of those remarks,
especially the ones that referred to these counties in Texas, and give
the other side of the story.
She attempted to show that municipal employees in Texas, particularly
Galveston County, are not doing as well under their own retirement plan
than if they were part of the Social Security system.
Just in the last few minutes, I talked to the county judge of
Galveston County, Judge Yarborough, who is a very good Democrat, a very
good person, and is doing a good job in Galveston County. He says in
the 5\1/2\ years he has been county judge, he has never had one
complaint from an employee in Galveston County and, in fact, has had
many retirees come up to him and say how glad they are that they have
their own retirement system rather than having been forced into the
Social Security system back in the eighties when they were allowed to
opt out.
First and foremost, because this is important, this was somehow
linked to Governor Bush's Social Security plan. There is no linkage
whatsoever. In fact, the opt-out was done in 1981 by Galveston and a
few other municipalities around my State, and there were others around
the country. There was a window during that time in which county and
municipal employees were able to opt out of Social Security, and
Galveston County did decide to opt out.
I hope as we go into the future and as we talk about Governor Bush's
Social Security plan, we will not attempt to link that window when some
municipalities opted out of Social Security to Governor Bush's plan.
That is important because Governor Bush has said all along, from the
very beginning when he put his plan forward, that, in fact, we would
have a choice under his plan. Anyone wanting to stay in the present
Social Security system would have that option.
That is a very important distinction to make because people might
want to keep that option after they have looked at the alternative that
will be available, but, in fact, millions of Americans will decide that
they want to have a part in making some decisions on their own for the
Social Security tax they pay.
Nearly 5 million municipal employees across the country are not part
of the Social Security system. One such area is the city of San Diego.
The rates of return on these pension programs are very good--so good,
in fact, that the California Senators sent a letter to President
Clinton in which they said:

[[Page 8994]]

Millions of our constituents, who will receive higher
retirement benefits from their current public pensions than
they would under Social Security, are appealing to their
elected representatives in Washington. We respectfully urge
you to honor the original legislative intent underpinning the
Social Security system, and exclude this provision from any
reform plan you consider during the remainder of your term.

It is clear that if municipal employees are earning higher rates of
return and want to stay in their own retirement plans, they should not
be forced into a system of lower returns, and it should be a choice
they have. I agree with the Senators from California in their goal.
I will now talk about the specifics of the Galveston plan. Many of
these same Galveston employees have urged me to oppose their inclusion
in Social Security.
Some of the information that was used on the floor yesterday was
based on a GAO report, but if my colleagues read the report carefully,
they can see the clear differences between Social Security and the plan
in Galveston County.
First, it is important to remember that, in Galveston, they have a
basic retirement plan that every employee puts money into and on which
they have returns. That plan is separate. In 1981, they were allowed to
opt out of Social Security so that their 7 percent they would have paid
into Social Security would, in fact, go into a supplemental plan. In
Galveston County, we are talking about a supplemental plan to their
basic retirement plan, so everything they get with the 7 percent which
they put into their own supplemental plan is over and above their basic
retirement system.
The GAO said that ``outcomes generally depend on individual
circumstances and conditions.'' So each case is taken on an individual
basis--it is hard to make broad statements about the plan. The annuity
each retiree receives is based on the contributions and the time served
in government; it is not a defined benefit formula, such as Social
Security. Nevertheless, the plan is designed to provide a return
similar to Social Security, which it does, and it has some features
that are even better.
The GAO noted that ``The Galveston plan also has a very conservative
investment strategy that has precluded investing in common stocks.''
The Galveston supplemental plan only relies on Government bonds and
very safe Treasury-type investments, and the average return has been
approximately 8 percent per year. When one compares that to Social
Security, however, it is very high.
The Heritage Foundation has estimated that some workers are getting a
1- to 2-percent return on their money from Social Security.
Also, comparing the Social Security plan to the Galveston plan, it is
not accurate because the Galveston plan is a supplement, not the basic
retirement system.
Lastly, the GAO noted one critical point that was left out of the
Washington debate: The Galveston plan benefits are fully funded, GAO
says, ``while Social Security's promised benefits cannot be met without
increasing revenues.''
Thus, the Galveston plan is financially sound. It is not dependent on
significantly increased contributions or massive tax increases to meet
its promises.
Here, in Washington, we have promised benefits without developing a
plan to pay for them. In Galveston, no retiree is subject to the mercy
of the Congress that the benefits might change.
Here are some of the facts about the differences between the
Galveston plan and Social Security.
For individual earners without a survivor benefit, the monthly
annuity figures for retirees are nearly identical or better than Social
Security. For low-wage workers, there is a $1 difference. For workers
with wages over $25,000, they would earn nearly $200 a month more under
the Galveston plan than they would under Social Security.
A worker earning $50,000 will earn nearly $1,000 more every month.
If you have a 45-year work history, the numbers are higher across the
board at every income level in the Galveston plan.
The Cato Institute also reviewed the Galveston retirement plan. For a
worker who earns $30,000 for 30 years, he or she will have a $320,000
investment in retirement. This is based on a 4.5-percent return when,
in fact, Galveston is getting 8 percent.
I should also note that the numbers in GAO are based on a 4-percent
return each year. So the numbers in GAO are very low in their
estimates, and most workers are going to receive a much higher benefit.
According to Cato, the employee with the $320,000 in savings could
earn a monthly annuity of $2,494, compared to Social Security, which is
$1,077.
So according to Cato, the monthly annuity would be $2,494 for a
Galveston employee, compared to $1,077 under Social Security.
The county of Galveston believes the average annuity is approximately
7.8 percent for every $1,000 in retirement funds. The Social Security
Administration thinks that is too high and made the GAO use a lower
annuity figure. So the monthly annuity figures used by GAO are lower
than for the Galveston workers.
I think it is very important that we take this debate out of the Bush
plan or the Gore plan when we are dealing with the employees in cities
such as San Diego, CA, or Galveston County, TX, because it is very
clear that the Galveston County employees have a major benefit. As the
county judge said this morning: Retirees come up to me every day and
say thank goodness.
Another good feature of the Galveston plan is that if the retiree
does not use up all of the retirement when that person dies, it is
passed on to the spouse or the children. That does not happen in Social
Security.
I think it is very important, if we are going to build up a stability
in our working people and their families, that we would have this kind
of alternative with which the Galveston County employees are very
pleased.
I think it is very important that we not put this in the political
realm. If we are talking about the actual numbers, I think the
municipal employees that were allowed to opt out in the early 1980s are
mostly happy with their plans. They like the choices they have.
Galveston was very conservative and did not go into the stock market.
But I think the bottom line is that we need to give people a choice,
a choice to stay in the Social Security system as it is today and have
the exact same returns that they would be entitled to under Social
Security, or if they choose not to do that, and they do want to have
some control over their own taxes they pay in--maybe 3 percent of the
12-plus percent they pay in Social Security--I think we ought to let
them do that. Because even with the stock market fluctuating, the
returns show that they will do better and they will be able to give
their children something they have not been able to under the present
Social Security plan.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

____________________

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to rise in
recognition of Small Business Week 2000. As chairman of the Committee
on Small Business, I have participated in a number of activities this
week. I urge all of my colleagues who may not have done so to consider
working with, identifying with, and listening to the small businesses
in their State. I think today it is appropriate that we recognize some
of the small business trends of the future.
Most of us know that the prototypical entrepreneur of the last
century--or of the 1900s; the manufacturing age--was a man, inventing
something in his garage or basement, which became the basis for a
Fortune 500 company. The prototypical entrepreneur of the 21st
century--the information and service age--is a woman trying to run her
household, keep her kids fed and cared for, who comes up with a good
idea that she can turn into a business.

[[Page 8995]]

Women have started businesses in record numbers over the last 10
years. They are driving the economy. They are helping to expand
opportunities and provide good payrolls for their workers. They are
willing to use the new information technologies even more than men. The
explosion of capabilities through information technologies certainly
opens up a range for a whole new series of undertakings.
The number of small businesses owned and controlled by women is
expanding at a very rapid rate. Today, small businesses owned by women
total 30 percent of all businesses in the United States. Their numbers
are expanding at such a pace it is anticipated that women-owned small
businesses will make up over 50 percent of all businesses by 2010.
Given where we came from, that is a gratifying and astounding
statistic.
But for all the good news, women-owned small businesses still face
some age-old obstacles in starting and running their businesses: work
and family conflicts, a lack of access to capital, and complex
regulatory and tax issues.
In addition, yesterday the Senate adopted a resolution I sponsored,
S. Res. 311, that was adopted unanimously. I express my appreciation to
my colleagues for adopting it. It called attention to the Federal
Government's failure to meet the statutory goal to award 5 percent of
Federal contract dollars to women-owned small businesses.
The members of the Small Business Committee who joined me in
cosponsoring this resolution included my ranking member, Senator Kerry
of Massachusetts, and also sponsoring it were Senators Burns, Snowe,
Landrieu, Lieberman, Edwards, as well as Senator Abraham, who authored
last year's initiative in the committee to help women reach the 5-
percent goal. In addition, Senators Bingaman and Murray joined us as
cosponsors of the resolution.
In 1994, Congress recognized the important role women-owned small
businesses played in our economy. During the consideration of the
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, the Senate approved a provision
directing that 5 percent of all Federal procurement dollars be awarded
each year to women-owned small businesses. The goal includes 5 percent
of prime contract dollars and 5 percent of subcontract dollars, and was
included in the final conference report enacted into law.
The Federal Departments and Agencies have failed to meet that 5-
percent goal enacted in 1994. After Senator Abraham chaired a committee
field hearing in Michigan on the state of women business owners, he
offered an amendment addressing the failure of the Federal Departments
and Agencies to meet the 5-percent goal during the Small Business
Committee markup of the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of
1999.
That was adopted unanimously by the committee and enacted into law as
Public Law 106-165, which directed that GAO undertake an audit of
Federal procurement systems and their impact on women-owned small
businesses.
The statistics for Federal procurement in fiscal year 1999 have just
been released. Again, the 5-percent goal for women-owned small
businesses was not met. It fell over 50 percent short of the goal,
reaching only 2.4 percent. The administration's failure to reach that
goal was the subject of the resolution, which resolved that the Senate
strongly urge the President to adopt a policy in support of the 5-
percent goal for women-owned small businesses, to encourage the heads
of the Federal Departments to make a concentrated effort to meet the 5-
percent goal before the end of fiscal year 2000. I understand the
President has now issued an Executive order. But the second part of the
resolution says the President should hold the heads of Federal
Departments and Agencies accountable to ensure that the 5-percent goal
is achieved during this year.
But these are just some of the issues confronting women-owned small
businesses. I am very pleased to say I have been joined by Senator
Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Snowe, Senator Landrieu, Senator
Feinstein, and Senator Hutchison of Texas to convene a National Women's
Business Summit on June 4 and 5 of this year in Kansas City, MO. This
summit will give women small business owners a chance to tell Congress
and the next President what they need and what will work. Their agenda
will serve as the women's small business agenda for the next Congress
and the next President.
I might add that we have nationally known women and professional
business leaders, as well as bipartisan government servants, who will
be talking with the participants in the conference. I invite women who
are engaged in and concerned about small business to participate. More
information can be found about the summit on my Senate office web site
at www.Senate.gov/bond or they can call us through the Capitol number:
(202) 224-3121. We would be happy to provide them information.
I think it will be a very interesting and worthwhile endeavor in
Kansas City. I am looking forward to participating. I know we will have
many good ideas, based on the women participating in that conference,
on how we can help the fastest growing and most important new sector of
the economy--women-owned small businesses in the United States.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of S. 2603, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2603) making appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for
other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as chairman of the legislative branch
subcommittee of appropriations, I would like to take a few minutes to
describe S. 2603, the legislative branch appropriations bill for the
fiscal year 2001.
The bill, as reported by the Appropriations Committee, provides for
$1,721,077,000 in new budget authority exclusive of the House items.
This is a $58,607,000 increase over fiscal year 2000. It is
$146,770,000 below the President's request.
The subcommittee's allocation is 1.8 percent above last year's
funding level, which is the $43 million increase.
We are being very frugal with the legislative branch. I think we are
doing a responsible job of keeping the overall increase at a level that
is defensible.
We are not allowing the legislative branch appropriations to grow
faster than inflation. We are not allowing it to grow faster than the
population. And the demands that are made upon the legislative branch
we are keeping under 2 percent.
It was a challenge to draft a bill that stayed within this allocation
because, as always happens, there was $20 million of new items that
Congress committed to in previous years but which had not been funded.
Therefore, they were not included in last year's base.
If we were going to talk about an increase over last year's base, but
we had $20 million worth of obligations that were not included in that
base, we realized that it created a tension and a pressure on the
committee. But that is what we have to do when we are dealing with
budgets. I have dealt with budgets in the business world and understand
that this is not an unusual kind of challenge.
The mandatory increases that we have in the bill alone account for
$54

[[Page 8996]]

million, exclusive of the House, on top of the situation which I have
just described,
Senator Feinstein, the ranking member, and I spent a great deal of
time going over the accounts with our respective staffs and the
increases that agencies have had over the last 4 years in an effort to
find where we could best and most fairly cut without impacting
employees. One of our goals was to see to it that no one was laid off
as a result of the budgetary pressures on this year's bill. I am happy
to say that we have met that goal in this bill.
There will be no reduction in force as a result of the Senate's
action, if this bill is adopted, and no employees currently working in
the legislative branch will lose their jobs. The subcommittee's goal
was to ensure that would be the case.
There has been a great deal of discussion and concern in the press
expressed over the House Appropriations Committee's first reported
targets. Those targets were reported out of subcommittee with cuts of
almost $105 million below the fiscal year 2000 level.
It is my understanding that the House now plans in their legislative
process to increase this bill by $85 million before it comes up for
floor consideration. I hope those reports are accurate and that the
House does, indeed, move in that direction.
We do not want to criticize the actions of the other body in this
body. We simply want to lay out what we think is the logical thing to
do.
I hope those who have been focused on the press reports of what was
proposed on the other side of the Capitol initially will recognize that
there is a great deal of legislative action that has to take place
between initial proposals and final passage. Certainly we are doing our
best on the Senate side to make a contribution to see to it that final
passage achieves the goal that I have outlined; that is, the goal that
says there will be no reduction in force in the legislative branch.
S. 2603 includes an increase over last year's funding for every
agency. That sounds better than it is for some agencies. The increase
is truly only a token one--one-tenth of 1 percent increase. But,
nonetheless, it is an increase to demonstrate, once again, that we are
trying to treat everybody fairly, and that we are not trying to
penalize one group in order to benefit another.
The area that has had the greatest amount of public interest and
press reporting is the amount of money being made available for the
Capitol Police.
The bill before the Senate will provide a 26-percent increase for the
Capitol Police. If we are only going to have a one-tenth of 1 percent
increase in some areas, that is where we will get the money to come up
with the 26-percent increase for the Capitol Police. We do this because
we believe security in the Capitol is a priority. We need to make sure
the resources are available to the men and women who protect the
Capitol, its visitors, the Members, and the staff.
We had a tragic demonstration that security needs to be addressed
with the shooting of the two officers who protected the Capitol against
the deranged individual who came in with a gun after some imaginary
threat he, and only he, could see.
We had an example within the last week during a hearing in the House
when a man threatened to kill himself with the jagged end of a broken
bottle after approaching a Cabinet officer who was testifying at a
hearing. He was subdued by a member of the Capitol Police and by a
member of the security detail of one of the Cabinet officers involved.
These incidents, coming along with increased frequency, demonstrate
we have a security challenge in the Capitol. We want to make sure the
Capitol remains open to the American people. I would hate to reach the
point of other capitals in the world. I don't mean to pick this country
out because I recognize they have enormous security problems of their
own and I think they are acting responsibly, but I will share my
experience when I first went to the Knesset in Israel and the kind of
security I had to go through as a U.S. Senator in order to get into the
Knesset. There were barriers, more barriers, and checks and police
points, all the way through so that the members of the Knesset could
conduct their business in security and freedom.
In the United States, we run into our constituents, sometimes
literally, virtually every day in the corridors of the Capitol. We
enjoy that. The American people enjoy that. We want to continue doing
that. I will be walking down the corridor on the way to a committee
meeting and it is not at all unusual to have someone call out from the
moving crowd, ``Hi, Senator Bennett'' or ``Hey, there's Senator
Bennett.'' I stop and it is someone from Utah who is here with a school
class, here with their family, here on a vacation, or here for a civics
lesson experience.
Walking through the Capitol, it is something of a thrill for a
constituent to see their own Senator on his way to work. If I thrill
somebody, they get thrilled easily. Nonetheless, it is the kind of
experience that the American people enjoy and historically have had in
their Capitol Building. We want to make sure that continues.
The number of visitors each year is increasing more rapidly as the
overall general population increases and as Americans get a little more
money, a little more time, more leisure opportunities. I think it is
wonderful they want to come to the seat of Government in the Capitol of
the United States and see how it operates. As they come in these
increased numbers, the tiny fringe of American citizens who represent a
physical threat come also in increased numbers. Security is a priority.
In this bill, we have made sure the resources will be available to
provide that kind of security.
As we have reviewed the security issue, we have made provisions in
this bill for a fairly significant change in the way security is
provided on the Capitol complex. We have provided transferring the
police who currently service the Government Printing Office and the
police who currently service the Library of Congress into the Capitol
Police. Rather than having three different police forces in a small
physical area, we will have only one.
Since assuming the chairmanship of this subcommittee, I have been
working towards this goal. I think we are now at the point where it
makes sense to provide this unified force to provide seamless security.
Until this time, the training for the police of the Library of Congress
and the police at the Government Printing Office has been moving toward
equity and par with the training given to the U.S. Capitol Police, so
it will not be a big jump for these police officers to be in the same
force.
It will be an opportunity for many of the police officers in the two
forces that are currently outside of the Capitol Police to increase
their career opportunities because the Capitol Police Force is seen as
a higher level of pay and benefits and opportunity than the two smaller
forces.
Additionally, it will mean we can bring the total security for the
Capitol complex up to the level we want it at a faster pace because we
need additional officers. Additional officers are not provided
automatically by going out and hiring people. They have to go through a
training period. By taking advantage of the pool of trained officers
who are already there for the Government Printing Office police and the
Library of Congress police, and perhaps bringing some of the new hires
in at a level where the requirement is not as high as it is in the
Capitol itself, we can increase the speed by which we can get to the
level we seek.
Some legitimate concerns have been raised about how this will work.
The General Accounting Office has been cooperating with the
subcommittee for quite some time in examining how it will work, but in
the bill we provide for the General Accounting Office to prepare a
report for the Appropriations Committee addressing those issues that
have most recently been raised, giving us an understanding of how they
can be dealt with. This provision was included at the request of
Senator Feinstein who is particularly interested in the career path of
the Capitol Police men and women themselves. I think it is a very wise
addition. I thank the Senator for her initiative in

[[Page 8997]]

its inclusion. It will ensure an orderly transition and protect the
rights of the affected officers.
I thank Senator Feinstein for her service as the ranking member on
this subcommittee. She brings a particular flavor of experience to the
subcommittee, having been an executive herself, as mayor of San
Francisco. I have been an executive but not of an enterprise that big.
Between the two of us, we have a good balance of the practical and
administrative experience that is necessary as we deal with some of
these administrative challenges. I thank the Senator for her service. I
appreciate very much the support she has given.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 2603,
the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
This is my second year as ranking member of the legislative branch
subcommittee. I have been very proud to serve alongside our dedicated
and distinguished subcommittee chairman, Senator Bennett. Senator
Bennett is always very open and very willing to discuss the various
issues that arise in relation to this bill. He has been very
accommodating to my concerns as well as those of other Senators. I
think he has displayed great knowledge of the various Departments and
Agencies that fall under the legislative branch. It has been a real
pleasure working with him.
Thanks to the allocation to our Legislative Branch Subcommittee by
the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, and
the ranking member, Senator Byrd, this appropriation is $145 million in
budget authority greater than the House subcommittee's allocation, so
the bill before us now restores the House cuts of 2,112 employees,
including 438 Capitol Police officers.
Although we were not able to fully fund every agency's request, I
believe the committee has distributed the scarce resources as fairly as
possible, and we were able to make modest increases in most agency
accounts above last year's level.
Overall spending is increased by 3.7 percent over last year's bill.
In particular, I note that during markup of this year's bill, Chairman
Bennett agreed to include committee report language recommended by
Senator Mikulski, having to do with the need for better employee
relations in the office of the Architect of the Capitol. Senator
Mikulski came to the subcommittee hearing and questioned the Architect
of the Capitol directly concerning these matters. As a result of her
efforts, the committee report language directs the Architect of the
Capitol to establish a position of employee advocate, in an effort to
improve morale and employee relations in the office of the Architect.
In his remarks, Chairman Bennett has outlined for the Senate the
various components of the bill, so I do not want to repeat that
summary. I do, however, wish to point out to the Senate that for the
Capitol Police, the subcommittee in that regard has included an
appropriation of $109.6 million for fiscal year 2001. This is an
increase of $22.8 million, or 26 percent over last year's enacted level
of $86.8 million. This will fund 100 to 115 new Capitol Police
officers.
The funding level, we believe, will enable the Capitol Police to
implement the department's plan for posting two police officers at all
key and critical entries and exits throughout the Capitol complex.
I take this opportunity to thank all Capitol Police officers for
their really outstanding service to the Members, to this Capitol, and
to the tens of thousands of visitors to the Capitol each year. They do
a great job.
I know Senator Mikulski will be presenting a sense-of-the-Senate
commendation to the Capitol Police, with which I strongly agree. I
think it is important, because of what happened last year, to be able
to really tell them how much we do appreciate their efforts. This can
be a very thankless job, particularly when there are tens of thousands
of visitors milling through the Capitol each and every week. So I think
we both agree that they do a truly fine job and are, indeed, to be
commended.
I also thank Chairman Bennett for agreeing to include language in the
committee report about which he spoke, which I requested, relating to
the proposed merger of the police forces at the Government Printing
Office and the Library of Congress with the Capitol Police Force. This
study will enable a careful feasibility analysis to be carried out and
completed prior to any consolidation. The GAO report, I believe, can be
done by July 1, giving the conference the opportunity to review its
findings at that time. I understand Chairman Bennett's intentions in
this area. He believes the proposed merger will result in greater
efficiencies for the overall legislative branch police force. I believe
it can be carried out in a way, as he just stated, that can maintain
the upward mobility and career path for officers.
I share that hope, and I believe that prior to proceeding with such a
merger, Congress should first have these views of the GAO to ensure
that no unforeseen problems exist in relation to such a consolidation
or merger. Chairman Bennett has agreed to that study, and the committee
report ensures that the study will be completed by July 1.
In closing, I express appreciation and recognition to the very
capable staff who assisted Chairman Bennett and myself with the
legislative branch bill: Christine Ciccone, Chip Yost, Jim English,
Edie Stanley, and Chris Kierig.
This is a very good bill. I urge my colleagues to give favorable
consideration to its passage in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

Amendment No. 3166

(Purpose: Commending the United States Capitol Police)

Ms. MIKULSKI. 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 Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself, Mr.
Daschle, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr.
Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 3166.
At the appropriate place, insert:
Sec. __. Sense of Senate Commending Capitol Police. (a) The
Senate finds that--
(1) the United States Capitol is the people's house, and,
as such, it has always been and will remain open to the
public;
(2) millions of people visit the Capitol each year to
observe and study the workings of the democratic process;
(3) the Capitol is the most recognizable symbol of liberty
and democracy throughout the world and those who guard the
Capitol guard our freedom;
(4) on July 24, 1998, Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective
John Michael Gibson of the United States Capitol Police
sacrificed their lives to protect the lives of hundreds of
tourists, Members of Congress, and staff;
(5) the officers of the United States Capitol Police serve
their country with commitment, heroism, and great patriotism;
(6) the employees of the United States working in the
United States Capitol are essential to the safe and efficient
operation of the Capitol building and the Congress;
(7) the operation of the Capitol and the legislative
process are dependent on the professionalism and hard work of
those who work here, including the United States Capitol
Police, congressional staff, and the staff of the
Congressional Research Office, the General Accounting Office,
the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Printing
Office, and the Architect of the Capitol; and
(8) the House of Representatives should restore the cuts in
funding for the United States Capitol Police, congressional
staff, and congressional support organizations.
(b) It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United States Capitol Police and all legislative
employees are to be commended for their commitment,
professionalism, and great patriotism; and
(2) the conferees on the legislative branch appropriations
legislation should maintain the Senate position on funding
for the United States Capitol Police and all legislative
branch employees.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, that amendment is offered in behalf of
myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Murray, Senator Reid, Senator
Sarbanes, and Senator Wellstone.
The reason I wanted the amendment read is that I wanted to convey the
importance that many of us feel in commending the employees who work
here

[[Page 8998]]

at the Capitol, both the police as well as other very important
departments and divisions.
I first compliment Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein for the
outstanding job they have done on moving the legislative branch
appropriations bill. This sense of the Senate is in no way a commentary
on their leadership, which I think has been exemplary. I think their
leadership has been sensitive to the needs of employees and sensitive
to the needs of the taxpayers. So we thank you for the leadership you
provided, first in terms of the adequacy of the resources to do the job
and, second, stewardship over Federal funds.
Also, I particularly want to thank Senators Feinstein and Bennett for
adding the report language on the need for an employee ombudsman for
the employees of the Architect of the Capitol. I had come to their
hearings, in which I was received with such collegiality that I am very
grateful. But we wanted to problem-solve over what was happening to the
restaurant employees who often believe they have nowhere to go with
many of their problems. Essentially, my own office was becoming the EEO
office for these employees.
I am ready to do that. I am ready to be the Senator from Maryland and
I am ready to be the Senator for the restaurant employees. But I want
the Architect of the Capitol and those who work for him to do their job
so that our employees have the same type of ombudsman and opportunity
for personnel grievance that the private sector has. I thank them for
that.
Let me come back to my amendment. My amendment is a sense of the
Senate. It is not about money, but it is about morale. We want to say
to the men and women who work at the U.S. Capitol that we know who they
are and we value what they do.
These are the men and women who work in this building for the
American people and serve the Nation. The Capitol Police protect this
building which is a symbol of freedom and democracy the world over.
They protect all the people who visit the Capitol, and they protect
Members of Congress. It is the Capitol Police who ensure that everyone
who comes to the U.S. Capitol is safe and secure. They are the most
unique law enforcement officers in the country. They protect the
building, and they protect the people, and they do it whether you are
an American citizen or a foreign dignitary. They protect you whether
you are a Member of Congress or a member of a Girl Scout troop.
That is who they are. They are brave, they are resourceful, they are
gallant, whether it is protecting a dignitary such as Nelson Mandela or
a Girl Scout troop from Maryland. They protect us from crooks,
terrorists, people who are deranged, and anyone else who wants to harm
us or the Capitol. Also, each is Officer Friendly welcoming people from
all over America and all over the world.
The Capitol is a tourist attraction. Why? Do they come because we are
so compelling, so charismatic, so gifted? No, they come to see
democracy in action. We are the greatest deliberative body in the
world. Sometimes we act great, and sometimes we deliberate, and
sometimes we even do something together. But people come to see us in
action. Those police officers ensure this facility is open to the
people, preserving safety, often giving guidance and direction, many
even learning foreign languages to do it.
Under their community police mentality, do not think, because they
greet visitors like Officer Friendly, that they are soft. Talk to the
Capitol Police. We know, No. 1, that they are tough, they are
competent, they are a modern police force. They take bomb squad
training, they take antiterrorist training, and they also work to make
sure they have the right approach to deal with each and every situation
they may encounter.
We need to make sure they have their jobs, they have their pay, they
have their benefits, and they have our respect. That is what the sense
of the Senate resolution is all about: to support the Capitol Police
and the other employees of the legislative branch.
The House was going to cut over 1,700 people and as many as 400
police officers, which is 25 percent of the force. That is
unacceptable. Then they were going to cut 117 staff from the
Congressional Research Service. I will say what the Congressional
Research Service is. It is a group of people who are absolutely
dedicated to giving us unbiased, accurate information and unbiased,
accurate analysis so we can do our jobs. If we want to make some very
good decisions on the best models for the Older Americans Act or new
technology breakthroughs, we should ensure adequate funding for the
Congressional Research Service.
I will talk about the jobs being cut at GAO, the Government
Accounting Office. The Government Accounting Office is not about
keeping the books, it is about keeping the books straight.
My colleagues and I know we continually turn to the staff at the
Government Accounting Office to do investigations of waste and abuse,
to give us insights into how better to manage and be better stewards of
the taxpayers' funds. People with those kinds of skills could leave us
in a wink and be at a dot com in less than a nanosecond. If we are
going to be on the broadband of the future, we need to make sure we
have the people with the skills to run a contemporary Congress. And, we
need to make sure that these people have security in their jobs and
reliability of pay that they need to do just that.
I will now talk about our own congressional staff. They help us serve
the Nation. We all know what the people who work for us do. They are
the caseworkers who track down Social Security checks for our
constituents; they help us answer our mail; and they help us draft
legislation. It is the congressional staff who are now working,
hopefully, to see that we pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. It
is the congressional staff who are now working around the clock so we
can have a conference on the Patients' Bill of Rights.
Whether it's the Democratic side or the Republican side--the fact is
that our staff is on our side so we can be on the people's side. We
should not be cutting the very staff who help us get the job done.
We should not forget the restaurant workers, the custodial staff, and
the facility managers who ensure the U.S. Capitol is a building that is
comfortable, clean, and safe to visit.
We know about the draconian cuts in the House. Rumor has it they are
going to restore some of those cuts. Good, because I would say to them,
shame on them for what they were doing.
Do my colleagues know what the House intended to do? They intended to
cut 400 Capitol Police officers, 114 employees from the Congressional
Research Service, and 700 employees from GAO--1,700 people could have
lost their jobs.
This is not about job security, this is about maintaining the safety,
security, and cleanliness of the Capitol and the competency of staff so
we can do our job.
I hope we adopt this amendment 100-0.
I close my remarks by saying that the reason I am offering this sense
of the Senate amendment is so we know and show the people who work here
every day that we are on their side. I believe Senators Bennett and
Feinstein showed that by putting the money in the Federal checkbook, to
show there is money which hopefully ensures a high level of morale.
I am also offering this sense of the Senate amendment because we need
to keep our promises. A short time ago, we had two gallant police
officers die in the line of duty--Officer Chestnut from Maryland and
Detective Gibson from Virginia. We all attended their memorial
services. We mourned them. We tried to console their families. We
thanked them for their sacrifice, and we said that a grateful Congress
will never forget. We should not forget Officer Chestnut, and we should
not forget Detective Gibson. We should not forget the men and women who
work here every day, in every way, in their own way dedicating their
lives to serving us.

[[Page 8999]]

I hope we adopt this sense of the Senate amendment. Again, I thank
Senators Bennett and Feinstein for their leadership.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Maryland,
Senator Mikulski, for her leadership and for her fine statement on this
important issue that is before the Senate today.
I am very proud to join my many colleagues who are here to commend
the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police Force. Day in and day out,
these fine officers risk their lives to protect all of us who work in
the legislative branch. They also protect the millions of people who
travel from across the country to the Capitol every year.
They deserve our respect and they deserve our thanks. They certainly
do not deserve pink slips. Unfortunately, that is what the budget that
was recently passed by the House Republicans would give them. In fact,
in the budget that was passed by the House Appropriations Committee, if
it were to take effect, 438 members of the Capitol Police Force would
be relieved of duty. That is no way to thank some of the hardest
working and most dedicated people I have ever encountered. At the same
time that security experts are recommending to us we hire additional
officers so we can station two officers at every entrance, the House
majority's proposal goes in the opposite direction and requires us to
fire officers.
Many people who are visiting the Nation's Capitol often turn to our
Capitol Police Force for help in finding their representatives' offices
or to get tour information. While our officers are always very gracious
and helpful to everyone, the public really does not get a chance to see
the many other things they do.
Every day, these officers interact with thousands of people,
constantly assessing potential threats and stopping problems before
they ever have a chance to start.
In fact, in recent days, there have been two potential instances of
violence in this Capitol complex. Thanks to the quick work of the
Capitol Police, and others, those situations were quickly controlled
and no one was injured.
In a world where the number of threats seem to be growing, in an age
when you never know when someone will act violently, and in a time when
the memories of the two officers who died protecting Members of this
Congress are still fresh in our minds, we are all better off with a
strong, professional, and well-trained Capitol Police.
I think it is fair to say that through their work they help all of us
carry out the democratic process.
They do not just protect elected officials; they protect everyone who
visits and works near the Capitol Building.
I have been very disappointed to hear what some of the House
Republicans have said about the Capitol Police. I do not think those
comments reflect accurately on the work of the Capitol Police. I
certainly do not want the officers to think that those few Members
reflect the way the rest of us feel about the work that you do.
I encourage my colleagues to do three things to honor these fine men
and women.
First, I hope Members, as they go about their daily work, take a
moment to say thank you to the men and women of the Capitol Police
Force, and let them know how much you appreciate the fine work they do.
Secondly, don't let the House Republican budget slap these officers
in the face. Instead, let's give them the tools and the resources they
need to do their jobs effectively.
Finally, I hope all Members of the Senate will vote for the sense-of-
the-Senate resolution and show that you stand with us in supporting our
Capitol Police.
I join the Senator from Maryland in commending Senator Bennett and
Senator Feinstein for doing an outstanding job. I hope we can adopt
this resolution with a very strong vote so that we can maintain the
numbers that they have worked to put into this budget.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, and thank Senator
Mikulski for offering this resolution. I join my friend from the State
of Washington in urging that all Members--Republicans and Democrats
alike--support it. But I commend Senator Mikulski for her initiation of
this issue. And we express our appreciation to Senators Bennett and
Feinstein for the action they have taken to express our full confidence
and support for the police officers here at the Capitol.
How time flies, as we remember those memorial services for Officer
Chestnut and Detective Gibson, who gave up their lives in order to try
to save the lives of the Members of Congress. That is the kind of
professionalism that is typical of this corps of men and women and that
all of us too often take for granted. I strongly oppose any provision
in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill that would slash the
Capitol Police budget. Any such reduction would show a flagrant
disregard for the security of the Capitol. It is shocking that House
Republicans voted for this cut, after a non-partisan study concluded
that even the ``current Capitol Police Force staffing is insufficient
to meet today's threat environment.'' Members on both sides of the
aisle should be able to agree on this basic necessity of our time.
The budget must have room for adequate law enforcement. Police
officers deserve a fair wage, equal to their risks and
responsibilities. The way we treat Capitol Police officers is a measure
of the respect we hold for them as professionals. No officers should
have to jeopardize their lives to do their job because of inadequate
resources and inadequate support.
The Capitol Police deserve enormous respect for their dedicated
service. What these officers do as professionals affects the welfare
and the very lives of every member of Congress, every staff person, and
every visitor to the Capitol. They deserve our highest praise and
gratitude for the skill and commitment they bring to their work.
The House Republican bill is a symptom of the larger problem facing
communities across the country. Democrats have strongly supported the
hiring of more local police officers and more school resource
officers--giving communities and schools the tools they need to ensure
the safety of citizens and students. Yet, Senate and House Republicans
consistently fight us every step of the way.
Last week, the Senate Republican leadership attempted to block debate
on sensible and long overdue gun control measures.
Last year, Republicans defeated an amendment to expand the Community
Oriented Policing Program, which would have provided additional needed
resources to communities across the United States in the ongoing battle
against crime. And Republicans continue to target that successful
program for elimination;
On the Juvenile Justice bill, Republicans blocked a Democratic effort
to create a National Center for School Safety and Youth Violence;
On the same bill, Republicans rejected a Democratic amendment to
encourage more effective after-school programs, so that one million
additional children would be off the streets, out of trouble, and
engaged in worthwhile school and community activities.
Republicans also defeated one Democratic amendment to expand the Safe
Schools/Healthy Students initiative, to enable 150 additional
communities to build partnerships between schools, parents and law
enforcement to reduce truancy. The initiative would also provide
mentoring for troubled youth, and teach students how to resolve
conflict without resorting to violence.
Time and again, Democrats are placed in the position of fighting
against Republican opposition in our effort to enact public safety
measures that make sense--that keep families, schools and neighborhoods
safe. Republicans would rather kowtow to the National Rifle Association
and other special interest groups than listen to the American people.

[[Page 9000]]

We too infrequently recognize the professionalism and also the
dedication of these officers. The least we can do is to treat these men
and women fairly. And more importantly, what we can do--and we should
do--is to commend them for their continued professionalism and for
their devotion to duty.
I join my colleagues in expressing our appreciation to the two
leaders on this appropriations bill, Senators Bennett and Feinstein,
for what they have done in this area.
I will mention one other area, though, that finds fault with the
actions of the leadership in the House of Representatives, in this
term, the Republican leadership.
I find it difficult to understand what the Republican leadership has
against low-income workers. Here we have the greatest prosperity in the
history of this country, and the Republican leadership has been aligned
to deny us a simple vote on a 50-cent increase in the minimum wage for
1 year, and a 50-cent increase in the next year. We have effectively
been denied the opportunity to do so.
We have had to go through extraordinary gymnastics here on the floor.
And then, finally, we end up with a 3-year bill, which is an insult to
even the 10 million Americans who are working at the lowest levels of
the economic ladder, and then tying on to that $100 billion in unpaid
tax goodies for the wealthiest individuals and the most powerful
corporations of this country. I think that is shameful action by this
body.
But we have been battling, and we are going to continue to battle. We
are going to remind our friends that even though they do not like
voting on an increase in the minimum wage--and they use every effort to
try to avoid that--they are going to be faced with the continued
opportunities to do so until we get a fair adjustment in the minimum
wage, which these working families are due.
But now we have not only opposition in terms of an increase in the
minimum wage, but opposition to an adjustment in the cost of living for
those individuals who are at the lowest level of service in the
National Government. The House Republican leadership wants to make sure
that these employees are not going to get any cost of living increase,
even though we have seen a generous cost-of-living increase for the
Members. These workers are the ones who will get no increase--they are
the press operators who work the presses, the bindery workers who bind
the volumes of paper that we produce in this chamber, and the workers
at the printing plant who haul paper and move the printed products.
There is no increase for even these workers, the laborers in the
printing office who publish the reports that go across to the libraries
to inform the American people as to the actions of the Congress.
But it is not just the Government Printing Office employees who will
suffer from this cutting of the cost of living adjustment. Mail clerks
and laborers in the Library of Congress, Secretaries in the
Congressional Budget Office, and Information Receptionists, Library
Aides, and Reference Files Assistants at the Congressional Research
Service--those who carry and sort the mail, who type and file our
various reports and documents, and those who assist with the
cataloguing and researching of all the reports and documents that we in
Congress generate--all of these employees will be denied a fair cost of
living increase by the House Republican leadership.
These are among the lowest of the low paid by the Federal Government.
They are men and women who have a great sense of pride and dignity in
the work they do. They are part of the team in terms of trying to serve
this country. Nonetheless, the way we deal with them is to say: No, you
are not going to be able to get the adjustment that others are going to
be able to get in the Congress, and that those of the higher level pay
scales are going to get in general.
That is basically unfair, and it is unwise and unjust. I do not know
what the explanation is. Why is it? Why is it that we effectively make
sure that those individuals who are working in the darkest areas of the
building and are absolutely key elements do not get an increase? If you
take those individuals out of this whole process, you are not going to
get the printing of the records, which are reflective of the Government
in action, and you are going to basically paralyze, in a very important
respect, the representatives of Government having the information which
is necessary to make sound judgment.
Maybe there is an explanation for it, but I do not see it. It is
unfair and unjust. It is something where we have to say, if you have
opposition to an increase in the minimum wage, you are hurting those
workers. And who are those workers? They are primarily women because 60
percent of minimum-wage workers are women. This impacts children
because fully one-third of the women who are earning the minimum wage
have children under 18. It is a children's issue. It is a civil rights
issue because a disproportionate percent of minimum-wage workers are
men and women of color.
Most of all, it is a fairness issue that men and women who are going
to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, should not live in
poverty in the richest country in the world, when we are having the
most extraordinary economic prosperity in the history of this Nation.
It just is wrong.
We are facing that blind opposition by the Republican leadership in
the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States that
says no to those working members of our economy. Who are they? They are
the men and women who work in our nursing homes looking after parents
who may be in nursing homes. They are the men and women who are working
in our schools as assistant teachers. They are men and women who are
looking after children when their parents are out there working and
trying to put food on their table.
We are saying, no, they are not going to get an increase in the
minimum wage. No, we are not going to give it to them. And no, we are
not going to give a cost of living increase to other members who are at
the lower level of the pay scale in our nation's Capitol.
That is an absolutely unfair, unjust, and unacceptable position. I am
delighted that here in the Senate, in a bipartisan way, that position
has been rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank both Senator
Bennett and Senator Feinstein for their important work. I just want to
echo the comments of my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy,
in support of providing adequate funding to pay all the people who help
us do our work in the Senate. I too support a wage increase for the
many people who work here, who don't make near the money we make, don't
have near the salary we have. I promise the Chair that if it were the
House Democrats who had made these cuts, my condemnation would be just
as strong. The action the House took, cutting funding for salaries was
a mistake, and it wasn't fair. I think that on the Senate side, in a
bipartisan way, we have done a good job.
I thank Senator Mikulski and all the other Senators here, including
Senators Daschle, Murray, Reid, Sarbanes, and Kennedy, for their
support for full funding for the Capitol Police Department. I just want
to read the last part of the Mikulski amendment, that I am proud to be
an original cosponsor of:

It is the sense of the Senate that the United States
Capitol Police and all legislative employees are to be
commended for their commitment, professionalism, and great
patriotism; and the conferees on the legislative branch
appropriations legislation should maintain the Senate
position on funding for the United States Capitol Police and
all legislative branch employees.

My hope is that all 100 Senators will come out here on the floor and
speak in support of this amendment and in support of all the work that
Capitol Police do to keep the Capitol safe. In a way, it is almost
shocking that the Senator from Maryland feels the need to introduce
this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I think we ought to really think
deeply as to why it is necessary to

[[Page 9001]]

come out with an amendment that basically says that we value the
Capitol Police and all the Senate employees.
I just want to make this appeal to all my colleagues that they come
down to the floor and express their support for all the people who work
in the Senate. I hope Republican Senators will come out here as well
and speak. Maybe all of us can take 15 or 20 minutes. I think that
sends a much more powerful message.
What I regret is that the House Republicans chose to cut the Capitol
Police budget by 11 percent; that is a $10 million cut. Here is the
problem. Forget the money. Anybody who watches us on the floor might
say: What are they talking about, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, an
11-percent cut, a $10 million cut; what does it mean?
This is what it means. First of all, we will never forget that we
lost two officers, Officer Chestnut and Agent Gibson, in 1998. Many of
us were at their service. It was so moving and so powerful. We made a
commitment we would do everything possible to make sure that the police
officers here--Capitol Police officers--would be working under the best
of conditions, that they would be safe, that they could do their job
and not be put in peril.
Their job is to protect all the people who visit the Capitol. I have
given enough speeches to deafen the gods about this. I have probably
spoken 15 times on the floor of the Senate in support of the Capitol
police. Today, I get to come out here as an original cosponsor of this
amendment and say I really believe it is critically important that the
Capitol police be recognized for the worth of their work, the
importance of their work, and also that we make sure we do everything
humanly possible, as legislators, so that they work under the best
conditions, which translates into making sure we do everything we know
how to do to make sure we never again lose any police officers.
What the House Republicans did in their proposal would mean the
elimination of some 400 police officers. That is no way to say thank
you to the Capitol police--to have an 11-percent cut in their budget,
to have a cut of hundreds of police officers, to have even less backup
for officers; that is no way to say thank you to the Capitol Hill
Police. It is certainly no way to honor Officer Chestnut, Officer
Gibson, and their families--no way.
So I want to make crystal clear on the floor of the Senate that I
believe that it is important that we all speak--not just Democrats, but
Republicans as well--in support of this amendment to send a message as
Senators to the Capitol Hill police and their families that we have a
tremendous amount of appreciation for the work they do, we value the
work they do, we value them as friends, and we just simply want to say
thank you and we intend to continue to support the Capitol Police. In
addition, I believe that the work that Senator Bennett and Senator
Feinstein have done matters more than any words I can utter here on the
floor of the Senate.
The last point that this amendment is important, and the reason I
hope Senators will speak on it, is to show our united support and
respect for the men and women of the Capitol Police force, who protect
us each and every day. In the days following the House actions to cut
funding for the force, many of the police officers were just
demoralized. How many people have said--as a matter of fact, we are
losing Capitol Hill police members to the D.C. Police Force because
they do feel they have the respect and support of the people they are
here to protect.
But part of it is, I say to Senator Reid, who was a Capitol Hill
policeman--the only Member of the Senate who served on that police
force--that part of the question of whether or not people continue to
work here and feel good about their work is whether or not people think
they are respected. You know, in light of what we have gone through for
the past several years, when you then cut the budget and you
potentially put some of these police officers in harm's way, you
certainly are not communicating a message to these police that we value
their work. You are communicating the opposite message. I think what
the House Republican ``leadership'' did on this issue was one of the
worst things that has been done here, at least since I have served
starting in 1991.
I feel really good about what we have done on the Senate side. I feel
really good that we have done it in a bipartisan way, and I feel good
that I get a chance to support the Mikulski amendment. I want to, one
more time, make the appeal to Republican Senators: Look, the truth of
the matter is--and I don't want to get people angry at me--it is not as
if we are doing a lot right now and we don't have time for people to
come out and speak. I think we ought to get as many Senators as
possible to speak on this resolution because it is important that we
communicate a message of strong support for these police officers.
I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Byrd, Bennett, Feinstein, Kennedy, and Durbin be added as cosponsors to
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on
this amendment be taken at the appropriate time as agreed upon by the
leaders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I amend the Senator's unanimous-consent
request that the vote on the pending amendment occur at 9:45 on
Thursday with no amendments in order to the amendment, and that there
be 10 minutes of remarks prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, to make the record clear with respect to
the statement that was made earlier about employees of the Government
Printing Office not receiving an increase in this bill, Senator
Feinstein and I have provided funds so those employees will receive the
mandatory increases.
It is a little bit confusing as to how the bookkeeping works. The
dollar amount stays level, but because we researched the number of
positions that had not been filled in previous years and we are funding
those positions, we recognize the money that would go for those
unfilled positions will be available for the mandatory increases for
employees.
I want to make sure the record reflects that. We are not, in fact,
forcing those employees to go without their standard mandatory
increases in this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I ask my colleague for 5 seconds?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I forgot to also thank Jim Ziglar, the
Sergeant at Arms on the Senate side, who has done great work on this
question.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the Senator from Maryland.
First, I thank Senator Bennett of Utah and Senator Feinstein of
California, the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch. They have important
responsibilities. They have met the responsibility and have done it
very well in a very difficult time. I commend both of them for their
hard work in preparing this important legislation.

[[Page 9002]]

I also commend my colleague from the State of Maryland, Senator
Mikulski. Because of the proximity of Maryland to the District of
Columbia, Senator Mikulski has said that she oftentimes feels that she
is the Senator for so many people who work on Capitol Hill who come to
her with their concerns. I know that is a burden for her to carry, but
it is one that she carries with grace.
The offering today of this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is so
typical of her dedication and loyalty to the men and women who serve us
here in the Capitol.
This Capitol Building is one of the most recognizable buildings in
the world. People literally come from across the United States and from
around the world to see this magnificent dome.
You can never forget the first time you see it. I can still remember,
I guess almost 38 years ago, when I first saw it in person. It made
such an impact on me as a student. Little did I realize that I might
someday serve in this building. But so many millions of people come to
this site on this great hill to see this building, to walk through its
Halls, and to witness the history that is here portrayed; to see the
magnificent statues in Statutary Hall; to recall the history of this
building; the Rotunda; the times that America has gathered in this
place to pay homage to the greats who have served our Nation; to recall
history when that same Rotunda was used as a hospital for Union
soldiers who were injured in battle.
It is a great building and contains a great history. The dome on this
building, which was built during the era when Abraham Lincoln of
Springfield, IL, served as President during the Civil War, is really a
beacon not just for our Nation but for the world.
All of the visitors who come here to be part of this great American
historical moment expect the very best treatment, and they deserve it.
That is why it is hard for me to understand what happened in the House
of Representatives when the Republican leadership decided they would
make a substantial cut--a one-third cut or more--in the number of
police officers who would be in this building to protect all of us who
work here and all of us who visit here.
It is hard to imagine how that could occur under ordinary
circumstances; with the millions of people who flock to this building,
that we would cut back in the security and protection of those visitors
and employees. It is impossible to understand that suggestion in light
of what occurred just 2 years ago in this same building--when, on a
Friday afternoon, a deranged man came to this building with a gun and
opened fire, sadly killing two of the very best Capitol Hill policemen,
Officer Chestnut and Officer Gibson.
Those two men died in the line of duty protecting all of us--
protecting the visitors to this building, protecting the workers who
come to this building each day, protecting many of the same Members of
Congress who have sponsored on the House side this amendment to reduce
the number of Capitol Hill policemen. It is an incredible thing that
only 2 years later we would forget that basic lesson.
I remember going to the memorial service for the two officers, as so
many Members of Congress did, to show our respect and our gratitude to
their families--to try to express with our presence what we couldn't
say in words; to thank them and their families for what they had given
us. So many people were chocked up that day as they looked across at
the rows of family members and saw not only the spouses but a lot of
young children who would never know their fathers, who, frankly, would
miss out on many of life's great moments with their fathers, because
Officer Chestnut and Officer Gibson had given their lives to protect
us.
Many of the same Members of Congress who stood choking back the tears
that day are, 24 months later, offering amendments to reduce the number
of Capitol Hill policemen.
How short is their memory? Can they not recall those moments? I
certainly can. I know Senator Mikulski can.
As I come into this building each day and into the office building
that we use, I see these men and women in uniform standing there doing
their very best to make sure people know the right place to go and
where the offices are located, but also keeping in mind that at any
given moment they could have their lives on the line.
When Senator Mikulski introduces this resolution, when Senator
Wellstone takes the floor repeatedly and talks about the security at
the doorways of the entrances to the buildings on Capitol Hill, they
are talking about a life and death issue for these men and women. They
don't just come to work, as many of us do, and shuffle the papers and
do our business. They put their lives on the line every day. The
thought that the House Republicans would suggest cutting by one-third
the number of police officers is incredible when you consider what is
at stake here and what we lived through only 2 years ago.
I certainly commend my colleague, Senator Mikulski, for offering this
amendment. I hope every Member of the Senate in a show of fidelity and
support to the men and women who protect us every day will join as
cosponsors. This should have a 100-0 vote because it really is an
indication of what we feel about these people who mean so much to us
and who go out of their way to be kind and helpful.
Some of my favorites--I hate to pick out a few because I know there
are many who deserve recognition--Officer Charlie Coffer, who stands at
the Russell door every day, is a joy in my life. There cannot be a
nicer person on Capitol Hill in any spot. He brings a smile to my lips
every time I walk through the door.
Officer Best works on the door on the Senate side. I came here at 10
o'clock one night with a group of visitors, and I asked if it would be
possible to walk through Statuary Hall. He went out of his way to clear
things and make sure we could bring those visitors through for the time
of their lives, to be able to walk through this great building in the
darkness of night, and sense the history of this building.
Officer Best, Officer Coffer, and so many others, go out of their way
to do such a great job. If they go out of their way every day, we
should go out of our way to show our gratitude and respect by passing
this amendment and this important appropriations bill.
I close by referring to one other item which I hope this
appropriations subcommittee can consider. It has come to our attention
that some of the workers on the Senate side, particularly those
associated with the restaurant, are technically part-time employees.
When we are in session, they may work a full 40-hour week; of course,
when we are out of session, they don't. Because of this part-time
status, many of them do not qualify for basic employee protection life/
health insurance. It is hard for me to imagine the men and women who
serve food every day, who make sure this building runs smoothly, don't
receive the most basic protections which we would expect for any member
of our family.
I ask the committee, I ask Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein, if
they would be kind enough to look into this situation. I am happy to
work with them and make certain we are treating all of the men and
women who work here with respect in giving them the benefits which we
would expect every American who comes to work every day to enjoy. I
think we ought to join to try to set such an example.
If this is not a major problem, I apologize to the subcommittee.
However, if it is one that I have been told is a concern to many of the
employees, I hope we can work together to resolve it.
Once again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
fine work on this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have sought recognition at this time to
commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Bennett, and the
ranking member, Senator Feinstein, for their efforts in bringing out of
the Appropriations Committee and out of their subcommittee prior
thereto, a

[[Page 9003]]

bill which I know that all Senators can support.
As noted by the Chairman and Ranking Member, the allocation to the
Legislative Branch Subcommittee here in the Senate was substantially
larger than the amount allocated to the Subcommittee's House
counterpart. That increased allocation was distributed fairly
throughout the Legislative Branch.
In particular, as has been noted by Chairman Bennett and Senator
Feinstein, the bill as reported by the Committee recommends a
substantial increase for the Capitol Police. I commend these two very
able Senators for their excellent work in recommending this increase
for the Capitol Police and for the increases they recommended
throughout the legislative branch. It should be kept in mind something
that Members of this body often forget, perhaps at least temporarily,
that the Legislative Branch is the people's branch.
I stand here on this floor time after time to say that again and
again that this is the first of the three branches of our Government
mentioned in the Constitution, article I. We should adequately fund the
legislative branch. I believe this bill does so. We certainly bend over
backwards time and time again to fund the executive branch, and the
executive branch includes in its budget on every occasion that a budget
that comes here, additional persons for various segments of the
executive branch. In many instances, few questions are asked, if any.
So the executive branch adds to its numbers by the hundreds, from time
to time. Yet we respond quite niggardly with appropriations for the
legislative branch. We are always pinching pennies when it comes to the
legislative branch.
The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, as reported by the House
Appropriations Committee, contains major cuts throughout the
legislative branch, including the appropriation for the Capitol Police.
Rather than recommending an increase sufficient to continue the growth
in the Capitol Police force that we approved two years ago as a result
of the tragic shooting that took the lives of Officer Chestnut and
Detective Gibson, the bill, reported by the other body requires
dramatic reductions in the Capitol Police force. Through a combination
of the regular Fiscal Year 2000 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act
and the additional funding that had already been provided in the
Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, sufficient resources
have been provided for 1,511 Capitol Police personnel. That increase in
personnel was carefully considered as part of an overall plan to
improve security of the U.S. Capitol complex. It was to be a multi-year
effort with these additional forces being brought on board as quickly
as the new hires could be trained. Yet, that is not what has been
recommended in the bill as reported in this year's bill by the House
Appropriations Committee. That recommendation provides only $70
million, a cut of almost $39 million below the budget request, and
provides for a level of only 1058 personnel, a reduction of 453
positions! Think about that. We all talk about how strongly we support
reducing crime throughout the Nation. Let's start right here in the
Nation's Capitol, right now! We have put 100,000 cops on the beat
across the Nation. A number of years ago, Senator Gramm of Texas and I
offered an amendment which was subsequently enacted to establish a
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate at that
time. Since that time, tens of billions of dollars have been
appropriated over the years from that trust fund. As a result, we have
seen a marked improvement in the statistics on violent crime all across
this Nation. When the tragic shooting of Officer Chestnut and Detective
Gibson occurred in the Nation's Capitol in the summer of 1998, we all
quickly rushed forward with promises of increased funding for the
security measures for the Capitol complex.
I have seen this happen time and time and time again over the 48
years I have been virtually an inhabitant of this building. The
distinguished Senator from Illinois said a moment ago he first came to
this building 38 years ago. Mr. President, I came to this building my
first time almost 70 years ago. I was a boy scout from the coal fields
in southern West Virginia. Of course, it was never meant that I should
ever become a Member of this body, not from the lowly beginnings from
which I sprang. Upon that occasion when I sat up in the galleries, I
said to the scoutmaster: I'm coming back here one day; I'm going to be
a Member of this body. How little did I know that that might come true,
really, when I came to this Capitol almost 70 years ago.
I was a Member of the other body when the shooting occurred in the
gallery of that body. I was sitting on the opposite side, on the
Democratic side, from where the shooting took place. The shooting
occurred from the galleries just over the Republican side of the aisle.
At first, I thought it was a demonstration of some kind, perhaps some
firecrackers or some blank bullets.
I saw--I believe it was one of the Members named Jensen. I saw other
Members fall. I saw one fall right in the center of the floor, towards
the front of the House Chamber. I saw Members running to the Cloakroom.
A Member from Tennessee had sat in a chair to my left. If I were
located in the House Chamber right now, he sat just over to my left. He
was called to go out to the Cloakroom to take a telephone call. While
he was out, that shooting occurred and a bullet pierced the very center
of the chair in which he had sat. The bullet would have gone through
his heart.
A Member of the House who sat just directly behind him was from
Alabama, and that Member suffered a wound in his leg.
I remember going up to the galleries after they had taken the
demonstrators out. There was a TV camera there. They asked me what I
thought about it. I said, ``It just shows what a cockeyed old world
this has come to be.''
The world hasn't improved any. As a matter of fact, it has gotten
worse. I can remember some years ago when there was an explosion on the
next floor below us in the Capitol. A bomb exploded right down here
where the old barber shop was, where the Senators used to get haircuts.
We were criticized so much because we got haircuts in the Capitol that
we closed down the room, the barber shop. But in one of the little
restrooms just outside the premises of that barber shop a bomb
exploded.
Then, a few years later, a bomb exploded right here near the Senate
Chamber, beyond the Republican Cloakroom, out in the corridor there. I
was the Democratic leader at that time, and I had an office just a few
feet away from where that bomb was deposited behind a bench where one
of those Vice Presidential busts is now located. That blast occurred at
11 o'clock at night.
As Howard Baker stated the next morning, it could very well have
killed a Republican Member or Members in that Republican Cloakroom that
night. The explosion was directed toward the Republican Cloakroom.
Nevertheless, that explosion blew off the huge doors to my office in S-
208. It blew those doors over on the desks where members of my staff
worked. As I say, fortunately, it was at 11 o'clock at night, but it
just filled my offices with dust. It broke the picture window in that
beautiful office.
I have been around this Capitol 48 years, and I know these things
happen, and they will happen again. They will happen again. One of
these days there may be a major catastrophe in this Capitol. And every
time there is a rush to improve the security, and then after a few days
or weeks or months, that subsides and the security lapses.
This is the most beautiful Capitol in the world, bar none, with
Brumidi's paintings. Brumidi came to this country in 1855 and he died
in 1880. He painted these beautiful frescoes in the Rotunda. I have my
office now in his old studio down on the next floor. It is in this
Capitol that Webster and Hayne had their famous debate. It was not in
this Chamber but in the Old Chamber down the hall. Webster and Clay,
and Calhoun--where the old Senate sat

[[Page 9004]]

from 1810 to 1859; the Senators in 1859 moved to this Chamber. Ah, what
history here--history, the history of the greatest Republic that was
ever created--history fills these Halls. If you walk in these Halls at
night, you can almost hear the words of Webster and Clay and Thomas
Hart Benton of Missouri. Yet, this Capitol is put in danger by
reductions of this kind in appropriations.
Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein have performed a great deed for
the Nation, for the men and women of yesterday, for the citizens of
today, and for our posterity--those who will walk these Halls in future
years and gaze with wonder at the beauty of this Capitol.
A lot is expected of the men and the women who serve on the U.S.
Capitol Police Force. We expect them to be highly professional, highly
skilled, and highly motivated individuals who perform their duties well
at all times. They must be courteous to the many thousands, the
millions of people who visit this Nation's Capitol while at the same
time being alert to the dangers that can arise at any time with little
notice or without notice.
Members of the House and Senate, our staffs--Jim English, others on
the staff of the Appropriations Committee who sit on this side, and
staff people who sit across the aisle and aid Senator Bennett; there
are thousands of them who work in and around this Capitol--their lives
are at stake, their lives and the lives of the tourists who come here
from the mountains of West Virginia and the level plains of the
Midwest, the prairies, from the Rocky Mountains and the sunny shores of
California. They come here to see this Capitol and to marvel at it, to
gaze in awe. How many times a day I see those tourists come in here and
look about these halls; they just gaze in awe. They seem to be entirely
unaware that somebody else is walking by. They are entranced by what
they see in this Capitol.
These visitors deserve no less from our U.S. Capitol Police Force.
But if we are to have the kind of police force that exhibits these
qualities and these skills, we cannot subject these men and women to
the specter of having their jobs eliminated in massive numbers on the
heels of initiating a program to substantially increase their numbers.
It would be unwise in the extreme to cut security personnel at the
Capitol complex, so I will join Chairman Bennett and Senator Feinstein
and other members of our committee in defending the funding levels
recommended in the Senate bill for the U.S. Capitol Police. I trust we
will succeed in convincing our counterparts on the other side of the
Capitol of the need for that increase.
I congratulate Senator Mikulski, too, on the resolution which she has
offered, which she was kind enough to allow me to cosponsor. That is a
good amendment and this is a good bill which, I believe, deserves the
support of every Senator.
I again congratulate Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein. I again
thank them. The Senate is in their debt. The Congress is in their debt.
The people of the country are in their debt because this is the
people's Capitol. This is the people's branch.
These two Senators have done excellent work in bringing
recommendations to the Senate. I salute them, thank them, commend them,
and say: Long may the great God who is the Judge of us all and in Whose
hands rests the destiny of the Nation continue to bless this great
country and this great Capitol of the United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it seems just a day or two ago--the fact of
the matter is, it was almost 40 years ago--that I served as a Capitol
policeman. I can remember being out on the steps on the east front of
the Capitol. I worked the night shift while I attended law school
during the day. I remember one of my first duty stations was to be
present during the concerts which took place every night.
I can remember a lot of things. One thing I remember is Senator Carl
Hayden coming to the concerts every night. He had been in Congress more
than 50 years at that time. He was still mentally alert but physically
infirm. He would come in his wheelchair. As a Capitol policeman, I
would stand near him during these concerts.
Quite frankly, Mr. President, the most dangerous thing I did as a
Capitol policeman was to direct traffic. Directing traffic was a little
dangerous in those days. I can remember that on Constitution Avenue,
they had railroad tracks. And there were cars all over the place. It
sounds a little facetious when I say it was the most dangerous thing I
did, but it was true. I was barely old enough to carry a gun. One had
to be 21. I carried a pistol. Thank goodness, I never took it out of
the holster during the time I was a Capitol policeman.
I have very fond memories of being a Capitol policeman. Like Senator
Byrd, I can remember coming from a town of 200 at the southern tip of
the State of Nevada where we had a policeman by the name of Big John.
Growing up in Searchlight, he was ``the law.'' But here in Washington,
for me to walk in a uniform at night down these Halls--there was nobody
in these Halls when I made my rounds--it brought a chill to my soul,
thinking I was able to work in this Capitol and walk past the statues
of the great men and women who made this country what it is.
For me now, to think I have served in the House of Representatives,
the greatest democratic body in the history of the world--no one has
ever served in the House unless they have been elected. In the Senate,
there have been people who have served who had been appointed, but
never in the House of Representatives. And then to serve in the Senate.
I told one of my friends I was lucky. He said: ``You are not lucky, you
are blessed.'' That is really true. I was wrong, and he was right.
I am blessed to serve in the Senate of the United States. I walk down
these Halls many times a week to Senator Byrd's old office. As you
know, the Democratic whip's office is down on the next floor. Senator,
did you know that the fireplace was put in that office in 1824? When I
walk down there, even with people around, I get that same chill I had
as a young man in a police uniform. This is truly a wonderful building.
I sometimes wonder why I am so fortunate to serve here. I am, and I
accept those responsibilities along with the privilege.
I have never forgotten that I was a Capitol Police officer. I can
remember when I was transferred to the House. In 1961, Henry Gonzalez
from Texas, was a freshman Congressman. I can remember the very lonely
duty I had over there. This freshman Congressman from Texas worked late
at night, and he would say to me: ``Can I bring you something to eat?
Can I bring you something to drink?''
Another Member I remember was Congressman Lindsay from New York, who
later became the mayor of New York City. These are the two people I
remember reaching out to a police officer, reaching out in kindness. It
made me feel good about my job.
Like Senator Wellstone so eloquently stated, I have tried to be kind,
thoughtful, and considerate to police officers. They have such an
important job, and are often overlooked because things get so crazy
around here.
The world is so different than it was 40 years ago. Unfortunately,
there are people who are hellbent upon destroying this facility, not
just damaging the Rayburn Building. I say to my friend from West
Virginia, immediately before that bomb went off in the Rayburn
Building, the Nevada State Society held a meeting there. We were the
last group to meet in that room. I was a Member of the House at the
time that explosion took place, and I remember the incident as if it
happened yesterday.
Today, it seems that people are no longer content with blowing out a
few windows. They want to destroy this facility, and, if given the
opportunity, they could. That is why we have to reach out to the men
and women who provide security for us on a daily basis. But, it's not
just us, Mr. President. The Capitol Police provides security for all
the staff we see throughout these buildings, the people without whom we

[[Page 9005]]

would not be able to do our jobs. Most importantly, the Capitol Police
is also charged with providing security for the millions of people who
come to this beautiful Capitol complex each year.
We simply must ensure that we take care of the Capitol Police. The
Capitol Police are very well trained. Today, as I was proceeding to a
meeting in the Dirksen Building, I saw a man climb out of a car dressed
in SWAT team apparel. I asked the officer with whom I was walking about
him, and he told me that he was a member of the SWAT team. He was
dressed like you would see in a movie. He is here because he is needed.
We have demolition experts, people who are experts in defusing bombs.
They are called upon to do that more often than we know. Again, they
are here because, unfortunate as it may be, they are needed.
Often time, we only hear about the heroics of the Capitol Police when
something goes wrong. We know when someone breaks a bottle and tries to
attack other people because the press is there to capture the event-in-
the-making. We know about the tragic deaths of Officer Chestnut and
Detective Gibson because the press covered it in such detail. The many
things we do not know about are the tragedies that are averted because
of the skill and proficiency of the Capitol Police. Their training is
as good as any police force in America.
When I served on the Capitol Police, all that training was not
necessary. When people came to this building, we did not check to see
what they had in their bags. We didn't have electronic machines for
visitors to pass through. We did not check to see if they were staff.
Our responsibilities were much different, much simpler.
Every day, these men and women put their lives on the line for
America--not for me, not for the Presiding Officer, but for America, to
protect this beautiful structure and the people who visit it.
Without belaboring the point, I have been fortunate to do a few
things in my adult life. I am so privileged to represent the people of
Nevada in this body. But this Senator is just as proud to have been a
police officer, and I am proud of the fact I was a Capitol policeman.
I extend to my friend from Utah, the chairman of this subcommittee,
and my friend from California, the ranking member, my appreciation for
crafting this bill on a bipartisan basis. Not only have they reached
out to protect the Capitol Police, which is so important, but they have
also reached out to protect the rest of the staff.
I had the good fortune to serve as chairman of the legislative branch
appropriations subcommittee when I first came to the Senate. I loved
that job, because we did some very constructive things.
We see things in the other body on the other side of the Capitol that
have not been very constructive. In fact, they have been destructive. I
would say to my colleagues that the chairman and ranking member have
brought about some dignity to the legislative branch of Government.
The other body, for example, drastically cut the Government Printing
Office which does very important things for this country. In the State
of Nevada, the Government Printing Office has 11 different institutions
to which they supply periodicals and other materials.
Across the country, there are more than 1,300 institutions that serve
as official depository libraries which disseminate more than 16.1
million official Government documents to the general public every
year--every year, over 16 million documents the public gets from the
Government Printing Office.
In Nevada, there are 11 such libraries, the 2 largest of which exist
on the campuses of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas and Reno.
The depository is a bargain when one considers the program as a
whole.
While the GPO supplies the printed materials, the university,
college, and other public libraries which participate in the Federal
Depository Library Program supply the space to house the documents, the
staff to assist the public, as well as the computers, the photocopiers,
and other equipment needed to use this information. In other words, the
GPO embodies the public's access to government.
What if we were to cut off that access? There would be--rightfully
so--a public outcry that such access to government had been denied. If
we were to cut back the staff the way the other body did, that is what
we would have to do--limit the public's access to their government. The
ranking member and the chairman have made every effort to stop this,
and that is very important.
I also think that it is very important we recognize that the General
Accounting Office--because of the work you have done--has been, in
effect, spared. We complain because we do not get our reports and other
information fast enough from the General Accounting Office. Why?
Because in the past we have cut them back a significant amount. They
are already working with a very lean staff. Thank goodness the ranking
member and the chairman have taken care of this. This Senator
appreciates that very much.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator was talking about how the Capitol Police are
careful to search our briefcases and to be on the alert for all people
who walk through the doors.
A couple weeks ago, after I reached my house one evening, I got to
looking for something, and I decided I left it on my desk in my office.
I said to my wife: I am going back up to the Capitol.
She said: Do you want me to go with you?
I said: Yes.
She and I are going to be married, by the way, this coming Monday, 63
years.
As I said, she said: Do you want me to go with you?
Anyhow, she came up here with me. I had already changed clothes. I
had an old slouch rainhat on. I had some old wear-around-the-house
trousers and some scuffy-looking shoes. I came up here with a slouch
sweatshirt and had it outside my trousers.
I walked in down here and went through the magnetometer. I guess I am
the only Senator who goes through the magnetometer. I don't know. But I
do. I do that so the police and others who may get some complaints from
some people who go through that magnetometer can say, Senator Byrd, who
has been around this floor longer than any other Member of the House or
Senate, who has been around here longer than any staff member on this
Hill, goes through that.
So I went through that magnetometer. And there were two policemen
standing there. They were not the regular attendants at the door. And
they did not see any ID card on me with a chain around my neck. So one
of them said to me: Sir, are you a staff member? And I laughed. I said:
No, I'm not a staff member. I just want to compliment you on doing the
kind of job you are supposed to do. No, I'm not a staff member.
So they were on the alert. They did what they were supposed to do. I
salute them for it. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. REID. Thank you very much, I say to Senator Byrd.
Let me say that I sat with awe as I listened to your presentation. It
was very well done, as usual. There is no one in this institution who
has the feeling for not only this building, not only this institution,
the Senate, but for our country than you do. I have great, great
respect for what you have done to inspire me to try to do a better job.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, one of the things I say to my two
colleagues, the chairman and the ranking member, is, if the other body
is looking for additional sources of money, I think they should take a
closer look at their franking practices. I am the last person to tell
the other body what to do with franking, even though in the past, when
I was chairman of the Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee,
we had some real battles dealing with franking. We cut our Senate
franking practices tremendously. In fact, we now hear complaints that

[[Page 9006]]

we do not have enough money to mail to our constituents. We have really
tightened our belts, especially with mass mailings.
But, let's talk about the other body. In 1994, as part of a
bipartisan effort that was initiated by Senator Mack and myself, our
subcommittee successfully instituted sweeping reforms regarding
franking privileges in the Senate. In fact, we cut overall mail costs
by 50 percent between 1994 and 1995.
As part of the same initiative, the House, in 1995, combined its
mail, staff, and office expense accounts, and instituted an expenditure
limit on mail based upon an allowance fund.
However, Mr. President, that was changed. In 1999, according to the
Congressional Research Service, the House, unfortunately, eliminated
any expenditure limit on franking privileges.
So if the House is looking for some ways to get some money, they can
always use some of the money they reapplied to franking just last year.
Also, I want to talk about the Congressional Research Service, for
which I have the greatest respect. It is a great program, the
Congressional Research Service. If we have a problem, we can have some
research done. That is what it is. It helps our constituents, our
staffs, and helps us Members of Congress.
These cutbacks that have been requested in the other body are simply
not wise. I think it goes without saying that we need the Congressional
Research Service so that we are not forced to rely upon a group of
lobbyists.
I, again, commend the chairman and ranking member for their work to
ensure that the Congressional Research Service is protected.
Finally, let me say, in closing, we have appropriated $100 million
for the Visitors Center. I am not happy with the fact we are reaching
out to the private sector to get money to help build what I think
should be a totally Government institution.
A Visitors Center is long overdue. I hope we get it done quickly. I
have been told, though I have heard this before, that construction is
going to start soon.
I think it says a lot that we, in Washington, do not have a facility
for visitors to come into this Capitol. That is one of the reasons why
Officer Gibson and Detective Chestnut are dead, because we did not have
a visitor entrance where people could be checked to see if they have
weapons before coming into the Capitol.
Also, separate and apart from the security aspect of it, it is
important that visitors have a place to come in during cold weather to
stay warm until they can come into the Capitol, and a place during hot
weather to stay cool, and a place where they can get a soft drink, a
glass of water, or go to the bathroom. This is long overdue.
I hope this initiative will move forward expeditiously. I also hope
this eyesore that we have out here with the painted lines on the road
and all that other stuff will quickly be done away with. The east front
of the Capitol should be just as beautiful as the rest of the Capitol
complex. I hope we take care of that very quickly.
Mr. President, I reiterate my gratitude and recognition of the
leadership of Senators Bennett and Feinstein. I wish them well not only
in the passage of this bill, but also wishing them well in conference,
where all eyes of the Senate, including our staff and the brave men and
women of the Capitol police and other legislative branch agencies, will
be upon them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senators who have spoken in
such generous terms. It helps to have a bill that is relatively
noncontroversial and to be on the side of the issues where most
Senators are to get those glowing terms, but nonetheless, I am grateful
for them. I appreciate the comments.

Amendment Nos. 3167 through 3170, En Bloc

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send to the desk a managers' package of
four amendments and ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
laid aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for himself and Mrs.
Feinstein, proposes amendments en bloc numbered 3167 through
3170.

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

Amendment No. 3167

At the appropriate place insert:
The first sentence under the subheading ``sergeant at arms
and doorkeeper of the senate'' under the heading ``Contingent
Expenses of the Senate'' under title I of the bill is amended
by inserting ``, of which $2,500,000 shall remain available
until September 30, 2003'' after ``$71,261,000''.
____

amendment no. 3168

At the appropriate place insert:

Administrative Provision

Sec. __. (a) Section 201 of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 1993 (40 U.S.C. 216c note) is amended by
striking ``$10,000,000'' each place it appears and inserting
``$14,500,000''.
(b) Section 201 of such Act is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Pursuant'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) The Architect of the Capitol is authorized to
solicit, receive, accept, and hold amounts under section
307E(a)(2) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1989
(40 U.S.C. 216c(a)(2)) in excess of the $14,500,000
authorized under subsection (a), but such amounts (and any
interest thereon) shall not be expended by the Architect
without approval in appropriation Acts as required under
section 307E(b)(3) of such Act (40 U.S.C. 216c(b)(3)).''.
____

amendment no. 3169

At the end of title III, insert:

SEC. 312. CENTER FOR RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the legislative
branch of the Government a center to be known as the ``Center
for Russian Leadership Development'' (the ``Center'').
(2) Board of trustees.--The Center shall be subject to the
supervision and direction of a Board of Trustees which shall
be composed of 9 members as follows:
(A) 2 members appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, 1 of whom shall be designated by the
Majority Leader of the House of Representatives and 1 of whom
shall be designated by the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives.
(B) 2 members appointed by the President pro tempore of the
Senate, 1 of whom shall be designated by the Majority Leader
of the Senate and 1 of whom shall be designated by the
Minority Leader of the Senate.
(C) The Librarian of Congress.
(D) 4 private individuals with interests in improving
United States and Russian relations, designated by the
Librarian of Congress.

[[Page 9007]]

(iii) such additional administrative expenses incurred by
organizations in carrying out the program as the Center may
prescribe.
(4) Application.--
(A) In general.--Each organization in the United States
desiring a grant under this section shall submit an
application to the Center at such time, in such manner, and
accompanied by such information as the Center may reasonably
require.
(B) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall--
(i) describe the activities for which assistance under this
section is sought;
(ii) include the number of program participants to be
supported;
(iii) describe the qualifications of the individuals who
will be participating in the program; and
(iv) provide such additional assurances as the Center
determines to be essential to ensure compliance with the
requirements of this section.
(c) Establishment of Fund.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a trust fund to be known as the ``Russian
Leadership Development Center Trust Fund'' (the ``Fund'')
which shall consist of amounts which may be appropriated,
credited, or transferred to it under this section.
(2) Donations.--Any money or other property donated,
bequeathed, or devised to the Center under the authority of
this section shall be credited to the Fund.
(3) Fund management.--
(A) In general.--The provisions of subsections (b), (c),
and (d) of section 116 of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 1989 (2 U.S.C. 1105 (b), (c), and (d)),
and the provisions of section 117(b) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
1106(b)), shall apply to the Fund.
(B) Expenditures.--The Secretary of the Treasury is
authorized to pay to the Center from amounts in the Fund such
sums as the Board of Trustees of the Center determines are
necessary and appropriate to enable the Center to carry out
the provisions of this section.
(d) Executive Director.--The Board shall appoint an
Executive Director who shall be the chief executive officer
of the Center and who shall carry out the functions of the
Center subject to the supervision and direction of the Board
of Trustees. The Executive Director of the Center shall be
compensated at the annual rate specified by the Board, but in
no event shall such rate exceed level III of the Executive
Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States Code.
(e) Administrative Provisions.--
(1) In general.--The provisions of section 119 of the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1989 (2 U.S.C. 1108)
shall apply to the Center.
(2) Support provided by library of congress.--The Library
of Congress may disburse funds appropriated to the Center,
compute and disburse the basic pay for all personnel of the
Center, provide administrative, legal, financial management,
and other appropriate services to the Center, and collect
from the Fund the full costs of providing services under this
paragraph, as provided under an agreement for services
ordered under sections 1535 and 1536 of title 31, United
States Code.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
(g) Transfer of Funds.--Any amounts appropriated for use in
the program established under section 3011 of the 1999
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-31;
113 Stat 93) shall be transferred to the Fund and shall
remain available without fiscal year limitation.
(h) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--This section shall take effect on the date
of enactment of this Act.
(2) Transfer.--Subsection (g) shall only apply to amounts
which remain unexpended on and after the date the Board of
Trustees of the Center certifies to the Librarian of Congress
that grants are ready to be made under the program
established under this section.
____

amendment no. 3170

Section 309(1) of the bill is amended by striking ``fiscal
year 2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 1999 and 2000.''

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, these amendments have been cleared on
both sides. The first one is an amendment for the Sergeant at Arms to
make $2.5 million of funds appropriated available until September 2003.
The second is an amendment to raise the cap on the amount of private
funds that can be provided to the National Garden. The third is an
amendment to create a fund to allow for private funds to endow the
Russian Leadership Program of the Library of Congress. And the fourth
amendment is a technical correction to section 309.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
Without objection, the amendments are agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 3167 through 3170), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand that the chairman of the
full committee, Senator Stevens, is anxious to come to the floor to
make a statement. I will suggest the absence of a quorum to allow him
to come, unless the Senator from California has something that she
wishes to say at this time.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is fine.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to talk about a couple of issues.
First of all, I commend the distinguished ranking member, Senator
Feinstein, and the chair of the appropriations subcommittee for their
outstanding work on the legislative appropriations bill. Many of our
colleagues have come to the floor already to speak as eloquently as I
have heard about the importance of the Capitol Police, about the
importance of those who serve us in so many capacities throughout the
Capitol and throughout the Capitol complex itself.
I want to express my support for this bill and for the statement that
it makes about the importance that we as Senators put on the work done
by our Capitol Police each and every day. Those of us who are fortunate
enough to be in Leadership especially recognize the unique role the
Capitol Police play. They are with us almost from the time we leave the
house to the time we are dropped off at the house late at night. They
are with us publicly. They follow us. They protect us. They provide
service to us in the most exemplary and professional manner. I think it
would be all too easy for some to misinterpret the ill-advised actions
taken thus far by the House in their legislative branch appropriations
bill.
It was really for that reason many of us felt the need not only to
support a good Senate legislative appropriations bill, but to
underscore the numbers and the commitment made in the Senate version of
this bill by cosponsoring and supporting the amendment offered by the
distinguished Senator from Maryland.
We want to say just two words without equivocation to the Capitol
Police, to the members of the Congressional Research Service, to the
GAO, and to all of those who work so diligently and professionally each
and every day: Thank you. Thank you for what you do. Thank you for how
you do it. Thank you for setting the example. Thank you for the
extraordinary dedication you demonstrate to public service.
That is really the message. I will be surprised if we don't see a
100-0 vote in our expression of gratitude and our desire to ensure that
they realize how much we appreciate what they do. While we may not say
it each and every day, and we may not walk up as we probably should
from time to time to a Capitol Police officer, or to one of our floor
staff, or to any of those who serve us, maybe in this small way we can
say as a body, as Senators, regardless of political or philosophical
persuasion, thank you. We express our sincere and heartfelt gratitude
to each and every one of you for dedicating your lives to public
service, and in some cases dedicating your lives to the safety of
others, safety that oftentimes asks too much of police officers and
their families, as we saw just 2 years ago.
So this is as an important a statement as I think we will make this
year regarding our Capitol Police and our staff in many respects, and I
am hopeful that it won't go unnoticed. I am hopeful that this will
serve as a big exclamation point that we are very grateful, and that we
are appreciative in ways that probably are not articulated on a regular
basis.

____________________

[[Page 9008]]

NOMINATION OF BRADLEY SMITH

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President I also want to address the matter
concerning Bradley Smith. I know there will be time allocated for his
nomination later on this afternoon. I will simply take time as if in
morning business using the quorum call to address his nomination at
this time.
As I have stated before, I have come to the conclusion that I must
oppose this nomination. For me, this is not just a vote on a particular
nominee with whom I don't agree, this vote is about whether or not we
will prove the cynics in America wrong in demonstrating our commitment
to strong campaign finance laws.
Yesterday morning in the Washington Post, a Republican strategist who
advises Governor Bush and the Republican National Committee said the
following:

There are no rules any more . . . There were few if any to
begin with but there are virtually none today. They know it,
we know it, everybody knows it.

That wasn't Common Cause or Ralph Nader. That was an adviser to Texas
Governor George W. Bush.
Governor Bush's adviser is right. In many ways, we have entered the
post-Federal Election Campaign Act era. It is the Wild West of ``soft
money,'' issue advocacy ads and secret donors.
The system is broken, and everybody knows it. A vote in favor of this
nomination will simply confirm what we already know. It doesn't have to
be this way. It shouldn't be this way.
I know very few Members of the House and the Senate, of either party,
who like our current campaign finance system. I know very few members
of either party who prefer raising money to meeting with constituents
and working on issues. I know very few members of either party who
enjoy the fact that, every time they face reelection, the amount of
money that has to be raised to be competitive has risen exponentially.
And frankly, I know very few members of either party who don't resent
the fact that so many of our legislative activities are scrutinized
solely in the context of donations--which groups backed which said of
the argument, and whose money prevailed.
I am irritated by that. I am frustrated by that. That screen should
not be the consideration. Even in the media, it shouldn't be the frame
within which we view the debate on issues. But that is exactly how it
is framed on the Sunday talk shows and in the newspapers.
If we think the current system is unacceptable, that is nothing
compared to the way our constituents feel.
Our constituents don't like the current campaign finance system. They
don't think it puts their interests first. But they also don't think
we'll ever really change it.
In fact, they are convinced of it. Poll after poll showed the
American people responding in single digits--not double digits, but
single digits--to the question: Do you think Congress will ever change
the campaign finance laws? Overwhelmingly, over 90 percent say no.
Today, it seems to me, the Senate can take the first step toward
restoring at least a modicum of public trust in American political
campaigns.
One thing we can do to promote greater confidence in our electoral
system is to ask a simple question before we confirm the men and women
who will serve on the Federal Election Commission. It seems to me that
fundamental question ought to be: whether those who may be interested
in serving believe in the laws on the books today? Do you believe you
can objectively enforce the laws? We are asked that question every time
we are sworn in. Will you uphold the Constitution? It seems to me
upholding the Constitution and all the statutes and the compendium of
laws that have been created as a result of our fundamental freedoms
established in the Constitution is a prerequisite for serving in public
office.
The men and women who, as Commissioners, would have the courage to
issue clearer guidelines about what is permissible, and would have the
courage to enforce those guidelines are the people whom we should
encourage to serve on this and all bodies.
Brad Smith, it is clear to me, does not fit that description. Rather
than decrying the weaknesses of our current campaign laws, Mr. Smith
has made a career out of criticizing the utility of our federal
election law scheme. He has argued for the repeal of the Federal
Elections Campaign Act, and he denies that money has a corrupting
influence on the political system.
Simply put, when it comes to campaign finance laws, Brad Smith is an
anarchist. This is not the marshal who will save the day in Dodge City.
Confirming Brad Smith is more like asking Billy the Kid to preserve
peace.
Let's be clear. Putting reform-minded FEC Commissioners in place is
not enough by itself. We created the FEC and our inaction has created
some of the problems within the FEC with respect to enforcing the laws
we have today. Congress has a responsibility to act today to close
loopholes, clarify the law, and do everything possible to stem the
endless chase of money in which we all engage.
We should pass McCain-Feingold immediately. We should end the abuse
of section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code immediately.
Our Constitution doesn't stand in the way. The only thing standing in
the way of our taking these modest steps is the reluctance to tamper
with the system that we know and that has gotten us elected, even if we
don't like it.
We are worried our careers won't survive. It seems to me we should be
more worried about whether faith in our system will survive.
The trends are ominous. The soft money accounts in both parties'
coffers are at record levels. In the first 15 months of the 2000
election cycle, the national Democratic and Republican Party committees
have raised over $160 million in soft money. Mr. President, $160
million in corporate, union, and large individual contributions. Is
there any real question why Americans are losing faith in our elections
system?
Every election cycle, the cost of campaigns goes up and the number of
people who vote goes down. If we really want to increase voter
participation, we have to address that reality. The reality is, there
is simply too much money in politics. We all know, whether we admit it
or not, that the current system is broken. We have a choice: Do we
reduce the influence of special interests money in Washington? Do we
want to wink and nod at the few flimsy campaign laws we have?
Today we have an opportunity to answer that question. It seems to me
that if we defeat Brad Smith's nomination and demand we be presented a
nominee who will work with us to regain public confidence in our
campaign laws, we will be taking the first step. Then we could pass
campaign finance reform, the McCain-Feingold bill, and put an end to
the flood of soft money into campaigns once and for all, and then shut
down the so-called 527 loophole. Those three steps would go a long way
in this election cycle, in this session of Congress, to do the right
thing. They are things we can and should do. The currency of politics
should be ideas, not cash.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Before I begin, I commend the distinguished Democratic
leader, the minority leader, for his very eloquent statement and
comments, particularly in regard to the need for this body to take up
the issue of campaign finance reform. I could not agree more. We have
had a series of hearings at the Rules Committee on the campaign finance
system. We have heard from all sides, but we heard a little more from
one side than another.
I tried to arrange for our good friends, Senator Feingold and Senator
McCain, to testify. I talked to my colleague from Wisconsin about this
so we could hear about the McCain-Feingold bill. I hope our colleagues
and others heard the remarks. This is a very important issue. Nothing
is more fundamental than trying to get a handle on this process that
has gone wild. It is absolutely out of control, and it is getting worse
by the day.
While there is obviously a great need to deal with other issues,
nothing is more fundamental than how people get here, where their
attention is spent,

[[Page 9009]]

their time and effort, how it is allocated. Until we change the system,
in my view, it will only get worse.
I applaud my leader for his comments. I know he reflects the views of
the overwhelming majority on this side of the aisle and some on the
other side. More importantly, I think the Senator reflects the views of
the American public. There may be differences on details, but
fundamentally the American public understands this system is not
working well at all. The point that we spend more money each year on
campaigns, while voter participation seems to be heading in the
opposite direction, paints a very clear picture of what the American
public thinks. I associate myself with those remarks and commend the
Senator for those remarks.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to spend a couple of minutes on the
legislative appropriations bill and to commend Senator Stevens and
Senator Byrd, the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee, as well as our good friends, the chair and ranking member of
the subcommittee, Senator Feinstein and Senator Bennett, for the work
they have done in putting together, I think, a very responsible bill on
the Senate side in terms of dealing with the costs of running the
legislative branch of Government.
They have put together a good bill. They have been fiscally
restrained in their approach. Obviously, our legislative branch should
not be exempt from the kind of scrutiny we apply to every single aspect
of this, the Federal budget. They are to be commended for packaging a
bill that does less than the administration wanted but is certainly far
more responsible, far more thoughtful, far more balanced than what the
other body has apparently crafted.
The bill here is $59 million over current spending but $147 million
below the President's budget request for operations of the legislative
branch. We need to remember we are not just talking about Members'
salary or staffs. We are talking about being the temporary custodians
of these buildings we call the Capitol Grounds.
A few minutes ago, I greeted another student group from my State,
from Woodstock High School, a group of eighth graders, and, earlier, a
group of students from a school in Washington, DC. I try to tell the
young people when they are here, these are their buildings; this is
their Government. They are not voters yet, but I want them to develop
an appreciation of what has been handed down to us as temporary
custodians, what we will be handing down to them in the coming
generation so their children and their grandchildren will be able to
come to this great Capital City of ours, come to the great buildings,
and cherish and appreciate what it represents to them as citizens of
the greatest democracy ever created in the history of mankind. As
temporary custodians of their well-being, we have a responsibility not
to somehow pad the budgets to serve our own comfortable interests but
to see to it that we preserve this venue, this seat of democracy, for
coming generations.
That is what Senator Feinstein and Senator Bennett have done with
this budget. Regretfully, it is what the other body has not done. That
is what makes me so sad. We can have differences here--Democrats,
Republicans, conservatives, liberals, moderates--and debate issues.
When it comes to the buildings, when it comes to the people every day
who work here, whose names you will never know, who care for the
facilities, who guard these buildings, not just the Members and the
staffs who work here but the 10,000-plus tourists who come to their
Nation's Capitol every day and come into the buildings. Officer
Chestnut and Officer Gibson, who lost their lives just a few feet from
where I am speaking, were protecting not only the membership when those
shots fired but protecting hundreds of tourists gathered in the
building.
To see a budget that disregards the importance of having good
security here, not just for the Senators and Congressmen but for the
innocent tourists who come to see their Nation's Capitol, is something
of which we ought to be very mindful. What the House has done, of
course, was to cut the police force by almost 12 percent, resulting in
a reduction in force of almost 30 percent of the police force on these
grounds.
I was a young boy in the 1950s in the other Chamber, a few feet from
that Chamber, when shots rang out from the gallery, and Members of
Congress were shot on that day. I was down in Washington on a spring
break. I literally just missed being in the Chamber as a tourist on
that day.
We have taken a lot of steps since then to try to see to it that
people who are armed can't come in here and threaten the lives of
people in these buildings. I remember being a relatively new Member in
this Chamber when, I thank the Lord, we had all left on a Monday night
and a bomb went off in the building. Had we been here, there would have
been those, I suspect, who would have been severely injured, if not
killed.
And of course the tragedy involving Officers Chestnut and Gibson and
the gunfire in the Capitol Building is a sad commentary on the times in
which we live. We all know this. But to talk about reducing the police
force of these grounds by 30 percent, cutting the present force, is
irresponsible. Hopefully, it will be reversed.
I commend our champions of this legislative appropriations bill for
fighting back and putting their foot down, and saying you are not going
to tolerate this because it is wrong to do this to the American public.
The Library of Congress as well would be cut here, the greatest
library in the world just a few blocks from this Capitol--again, a
great public library. The people of Connecticut may be more sensitive
to this issue than others are. The very first public library in the
United States was founded in New Haven in the 1600s, so we in my State
have a special affection for libraries and their value.
The greatest of all libraries in the world is the Library of
Congress. There is a wonderful exhibit going on as we celebrate the
200th anniversary of the Library of Congress. I encourage people who
are coming to Washington to visit the wonderful exhibit of the
Jefferson library. It is Thomas Jefferson's library. It was the
greatest private library in the hands of any citizen in this country
when he donated it. Actually, it was sold for a very modest amount
after the Capitol was burned in the War of 1812. Thomas Jefferson took
the 6,000 volumes that was his library, the greatest private library in
the world, and said this ought to be the basis of a great national
library. At the cost of $23,000, those volumes became the core of the
Library of Congress we now celebrate, as we should, here in our
Nation's Capital. The House proposal to cut into that budget by 1
percent, again, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The Congressional Research Service, again, is of great value to us as
we try to do our work. They are wonderful people. It does not matter,
when you are provided a report, whether it is Democrats, Republicans,
Independents--they give us the facts, data, hard evidence that we rely
on as we try to do the people's business. We couldn't possibly afford,
nor should we, to expand our staffs to include all these people who
serve as our extended staff. The Congressional Research Service, the
CRS, has been of great value to people in these Chambers over the
years. The House proposal eliminating one out of seven employees is an
example of an unwise reduction in force.
With regard to the General Accounting Office, the House cuts it by 7
percent. Again, the General Accounting Office is tremendously valuable.
I don't know of a single Member who has not relied on the General
Accounting Office at one time or another to get good, hard, clean facts
and evidence behind some of the more perplexing problems we face in our
country.
As to the Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget
Office, as well, the House has acted very irresponsibly. I commend our
leaders, as the ranking member on the authorizing committee, the Rules
Committee, and express my support for what they are trying to do.

[[Page 9010]]

I say to the literally dozens and dozens of people who work in these
buildings, be they police officers or custodial staff, doorkeepers, and
the like, we do not get a chance to say this to you as often as we
should but we appreciate immensely what you do. The American public, as
I said, may never get to know your names, but you preserve their assets
here every single day. The majority of us in this Chamber appreciate
what you do. We appreciate the efforts you make around the clock.
Many us have been here late in the night and meet these wonderful
people, many of them women--women, not young women--who come by and
clean these offices after everyone leaves, doing the tremendous work
that they do. They are never seen by the Members or staff around here.
I want to tell them today on this floor how much I appreciate the work
they do. Again, I am confident I reflect the views of the overwhelming
majority of Members in this body.
We thank Senator Feinstein and we thank Senator Bennett for their
efforts. We applaud Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd for demonstrating
once again their deep appreciation for being good temporary caretakers,
temporary custodians, of these facilities and these assets that belong
to the American public. I am proud to be associated with both of these
fine leaders.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Feingold pertaining to the introduction of S.
2621 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have reserved time
for an amendment which would deal with funding for mailings for open
house town meetings. The budgets today are very restrictive. In years
gone by, there was an opportunity for a Senator to schedule an open
house town meeting in a county seat and send out postal patron notices
to everybody in the county. Then, an open house town meeting would be
held where a relatively small number of people would appear, but at
least everybody in the county had notice that the Senator was coming.
Everyone had an opportunity to hear a short report about what was going
on in Washington and then an opportunity to ask the Senator questions.
We are under considerable fire and criticism on the issue of
fundraising and the issue of access. For example, when we have
fundraisers and people attend, they certainly do have access to
Senators. There is no way to have a fundraiser where people attend
without having that kind of access.
The question then arises: Is that kind of access unfair? I believe
there is a very good answer to that by having the Senator go to the
county seat, and make it convenient for people in the county to have
access to the Senator to ask questions. The concept of having a town
meeting to let people express themselves is something that I believe is
very important and very fundamental.
The budget we have today does not allow for that. I was just
discussing the matter with the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee to see if we might structure something which could be
accommodated without having a contested amendment and a contested
debate and then a rollcall vote.
What the Senator from Utah and I were talking about was an analysis
of how many of our colleagues want to have open house town meetings.
Many of our colleagues do not choose that as a form of communication
with constituents. Others may have only a few open house town meetings.
There is a big difference between small States and big States. There is
a different picture that certainly arises in Utah than Pennsylvania.
As I said to the Senator from Utah, I would not necessarily be
concerned about having the town meetings in the big metropolitan areas
where there is a greater opportunity to communicate with the citizens
through television and through newspaper stories. However, if you take,
say, some of the northern tier counties of Pennsylvania or the north
central or southern tier, unless you actually go to the county, it is
very hard to make that kind of contact.
I would not want the entire year to go by without taking action. As I
discussed with the Senator from Utah, perhaps in collaboration with the
Senator from California, who is the ranking member on this
subcommittee, and the Senators on the Rules Committee, we could try to
get an estimate and perhaps put a funding mechanism in one of the later
appropriations bills. Perhaps it could come in the appropriations bill
on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair.
I do believe Senators would like to have this opportunity. It may
well be that it would not be very expensive, depending on how many
Senators chose it. Maybe we could, on an experimental basis, create a
relatively small fund and find some way to administer it so the people
who want to have the town meetings can but with some limitations so
that one or a few Senators do not take too much of the fund. Therefore,
we could move in the direction of encouraging these open house town
meetings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for raising this
issue because it is a very legitimate issue, and I think it is a
legitimate issue for the legislative branch subcommittee to deal with.
We did not deal with it in subcommittee and in full committee. It
becomes a challenge to try to find the money right now in terms of an
offset within the bill.
The point the Senator from Pennsylvania makes is an extremely valid
one. There are people who, in rural areas particularly, do not really
have any sense of opportunity to interact with a Senator unless that
Senator physically goes to those counties. Then when you try to notify
the people that you are coming, you have a real challenge because they
do not have the mass media coverage. Yes, they may get a major
newspaper from a major metropolitan area, but they do not read it for
hometown announcements. If you try local newspapers, many times they do
not do the job, either.
The problem we have in terms of the reactions from members of the
Rules Committee is that the Rules Committee has attempted to create the
opportunity for this in terms of flexibility for the overall budget and
saying to a Senator, ``You have a pot of money you can use either for
franking or for stationery, for travel, or some other item,'' and they
are opposed to earmarking a particular amount of money for this
particular purpose.
If we sit down with members of the Rules Committee and lay out the
importance of what it is the Senator from Pennsylvania is highlighting
and talk it through to find some creative way, I think we can move in
that direction. I pledge to the Senator from Pennsylvania that I will
work with him to see if we cannot do that because I agree absolutely
with the end he is trying to achieve.
I think it is very important that we try to help Members communicate
with their constituents in a meaningful kind of way.
As I understand it, from the Senator from Pennsylvania, this is not
talking about a mass mailing of campaign literature, as we are accused
of doing under newsletters and use of the franking. This is talking
about simply a notice that would go out under the frank with respect to
town meetings.
I am very sympathetic with that and would be happy to work with the
Senator and the Senators from the Rules Committee and, of course,
Senator Feinstein, to see if we can't find a way to devise something
that is not overly expensive--because I agree with the Senator, not
every Senator would want

[[Page 9011]]

to use it--but that at the same time we could provide an opportunity
for those Senators who would be willing to do the town meeting.
So I am happy to deal with the Senator to see if we can't find way to
work this out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in response to Chairman Bennett's
suggestion, I would like to assure the Senator from Pennsylvania, as a
member of the Rules Committee, I would be very happy to take a look at
this and see what the problem is. The ranking member of the Rules
Committee was here and is familiar with the subject. I believe he would
be agreeable, as well, to take a look. And we will see what the problem
is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah and the
Senator from California for those statements. Let us proceed on that
basis.
Picking up on what the Senator from Utah said, it isn't a political
mailing touting what any of us may think he or she has done. It is
notice that the Senator is going to have his or her body at a given
place.
As open house town meetings go, that can be a fairly high price to
pay, to go out and face the music and face the constituents because
they do keep track of our votes. But they have a very hard time
following us if they live in Coudersport in Potter County or live in
the northern tier of Pennsylvania or a southern tier county such as
Fulton. They don't necessarily get any of the major newspapers and are
outside television range. They may see some national television, but
that is not an effective way for Senators to communicate with the
people of their States.
When you appear at a town meeting, there is a feeling that something
is going on that is positive. We Members of Congress in the Senate and
the House are subject to a lot of criticism as being ``inside the
beltway'' and not being accessible. People don't know what we are
doing. And then we are going to these fundraisers where people have to
make contributions to have access to us.
This is something which is not very healthy for a democracy. So let
us proceed.
I will not offer an amendment at this time. I will see if we can work
it out, starting with the chairman and ranking member on this
subcommittee, and moving over to the chairman and ranking member on the
Rules Committee, to try to structure a program which would accomplish
the purpose and be affordable.
I thank the Senator from Utah and the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I think, as I
said, he has raised an issue very much worth pursuing and one that we
will, in all good faith, go forward on, to see if we can't work out
some kind of solution that can get us where it is we need to be.

____________________

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENTS--EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous
consent that the 40 minutes of debate with respect to the nominations
begin at 2:20 p.m. today, with the votes to occur at the expiration of
that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous
consent that Executive Calendar No. 454 be added to the list of
nominations to be confirmed following the votes on the FEC and judicial
nominations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we come to the time where we have another
25 minutes before the time comes for voting. I had been expecting the
Senator from Alaska. He is still tied up in a previous meeting. So we
will look forward to hearing from him.
It has been an interesting experience for me to serve as chairman of
this particular subcommittee on Appropriations. There are those who say
this subcommittee does not matter very much because its dollar
allocation is the lowest of all of the subcommittees in the
Appropriations Committee, with the exception of the District of
Columbia. I disagree. I think this subcommittee, in fact, can have as
much impact on the Government as some of the others that have greater
amounts of money to spend because of its area of jurisdiction.
I will take a little of the time here to express my gratitude for the
opportunity of chairing this subcommittee and for those with whom we
work. The subcommittee deals with the Architect of the Capitol. That is
a term that most people in the country do not understand. They would
think of the Architect of the Capitol as the person who sits down and
draws the lines on paper that produces the building of the Capitol.
That is what architects do.
They do not realize that the Architect of the Capitol is charged with
the responsibility of maintaining the Capitol. In this situation, I
have been able to go around and meet those people who oversee the
activities that go on with respect to maintaining our operation. They
work for the Architect of the Capitol, and they are concerned with such
things as the air-conditioning, the cleaning, the repairs, the
restoration of the Brumidi paintings about which the Senator from West
Virginia spoke.
We take it for granted that this beautiful place will always remain
beautiful. It takes a virtual army of people working behind the scenes
to see that this is, in fact, the case.
I have spoken of my business experience. I remember one company where
I worked where a particular manager was under very heavy pressure from
top management to show improved results on the bottom line. This
manager was determined to do that. Pretty soon the reports started
coming in that the bottom line was getting better and getting better,
and he basked in the glow of the approval that he got for his tough
measures and his great turnaround procedures.
Then the bill came due, and we discovered what he had been doing. He
had been increasing his bottom line by cutting back on his maintenance
budget. And all of a sudden the facilities over which he had
responsibility began to show the deterioration. In that company, we
ultimately had to pay enormous capital costs to restore the facilities
to the level they should have been at by virtue of significant day-to-
day maintenance. Yes, he could make the bottom line look better
temporarily by shutting down the day-to-day maintenance, but, overall,
he cost us a great deal of money.
That is the responsibility of the Architect of the Capitol: To see to
it that, overall, this entire complex works. It is not only the
Capitol. He has the responsibility for the Senate office buildings and
the House office buildings.
We have watched the renovation of the Dirksen Office Building go
forward under the direction of the Architect of the Capitol. I am happy
to be able to report that it is on time and under budget. For those who
say that every Federal program is a boondoggle, this is one that is
moving forward. As an occupant of a Dirksen Building suite in the
renovated area, I can tell you that this office space will be good for
the next 30 or 40 years before it has to be done again. It is being
done properly, it is being done intelligently, and it is being done
within the allocated budget.
Something that I did not know anything about until I became chairman
of this subcommittee is the Botanic Garden.
I have all my life driven by the Botanic Gardens without ever going
in and without ever having any understanding of what went on inside.
The Architect of the Capitol came to me when I got this assignment and
said: Let's go down and take a look at the Botanic Gardens. Well, one
walk

[[Page 9012]]

through the Botanic Gardens made it clear that there had been a lot of
delay and neglect of ordinary maintenance. This was a major mess.
Now, under the direction of the Architect of the Capitol, the Botanic
Gardens are being raised up to the level where they should be. One may
ask: Who cares about the Botanic Gardens? I asked the somewhat impudent
question: How many Americans come to the Botanic Gardens? How many see
this? Well, if it were in a city other than Washington, DC, it would be
a major tourist attraction. There are literally millions of Americans
who go through the Botanic Gardens every year. It had been allowed to
deteriorate and had to be brought up to proper standards.
I could go on and on about the work of the Architect of the Capitol.
It is significant work, and it requires a great deal of effort. I am
delighted to be involved in understanding that.
I see other Members coming to the floor. I want them to know I am not
filibustering, but I don't want the time to go just in a quorum call,
when I have an opportunity to express my gratitude for the assignment
that I have. If anyone has something they want to say, just give me a
signal and I will conclude quickly.
Absent that, I will talk about the Library of Congress. The Library
of Congress Thomas Jefferson building is one of the hidden jewels,
architecturally, in this town. I always tell tourists from Utah, when
they come and visit me in my office, to go see the Jefferson building.
They say: Well, we are going to go see the major sites. We are going to
go to the Vietnam War Memorial. We are going to go to the Lincoln
Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial and the new FDR Memorial, and so
on. I only have so much time.
I say: I don't care how limited your time is. If you have any time at
all, walk down the street and walk into the Jefferson building.
This is the most beautiful building on Capitol Hill except for the
Capitol itself. It represents in many ways the story of America.
My favorite story about the Library of Congress and the building is
one that is told about Boris Yeltsin, when he walked into the Jefferson
building. He stood there and looked around, and then turned to his
guide and said: How did you Americans get a building like this? You
didn't have any czars?
Well, maybe we didn't have any czars, but we had the Army Corps of
Engineers, and we had the American spirit 100 years ago that said
America has arrived. America is going to take its place as one of the
major nations of the world. In that spirit of enthusiasm and
excitement, they built the Jefferson building to house the Library of
Congress. That building came in under budget and on time. It stands as
a reminder of the spirit of manifest destiny that we associate with
Theodore Roosevelt. The building was finished before Theodore Roosevelt
became President, but it was in that era that it happened. That is a
reminder that all Americans ought to have as part of their history.
It has been magnificently restored by the Congress, and by this
subcommittee. Admittedly, it was restored prior to my being involved
with the subcommittee, but it is something we in Congress should be
proud of because it is part of the heritage we leave to our children
and our grandchildren. They can come to Capitol Hill--yes, the Capitol
and the continuity of democracy that is represented here--but there is
also the commitment to knowledge and spreading that knowledge that is
represented by the largest and finest library in the world. It exists
to serve the Congress. It is sustained by the Congress. It is part of
the responsibility of this particular subcommittee.
I am delighted with the opportunity of serving in this capacity. I
appreciate the support we have received not only from the full
committee but from all of the Members of the Senate as well.
I see my friend from Connecticut is here. I am happy to yield the
floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may, I commend our colleague from Utah
for the job he and the ranking Democrat, Senator Feinstein of
California, have done on this bill. I echo his sentiments about the
role we play as custodians of these buildings.
I noted earlier that all of us on a daily basis greet students who
come to the Nation's Capital as part of the graduation programs of
various schools. I had the wonderful privilege earlier today of meeting
a group of students from Woodstock, a school in Connecticut, as part of
their eighth grade graduation.
It is a violation of the rules of the Senate to identify anybody who
is in the galleries, and I won't do that. I am not going to identify
any school groups in the gallery. If you happen to notice somebody
dressed in green up there, you might notice someone who might come from
that school along the way. They are very attentive students and
interested about these buildings. As I explained to them, these are
their buildings. We are mere custodians of them.
I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Utah and the
Senator from California. We are doing what we can to see to it that
they are secure and well cared for so that future generations will be
able to enjoy them as much as this generation does.
I thank the Chair and 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. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2603, the
pending legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, as
reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
I commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Senator Bennett,
and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Feinstein, for bringing a
balanced bill to the floor. The bill supports ongoing Senate operations
and those of the congressional support agencies we depend upon, such as
the Congressional Budget Office, the Library of Congress, the
Government Printing Office, and the General Accounting Office. It also
sustains a commitment to increased security for the entire Capitol
complex and the thousands of visitors we receive each day.
The bill as reported to the Senate provides $1.7 billion in new
budget authority and $1.45 billion in new outlays for the operations of
the Senate, joint items, and our related agencies. The House will add
the funding for its operations to its version of this bill. When
outlays from prior-year budget authority, funding for House items, and
other actions are taken into account, the bill totals $2.6 billion in
both budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2001.
The Senate bill is at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget
authority, and it is $4 million in outlays below the 302(b) allocation.
The Senate bill is $54 million in budget authority and $53 million in
outlays above the FY 2000 level. It is $216 million in budget authority
and $169 million in outlays below the budget request.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Senate Budget Committee scoring of the reported bill be inserted in the
Record at this point.

S. 2603, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS, 2001--SPENDING COMPARISONS--
SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal Year 2001, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
Purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill \1\:
Budget authority................ 2,500 97 2,597
Outlays......................... 2,498 97 2,595
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority................ 2,500 97 2,597
Outlays......................... 2,502 97 2,599
2000 level:
Budget authority................ 2,449 94 2,543
Outlays......................... 2,448 94 2,542
President's request:
Budget authority................ 2,716 97 2,813
Outlays......................... 2,667 97 2,764

SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:

Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority................ .......... .......... ..........
Outlays......................... -4 .......... -4
2000 level:
Budget authority................ 51 3 54
Outlays......................... 50 3 53
President's request:
Budget authority................ -216 .......... -216
Outlays......................... -169 .......... -169
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes adjustment for House-only items not considered in Senate.

Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

[[Page 9013]]

Little Scholars Child Development Center

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from
Utah, Senator Bennett, for his excellent work on the FY 2001
Legislative Branch Appropriations bill and the attention he and his
staff have paid to my concerns. I would like to engage in a brief
colloquy with Senator Bennett on one of my priorities, the issue of
extending health and retirement benefits to employees of the Library of
Congress' child care center.
As the Senator knows, providing quality and affordable child care is
a very important issue to me. I was, therefore, shocked to learn that
child care workers in the Legislative Branch are not all afforded the
same benefits. While employees of both the Senate and the House child
care centers receive Federal health and retirement benefits, employees
of the Library of Congress' child care center, the Little Scholars
Child Development Center, do not. I ask Senator Bennett if he agrees
that employees of all Legislative Branch child care centers should be
provided benefits in a consistent manner?
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Vermont for bringing this issue
to my attention. Like him, members of my staff have also had their
children enrolled in the Little Scholars Center and speak highly of the
staff and quality of the care there. In this competitive job market, it
is very important that Legislative Branch child care centers be able to
attract and retain quality staff. I share the Senator from Vermont's
goal that health and retirement benefits are extended to employees of
the Library of Congress' child care center as soon as possible.
I inform Senator Jeffords that I have received a copy of a memo,
dated May 24, from Teresa Smith, Director of the Library's Human
Resource Services, to John D. Webster, Director of the Library's
Financial Services, committing to working out a fair and equitable
agreement on the issue of extending benefits to employees of the center
with the governing board of the child care center. Rest assured, my
staff and I will be monitoring the Library's progress towards this goal
with the intent that this issue be resolved before the beginning of the
next fiscal year.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank Senator Bennett for his attention to this
important matter and am pleased that he shares my belief that the
Legislative Branch should set an example of high child care standards
for the rest of the Federal government to follow.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
memorandum of which I spoke be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Memorandum

library of congress, may 24, 2000.

To: John D. Webster, Director, Financial Services.
From: Teresa Smith, Director, Human Resource Services.
Subject: Little Scholars Child Development Center.
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to your
request for information regarding the Little Scholars Child
Development Center (Center) and to provide preliminary
comments regarding the draft legislation that would provide
Federal benefits to the Center's staff.
The Center began operations in 1993 and has an enrollment
of 100 children (13 Library of Congress, 29 Senate, 17 House,
17 other Federal, 24 public). The Library and the Library of
Congress Child Care Association (LCCCA) have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to run the Center. The
Library and the Architect of the Capitol are responsible for
providing facilities and certain administrative support
services to the LCCCA. The LCCCA is responsible for hiring
the Center's staff and running the program. The Center has a
staff of 28 with a payroll of approximately $650,000. The
LCCCA pays for current payroll taxes (FICA) and health
benefits costs.
Human Resource Services (HRS) and Office of General Counsel
are now working with the LCCCA to update the MOU. We are
committed to working out a fair and equitable agreement in a
timely manner and are ready to meet with the LCCCA as soon as
arrangements can be made.
HRS believes that the proposed legislation is premature
because a number of issues should be discussed prior to
submitting any legislation and the MOU update needs to be
finalized first. For example, the proposed legislation is
based upon the Senate child care model, which operates in a
different administrative environment than the Library. The
Library uses a contractor to handle benefit accounting and
does not have a direct accounting relationship with the
Office of Personnel Management. In addition to the estimated
increase in the Library's government contributions for LCCCA
staff of $130,000, the Library would need to significantly
change its administrative operations to handle the
legislation which may be avoided with a further evaluation of
the alternatives. With more time, HRS and the LCCCA may be
able to work out a better model for use at the Center. The
Library believes that other changes to the Center's legal
authority may be appropriate, which would be accomplished
more effectively at the same time as any other proposed
changes and after an analysis of the practices of other day
care centers.
In summary, HRS believes that the proposed legislative
change is premature and would like to first have the
opportunity to work through the MOU issues and then on a
joint request for legislative changes.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no other
amendments be in order to the bill. I further ask consent that
following the vote in relation to the Mikulski amendment, the bill be
advanced to third reading, a vote occur on the question of third
reading, and following that vote, the bill be placed back on the
calendar.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the previous agreement be
modified to allow for those two back-to-back votes to begin at 10:45 on
Thursday morning, with the same 10 minutes in order prior to the 10:45
a.m. vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

NOMINATION OF BRADLEY A. SMITH, OF OHIO, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMISSION--Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to executive
session, and the clerk will report the nomination.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Bradley A. Smith, of
Ohio, to be a member of the Federal Election Commission.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is my understanding under the
unanimous consent agreement I am allotted 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I regret, even though this is the time
that has been allocated by unanimous consent for the final debate on
the nominations, particularly the nomination of Brad Smith, I regret
there are no other Senators here to debate the nomination. However, I
will proceed in any event because it is an important nomination, an
important issue.
There is an irony about the vote we are about to have in the Senate.
The Senate is sure to close up shop at a reasonable hour today. Why?
Because tonight the Democratic Party will host the largest fund-raiser
in history at the MCI Center here in Washington. The party expects to
rake in $24 million in one night, tonight. And this will surpass the
previous record for a single fund-raiser of $21.3 million set less than
1 month ago by the Republican Party. That record fundraiser swamped the
previous record, also held by the Republican Party, at an event a year
earlier, of $14 million.
We are in an arms race. The escalation is truly staggering. The
insatiable need for bigger and bigger checks is turning our great
political parties into little more than fundraiser machines. Forty-
seven donors raised or contributed $250,000 or more to go to the
fundraiser tonight that my party will hold.

[[Page 9014]]

Back in April, 45 donors raised or contributed that amount to join the
Republican Party leaders at the National Armory. A quarter of a million
dollars. Can anyone honestly say the donors who give that money will
get no special treatment in return? We all know this money can be
corrupting. It certainly provides the appearance of corruption.
The Supreme Court knows that contributions of this size can be
corrupting. Let me quote the Court, once again, from the Shrink
Missouri case decided a few months ago:

There is little reason to doubt that sometimes large
contributions will work actual corruption of our political
system, and no reason to question the existence of a
corresponding suspicion among voters.

There is little reason to doubt the corrupting influence of large
contributions on our political system, said the Court.
At least one person doubts this. Professor Bradley Smith doubts it.
Listen to what he wrote in a 1997 Law Review article: Whatever the
particulars of reform proposes, it is increasingly clear that reformers
have overstated the Government interest in the anticorruption
rationale. Money's alleged corrupting effects are far from proven,
Professor Smith says.
Brad Smith sees nothing wrong with unlimited contributions to parties
or even to candidates. He said in a newspaper article that ``people
should be allowed to spend whatever they want on politics.'' In an
interview on MSNBC he said: ``I think we should deregulate and just let
it go. That is how our politics was run for over 100 years.''
That ``100 years'' he is referring to is the 19th century. That is
the world Brad Smith would like to see; no contribution is too big for
us to tolerate in the world he sees.
I assure my colleagues that this is not some caricature of this
nominee's views. These are not distortions nor are they words taken out
of context. This is what this nominee believes. This is what he has
said over and over and over again, including at his confirmation
hearing before the Rules Committee. Brad Smith sees nothing wrong with
the enormous soft money contributions that both parties are so greedily
seeking, the kind of contributions my party will rake in, in the
largest fundraiser in history, tonight, just a few hours from now. Not
only that, he believes to ban soft money would violate the first
amendment of the Constitution.
Virtually no one still clings to that belief in the wake of the
Supreme Court's decision in the Shrink Missouri case. Brad Smith does.
This nomination may be just as important to the cause of campaign
finance reform as any bill that has been before the Senate in recent
years. This vote on this nomination is just as significant for campaign
finance reform as many of the votes we have had on those bills. I
submit to those Senators who have voted time and time again to ban soft
money--and I do thank them for their votes, and I thank them for their
support of the McCain-Feingold bill--those Senators should think very
carefully about what they are doing here.
To confirm Brad Smith to a seat on the FEC is to confirm a man whose
most deeply held beliefs about the Federal election system are wholly
at odds with the reforms we are seeking. If we somehow are able to get
past the filibuster and pass a soft money ban this year, Brad Smith
will be on the Commission that is charged by law with the duty to
implementing that ban.
I emphasize again I hold absolutely no personal animus toward Mr.
Smith. This is not personal. It is not a matter of personality. I do
not question Mr. Smith's integrity. I do not question his honesty. I
certainly do not question his right to criticize the laws from outside
his perch as a law professor and commentator. However, his views on the
very laws he will be called to enforce scare me. It is simply not
possible for me to ignore the views he has repeatedly and stridently
expressed simply because he now claims he will faithfully execute the
laws if he is confirmed. He may try to do that, but in matters of
interpretation he will certainly come down on the side of big money in
campaigns every time.
In a 1997 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Smith wrote
the following:

When a law is in need of continual revision to close a
series of ever-changing ``loopholes,'' it is probably the
law, and not the people, that is in error. Most sensible
reform is a simple one: Repeal of the Federal Elections
Campaign Act.

I cannot in good conscience vote to confirm a man to the FEC who
believes the statute that created that body should be scrapped. I urge
my colleagues to think about this very hard. Professor Smith's views
are not anywhere near the mainstream of legal thought on this issue.
Professor Smith may be a wonderful professor and scholar, but he should
not be on the Federal Election Commission.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about confirming
Bradley Smith to fill a vacancy on the Federal Election Commission or
the FEC. The FEC is an independent regulatory agency entrusted with
administering and enforcing the Nation's campaign finance laws. Yet,
Bradley Smith believes that the very campaign finance laws he would be
required to administer and enforce should be thrown out.
I am not questioning the integrity of this nominee or his fitness for
government service in general. I also believe we must be careful not to
reject nominees just because we object to their views. However, when a
person like Bradley Smith is put forward, a person whose views seem to
undermine the very purpose for which he is being nominated, I believe
we have a responsibility to speak out. Bradley Smith is not an
appropriate choice for FEC commissioner and I will be voting against
this nomination.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will be voting today against the
nomination of Mr. Bradley Smith to serve as a Commissioner of the
Federal Election Commission. It is with a fair amount of reluctance
that I take this position, given the longstanding custom of allowing
each party to appoint its own choices to this six member commission and
the fact that FEC nominees are, by statute, supposed to be the
representatives of their political parties on that commission. I
respect that history.
I also believe Mr. Smith is a man of intelligence, integrity, and
competence. So, my vote against his nomination is not a vote against
him as a person. Nor will I vote against him because I disagree
strongly with most of Mr. Smith's opinions on the campaign finance
system. He favors no contribution limits; I think they are essential.
He doesn't see a link between corruption or the appearance of
corruption and the contributions made to candidates and holders of
public office; I do. He thinks the Federal Election Campaign Act and
the Federal Election Commission should be dismantled; I don't.
The reason I will vote ``no'' is because I cannot support the
nomination of an individual to the position of commissioner of an
agency which the nominee doesn't think should exist or which has as its
operating statute one which the nominee thinks should be repealed. I do
not relish voting against this nominee to the FEC offered by the
Republican leadership but Mr. Smith's opposition to the existence of
the institution to which he is being nominated compels me to vote
against him.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
nomination of Professor Bradley A. Smith to fill the open Republican
seat on the bipartisan Federal Election Commission. In considering the
two FEC nominees, Professor Brad Smith and Commissioner Danny McDonald,
the Senate must answer two fundamental questions:
Is each nominee experienced, principled and ethical? And,
Will the FEC continue to be a balanced, bipartisan commission?
I want to take a minute to rebut some of the myths that have been
perpetuated by the reform groups over the past several months.
Myth No. 1: Professor Smith's First Amendment views are radical and
disqualify him for government service at a bipartisan agency.

[[Page 9015]]

Over 30 renowned First Amendment and Election Law experts, including
past members of the governing Board of Common Cause, urge Brad Smith's
confirmation and attest to the validity of Brad Smith's actual views--
that is distinguished from the views that have been attributed to him
by his critics.
Moreover, these renowned scholars are indignant about the
misrepresentation of Smith's scholarship. Let me share just a few
examples:
First Amendment Scholar Michael McConnell of the University of Utah
Law School writes:

[S]ome opponents of the nomination of Bradley A. Smith to
the Federal Elections Commission are claiming his scholarly
writings regarding the First Amendment and campaign finance
laws are irresponsible or otherwise beyond the pale. This is
simply partisan nonsense. * * * The merits of his nomination
should not be clouded by charges of this sort, which have no
scholarly validity.

Professor Daniel Kobil, a former governing Board Member of Common
Cause in Ohio writes:

I believe that * * * [the] opposition is based not on what
Brad has written or said about campaign finance regulations,
but on crude caricatures of his ideas that have been
circulated.

Even one of the scholars who support McCain-Feingold has written in
support of Professor Smith's nomination. Professor Jamin Raskin, a
signatory to the McCain-Feingold letter, writes:

The political reform community would actually be better off
with Smith on the FEC. * * * Smith is no party hack, but a
serious scholar who cares about political liberty. * * * He
is a dream candidate * * * [who] should not be opposed by
political reformers.

In fact, Smith's views on election law are shared by many fine
scholars, like Kathleen Sullivan, the Dean of Stanford Law School, who
praised Smith stating:

I do think Mr. Smith's views are in the mainstream of
constitutional opinion. I like to think that I am enough in
the mainstream of constitutional opinion that our agreement
on many points would place us both there.

Let me paraphrase Dean Sullivan to rebut those who argue that
appointing Brad Smith is like appointing a conscientious objector to be
Secretary of Defense: appointing a First Amendment election law scholar
to the FEC is, in fact, like appointing a seasoned U.S. Attorney who
values the constitutional liberties of every American citizen.
Or what about 46 political scientists who echo Smith and Sullivan's
concerns about the current campaign finance laws and some of the
proposed reforms? I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. It is signed by 46
political scientists, including esteemed scholars like Brandice Canes
of MIT, Michael Munger of Duke, Patrick Lynch of Georgetown, and--from
the flagship university in Arizona--University of Arizona professors
Price Fishback and Vernon Smith.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. McCONNELL. Would my colleagues on the other side vote to reject
all of these individuals, including the Dean of Stanford Law School,
who have questioned the wisdom and workability of our campaign finance
laws and the proposed reforms?
Myth No. 2: Professor Smith fails to acknowledge the Supreme Court's
recent decision in Shrink-Pac.
As for this assertion, I would direct my colleagues to pages 20, 31,
36 and 40 of the published Rules Committee hearing report from March 8
of this year. Professor Smith clearly acknowledged the holding of the
Shrink PAC decision, and, in particular explained:

Had I been on the Commission and the case had come forward
under Federal law . . . I would have had no problem voting
for [the] enforcement action . . . .

Of course, the reform groups won't tell you that the Supreme Court
agreed with Smith's views and declared campaign finance laws
unconstitutional in cases such as Colorado Republican, and McIntyre v.
Ohio, and just last year in Buckley v. American Constitutional Law
Foundation, or that, as Professor Nagle of Notre Dame Law School has
written: Smith's ``understanding of the First Amendment has been
adopted by courts in sustaining state campaign finance laws.''
Myth No. 3: Professor Smith will not enforce the law.
The letter of Dan Lowenstein of UCLA Law School, a 6 year member of
the national governing Board of Common Cause rebuts this myth. He
writes:

[Smith] will understand that his job is to enforce the law,
even when he does not agree with it. I doubt if anyone can
credibly deny that [Smith] is an individual of high
intelligence and energy and unquestioned integrity. When such
an individual is nominated for the FEC, he or she should be
enthusiastically and quickly confirmed by the Senate.

Let me address the Democrats' nominee, Commissioner Danny McDonald.
Commissioner McDonald and I are clearly in different campaign reform
camps. If I follow the new litmus test that is being put forth by some
in this confirmation debate, then I have no choice but to vigorously
oppose his nomination.
I want to be clear that Danny McDonald is not my choice for the
Federal Election Commission. I have serious questions about his 18-year
track record at the FEC. McDonald's views and actions have been soundly
rejected by the federal courts in dozens of cases.
Two of these cases even resulted in the U.S. Treasury paying fines
because the action taken by McDonald and the FEC was ``not
substantially justified in law or fact.'' And, just this month, the
10th Circuit struck down yet another FEC enforcement action as
unconstitutional--finding, I might add, that reformer concerns of
corruption were unsubstantiated.
I think Commissioner McDonald's voting record has displayed a
disregard for the law, the courts and the Constitution. And, it has
hurt the reputation of the Commission, chilled constitutionally
protected political speech, and cost the taxpayers money.
Equally troubling, is the fact that Commissioner McDonald apparently
chose to pursue the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee
while serving as a commissioner to the Federal Election Commission.
I must say that I have serious questions about whether an FEC
Commissioner exhibits ``impartiality and good judgment'' when he seeks
the highest position in his political party and simultaneously
regulates that party and its candidates--and regulates the competitor
party and its candidates.
All of that being said, I am prepared to reject this new litmus test
whereby we ``Bork'' nominations to this bipartisan panel. I am prepared
to follow the tradition of respecting the other party's choice and to
support Commissioner McDonald's nomination--assuming that McDonald's
party grants similar latitude to the Republicans' choice, Professor
Smith, which will be voted on first.
As an aside, let me say to my distinguished colleague from Arizona
and my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin: even though we are in
different campaign reform camps and even though we famously disagree on
the First Amendment and federal election law, I would wholeheartedly
support either of you to serve as the Democrat's nominee to the Federal
Election Commission.
I urge my colleagues to also reject this new litmus test of barring
government service for those who question Congress and its laws.
Harvard Law professor and former solicitor general of the United
States, Charles Fried, has summed up this point. This is what Solicitor
Fried had to say:

I address . . . the proposition that because [Professor
Smith] has been critical of the Commission to which he has
been nominated and some of the laws which it administers he
is somehow disqualified for confirmation to the post of
Commissioner. This argument is not only dangerous, but so
far-fetched, so out of line with historic practice, that it
is hard to believe it is not being deployed strategically
only, and that those who urge it in this case would not
repeat it were they more in sympathy with the nominee or his
philosophical orientation. . ..
[I]f these arguments against Mr. Smith should prevail it
would have two dangerous consequences. It would limit more
and more the administration of laws to zealots. And it would
inhibit robust debate about the wisdom of laws, by using
views expressed in such debates as weapons used deny the
opportunity for public service on the basis of those views.
The first danger would give us

[[Page 9016]]

an administration of zealots; the second an administration of
malleable non-entities.

In conclusion, I believe that Professor Smith's intelligence, his
work ethic, his fairness, his knowledge of election law and--to quote
from the statute: his ``experience, integrity, impartiality and good
judgment'' will be a tremendous asset to the FEC and to the American
taxpayers who have been forced to pay for unconstitutional FEC actions.
Professor Smith is a widely-respected and prolific author on federal
election law, and, in my opinion, the most qualified nominee in the
twenty-five year history of the Federal Election Commission. I
wholeheartedly support his nomination to the bipartisan Federal
Election Commission.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Duke University,

Durham, NC, April 1, 2000.
Senator Mitch McConnell,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: I have found that one of the main
principles of political sciences is that power, like nature,
abhors a vacuum. The current reform measures being considered
by the Congress, including the McCain-Feingold bill on
campaign finance and ``soft money'' regulation, will have the
opposite of their intended effects, which (apparently) is the
restriction of the power of special interests. The problem is
that weakening parties always increases the power of interest
groups.
This opinion is widely held among social scientists, but
the fact that so many people recognize the danger of
legislation is not often recognized. As a way of bringing
this fact to public notice, I have solicited the signatures
of colleagues on the attached latter. Forty-five
distinguished scholars of the political process, including
six past Presidents of the Public Choice Society, have asked
that I list their names as supporters. This I have done, and
offer the attached open letter as a means of ensuring that
the dangers of wrong-headed reforms can be prevented.
Sincerely,
Michael C. Munger,
Professor of Political Science.

Scholars' Letter to Congress: Why Campaign Finance ``Reform'' Is Ill-
Advised and Will Not Work

Senator Mitch McConnell,
Chairman, Senate Rules Committee.
Dear Senator McConnell and Members of Congress:
Restrictions on campaign donations or expenditures do little
to limit the total amount spent on campaign and make
campaigns less competitive. Such rules entrench incumbents,
force donations to take hidden forms, increase corruption
through such mechanisms as ``straw donations,'' and make it
more likely that wealthy candidates will win election.
Campaign finance restrictions are similar to price controls
that deal with the symptoms rather than the reasons for the
donations and are likewise doomed to fail. With campaign
financing amounting to less than one-tenth of one percent of
government expenditures, campaign spending does not seem
large in either an absolute sense or relative to other
product advertising. The restrictions force campaign
expenditures to be spent in less effective ways and actually
leave voters less well informed.
The McCain/Fiengold bill's provisions on parties making
independent and coordinated expenditures on behalf of
candidates, and prohibitions on issue advocacy that refers to
a candidate, as well as restrictions on raising or spending
``soft money'' in connection with elections are typical of
the rules that produce these problems. So called
``voluntary'' limits that restrict who can help certain
candidates who violate certain rules are anything but
voluntary.
The different forms contributions can take are essentially
infinite and this makes regulation exceptionally difficult.
For example, in the extreme case, it would be possible to buy
up television and radio stations or newspapers to support
particular candidates. Providing favorable new coverage for
desired candidates would certainly benefit their candidacy,
but it is difficult to see how these kinds of ``in-kind''
donations would be regulated.
We advise Congress, before enacting yet more new laws, to
investigate whether many of the existing laws may have
contributed to the problems we currently face. The new
legislation is ill-advised.
Sincerely,
Professor Brandice Canes, Department of Political Science,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Professor William Fischel, Department of Economics,
Dartmouth College.
Professor Michael Munger, Department of Political Science,
Duke University.
Professor G. Patrick Lynch, Department of Government,
Georgetown University.
Professor Jeffrey Milyo, Department of Economics, Tufts
University.
Professor Otto Davis, W.W. Cooper University Professor of
Economics and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University.
Professor John Matsusaka, Department of Finance and
Business Economics, Marshall School of Business, University
of Southern California.
Professor Price Fishback, Frank and Clara Kramer Professor
of Economics, University of Arizona.
Professor Keith Poole, Professor of Political Economy,
Research Director of the Donald H. Jones, Center for
Entrepreneurship, Carnegie Mellon University.
Professor Vernon Smith, Regents' Professor of Economics,
University of Arizona.
Professor Brian Roberts, Department of Government, The
University of Texas at Austin.
Professor John Danford, Department of Political Science,
Loyola University--Chicago.
Professor John R. Lott, Yale Law School.
Professor Joe Reid, Department of Economics, George Mason
University.
Professor Mark Toma, Department of Economics, Unversity of
Kentucky.
Professor Robert Tollison, Robert M. Hearin Professor of
Economics, University of Mississippi.
Professor Daniel Sutter, Department of Economics,
University of Oklahoma.
Jeffrey Jenkins, Department of Political Science, Michigan
State University.
Professor Brian Gaines, Department of Political Science,
University of Illinois.
Professor Jay Dow, Department of Political Science,
University of Missouri.
Professor Geoffrey T. Andron, Department of Economics,
Huston-Tillotson College.
Professor John Scott, Department of Economics, Northwest
Louisiana University.
Professor Mathew McCubbins, Department of Political
Science, University of California San Diego.
Professor Melvin Hinich, Mike Hogg Professor of State and
Local Government, The University of Texas at Austin.
Professor Burton Abrams, Department of Economics,
University of Delaware.
Professor Adam Gifford, Jr., Chairman, Department of
Economics, California State University, Northridge.
Professor William Shugart, Barnard Distinguished Professor
of Economics, University of Mississippi.
Professor Dean Lacy, Department of Political Science, The
Ohio State University.
Professor Mark Crain, Center for the Study of Public
Choice, George Mason University.
Professor Peter Calgano, Department of Economics, Wingate
University.
Professor Chris Paul, Department of Economics, Armstrong
Atlantic State University.
Professor Peter Ordershook, Division of Humanities and
Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology.
Gary Anderson, Department of Economics, California State
University, Northridge.
Professor Mikhail Filipov, Department of Political Science,
Washington University--St. Louis.
Professor Arthur Fleisher III, Department of Economics,
Metropolitan State College of Denver.
Professor Steve Knack, Center for Institutional Reform,
University of Maryland.
Professor Randy Simons, Director, Institute of Political
Economy, Utah State University.
Professor Randall Holcombe, Department of Economics,
Florida State University.
Professor Thomas Borcherding, Department of Economics,
Claremont Graduate University.
Professor Dennis Halcoussis, Department of Economics,
California State University, Northridge.
Professor James Endersby, Department of Political Science,
University of Missouri.
Professor Brian Sala, Department of Political Science,
University of Illinois.
Professor Elizabeth Gerber, Department of Political
Science, University of California, San Diego.
Professor William Kaempfer, Department of Economics,
University of Colorado at Boulder.
Professor Paul Zak, Department of Economics, Claremont
Graduate University.
Professor Charles Rowley, Department of Economics, George
Mason University.

Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in the brief time I have remaining, I
want to quickly respond to some of the remarks of the Senator from
Kentucky.
First of all, the suggestion that the arguments on this side have
relied on a caricature of the views of the nominee is simply false. We
have been very cautious in the debate to simply rely on Professor
Smith's actual words from his voluminous writings, and the Senator from
Kentucky in no instance has denied that we accurately quoted Professor
Smith. These are his views. There has been no distortion and no
caricaturing of his views.
Second, the Senator denies the nominee's views on the campaign
finance law will affect his ability to discharge his duties as an FEC
Commissioner. Of course, I do not believe that people involved in the
enforcment of laws have to accept the premise of every single

[[Page 9017]]

law they are charged to enforce, but this nominee rejects essentially
the entire campaign finance law of our country, from the notion dating
back to 1907, that is still supposed to be good law today, that a
corporation should not be able to give contributions in connection with
federal elections, to the notion that labor unions should not be able
to make such contributions, according to a 1947 law, to his rejection
of the fundamental post-Watergate laws restricting the amounts that
individuals can give candidates and parties that we are supposed to
live under today. Professor Smith is essentially a campaign finance law
anarchist. He does not believe we should have any campaign finance law.
The notion that such a person should be on the FEC makes virtually no
sense. To take the analogy of the Senator from Kentucky, he says having
Professor Smith on the Commission will be like having a prosecutor who
cares very much about people's constitutional rights. But the real
analogy is that this nominee would be a prosecutor who believes we
should repeal just about all of the U.S. Criminal Code. That, to me, is
too much.
This is not about a litmus test. This is absolutely not about barring
this gentleman from public service, as the Senator from Kentucky
suggests. If he wants to run for the Senate and pass laws about
campaign finance reform, there is an election for the Senate in Ohio
this year. He can run. But if his job is to enforce the main body of
campaign finance laws in this country, that job cannot be done by
someone who believes those laws are entirely inconsistent with the
first amendment and have no legal merit. Our election laws are too
important to put them at risk in this way. For those reasons, I hope my
colleagues reject this nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time be
counted against the time allocated to the opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will build on the comments of my
colleague from Wisconsin. I heard the Senator from Kentucky talk about
the fact that Brad Smith--and I said yesterday he is somebody I like
and enjoy being with--has been critical of the Federal election laws.
It is not just being critical. He has called the Federal Elections
Campaign Act unconstitutional and undemocratic. That is more than just
being critical.
I cannot remember a time when this body confirmed a nominee for any
executive position whose own views were so completely at odds with the
law he was meant to uphold.
Let me repeat that. That is what this debate is about. I cannot
remember a time when this body confirmed a nominee for any executive
position whose own views were so completely at odds with the law he was
meant to uphold. He believes the Federal election law is
unconstitutional and undemocratic.
I do not have the time today to summarize a complete position. I had
a chance yesterday to speak about this nominee. I say to my colleagues,
this vote is not just about Brad Smith; it is about whether or not the
Senate is committed to reform. I do not think we give people in the
country much confidence that we are committed to reform, that we are
committed to passing legislation which will get some of this big money
out of politics and which will lead to some authentic democracy as
opposed to just democracy for the few, when we then turn around and
confirm someone to the Federal Election Commission who does not even
believe in any of this campaign finance reform. The Senate would be
sending a terrible message to the country if we vote for this nominee.
I appreciate Brad Smith's right to express his views in writing and
in person. He is articulate, he is intelligent, but we have a situation
where we have a nominee who basically has said the Federal election
laws are undemocratic, that they are unconstitutional, basically
antithetical to all the values he holds dear about government and
democracy.
Why in the world would we then want to confirm such a nominee and put
him in a position of enforcing the very laws with which he is so at
odds? To me it is a huge mistake. This is a vote about reform. This is
a vote about Brad Smith. More importantly, it is a vote about whether
or not we are serious about reform and getting some of the money out of
politics and getting people back into politics.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to summarize the case against the
confirmation of Professor Smith to the FEC.
My colleague from Kentucky yesterday stated Mr. Smith has been
demonized. That is not true. I have criticized the nominee because I
strongly disagree with his view that ``The most sensible reform is a
simple one: repeal of the Federal Elections Campaign Act.''
I understand Professor Smith is not very old. In fact, Professor
Smith could not have read the history or known about the abuses that
took place in the 1972 campaign associated with the Watergate scandal
which brought about the modern Federal Elections Campaign Act.
I strongly disagree with his conclusion that ``campaign reform is not
about good government. It's about silencing people whose views are
inconvenient to those with power. . . .''
Professor Smith goes on to say--these are his words:

The real campaign-finance scandal has little to do with
Senator Fred Thompson's investigation. The real scandal is
the brazen effort of reformers to silence the American
people.

I take strong exception to that view of history and the motivation of
those of us and millions of decent men and women, honest men and women,
who believe this situation needs to be cleaned up.
This morning's Washington Post has a story about ``MCI Center's Menu:
Ribs and a Record Democratic Fundraiser:

``There is no donor fatigue, no Clinton fatigue, no
Democratic fatigue,'' said an exhilarated Terence R.
McAuliffe, who made 200 calls a day for seven weeks for his
crowning achievement as Clinton's mean man in chief.
McAuliffe used four telephones at a time--three for aides
to dial, to put would-be donors on hold, and one for him to
coo into his headset, bringing home the big-dollar bacon.
The tribute has 21 vice chairs, who gave or raised
$250,000; 42 Friends, who gave $100,000; and 32 hosts, who
gave or raised $50,000. But what sets this dinner apart is
the altitude of the top donor tier--the co-chairs, who each
gave or raised $500,000.
There are 26 of them, including 10 labor unions.

The article goes on:

Another of the co-chairs is Senator Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) who
is not seeking reelection and will become president of New
School University, in New York City. Kerrey said such efforts
renew his commitment to campaign finance reform. ``When
someone puts up half a million, you just cannot persuade
people that they aren't getting something for it.''

Senator Kerrey aptly described the situation that will take place at
the dinner at the MCI Center: ribs and a record Democratic fundraiser,
which is a record only because it exceeds the Republican fundraiser
that recently was held where $24 million was raised.
If on the floor of this body 10 years ago I said there were going to
be $500,000 donors, no one would give any credibility to that
statement.
The Supreme Court also disagrees with Mr. Smith. We seem to be
debating this issue of campaign finance reform and its validity in a
vacuum because neither the Senator from Kentucky nor Mr. Smith seem to
believe that, in January of the year 2000, the Court upheld Missouri
campaign contribution limitations in a 6-3 opinion. The Court rejected
Mr. Smith's premise that large contributions do not affect votes.
This is what Justice Souter wrote for the Court on the issue of the
constitutionality of contribution limits:

In speaking of ``improper influence'' and ``opportunities
for abuse'' in addition to ``quid pro quo'' arrangements, we
recognized a concern not confined to bribery of public
officials, but extending to the broader threat from
politicians too compliant with the wishes of large
contributors. These were the

[[Page 9018]]

obvious points behind our recognition that Congress could
constitutionally address the power of money ``to influence
governmental actions'' in ways less ``blatant and specific''
than bribery.
In defending its own statute, Missouri espouses those same
interests of preventing corruption and the appearance of it
that flowed from munificent campaign contributions. Even
without the authority of Buckley there would be no serious
question about the legitimacy of the interests claimed,
which, after all, underlie bribery and anti-gratuity
statutes. While neither law nor morals equate all political
contributions, without more, to bribes, we spoke in Buckley
of the perception of corruption ``inherent in a regime of
large individual financial contributions'' to candidates for
political office . . . as a source of concern almost equal to
``quid pro quo'' improbity. . . . Leave the perception of
impropriety unanswered and the cynical assumption that large
donors call the tune could jeopardize the willingness of
voters to take part in democratic governance. Democracy works
``only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that
faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their
appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of
malfeasance and corruption. . . .''

Mr. President, the event tonight, I promise you, has aroused amongst
my constituents suspicions of malfeasance and corruption for any
objective observer of the political process.
Justice Stevens, in his concurring opinion said:

Justice Kennedy suggests that the misuse of soft money
tolerated by this Court's misguided decision in Colorado
Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election
Commission, demonstrates the need for a fresh examination of
the constitutional issues raised by Congress' enactment of
the Federal Election Campaign Acts of 1971 and 1974 and this
Court's resolution of those issues in Buckley v. Valeo. In
response to his call for a new beginning therefore, I make
one simple point. Money is property; it is not speech.
Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a
multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or
even on a football field. Money, meanwhile, has the power to
pay hired laborers to perform the same tasks. It does not
follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same
measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such
goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same
results.

Mr. President, we must consider this nomination, and the message it
sends to the people of this country, in light of the reality of this
year's campaign fundraising excesses.
Let me reiterate four points that summarize my opposition to Mr.
Smith's nomination to become an FEC Commissioner.
He has long advocated the repeal of campaign finance regulation. How
can he now take an oath to uphold and enforce the very laws he has so
long sought to eliminate altogether?
He has continually argued the unconstitutionality of restraints on
campaign finance regulation. His position has been that the Supreme
Court erred in its Buckley v. Valeo opinion which upheld restraints on
campaign contributions. Even as recently as his confirmation hearing in
March, after the Supreme Court had again upheld campaign contributions
limitations in the Missouri Shrink case, he neither acknowledged that
most recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court, nor changed his
viewpoint as to the constitutionality of contribution regulation. How
can he now agree to uphold and enforce laws and regulations which he
believes are unconstitutional?
Mr. President, I do not believe that we would confirm as EPA
Administrator someone who advocated the repeal of environmental laws. I
do not believe we would appoint an Attorney General who believes that
the criminal laws are unconstitutional or a conscientious objector to
be Secretary of Defense. Why should we confirm Mr. Smith as a
Commissioner for the FEC?
Although he acknowledges the campaign finance abuses of the 1996
election, he sees nothing wrong with giving free rein to such activity
by eliminating all campaign finance regulation.
If we would not conform as EPA Administrator someone who advocated
the repeal of the environmental laws, nor confirm an Attorney General
who believes that the criminal laws are unconstitutional, or a
conscientious objector as the Secretary of Defense, why would we
confirm Brad Smith as a Commissioner for the FEC?
Also in yesterday's debate, Senator McConnell raised questions about
the appropriateness of Danny McDonald, the choice of the Democrats as a
nominee, to serve on the FEC. I appreciate the concerns that my
colleague from Kentucky has raised. I totally concur that we should
apply the standards equally for nominees to these most important
positions. Based upon the issues Senator McConnell has raised, I will
rethink my position on Mr. McDonald, and vote against his confirmation
as well.
Mr. President, I cannot speak more directly or frankly against this
nominee. I urge my colleagues who have fought for campaign finance
reform--my colleagues who believe in the need for integrity in our
election system--to vote no on Brad Smith. As the New York Times said
earlier this year:

A vote to confirm Mr. Smith is a vote to perpetuate big-
money politics. . . . Mr. Smith does not belong on the FEC,
and anyone in the Senate who cares about fashioning a fair
and honest system for financing campaigns should vote against
his appointment.

As chairman of the Commerce Committee, I have been involved with
moving more nominees that almost any other Member of this body. I have
allowed nominees to move forward, even when I disagreed with the
nominee. But, Mr. President, this case is different.
I do not expect to agree with all the views of those nominated. But
Mr. Smith's views are not just different from mine--again, a fact I
would respect--they are radically different from 100 years of court and
congressional precedence that some restrictions on campaign
contributions are necessary to ensure the integrity of this body and
the electoral process as a whole.
This is not just my opinion of the law. Let me read from Justice
Breyer's concurring opinion, in which Justice Ginsberg joined, in the
most recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court on campaign finance
regulation--the Shrink Missouri PAC case:

If the dissent believes that the Court diminishes the
importance of the first Amendment interests before us, it is
wrong. The court's opinion does not question the
constitutional importance of political speech or that its
protection lies at the heart of the First Amendment. Nor does
it question the need for particularly careful, precise, and
independent judicial review where, as here, that protection
is at issue. But this is a case where constitutionally
protected interests lie on both sides of the legal equation.
. . .
On the one hand, a decision to contribute money to a
campaign is a matter of First Amendment--not because the
money is speech (it is not); but because it enables speech.
Through contributions the contributor associates himself with
the candidates's cause, helps the candidate communicate a
political message with which the contributor agrees, and
helps the candidate win by attracting votes of similarly
minded voters. . . . both political association and political
communication are at stake. . . .
On the other hand, restrictions upon the amount any one
individual can contribute to a particular candidate seek to
protect the integrity of the electoral process--the means
through which a free society democratically translates
political speech into concrete governmental action. . . .
Moreover, by limiting the size of the largest contributions,
such restrictions aim to democratize the influence that money
itself may bring to bear upon the electoral process . . . In
doing so, they seek to build public confidence in that
process and broaden the base of a candidate's meaningful
financial support, encouraging the public participation and
open discussion that the First Amendment itself presupposes.

Unfortunately, the views of this nominee make him unfit to serve on
the FEC. This is not, as I have stated, meant to be personal. I have
nothing against Mr. Smith personally. I am sure he is a fine
individual. But this body is constitutionally mandated to advise and
consent on nominations. I take that role extremely seriously. And as
such, I cannot support this nominee, and I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 9019]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all
remaining time be yielded back on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
Smith nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Bradley A. Smith, of Ohio, to be a Member of the Federal Election
Commission? On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and
the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 35, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 107 Ex.]

YEAS--64

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kyl
Leahy
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--35

Akaka
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Biden

The nomination was confirmed.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next
votes in this series be limited to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

NOMINATION OF DANNY LEE McDONALD, OF OKLAHOMA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

The legislative clerk read the nomination of Danny Lee McDonald, of
Oklahoma, to be a member of the Federal Election Commission.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Danny Lee McDonald, of Oklahoma, to be a
member of the Federal Election Commission?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?--
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 108 Ex.]

YEAS--98

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

NAYS--1

McCain

NOT VOTING--1

Biden

The nomination was confirmed.

____________________

NOMINATION OF TIMOTHY B. DYK, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the next nomination.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Timothy B.
Dyk, of the District of Columbia, to be United States Circuit Judge for
the Federal Circuit.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday some Republicans opposed Tim
Dyk's confirmation to the Federal Circuit based on the workload of that
court. Last evening I inserted in the Record a letter from the Chamber
of Commerce that argued for his nomination in terms of the court's
important workload and cases.
I am troubled that at a time when we are working through the night to
try to preserve a digital signature bill to help encourage electronic
commerce and protect consumers, when we are trying to work through
Republican holds on the H1-B visa bill and increase the availability of
high tech workers and improve training of American workers, when we are
trying to improve on-line privacy and Internet security, I see such
insensitivity to the needs of the Federal Circuit and its role in our
economy and in our judicial system.
We designed the Federal Circuit to be our patent court. It has
extraordinarily complex cases that are of increasing importance as our
economy becomes more and more based on technological developments.
Prompt and proper adjudication of cases before that court are in many
ways critical to the continued growth of our economy and our economic
future.
I see vacancies on that court as high priorities. I know that the
other Democratic Senators share my view. I have been greatly troubled
by the perpetuation of this vacancy on the Federal Circuit for more
than two years while the Dyk nomination has been held back from Senate
action. That is wrong. It is unfair to Tim Dyk and his family. It is
short-sighted with respect to the important matters on the docket of
the Federal Circuit.
That was the point of the Chamber of Commerce letter last August.
Filling the vacancy on the Federal Circuit should be a priority of the
Senate. The Federal Circuit should have all the resources it needs to
do its job and resolve intellectual property disputes intelligently,
fairly, and expeditiously.
Nonetheless, in spite of all these considerations and what I had
hoped was a bipartisan commitment to the growth of our high tech
economy, some are arguing that because its caseload numbers are not
inflated by prisoner petition, criminal cases or scores of simple civil
cases our nation's patent court ought not to have its needs fulfilled.
I disagree.
Moreover, I have to wonder whether we would even be hearing that
argument if a Republican President were making this nomination. I thank
the Chamber of Commerce for showing that business supports the
confirmation of Tim Dyk to fill this vacancy on the Federal Circuit and
for not playing politics with this nomination. The nature

[[Page 9020]]

of the Federal Circuit's caseload merits a full complement of judges as
authorized by Congress so that its intellectual property docket can get
the attention that it deserves and that our economy requires.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at long last, the Senate is considering
the nomination of Timothy Dyk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit. Mr. Dyk is an exceptional nominee who has waited far
too long for action by the Senate. He is a nationally known and
respected attorney who has been approved by the American Bar
Association and was well received by the Senate Judiciary Committee. He
deserves confirmation by the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan
majority today.
Mr. Dyk is an honors graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law
School, where he was a member of the Law Review. After graduation, he
served as a Supreme Court law clerk for Chief Justice Earl Warren, as
well as for Justices Stanley Reed and Harold Burton. He served in the
Justice Department for a year in the early 1960's and has spent the
last 37 years as a distinguished and highly respected attorney in
private practice in Washington, D.C.. He has argued cases before the
Supreme Court and in numerous federal courts of appeals, including five
cases before the Federal Circuit. He clearly has the qualifications and
ability to serve on that Circuit with great distinction.
Mr. Dyk's nomination is supported by a variety of corporations and
organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Broadcasters,
the Labor Policy Association, the American Trucking Association, Kodak,
and IBM. He is also supported by the American Center for Law and
Justice and has been described by that group as ``an exceptional
advocate,'' who ``would be a fine jurist on the Federal Circuit.''
For a number of years, Mr. Dyk served as lead counsel for the
Lubrizol Corporation in a number of patent litigations. Lubrizol's
Chairman and CEO has written,

Mr. Dyk was exceptionally effective in briefing and arguing
the several appeals in the Federal Circuit that occurred in
those cases and demonstrated the ability to provide
exceptional service on the federal bench. He also performed
an instrumental role in ultimate disposition of those cases
through mediation, which he urged on the parties and
skillfully guided through extensive and difficult
negotiations.

Mr. Dyk is also an active member of numerous bar organizations, and
he has served as Chair of the D.C. Circuit Membership Evaluation
Committee of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. In addition, he
is an active participant in the community. In every respect, he is
well-qualified for appointment to the Federal Circuit. He should have
been confirmed long ago, and I urge my colleagues to approve his
nomination today.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Timothy B. Dyk, of the District of Columbia, to be United States
Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 25, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 109 Ex.]

YEAS--74

Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Mack
McCain
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--25

Allard
Ashcroft
Brownback
Bunning
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Enzi
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Thurmond

NOT VOTING--1

Biden

The nomination was confirmed.

____________________

VISIT TO THE SENATE BY MUGUR ISARESCU, PRIME MINISTER OF ROMANIA

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, visiting us is the Prime Minister of
Romania, Mugur Isarescu.

____________________

RECESS

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in recess to greet the Prime Minister appropriately.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 4:09 p.m., recessed until
4:13 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by
the Presiding Officer (Mr. Sessions).

____________________

NOMINATION OF GERARD E. LYNCH, OF NEW YORK, TO BE A UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the next nomination.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Gerard E. Lynch, of New
York, to be a United States District Judge for the Southern District of
New York.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Gerard E. Lynch, of New York, to be a United States District Judge
for the Southern District of New York? The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 36, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 110 Ex.]

YEAS--63

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--36

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Thomas

NOT VOTING--1

Biden

The nomination was confirmed.

____________________

[[Page 9021]]

NOMINATION OF JAMES J. BRADY, OF LOUISIANA, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

The legislative clerk read the nomination of James J. Brady, of
Louisiana, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District
of Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The question is, Will the Senate
advise and consent to the nomination of James J. Brady, of Louisiana,
to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Louisiana?
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 16, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 111 Ex.]

YEAS--83

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--16

Allard
Bunning
Enzi
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Mack
McCain
Nickles
Roberts
Smith (NH)
Thompson

NOT VOTING--1

Biden

The nomination was confirmed.

____________________

NOMINATION OF MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the next nomination.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Mary A. McLaughlin, of
Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination
of Mary McLaughlin to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. Those of us on the Judiciary Committee know Ms.
McLaughlin from her outstanding work as Special Counsel for our
Terrorism Subcommittee during the Ruby Ridge investigation in 1995.
During those hearings, Ms. McLaughlin demonstrated precisely the
qualities we want in a federal judge--she is intelligent, fair-minded,
tough, possesses a judicial temperament, and is deeply committed to the
cause of justice. Once we put her on the bench, she is going to be a
terrific federal judge.
Our Ruby Ridge subcommittee ran the ideological gamut. Yet Ms.
McLaughlin gained the respect and admiration of all of our colleagues
from both parties who worked with her--Senators Specter, Thompson,
Abraham, Thurmond, Leahy, Feinstein, Grassley, and Craig--for the skill
and professionalism she brought to her work. Let me make special
mention of how tough and persistent Ms. McLaughlin was when the Justice
Department was ``less than enthusiastic'' about supplying us with
documents. Largely as a result of her efforts, we obtained the
information that we needed, and our investigation went on to become a
true model of bipartisan cooperation.
Beyond her service to the U.S. Senate, Ms. McLaughlin has stellar
credentials for a judgeship. She is a senior partner in the leading
Philadelphia law firm of Dechert, Price and Rhoads, where her practice
has concentrated in a myriad of complex litigation matters. She was a
recipient of a 1998 ``Women of Distinction'' Award from the
Philadelphia Business Journal, the National Association of Women
Business Owners, and The Forum of Executive Women. Her career has also
included teaching at the law schools of Vanderbilt University, the
University of Pennsylvania and Rutgers University. In addition, Ms.
McLaughlin served for four years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia where, Mr. President, she put criminals behind
bars. Not surprisingly, given this stellar record, she was unanimously
rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association.
Unfortunately, a few outside groups have raised questions about her
candidacy based on a small portion of Ms. McLaughlin's pro bono work.
While it is true that she is a person of strong convictions, none is
stronger than her dedication to the Rule of Law. In other words, I am
confident that she will in all cases apply the law, not make it.
I wouldn't say that about everybody who has been nominated for a
federal judgeship in recent years.
Mr. President, Ms. McLaughlin deserves the type of strong, bipartisan
support from the entire Senate that she has already obtained from those
of us who worked with her on Ruby Ridge. ``There's something about
Mary's'' record of distinguished public service, her professional
experience, her legal talents, and her personal integrity that will
make her an outstanding Judge on the Eastern District bench. I urge my
colleagues to swiftly confirm her.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Mary A. McLaughlin, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania? On this question the
yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 14, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 112 Ex.]

YEAS--86

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

NAYS--14

Allard
Brownback
Bunning
DeWine
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Gramm
Grams
Helms
Inhofe
Nickles
Roberts
Smith (NH)
Voinovich
The nomination was confirmed.

Executive Calendar

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the nominations
enumerated in the order are confirmed en bloc, the motions to
reconsider are laid upon the table, the President will be notified of
the Senate's actions, and the Senate will return to legislative
session.
The nominations considered and confirmed are as follows:

corporation for national and community service

Christopher C. Gallagher, of New Hampshire, to be a Member
of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and

[[Page 9022]]

Community Service for a term expiring October 6, 2003.

corporation for national and community service

Amy C. Achor, of Texas, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Corporation for National and Community
Service for a term expiring October 6, 2003.

the judiciary

James D. Whittemore, of Florida, to be United States
District Judge for the Middle District of Florida.

department of the treasury

Jay Johnson, of Wisconsin, to be Director of the Mint for a
term of five years.

executive office of the president

Kathryn Shaw, of Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the
Council of Economic Advisers.

department of state

Alan Phillip Larson, of Iowa, to be United States Alternate
Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development for a term of five years; United States Alternate
Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank for a term of
five years; United States Alternate Governor of the African
Development Bank for a term of five years; United States
Alternate Governor of the African Development Fund; United
States Alternate Governor of the Asian Development Bank; and
United States Alternate Governor of the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development.

asian development bank

N. Cinnamon Dornsife, of the District of Columbia, to be
United States Director of the Asian Development Bank, with
the rank of Ambassador.

department of state

Earl Anthony Wayne, of Maryland, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be an
Assistant Secretary of State (Economic and Business Affairs).

national commission on libraries and information science

Bobby L. Roberts, of Arkansas, to be a Member of the
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science for
a term expiring July 19, 2003.

national science foundation

Michael G. Rossmann, of Indiana, to be a Member of the
National Science Board, National Science Foundation for a
term expiring May 10, 2006.
Daniel Simberloff, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the
National Science Board, National Science Foundation for a
term expiring May 10, 2006.

corporation for national and community service

Leslie Lenkowsky, of Indiana, to be a Member of the Board
of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community
Service for a term expiring February 8, 2004.
Juanita Sims Doty, of Mississippi, to be a Member of the
Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and
Community Service for a term expiring June 10, 2004.

national commission on libraries and information science

Joan R. Challinor, of the District of Columbia, to be a
Member of the National Commission on Libraries and
Information Science for a term expiring July 19, 2004.

railroad retirement board

Jerome F. Kever, of Illinois, to be a Member of the
Railroad Retirement Board for a term expiring August 28,
2003.
Virgil M. Speakman, Jr., of Ohio, to be a Member of the
Railroad Retirement Board for a term expiring August 28,
2004.

national security education board

Herschelle S. Challenor, of Georgia, to be a Member of the
National Security Education Board for a term of four years.

department of the interior

Thomas A. Fry, III, of Texas, to be Director of the Bureau
of Land Management.

department of the interior

Thomas N. Slonaker, of Arizona, to be Special Trustee,
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, Department of
the Interior.

department of labor

Edward B. Montgomery, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary
of Labor.

harry s truman scholarship foundation

Mel Carnahan, of Missouri, to be a Member of the Board of
Trustees of the Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation for a
term expiring December 10, 2005.
Scott O. Wright, of Missouri, to be a Member of the Board
of Trustees of the Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation for
the remainder of the term expiring December 10, 2003.

corporation for national community service

Marc Racicot, of Montana, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Corporation for National and Community
Service for a term expiring October 6, 2004.
Alan D. Solomont, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of the
Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and
Community Service for a term expiring October 6, 2004.

national foundation on the arts and the humanities

Nathan O. Hatch, of Indiana, to be a Member of the National
Council on the Humanities for a term expiring January 26,
2006.

the judiciary

Richard C. Tallman, of Washington, to be United States
Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.
Marianne O. Battani, of Michigan, to be United States
District judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.
David M. Lawson, of Michigan, to be United States District
judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.
John Antoon II, of Florida, to be United States District
judge for the Middle District of Florida.

department of justice

Mark Reid Tucker, of North Carolina, to be United States
Marshal for the Eastern District of North Carolina for the
term of four years.

metropolitan washington airports authority

John Paul Hammerschmidt, of Arkansas, to be a Member of the
Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority for a term of four years.
Norman Y. Mineta, of California, to be a Member of the
Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority for a term of six years.
Robert Clarke Brown, of Ohio, to be a Member of the Board
of Directors of the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority for a term expiring November 22, 2005.

national transportation safety board

John Goglia, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of the
National Transportation Safety Board for a term expiring
December 31, 2003.
Carol Jones Carmody, of Louisiana, to be a Member of the
National Transportation Safety Board for a term expiring
December 31, 2004.

nuclear regulatory commission

Edward McGaffigan, Jr., of Virginia, to be a Member of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the term of five years
expiring June 30, 2005.

overseas private investment corporation

Gary A. Barron, of Florida, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for
a term expiring December 17, 2002.

department of state

Thomas G. Weston, of Michigan, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, for the
rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service as Special
Coordinator for Cyprus.
Carey Cavanaugh, of Florida, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, for the rank of
Ambassador during his tenure of service as Special Negotiator
for Nagorno-Karabakh and New Independent States Regional
Conflicts.
Christopher Robert Hill, of Rhode Island, a Career Member
of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor,
to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the
United States of America to the Republic of Poland.
Donald Arthur Mahley, of Virginia, a Career Member of the
Senior Executive Service, for the rank of Ambassador during
his tenure of service as Special Negotiator for Chemical and
Biological Arms Control Issues.
Gregory G. Govan, of Virginia, for the rank of Ambassador
during his tenure of service as Chief U.S. Delegate to the
Joint Consultative Group.

department of defense

Bruce Sundlun, of Rhode Island, to be a Member of the
National Security Education Board for a term of four years.
Manuel Trinidad Pacheco, of Arizona, to be a Member of the
National Security Education Board for a term of four years.

the judiciary

Phyllis J. Hamilton, of California, to be United States
District Judge for the Northern District of California.
Nicholas G. Garaufis, of New York, to be United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of New York.
Roger L. Hunt, of Nevada, to be United States District
Judge for the District of Nevada.
Kent J. Dawson, of Nevada, to be United States District
Judge for the District of Nevada.

department of justice

Audrey G. Fleissig, of Missouri, to be United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri for the term of
four years.
Steven S. Reed, of Kentucky, to be United States Attorney
for the Western District of Kentucky for the term of four
years.
Donald W. Horton, of Maryland, to be United States Marshal
for the District of Columbia for the term of four years.
E. Douglas Hamilton, of Kentucky, to be United States
Marshal for the Western District of Kentucky for the term of
four years.
Jose Antonio Perez, of California, to be United States
Marshal for the Central District of California for the term
of four years.
Donnie R. Marshall, of Texas, to be Administrator of Drug
Enforcement.

department of the treasury

Michelle Andrews Smith, of Texas, to be an Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury.

[[Page 9023]]

the judiciary

Berle M. Schiller, of Pennsylvania, to be United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Richard Barclay Surrick, of Pennsylvania, to be United
States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
Petrese B. Tucker, of Pennsylvania, to be United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

[Nominations placed on the Secretary's Desk]

foreign service

Foreign Service nominations beginning John Patrice Groarke,
and ending James Curtis Struble, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of May 11, 1999.
Foreign Service nominations beginning Mattie R. Sharpless,
and ending Howard R. Wetzel, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 24, 2000.
Foreign Service nominations beginning Nancy M. McKay, and
ending Nancy Morgan Serpa, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 24, 2000.

public health service

Pubic Health Service nominations beginning Edwin L. Jones,
III, and ending Colleen E. White, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of November 19, 1999.
Pubic Health Service nominations beginning Susan J.
Blumenthal, and ending William Tool, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of November 19, 1999.

Nomination of Nathan Hatch

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Nathan
Hatch for receiving the Senate's approval of his nomination to serve as
a member of the National Council on the Humanities. Dr. Hatch has
dedicated his life to academia. He currently serves as Provost of the
University of Notre Dame and is also a Professor of History. As
Provost, Dr. Hatch has focused on three areas: the establishment of
academic centers of excellence, including the expansion of the Keough
Institute for Irish Studies and the enhancement of the Medieval
Institute; revitalization of undergraduate education through the
creation of the Kaneb Center for Teaching and Learning; and the pursuit
of outstanding faculty.
Dr. Hatch is considered to be one of the most influential scholars in
the study of the history of religion in America. His book, The
Democratization of American Christianity, won both the Albert Outler
Prize in Ecumenical Church History and the John Hope Franklin Prize for
the best book in American Studies; it was also chosen by his peers as
one of the two most important books in the study of American religion.
Dr. Hatch is a remarkable asset for the University of Notre Dame and
the State of Indiana. His experiences at Notre Dame will make him a
valuable addition to the National Council on the Humanities. I applaud
the Senate today for confirming this outstanding Hoosier.

nominations of marianne battani and david lawson

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has confirmed
the two nominees for the Federal District Court in the Eastern District
of Michigan, Judge Marianne Battani and David Lawson.
Mr. President, Michigan could not be better served. These nominees
are well-known in Michigan for their long and distinguished careers,
high standards of moral and ethical conduct, and knowledge and
commitment to the law. I have every confidence that they will both be
outstanding federal judges.
While I am glad that the Senate has finally confirmed these two
district court judges, I am deeply concerned about the vacancies in the
Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The length of time that nominees
for these positions have remained pending is unfair, both to the
nominees, and to the State of Michigan.
There are now three Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. One of
the nominees for these vacancies is Helene White, who was nominated
more than three years ago, and is still awaiting a hearing. Kathleen
McCree Lewis has been pending at the Committee awaiting a hearing for
more than eight months. And the third candidate for a Michigan seat has
not yet been nominated but hopefully will be at any time.
These Michigan candidates are intelligent and hardworking advocates
of the law, who at a minimum, deserve to have and up or down vote on
their nominations. Yet, Circuit Court of Appeals nominees continue to
face unconscionable delays in this Senate.
The Senate slowdown has a serious impact on the administration of
justice. In a March 20, 2000 letter to Senator Hatch, Judge Gilbert
Merritt, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, notes that these vacancies have hampered the Court's ability
to complete the public's business. The Court, in his words, is
deteriorating rapidly due to the high number of judicial vacancies.
Judge Merritt writes:

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals now has four vacancies.
Twenty-five per cent of the seats on the Sixth Circuit are
vacant. The Court is hurting badly and will not be able to
keep up with its work load due to the fact that the Senate
Judiciary Committee has acted on none of the nominations to
our Court. One of the vacancies is five years old and no vote
has ever been taken. One is two years old. We have lost many
years of judge time because of the vacancies.
By the time the next President is inaugurated, there will
be six vacancies on the Court of Appeals. Almost half of the
Court will be vacant and will remain so for most of 2001 due
to the exigencies of the nomination process. Although the
President has nominated candidates, the Senate has refused to
take a vote on any of them.
Our Court should not be treated in this fashion. The
public's business should not be treated this way. The
litigants in the federal courts should not be treated this
way. The remaining judges on a court should not be treated
this way. The situation in our Court is rapidly deteriorating
due to the fact that 25% of the judgeships are vacant. Each
active judge of our Court is now participating in deciding
more than 550 cases a year--a case load that is excessive by
any standard. In addition, we have almost 200 death penalty
cases that will be facing us before the end of next year. I
presently have six pending before me right now and many more
in the pipeline. Although the death cases are very time
consuming (the records often run to 5000 pages), we are under
very short deadlines imposed by Congress for acting on these
cases. Under present circumstances, we will be unable to meet
these deadlines. Unlike the Supreme Court, we have no
discretionary jurisdiction and must hear every case.
The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate
``advise'' as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate
and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the
Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain
silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and
vote at all, thereby leaving the courts in limbo,
understaffed and unable properly to carry out their
responsibilities for each year.

I again urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to promptly hold a
confirmation hearing for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals nominees
from Michigan. They are highly qualified individuals who deserve to be
voted on by this Senate.

NOMINATION OF RICHARD TALLMAN

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support the
confirmation today of Richard Tallman to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. In an unusual, if not unprecedented arrangement, particularly
at this time and for the controversial Ninth Circuit, the White House,
Senator Murray, and I have worked together quietly to select and
confirm absolutely first rate judges from Washington State. Dick
Tallman is no exception.
I had not met Mr. Tallman before he was chosen as a finalist for a
district court vacancy by a Judicial Merit Selection Committee jointly
appointed by Senator Murray and me. He impressed me tremendously at the
time and I was privileged to be able later to recommend him to fill a
vacancy on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. Tallman enjoys broad bi-partisan support within Washington's
legal community, including that of the Democratic State Attorney
General, two former United States Attorneys for Western Washington, the
Federal Public Defender from Western Washington, the President of the
Ninth Circuit District Judges Association, and the Federal Bar
Association for the Western District of Washington.
Prior to starting his own small firm where he continues to specialize
in white collar criminal defense, Mr. Tallman practiced law for many
years

[[Page 9024]]

at one of the largest private firms in Seattle, Bogle & Gates. Before
that he served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Western
District of Washington. He has also been sought out by all levels of
state government, serving as a Special Assistant City Attorney for
Seattle, a Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for King County, as well
as a Special Assistant Attorney General for Washington State. Over the
years, Mr. Tallman has taught and lectured extensively to groups of
lawyers and non-lawyers on a range of legal topics, instructing groups
including the National Park Service, the Washington Medical
Association, and the Seattle Police Academy.
Mr. Tallman's involvement in bar and civic activities is no less
impressive than his professional record. In addition to extensive pro
bono work, he has served as president of the local federal bar
association and as chair of the lawyer delegates to the Ninth Circuit
Judicial Conference. He has been active in committees for local, state,
and federal bar associations, in the selection of judges, bench-bar
relations, and in helping women and minorities interested in legal
careers.
As the accomplishments I have just reviewed attest, Mr. Tallman is an
impressive man. What these accomplishments to not convey, however, is
the warmth, good humor, and the clear unpretentious intelligence I have
observed in my short acquaintance with him. The Ninth Circuit will
clearly benefit from our action today.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of our most important constitutional
responsibilities is to provide advice and consent on the scores of
judicial nominations sent to us to fill the vacancies on the federal
courts around the country. Today we made some progress. We confirmed 16
new judges. For that I thank the Democratic leader and the majority
leader, my counterpart on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and
all those who worked with us to achieve Senate action on these judicial
nominees.
The Senate has finally begun to consider the judges needed to serve
the American people in our federal courts. But before any Senator
thinks that our work is done for the year, let us take stock: We are
only one-third of the way to the number of judges nominated by a
Republican President and confirmed by a Democratic majority in 1992,
and only half way to the levels of confirmations achieved in 1984 and
1988. Today we finally passed the level of 17 confirmations achieved in
1996, the year before I became the Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary
Committee. That low water mark is no measure of success, however.
Today we face more judicial vacancies than when the Senate adjourned
in 1994. That means there are more vacancies across the country than
when the Republican majority took controlling responsibility for the
Senate in January 1995. Over the last six years we have gained no
ground in our efforts to fill longstanding judicial vacancies that are
plaguing the federal courts.
In addition, recall that this is the first action that the Senate has
taken on judicial nominees since March 9, when the Senate ended 4-years
of delay and finally voted to confirm Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth
Circuit. For more than two months, for more than 10 weeks, the Senate
has not acted to confirm a single judge, not one. That stall accounts
for the backlog in judicial nominations that results in there being 16
judicial nominations on the Senate calendar today. On the other hand,
since March 9, seven additional vacancies have arisen and the Senate
has received 17 additional nominations.
There remain 36 judicial nominations pending in the Judiciary
Committee, plus new nominations that the President is sending us every
week. I have challenged the Senate to regain the pace it met in 1998
when the Committee held 13 hearing and the Senate confirmed 65 judges.
That would still be one less than the number of judges confirmed by a
Democratic Senate majority in the last year of the Bush Administration
in 1992. Indeed, in the last two years of the Bush Administration, a
Democratic Senate majority confirmed 124 judges. It would take an
additional 67 confirmations this year for this Senate to equal that
total.
Over the last five years the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed
the following: 58 federal judges in the 1995 session; 17 in 1996; 36 in
1997; 65 in 1998; and 34 in 1999. By contrast, in one year, 1994, with
a Democratic majority in the Senate, we confirmed 101 judges. With
commitment and hard work many things are achievable.
Of the confirmations achieved this year, seven were nominations that
were reported last year and should have been confirmed last year. That
would have made last year's total slightly more respectable. Instead,
they were held over and inflate this year's numbers. In addition, Tim
Dyk, one of the nominees finally being considered today, was nominated
in 1998 and has been held over two years.
Moreover, the Republican Congress has refused to consider the
authorization of the additional judges needed by the federal judiciary
to deal with their ever increasing workload. In 1984, and again in
1990, Congress responded to requests by the Chief Justice and the
Judiciary Conference for needed judicial resources. Indeed, in 1990, a
Democratic majority in the Congress created scores of needed new
judgeships during a Republican Administration.
Three years ago the Judicial Conference of the United States
requested that an additional 53 judgeships be authorized around the
country. Last year the Judicial Conference renewed its request but
increased it to 72 judgeships needing to be authorized around the
country. Instead, the only federal judgeships created since 1990 were
the nine District Court judgeships authorized in the omnibus
appropriations bill at the end of last year.
If Congress had timely considered and passed the Federal Judgeship
Act of 1999, S.1145, as it should have, the federal judiciary would
have nearly 130 vacancies today. That is the more accurate measure of
the needs of the federal judiciary that have been ignored by the
Congress over the past several years and places the vacancy rate for
the federal judiciary at 14 percent (128 out of 915). As it is, the
vacancy rate is almost 10 percent (65 out of 852) and has remained too
high throughout the five years that the Republican majority has
controlled the Senate.
Especially troubling is the vacancy rate on the courts of appeals,
which continues at over 11 percent (20 out of 179) without the creation
of any of the additional judgeships that those courts need to handle
their increased workloads.
Most troubling is the circuit emergency that had to be declared more
than seven months ago by the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit. I recall when the Second Circuit had such an
emergency two years ago. Along with the other Senators representing
States from the Circuit, I worked hard to fill the five vacancies then
plaguing my circuit. The situation in the Fifth Circuit is not one that
we should tolerate; it is a situation that I wished we had confronted
by expediting consideration of the nominations of Alston Johnson and
Enrique Moreno last year. I still hope that the Senate will consider
both this year.
I deeply regret that the Senate adjourned last November and left the
Fifth Circuit to deal with the crisis in the federal administration of
justice in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi without the resources that
it desperately needs. I look forward to our resolving this difficult
situation. I will work with the Majority Leader and the Democratic
Leader to resolve that emergency at the earliest possible time.
With 20 vacancies on the Federal appellate courts across the country
and nearly half of the total judicial emergency vacancies in the
Federal courts system in our appellate courts, our courts of appeals
are being denied the resources that they need, and their ability to
administer justice for the American people is being hurt. There
continue to be multiple vacancies on the Ninth Circuit. Three vacancies
is too many and perpetuating these four judicial emergency vacancies,
as the Senate has in this one circuit, is irresponsible. We should act
on these

[[Page 9025]]

nominations promptly and provide the Ninth Circuit with the judicial
resources it needs and to which it is entitled.
I am likewise concerned that the Fourth, Sixth and District of
Columbia Circuits are suffering from multiple vacancies.
I continue to urge the Senate to meet our responsibilities to all
nominees, including women and minorities, and look forward to action on
the nominations of Judge James Wynn, Jr. to the Fourth Circuit, Enrique
Moreno to the Fifth Circuit, Kathleen McCree Lewis to the Sixth Circuit
and Judge Johnnie Rawlinson to the Ninth Circuit. Working together the
Senate can join with the President to confirm well-qualified, diverse
and fair-minded judges to fulfill the needs of the federal courts
around the country.
Having begun so slowly in the first five months of this year, we have
much more to do before the Senate takes its final action on judicial
nominees this year. We should be considering 20 to 40 more judges this
year. Having begun so slowly, we cannot afford to follow the ``Thurmond
rule'' and stop acting on these nominees at the end of the summer in
anticipation of the presidential election. We must use all the time
until adjournment to remedy the vacancies that have been perpetuated on
the courts to the detriment of the American people and the
administration of justice. I urge all Senators to make the federal
administration of justice a top priority for the Senate for the rest of
this year.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
return to legislative session.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

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

____________________

RETIREMENT OF STEVE HEMMINGSEN

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this day marks the retirement of a legend
in broadcast journalism in South Dakota. Steve Hemmingsen, who has
faithfully delivered news to living rooms in my home state for over
twenty-five years, will give his last regular broadcast tonight.
There's an old story about Calvin Coolidge, told shortly after he
left the White House. He was filling out a standard form, which asked
for standard information. Line 1 asked for his name and address. Line 2
asked for his ``Occupation'', for which he answered ``Retired''. Line 3
was titled ``Remarks.'' Mr. Coolidge responded ``Glad of it.''
I hope that Steve Hemmingsen will share that sentiment: glad to be
retired from the rigors of his job--but never fully removed from his
audience, the thousands of people who have relied on him for their news
for more than two decades.
Steve grew up just across the border in Minnesota, and after
graduating from high school, he landed his first job in broadcasting at
the ``Polka Station of the Nation'' in New Ulm. Later, he studied at
the Brown Institute and was hired by KELO-TV in 1969. He has been a
fixture there and on our nightly news ever since.
It has been estimated that since Steve began working the 6:00 and
10:00 pm news at KELO, he has delivered about eighteen thousand
newscasts. He's shouldered the responsibility of helping our state get
through some of its most trying times--such as the devastating Rapid
City flood in 1972, the tragic plane crash that took the lives of
Governor George Mickelson and several of South Dakota's economic
development leaders in 1993, the horrible tornado in Spencer two years
ago and countless South Dakota blizzards. When South Dakotans have
faced adversity, Steve's steady voice and calm demeanor brought us up
to speed on the latest events and talked us through each crisis we
encountered.
But Steve has been there through the good times as well. When we
celebrated our state's centennial in 1989, Steve reported on the
numerous celebrations going on around South Dakota, giving us insight
on where our state had been, and where it was going. When Scotland,
South Dakota's own Chuck Gemar went into space, Steve helped express
the collective sense of pride that was felt throughout the state. You
could say that during his career at KELO, Steve's familiar voice was
the first that brought news of noteworthy events to the people in South
Dakota.
Over the last twenty-five years, Steve Hemmingsen has earned the
trust of the people of South Dakota. Although Steve and I haven't
always seen eye-to-eye on some issues, I have never had a reason to
question his dedication as a broadcaster, his fairness as a reporter or
his integrity as a person. In my years in public service, I have had
the opportunity to work with hundreds of reporters both in South Dakota
and across the nation and there is no doubt in my mind that Steve
Hemmingsen is one of the best. Today we congratulate him, but tomorrow
he will certainly be missed.
It brings me great pleasure to join all of KELO-Land in wishing Steve
the best as he signs off tonight. The evening news will never be the
same.

____________________

MITCH ROSE TO LEAVE THE HALLS OF CONGRESS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Mitch Rose, my chief of staff, who before
that was my press secretary, will leave the Senate within the next few
days.
Mitch has been a great member of our staff, with his understanding of
the nuances of legislation, his ability to articulate concerns, and his
courage to challenge debate when he believes strongly in an issue. His
talents with words, written and spoken, are really legendary.
But no matter how tough the argument, or how serious the discussion,
Mitch's sense of humor always helps to keep things in perspective.
It's safe to say that he's not only famous for that sense of humor,
but at times, he's infamous.
Born in Alaska, a product of a great family and of Alaska's public
schools, Mitch came to Capitol Hill after graduation from the
University of Washington, almost 15 years ago.
He first went to work for our friend and former colleague Bob Dole,
and later toiled for the other members of our Alaska delegation, Don
Young in the House and Frank Murkowski here in the Senate.
When Mitch joined our staff, he took on the added responsibility of
attending law school at night. His wife, Dale Cabaniss, attended a
different law school in the evenings, while she worked for Senator
Murkowski.
Mitch's work on aviation and telecommunications issues has been
particularly important. As chief of staff, he has kept ahead of the
curve on all of our concerns, providing insight and guidance to my
staff and me.
The Alaska Humanities Forum has created a program named after Mitch,
based on his experience as a youngster, when his parents made sure he
knew how life in a rural Alaska village contrasts with life in urban
Alaska. The Rose Urban-Rural Alaska Partnership Program will take urban
youth to rural villages to promote better understanding of the very
different ways of life in our small communities. It will provide the
same type of opportunity his parents, Dave and Fran Rose, provided for
Mitch when he was a young Anchorage school boy.
Mitch is an example, Mr. President, of the best of his generation.
He's worked hard, taken on heavy responsibilities at work and at home,
maintained close and good relationships with Alaska and Alaskans, and
with those with whom he works.
He and Dale, who is now a Commissioner of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority, are the parents of Ben 5, and twins Haley and Shelby, eight
months.
There is no question that we will miss Mitch. But there's also no
question that he will be a valuable member of the private sector.

My thanks to him for the work he's done, the loyalty he's shown and
the friendship he's shared. With so many others who have known him over
the years, I wish him well.

____________________

[[Page 9026]]

JAROSLAV PELIKAN, STERLING PROFESSOR EMERITUS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as a product of the World War II years, I
rushed through my undergraduate education after that war. In the
process, my education was of the Yogi Berra variety: If I came to a
fork in the road, I took it.
Now, having acquired seniority here, I have privileges I never
dreamed would be part of my life, and am more and more aware of what I
missed by not spending more time in basic educational endeavors.
For instance, because of my service on the Senate Rules Committee, it
is my honor to be chairman of the Joint committee of the Library. This
position opened my eyes and ears and filled my mind with joys totally
unexpected.
For instance, my increasing visits with Dr. Jim Billington, Librarian
of the Library of Congress, a national treasure and our preeminent
Russian scholar, have led to meeting more and more of the distinguished
academics of our time.
One of these persons is Jaroslav Pelikan, Sterling Professor Emeritus
at Yale university and Immediate Past President of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences. Sadly, because of business here in the Senate, I
missed Dr. Pelikan's brilliant luncheon address to the Bicentennial of
the Library of Congress on April 24 of this year. Arriving late, I was
overwhelmed by the comments about his speech to the ``Library Legends
Luncheon'' and requested a copy of it. The title of this address was:
``Hospital for the Soul.''
Now, I realize why we address those who have received Phd's as
``Doctor''. On behalf of all who have continued to support our Library
of Congress, I thank Jaroslav Pelikan for all he has done to earn his
``Living Legend'' Award. Because of this address, I shall never again
think of libraries as simply depositories for books. Our great Library
of Congress is now the ``World's Hospital for the Soul.''
I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Pelikan's address be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Hospital for the Soul

(By Jaroslav Pelikan)

Thank you for this ``Living Legend'' Award: I promise to
take it out and look at it whenever I get a sudden attack of
humility. Seriously, though, even someone to whom humility
does not come easily would have to be humbled today by the
names of all these others who are being honored here--and
then of those who are not! And if I ask myself the even more
humbling question why it is I who have been asked to speak in
the name of these men and women who are becoming my new
colleagues, my first thought is that I seem to be the only
one among those present whose last name puts him into the
same class with Big Bird. (Big Bird's cousin Larry Bird, who
is also a Living Legend, was unavoidably detained, and as a
sometime Hoosier I with his Pacers well in the playoffs.) Or
is the explanation simply that I am, at least as much as
anyone here, the offspring of the library? Or perhaps it is
that all my life I have been studying various languages,
which, while only a small fraction of those represented by
the collections of the Library of Congress, do manage to
include the ancestral tongues of several of my classmates, as
well as ``the universal language'' played so eloquently by
Maestro Isaac Stern or by my dear friend Yo-Yo Ma.
But of all languages, there is a special place reserved in
my mind and heart for Greek, the language of Plato and
Sophocles and Sappho (whom Plato called ``the Tenth Muse'')--
and the language of the New Testament and of the ``Four
Cappadocians'' (Basil of Caesarea, his brother Gregory of
Nyssa, their sister Macrina, and Gregory of Nazianzus). So
let me turn, as I do so often, to the pleasures of Greek. For
in Book One of a work appropriately entitled Bibliotheke
[Library], the Hellenistic historian Diodorus Siculus reports
that the inscription on the Library of Alexandria read:
Pysches iatreion, ``Hospital for the soul''--a profound and
brilliant metaphor, even in a language justly celebrated for
its metaphors.
The library is a hospital for the soul because it is here
that the soul can find instruments for diagnosis. Those men
and women, physicians of the soul, who have thought deeply
and spoken movingly about the illnesses that plague us all
have put their case studies permanently on deposit here. It
is here in the library that Thomas Jefferson traces so many
ailments to the dreadful affliction of not holding together
``an honest heart'' and ``a knowing head''; here in the
library that George Eliot devastatingly portrays in
Middlemarch, my favorite English novel, the pedant who, she
says, ``dreams footnotes'' and who lurks in the soul of every
scholar (present company excepted, of course!); here in the
library that, in my favorite novel of all, the Grand
Inquisitor propounds again the three questions in which ``are
united all the unresolved contradictions of human nature'',
here in the library that Gibbons, celebrated in the Great
Hall, carries out an autopsy on ``the natural and inevitable
effect of immoderate greatness'' that bears implications for
every other empire, also for the American empire; here in the
library that Immanuel Kant probes ``the radical evil that
corrupts all maxims,'' making the worse appear the better
reason; and here in the library that Beatrice, in her quiet
but solemn voice, warns us that all our actions carry
consequences regardless of our station, evade them though we
may for a very long time. And because, in the deathless words
of that celebrated scholar and philosopher Professor Pogo of
Okefenokee Swamp (whose sayings are also preserved here in
the library), ``We got problems we ain't even used yet,'' men
and women in generations yet to come will keep turning here
for diagnosis and help. But they will be able to do so only
if we in this generation have the foresight and the
commitment that Joseph had in Egypt, to store up during the
fat years what will be needed during the lean years.
It is likewise to the library that the soul can turn for
healing, in the collective memory of the human race. Even for
the healing of the soul in a special sense, the writers of
the New Testament, in trying to find the most towering and
luminous metaphor of all to cope with the miracle and the
mystery of what had happened to them, turned to the miracle
and the mystery of language: ``In the beginning was the
Word.'' But by that metaphor they were in fact attaching
themselves to the far more comprehensive tradition of what
Pedro Lain Entralgo has called ``the therapy of the word in
Classical Antiquity,'' the ancient and yet universal
recognition that if the diseases of the human mind and spirit
are to be cured, they need to be (as we still say) addressed,
that means, spoken to, as they are by biography and
autobiography and hagiography from many traditions and
diverse cultures, including even our own past, as those can
be found in the library and only there. Corny though the
cynical may find it, these lives do indeed still
. . . remind us,
We can make our lives sublime.
But increasingly we are beginning to recognize that both
diagnosis and healing can be vastly more successful if we
have been using the resources of the hospital and the health
care system all along for prevention, which is why the
library must be, as we say nowadays, a ``research hospital''
and a ``teaching hospital.'' Having spent a scholarly
lifetime learning and admonishing that there is a fundamental
distinction between knowledge and wisdom, I find myself today
stressing the even more fundamental, and even more elusive,
distinction between knowledge and information. The library
functions as a hospital for the soul by teaching us both of
those distinctions, making available enormous stores of
information, resources of knowledge, and, to those who have
the willingness and patience to learn, treasures of wisdom.
(Konrad Adenauer once said that he planned to ask the
Almighty, ``Why is it, after putting such limitations on
human intelligence, that You did not put similar ones on
human stupidity?'') As the chroniclers and commentators and
critics of all those traditions, scholars dependent on the
library, by introducing us to our grandfathers and more
recently to our long lost grandmothers, can help us to
bequeath these riches to our grandchildren. For in words of
Edmund Burke, who still speaks in the library, it can be
defined as ``a partnership in all science; a partnership in
all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all
perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be
obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not
only between those who are living, but between those who are
living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.''
On that particular program for universal health care, my
old friend, Mr. Librarian of Congress--and (at least for
today) Dr. Surgeon General of the Hospital for the Soul--
everyone would, I hope, have to agree, even in an election
year. It was, I firmly believe, providential that exactly 200
years ago today, in this city where there would eventually be
so many fiefdoms and kingdoms and dukedoms and monuments, the
Congress was inspired to found this monumental institution,
of which Shakespeare has Prospero say prophetically, ``My
library was dukedom large enough.'' For as all the other
dukedoms have risen and fallen, the Library of Congress has
stood as a monument and a ``hospital for the soul,'' pointing
to the life of the mind as the antidote to the twin poisons
of political tyranny and moral anarchy.

[[Page 9027]]

Whenever people ask me, after more than half a century of
historical research, reflection, and writing (my Three R's),
what are the lessons of the past, I apologize that I can't
come up with very many. But there is one, which those of you
who know me will not be surprised to learn I find stated most
profoundly by Goethe's Faust; and it speaks of the library:
``Was du ererbt von deinen Vatern hast, Erwirb' es, um es
zu besitzen.''
[What you have as heritage, now take as task; For only thus
will you make it your own.]

____________________

REMEMBERING THOSE WHO DIED ON D-DAY

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as we approach the 56th Anniversary of D-
Day, June 6th, 1944, we should pause to reflect on the valor and
sacrifice of the men who died on the beaches of Normandy. In the
vanguard of the force that landed on that June morning, was the 116th
Infantry Regiment, 29th Infantry Division. In 1944 the 116th Infantry
Regiment, as it is today, was a National Guard unit mustering at the
armory in Bedford, Virginia. They drew their members from a town of
only 3,200 people and the rich country in southwestern Virginia nestled
in the cool shadows of the Blue Ridge Mountains.
On the morning of June 6th, 1944, Company A led the 116th Infantry
Regiment and the 29th Infantry Division ashore, landing on Omaha Beach
in the face of withering enemy fire. Within minutes, the company
suffered ninety-six percent casualties, to include twenty-one killed in
action. Before nightfall, two more sons of Bedford from Companies C and
F perished in the desperate fighting to gain a foothold on the blood-
soaked beachhead. On D-Day, the town of Bedford, Virginia gave more of
her sons to the defense of freedom and the defeat of dictatorship, than
any other community (per capita) in the nation. It is fitting that
Bedford is home to the national D-Day Memorial. But we must remember
that this memorial represents not just a day or a battle--it is a
marker that represents individual soldiers like the men of the 116th
Infantry Regiment--every one a father, son, or brother. Each sacrifice
has a name, held dear in the hearts of a patriotic Virginia town--
Bedford.
Mr. President, in memory of the men from Bedford, Virginia who died
on June 6th, 1944, I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed
in the Record at the end of my statement as a tribute to the town of
Bedford, and every soldier, sailor, and airman, who has made the
supreme sacrifice in the service of our country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.

COMPANY A

Leslie C. Abbott, Jr., Wallace R. Carter, John D. Clifton,
Andrew J. Coleman, Frank P. Draper, Jr., Taylor N. Fellers,
Charles W. Fizer, Nick N. Gillaspie, Bedford T. Hoback,
Raymond S. Hoback, Clifton G. Lee, Earl L. Parker, Jack G.
Powers, John F. Reynolds, Weldon A. Rosazza, John B. Schenk,
Ray O. Stevens, Gordon H. White, Jr., John L. Wilkes, Elmere
P. Wright, Grant C. Yopp

COMPANY C

Joseph E. Parker, Jr.

COMPANY F

John W. Dean.

____________________

THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday,
Tuesday, May 23, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,670,641,391,640.46
(Five trillion, six hundred seventy billion, six hundred forty-one
million, three hundred ninety-one thousand, six hundred forty dollars
and forty-six cents).
Five years ago, May 23, 1995, the Federal debt stood at
$4,885,335,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred eighty-five billion,
three hundred thirty-five million).
Ten years ago, May 23, 1990, the Federal debt stood at
$3,093,087,000,000 (Three trillion, ninety-three billion, eighty-seven
million).
Fifteen years ago, May 23, 1985, the Federal debt stood at
$1,750,995,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred fifty billion, nine
hundred ninety-five million) which reflects a debt increase of almost
$4 trillion--$3,919,646,391,640.46 (Three trillion, nine hundred
nineteen billion, six hundred forty-six million, three hundred ninety-
one thousand, six hundred forty dollars and forty-six cents) during the
past 15 years.

____________________

ISRAEL'S REDEPLOYMENT FROM SOUTHERN LEBANON

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about S. Con. Res.
116, a concurrent resolution introduced by Senator Trent Lott of
Mississippi which commends Israel's redeployment from southern Lebanon.
I should have been reflected as a cosponsor of that resolution but my
name was inadvertently left off the list of cosponsors. I ask that I be
shown as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 116.
Mr. President, I fully support the resolution and would like to offer
my comments on the historic events that have recently transpired. Just
yesterday, I met with a group of young students who were visiting
Washington, DC, as part of a legislative conference sponsored by the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee. I was truly impressed by the
level of interest and knowledge of these students.
One of the items we discussed was the need for the United States to
provide support for Israel as it withdraws from southern Lebanon. I
support the efforts of Prime Minister Barak to withdraw Israeli forces
from southern Lebanon and echo the comments that it is time for all
foreign military forces to leave Lebanon. Furthermore, the Governments
of Syria and Iran must be held accountable for acts of terrorism
committed in Lebanon.
Mr. President, Israel has demonstrated its commitment to the peace
process and its commitment to comply with United Nations Security
Council Resolution 425. It is now time for the United Nations and the
international community in general to fulfill their obligations to the
peace process and to ensure that southern Lebanon does not become a
staging ground for attacks against Israel.

____________________

THE ORIGINATION CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on Wednesday, May 17, at page S. 4069 of
the Record, the distinguished minority leader announced, ``I am going
to demand that every single appropriations bill that comes to the
Senate before it can be completed be passed in the House first because
that is regular order.'' To be clear he repeated, ``We are going to
require the regular order when it comes to appropriations bills.''
The Senator refers to the origination clause of our Constitution Art.
1, Sec. 7, Cl. 1. The origination clause states that ``All bills for
raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.'' The
meaning of this clause is widely known, and I do not know why the
distinguished minority leader would attempt to make an erroneous claim
before those who know better. I do know why he did not challenge his 99
colleagues to correct this statement, as he did with another. The
reason is that many could have come forward to tell him he was
mistaken.
When I open Riddick's Senate Procedure, I read that ``[i]n 1935, the
Chair ruled that there is no Constitutional limitation upon the Senate
to initiate an appropriation bill.'' The House does claim ``the
exclusive right to originate all general appropriations bills.''
Specific appropriations, however, ``have frequently originated in the
Senate.''
If the Senator intends to say that there is no precedent for the
initiation of appropriation bills in the Senate, that is false. Perhaps
there is some confusion between ``raising revenue'' and
``appropriating.'' The former the Senate cannot do. The latter it can.
Also, the room the Senate has to work within is broad rather than
narrow. The Rules of the House of Representatives note that ``[a] bill
raising revenue incidentally [has been] held not to infringe upon the
Constitutional prerogative of the House to originate revenue
legislation.''
The courts agree with these constitutional interpretations. In fact,
as recently as 1989, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth District in
U.S. v. King, 891 F.2d 780, 781 ruled that where a bill does not
qualify as a revenue bill, it is

[[Page 9028]]

not subject to the provisions of the origination clause.
The United States Supreme Court, in Twin City Nat. Bank of New
Brighton v. Nebecker, 167 U.S. 196, 202. ruled in an 1897 decision,
which is cited as precedent to this day, that ``revenue bills are those
that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for
other purposes which may incidentally create revenue.''
On another occasion, the Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Norton, 91 U.S.
566, 569 (1875) said that ``[t]he construction of the [origination
clause] limitation is practically well settled by the uniform action of
Congress'' and that ``it `has been confined to bills to levy taxes in
the strict sense of the word, and has not been understood to extend to
bills for other purposes which incidentally create revenue.' ''
Indeed, in 1997, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in
Walthall v. U.S., 131 F.3d 1289 ruled that the Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) did not violate the originations
clause.
It was not the intent of our Founding Fathers not to allow the Senate
to decide how to spend government monies. Obviously, we must do that.
Almost every action we take requires some money to be spent. What the
Founding Fathers wanted to achieve with the origination clause was a
check on government by which the most representative body had to
authorize the extraction from the people of taxes.
The only obstacle I know of to the Senate passing certain
appropriation bills is the objection of the distinguished minority
leader. He claims, ``This is getting to be more and more a second House
of Representatives.'' Who is making it so, I ask.
According to Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, Sec.
3.2, p. 134 it is the other body in which ``[i]nfringement of the
Senate on the constitutional prerogative of the House to initiate
revenue measures may be raised * * * as a matter of privilege.''

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

FAREWELL TO TAIWAN REPRESENTATIVE STEPHEN CHEN

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I rise to bid farewell to
Taiwan Representative Stephen Chen. Representative Chen has been an
effective envoy for Taiwan in the United States. One of his more
remarkable accomplishments has been his ability to promote and
strengthen improved relationships between Taiwan and the United States.
Over the last two years, he has secured important contacts for Taiwan.
Assisted by Mr. Leonard Chao, his chief aide in congressional
relations, Representative Stephen Chen has kept us informed of
developments within Taiwan, including trading relationships, advances
in human rights, moves toward a complete and open democracy, and the
peaceful transition of power from the Nationalist Party to the
Democratic Progressive Party on May 20th.
Representative Stephen Chen and his wife, Rosa, have been cordial
hosts at Twin Oaks. They have gracefully entertained their guests with
stories and anecdotes from their many diplomatic postings throughout
the world. A master of seven languages, Representative Chen's ability
to interpret language nuances has invariably impressed his guests. He
is also known for his unique calligraphic capacity of scripting English
with a Chinese writing brush. Along with these skills, Representative
Chen's foremost gift is his diplomatic courtesy--ever so subtly, he
makes his guests want to understand more about his family, his country,
and our world through his views.
After nearly fifty years of dedicated diplomatic service to Taiwan,
Representative Stephen Chen and Mrs. Rosa Chen, will retire from public
service and return to Taiwan. They can be duly proud of their many
accomplishments. They will be missed by all who were acquainted with
them here in Washington, and we send them off to Taiwan with our best
wishes and appreciation.

____________________

NATIONAL CHILD'S DAY: A TRIBUTE TO AMERICA'S CHILDREN

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues
for joining me in this recognition of America's children. Last night,
our body passed an important resolution, affirming the sacred role of
children in our society.
I have often heard the phrase ``every day is children's day.'' Sadly,
this is not always the case. There are too many children in America who
are hungry, abused, neglected, and abandoned. Despite the best efforts
of our parents, our foster parents, and our social services networks,
not all children feel that they are loved and valued.
Today, the United States Senate has taken a monumental step towards
recognizing the merit and worth of all of our children.
We already give special tribute to the efforts of our mothers and
fathers. On both Mother's Day and Father's Day, we honor the hard work
and sacrifices which parents make on behalf of their children and
families. These are days where we pay homage to our parents, both
acknowledging and giving thanks for their contributions to both society
and home.
I am pleased that June 4, 2000, will be National Child's Day--a day
during which parents and friends alike can affirm the love we share for
our children. This will be a day devoted to our youth, reminding
children and ourselves of the special, blessed place which they have
within both our hearts and our lives.
I would like to give special recognition to those organizations whose
tireless efforts greatly aided in the success of this resolution,
specifically Ms. Lee Rechter, Executive Director of FOCUS (Friends of
Children United Succeed) and Mr. David Levy, Director of the Children's
Rights Council.
Mr. President, National Child's Day provides a wonderful opportunity
for us to celebrate America's children. But, we must also remember that
every day should indeed be children's day. Let our expression of love
and appreciation for our youth not be confined to a single day, but be
shared with them on June 4th and always.

____________________

50TH ANNIVERSARY OF BISHOP EDWARD PEVEC

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this Sunday, May 28th, the
Catholic diocese of Cleveland will observe the 50th anniversary of the
ordination of Bishop A. Edward Pevec into the priesthood. I rise today
to pay tribute to this wonderful man and to offer my thanks for the
spiritual guidance he has given to Catholics throughout the City of
Cleveland and northeastern Ohio.
Born in Cleveland, Ohio on April 16, 1925, Bishop Edward Pevec is the
oldest of four children born to Anton and Frances Pevec, immigrants
from Slovenia. On April 29, 1950, at the age of 25, Edward Pevec was
ordained into the priesthood. Over the fifty years since his
ordination, Bishop Pevec has served northeastern Ohio in a number of
capacities. He has been the Associate Pastor at St. Mary Church in
Elyria and at St. Lawrence Church in Cleveland. He has been a teacher,
assistant principal/vice rector and principal/rector at Borromeo
Seminary High School in Wickliffe and a graduate instructor at St. John
College in Cleveland. During his service at Borromeo Seminary High
School, Bishop Pevec continued his own education at two well-respected
Cleveland institutions, earning a Masters degree from John Carroll
University and Ph.D. from Western Reserve University. In 1975, he
became pastor of his home parish, St. Vitus Church in Cleveland, and
four years later, became the President-Rector of Borromeo College of
Ohio. In 1982, Edward Pevec was ordained Auxiliary Bishop of Cleveland
by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.
Over the years, I have personally come to know Bishop Pevec, not only
as a devout Christian, but as a man of deep caring for all mankind. I
still remember the first time that my wife, Janet, and I saw Bishop
Pevec celebrate mass. We were so impressed at the manner in which he
conducted himself, that I said to my wife on our way out of the church
that there's a priest

[[Page 9029]]

who ought to be a Bishop! We were both grateful that the Holy Father
recognized his good work for the diocese of Cleveland by appointing him
Bishop.
Bishop Pevec's warmth and compassion have been felt by many in the
City of Cleveland over the past half-century, and I am certain his
light shall shine upon us for many years to come. I join all my fellow
Cleveland parishioners, and all who have come to know Bishop Pevec in
congratulating him on his 50 years of service to the Lord and to his
fellow man. He is a true inspiration to us all.

____________________

TOOTSIE FERRELL AND THE DELAWARE SPORTS HALL OF FAME INDUCTEES

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, on May 11, eight new members were
inducted into the Delaware Sports Hall of Fame. I congratulate all the
honorees. They truly deserve to be recognized for their unique,
individual contributions to athletics and to the state of Delaware.
The inductees are: Dale Farmer, former executive director of the
Delaware Secondary Schools Athletic Association; Robert ``Clyde''
Farmer, a stand-out pitcher in the local fast-pitch softball leagues of
the 1940s and 50s; C. Walter Kadel, who coached and taught physical
education to Wilmington's children for more than three decades; Ron
Luddington, a bronze medal winner in the 1960 Olympics, who now coaches
future skating champions at the University of Delaware ice rink; Betty
Richardson, who coached championship field hockey teams at Tower Hill
High School, and won championships of her own on the golf course; G.
Henry White, a star rusher on the gridiron at Cape Henlopen High School
and at Colgate University; Matt Zabitka, who has covered sports in the
Delaware Valley for nearly half a century; and Howard ``Tootsie''
Ferrell, a Delawarean who played with some of the greatest baseball
talent of all-time in the Negro League.
An editorial in The News Journal newspaper called this group ``a very
diverse group of honorees--one of the most varied in its history. The
Sports Hall of Fame now represents all sorts of sports greats--white
people, minorities, women * * *.''
And it is in that spirit that I want to talk about one of those
inductees right now.
Howard ``Tootsie'' Ferrell was a pitcher in the Negro League who once
barnstormed with Jackie Robinson who went on the break the color
barrier, and integrate major league baseball. Ferrell got his start
with the Newark Eagles in 1947. For the next two seasons, he played
with the Baltimore Elite Giants. Following in the footsteps of the
great Jackie Robinson, Ferrel's contract was purchased by the Brooklyn
Dodgers, where he spent 3 seasons in the Dodgers' farm system. A
nagging injury cut Ferrell's baseball career short. But the real reason
``Tootsie'' Ferrell never got his chance to play in the majors was
because of the prejudice that kept America's pastime segregated for so
many years.
It may be hard for younger Americans to imagine a world where the
best African-American players were not allowed to play on the same
field with the best white players. The first appearance of an official
color barrier in baseball came in 1868, when the National Association
of Baseball Players voted to bar any club that had non-white members.
Professional baseball eventually followed suit. Sadly, by the turn of
the century there were no black players in organized, professional
baseball.
But exclusion from the ``white'' leagues did not stop African-
Americans from playing the game of baseball. Instead, they formed teams
and leagues of their own. In 1920, an African-American businessman
named Rube Foster organized a collection of independent all-black ball
clubs into the Negro National League. In 1923, the competing Eastern
Colored League was formed. These two leagues operated successfully for
years--delighting crowds, showcasing the talent of African-American
athletes, and inspiring future generations of baseball players. A new
Negro National League was organized in 1933, and the Negro American
League was chartered four years later. These leagues thrived until the
color barrier was finally shattered by Jackie Robinson. And although
all-black teams continued to play for several years, integrated major
league baseball eventually put the Negro Leagues out of business.
The history of the white major leagues has been well documented.
Unfortunately, the same is not true of the Negro Leagues. While it is
easy to look up how many home runs Babe Ruth hit or how many batters
the great Walter Johnston struck out, the same cannot be done for Negro
League greats like Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige. As time goes by,
there are fewer and fewer men left who played ``the other'' game of
baseball before the color barrier was broken. That is why it is so
important we honor men like ``Tootsie'' Ferrell. He began his baseball
career in a league that was separate but unequal. He saw this ugly and
unfair color barrier disappear, just as it eventually would in other
aspects of American society.
I congratulate Howard ``Tootsie'' Ferrell for his achievement, and I
commend the Delaware Sports Hall of Fame for his induction.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD R. BLANCK

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the
exceptionally distinguished service of Lieutenant General Ronald R.
Blanck, United States Army, who has distinguished himself as the Army's
39th Surgeon General and Commander, U.S. Army Medical Command General,
from 1 October 1996 to 31 August 2000.
In addition to serving as the principal medical staff advisor to the
Army Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Blanck also serves as Commander
of the United States Army Medical Command, which administers a 6.6
billion-dollar worldwide-integrated health care system with 46,000
military personnel and 26,000 civilian employees. During his tenure,
Lieutenant General Blanck concentrated on three major areas, readiness,
quality of healthcare, and innovation, to ensure the provision of
comprehensive, quality healthcare to soldiers, retirees, and their
family members. Lieutenant General Blanck implemented a new set of
combat support training standards; energized the Army's Medical
Reengineering Initiative; and organized an array of Special Medical
Augmentation Response Teams to provide global, rapid-deployment
capabilities for local, state and federal agencies. He provided
oversight for the Defense Department Anthrax Vaccine Immunization
Program; and established a successful, Army-wide Medical Protection
System to track all immunization data. In addition, he established new
partnerships with civilian trauma centers to provide appropriate hands-
on training and experience for military surgical trauma teams.
Lieutenant General Blanck has been a leader in the development and
use of clinical practice guidelines and helped implement the Department
of Defense clinical practice guidelines partnership with the Department
of Veterans Affairs. As a direct result of his initiatives, Army
medical treatment facilities have been accredited by the Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), with
scores consistently above 90, the highest in the history of the Army
Medical Department, with three prestigious Army hospitals receiving
perfect scores of 100 on their JCAHO surveys during the past year.
Lieutenant General Blanck has championed the use of modern technologies
by the Department of Defense and the Army Medical Department. He
supported an innovative Simulation Center initiative, and promoted the
dissemination of information about chemical and biological terrorism.
He has also enthusiastically advocated the introduction of new,
advanced technologies into patient care, including: (1) the Medical
Personal Information Carrier which stores soldiers' medical and
personal information, (2) a dry fibrin sealant bandage, developed by
Army research in cooperation with the American Red Cross, (3) multiple
and extensive uses

[[Page 9030]]

of telemedicine, (4) new initiatives to speed evacuation of wounded
soldiers from the battlefield.
Mr. President, Lieutenant General Blanck is a great credit to the
Army and the Nation. Even with all of the extraordinary accomplishments
during his thirty-two years of service, General Blanck will be
remembered mostly for his great compassion for people, his loyalty to
his country and his inspirational leadership.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF DR. PAT JOHNSON, PRINCIPAL OF KENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the students at Kent Elementary
School have witnessed many innovative changes thanks to the hard work
and foresight of their principal, Dr. Pat Johnson. For the last nine
years, Dr. Johnson has been called a strong and supportive leader by
her colleagues and never ceases to make the mark of excellence high for
her staff and students. I applaud Dr. Johnson's work in transforming an
at-risk school into one of excellence.
Kent Elementary School serves a low income and highly transient
population, yet Dr. Johnson believes in the abilities of all students,
preaching her motto that ``Together Everyone Achieves More'' (TEAM).
Though many students face challenges both at home and in the classroom,
Dr. Johnson uses her positive attitude to inspire her staff toward
maintaining an environment that promotes student learning.
One example of Johnson's commitment to enhancing student achievement
was by creating a school-wide discipline program. Through this program,
discipline problems have dramatically decreased on the playground and
in the classroom. Dr. Johnson also believes in reinforcing positive
social skills to the children through rewards and student recognition.
All of the staff members share in this ``Positive Action'' program,
making teamwork a priority for the children.
Dr. Johnson has also implemented block scheduling to maximize student
learning. In order to better target students' math and reading skills,
students attend specifically assigned classes that fit their
appropriate learning levels, giving children the opportunity to move to
other classrooms as their needs and skill levels improve throughout the
year.
Student reading levels have also improved because of Dr. Johnson's
Reading Mastery program which focuses on strategies that help students
reach academic success. Johnson's impact on her students is also
evident in Kent Elementary's 1998 Washington Assessment of Student
Learning (WASL) writing scores which were the highest scores in the
Kent School District.
Another challenge taken on by Principal Johnson was giving students a
sense of stability in their lives by creating a ``multi-age format'' in
each classroom. This system allows students to have the same home-room
teacher for two years and lowers the student/teacher ratio.
Clearly Dr. Johnson is a tremendous leader who works to enrich her
students' lives. She has established many new ways to improve student
learning and continues to inspire her staff and students to conquer new
challenges. Clearly Dr. Johnson is an influential principal who is
making local education in Washington State even stronger.

____________________

AAA OHIO MOTORISTS ASSOCIATION 100TH ANNIVERSARY

Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the
100th anniversary of the AAA Ohio Motorists Association.
On January 8, 1900, seven prominent Cleveland businessmen with ties
to the automotive industry met in a small room in the Old Hollenden
House Hotel on Superior Avenue to incorporate an organization that
would promote and protect their interests in the growth of the
automobile. Their belief in the future of this fledgling industry led
to the founding of the Cleveland Automobile Club. Over the years, as
cars became more popular, the Club expanded and the name changed,
finally becoming the AAA Ohio Motorists Association. But through it
all, the successor organization to the first meeting of the Cleveland
Automobile Club celebrates not only its 100th anniversary this year,
but its stature as the oldest automobile club in the world.
I have often said that the one organization that I listen to in Ohio
which represents the motoring public is the American Automobile
Association, and I am certain many of my colleagues feel the same way.
AAA's service to its members is renowned, and there are many cold and
rainy nights where that service is especially appreciated, via AAA's
Emergency Road Service. In addition, AAA provides Approved Auto Repair
service, AAA Travel Agency and high quality maps and TourBooks. These
are some of the services that AAA members have depended upon for
generations; services that are possible, in part, because of the many
firsts that can be attributed to the association. The Cleveland
Automobile Club opened the first travel agency in the State of Ohio;
operated the first license bureau in the state; and was the first in
the United States to use radios to dispatch emergency road service
vehicles. In addition, the Ohio Motorist magazine, which has been
published for 92 years, was recently selected as one of the best
magazines in Ohio.
Ohio Motorists Association members as well as non-members benefit
from the OMA's support of local communities' traffic, bike and
pedestrian safety programs, including the Helmet Smart and Community
Traffic Safety programs. Also, the Ohio Motorists Association is a
leader in the promotion of seat belt safety and courteous, responsible
driving.
From those first 7 members in Cleveland 100 years ago, the AAA Ohio
Motorist Association has grown to serve over 650,000 members in nine
counties today. As they begin another 100 years, I know that the AAA
Ohio Motorists Association will continue help stranded motorists, plan
trips, and perform the many services that members have come to enjoy.
On behalf of the citizens of Northeast Ohio, I congratulate the AAA
Ohio Motorists Association on their centennial and look forward to many
more years of service.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

At 11:02 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, with amendments in which it requests the
concurrence of the Senate.

S. 1402. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
enhance programs providing education benefits for veterans,
and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the House has agreed to the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 371) to facilitate the
naturalization of aliens who served with special guerrilla units or
irregular forces in Laos.
The message further announced that the House has passed the following
bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 297. An act to authorize the construction of the Lewis
and Clark Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to
the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit
corporation, for the planning and construction of the water
supply system, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2498. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for recommendations of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services regarding the placement of automatic external
defibrillators in Federal buildings in order to improve
survival rates of individuals who experience cardiac arrest
in such buildings, and to establish protections from civil
liability arising from the emergency use of the devices.
H.R. 3544. An act to authorize a gold medal to be presented
on behalf of the Congress to Pope John Paul II in recognition
of his many and enduring contributions to peace and religious
understanding, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3637. An act to amend the Homeowners Protection Act of
1998 to make certain technical corrections.
H.R. 3639. An act to designate the Federal building located
at 2201 C Street, Northwest, in the District of Columbia,
currently headquarters for the Department of State, as the
``Harry S. Truman Federal Building.''
H.R. 4392. An act to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 for intelligence and

[[Page 9031]]

intelligence-related activities of the United States
Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for
other purposes.
H.R. 4489. An act to amend section 110 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H. Con. Res. 293. Concurrent resolution urging compliance
with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction.

enrolled bill signed

At 12:11 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Hays, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has
signed the following enrolled bill:

H.R. 371. An act to expedite the naturalization of aliens
who served with special guerrilla units in Laos.

The enrolled bill was signed subsequently by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Thurmond).

____________________

MEASURES REFERRED

The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous
consent and referred as indicated:

H.R. 3637. An act to amend the Homeowners Protection Act of
1998 to make certain technical corrections; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

____________________

MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

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

H.R. 297. An act authorize the construction of the Lewis
and Clark Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to
the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit
corporation, for the planning and construction of the water
supply system, and for other purposes.

H.R. 2498. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for recommendations of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services regarding the placement of automatic external
defibrillators in Federal buildings in order to improve
survival rates of individuals who experience cardiac arrest
in such buildings, and to establish protections from civil
liability arising from the emergency use of the devices.
H.R. 4392. An act to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 for intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the United States Government, the Community
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

The following permanent resolution was read, and placed on the
calendar.

H. Con. Res. 293. A concurrent resolution urging compliance
with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction.

____________________

MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME

The following bills were read the first time:

H.R. 1291. An act to prohibit the imposition of access
charges on Internet service providers, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 3591. An act to provide for the award of a gold medal
on behalf of the Congress to former President Ronald Reagan
and his wife Nancy Reagan in recognition of their service to
the Nation.
H.R. 4051. An act to establish a grant program that
provides incentives for States to enact mandatory minimum
sentences for certain firearms offenses, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 4251. An act to amend the North Korea Threat Reduction
Act of 1999 to enhance congressional oversight of nuclear
transfer to North Korea, and for other purposes.

____________________

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-9079. A communication from the Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; OPSAIL
2000, Port of Hampton Roads, VA (CGD05-99-068)'' (RIN2115-
AA97) (2000-0019), received May 18, 2000; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9080. A communication from the Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Tall
Ships Delaware, Delaware River, Wilmington, DE (CGD05-00-
008)'' (RIN2115-AA97) (2000-0018), received May 18, 2000; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9081. A communication from the Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; OPSAIL
2000, Port of Baltimore, MD (CGD05-99-097)'' (RIN2115-AA97)
(2000-0017), received May 18, 2000; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9082. A communication from the Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Chelsea
Street Bridge, Chelsea River, Chelsea, MA (CGD01-00-123)''
(RIN2115-AA97) (2000-0013), received May 18, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9083. A communication from the Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; OPSAIL
2000/International Naval Review (INR2000), Port of New York/
New Jersey (CGD01-99-050)'' (RIN2115-AA97) (2000-0020),
received May 18, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-9084. A communication from the Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Atlantic
Ocean, Virginia Beach, VA (CGD05-00-013)'' (RIN2115-AA97)
(2000-0015), received May 18, 2000; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9085. A communication from the Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Port
Graham, Cook Inlet, AK (COTP Western Alaska 00-003)''
(RIN2115-AA97) (2000-0014), received May 18, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9086. A communication from the Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; Upper Mississippi
River (CGD08-00-009)'' (RIN2115-AE47) (2000-0028), received
May 18, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9087. A communication from the Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; Upper Mississippi
River (CGD08-00-009)'' (RIN2115-AE47) (2000-0028), received
May 18, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9088. A communication from the Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Regatta Regulations; OPSAIL 2000, Port of
San Juan, PR (CGD07-00-014)'' (RIN2115-AE46) (2000-0003),
received May 18, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-9089. A communication from the Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Emergency Control Measures for Tank Barges
(USCG-1948-4443)'' (RIN2115-AF65) (2000-0001), received May
18, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9090. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200
Series Airplanes; Docket No. 2000-NM-99 [5-5/5-18]''
(RIN2120-AA64) (2000-0265), received May 18, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9091. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Series and
Model MD-88 and MD-90-30 Airplanes; Docket No. 97-NM-244 [5-
9/5-18]'' (RIN2120-AA64) (2000-0266), received May 18, 2000;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9092. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8
Series Airplanes; Docket No. 99-NM-338 [5-3/5-18]'' (RIN2120-
AA64) (2000-0262), received May 18, 2000; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9093. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to

[[Page 9032]]

law, the report of a final rule entitled ``Airworthiness
Directives: McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F Series
Airplanes; Docket No. 99-NM-265 [5-14/5-18]'' (RIN2120-AA64)
(2000-0251), received May 18, 2000; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9094. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11
Series Airplanes; Docket No. 99--NM-270 [5-14/5-18]''
(RIN2120-AA64) (2000-0250), received May 18, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9095. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11
Series Airplanes; Docket No. 99-NM-269 [5-14/5-18]''
(RIN2120-AA64) (2000-0249), received May 18, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9096. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11
Series Airplanes; Docket No. 99-NM-268 [5-14/5-18]''
(RIN2120-AA64) (2000-0248), received May 18, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9097. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11
Series Airplanes; Docket No. 99-NM-266 [5-14/5-18]''
(RIN2120-AA64) (2000-0255), received May 18, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9098. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and
MD-11F Series Airplanes; Docket No. 99-NM-267 [5-14/5-18]''
(RIN2120-AA64) (2000-0265), received May 18, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9099. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11
Series Airplanes; Docket No. 99-NM-264 [5-5/5-18]'' (RIN2120-
AA64) (2000-0265), received May 18, 2000; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9100. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11
Series Airplanes; Docket No. 99-NM-263 [5-14/5-18]''
(RIN2120-AA64) (2000-0252), received May 18, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9101. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8
Series Airplanes; Docket No. 2000-NM-01 [5-2/5-18]''
(RIN2120-AA64) (2000-0261), received May 18, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9102. A communication from the Office of Management and
Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a cumulative report on rescissions and
deferrals dated May 11, 2000; referred jointly, pursuant to
the order of January 30, 1975, as modified by the order of
April 11, 1986; to the Committees on Foreign Relations;
Appropriations; the Budget; Energy and Natural Resources;
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; and Environment and
Public Works.
EC-9103. A communication from the Office of Management and
Budget, Executive Office of the President transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report relative to the appropriation to
the National Transportation Safety Board for salaries and
expenses for fiscal year 2000; to the Committee on
Appropriations.
EC-9104. A communication from the Office of Defense
Procurement, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Authority Relating to
Utility Privatization'' (DFARS Case 99-D309), received May
19, 2000; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-9105. A communication from the Secretary of Defense,
transmitting, the report of a retirement; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-9106. A communication from the Secretary of Defense,
transmitting the report of a retirement; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-9107. A communication from the Secretary of Defense,
Health Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
relative to the status of the Oxford House Project; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
EC-9108. A communication from the Office of Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to the
Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to certification
of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or
defense services sold commercially under a contract in the
amount of $50,000,000 or more to Canada; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
EC-9109. A communication from the Office of Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to the
Arms Export Control Act, a report relative to certification
of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or
defense services sold commercially under a contract in the
amount of $50,000,000 or more to Norway, Ukraine, Russia and
the United Kingdom; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-9110. A communication from the Government Printing
Office, transmitting the annual report for fiscal year 1999;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-9111. A communication from the Federal Election
Commission, transmitting the annual report for calendar year
1999; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
EC-9112. A communication from the John F. Kennedy Center
for the Performing Arts transmitting, pursuant to law, the
annual report for fiscal year 1999; to the Committee on Rules
and Administration.
EC-9113. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of
the Interior, Indian Affairs transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report relative to the use and distribution of the settlement
funds that are being held in trust for the Menominee Indian
Tribe of Wisconsin; to the Committee on Indian 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-524. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of New Hampshire relative to the collection of
certain kinds of information from patients in a home health
care setting; to the Committee on Finance.

House Concurrent Resolution 20

Whereas, the quality of health care for home health agency
patients is highly desired, the health care provided by the
home health agency needs to be examined in order to ascertain
whether improvements are necessary, and to determine what
aspects to improve; and
Whereas, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created a new
Medicare payment system to improve the existing payment
system, and must be in place by October 2000. The Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA) will force home health care
agencies to collect and report personal and medical
information; and
Whereas, this sensitive personal information will be
collected and used, without the consent of the patients, not
only to create the new Medicare payment system, but also to
improve quality of care, and eliminate fraud; and
Whereas, home health care agencies participating to
Medicare and Medicaid are collecting patient information, and
data transmission from the states to HCFA has commenced; and
Whereas, the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS)
survey is the 19-page conduit required by HCFA to collect a
range of medical and personal questions from more than 9,000
Medicare certified home health care providers to complete in
order to assess more than 4,000,000 patients; and
Whereas, patients who receive federal benefits must
disclose personal information including physical, mental, and
functional information: patients' medical history; living
arrangements; sensory status; medications; and emotional
status through behavioral and psychological profiles. Home
health care patients who do not collect federal benefits must
also disclose personal information in a scaled back version
of the OASIS survey; and
Whereas, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asserts
that the database will be used to perform outcomes research
on home-care patients; and
Whereas, the ACLU is concerned with HCFA's collection of
data because it cannot justify overriding the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the requirements of
medical ethics, and the federal regulations on research
involving human subjects, which asserts that any research
using fully identified information requires fully informed
consent; and
Whereas, HCFA is unwilling to allow patients to opt out of
this data collection system; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate
concurring:
That due to HCFA's intrusion of government bureaucracy into
private transactions that take place outside of a federal
program into personal liberty and privacy, New Hampshire
urges Congress to block HCFA's intrusive regulations, and to
work to protect the personal liberty and privacy of every
American; and
That copies of this resolution, signed by the speaker of
the house of representatives and the president of the senate,
be forwarded by the house clerk to the Speaker of the United
States House of Representatives, to

[[Page 9033]]

the President of the United States Senate, and to the
governor of each state.
____

POM-525. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the
Legislature of the State of Michigan relative to Medicare
coverage for immunosuppressive drugs; to the Committee on
Finance.

Senate Resolution No. 153

Whereas, The medical community has made remarkable
advancements in the effectiveness of immunosuppressive drugs
that are used to prevent organ rejection in transplant
patients. This has contributed to the great strides that have
occurred in the field of organ transplantation; and
Whereas, While these drugs are expensive, the quality of
life they afford and the more costly health procedures they
can avoid make immunosuppressive medicines a worthwhile
investment. In many instances, people previously disabled for
long periods of time are able to return to work and live a
full life as productive citizens; and
Whereas, Under current law, Medicare will provide for
immunosuppressive drugs for up to three years following a
transplant. It has become apparent to those in the medical
community working with patients receiving kidneys, hearts,
and livers that this limit puts transplant recipients at risk
and is counterproductive. In contrast to the limited coverage
for the immunosuppressive drugs, for example, a patient
needing kidney dialysis can receive coverage for that
procedure indefinitely. Costs for dialysis are significantly
higher than for most immunosuppressive regimens. A successful
transplant patient is more likely to return to work than many
dialysis patients; and
Whereas, Congress is presently considering measures that
would extend Medicare coverage for immunosuppressive drugs.
This step is a most appropriate response to the needs of
transplant patients and a more effective long-term approach
to a serious health-care issue; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate, That we memorialize the Congress of
the United States to enact legislation to remove the time
limit for Medicare coverage for immunosuppressive drugs; and
be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, and the members of
the Michigan congressional delegation.
____

POM-526. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Hawaii relative to the responsible use of
agricultural biotechnology for the benefit of Hawaii's
people; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.

House Concurrent Resolution No. 37

Whereas, biotechnology refers to any technique that uses
living organisms or parts thereof to make or modify a product
or plants, animals, or microorganisms for specific uses; and
Whereas, traditional biotechnology, primarily breeding and
selection, has been used by humankind for thousands of years
for the improvement of plants, animals, and microorganisms;
and
Whereas, in the last three decades scientific advances in
molecular biology have resulted in what is known as
recombinant DNA technology or ``genetic engineering'' with
the ability to readily move genetic material between more
distantly related organisms; and
Whereas, the key components of modern biotechnology are
genomics, the molecular characterization of all genes and
gene products of a species; bioinformatics, the assembly of
data from genomic analysis into accessible and usable forms;
transformation, the introduction of single genes conferring
useful traits into plants, livestock, fish, tree species,
etc.; the identification and evaluation of useful traits in
breeding by the use of marker-assisted selection;
diagnostics, the more accurate and quicker identification of
disease-causing agents, or pathogens, by using new diagnostic
techniques based on the molecular characterization of
pathogens; and vaccine technology, the use of modern
immunology to develop recombinant DNA vaccines for improved
control against lethal diseases; and
Whereas, the papaya industry in Hawaii survived the risks
of disease and pest infestations with transgenic seeds made
possible from advances in biotechnology; and
Whereas, organisms improved, or ``transformed,'' through
modern biotechnology are commonly referred to as
``genetically-modified'' or ``bioengineered organisms''; and
Whereas, modern biotechnology has several advantages over
traditional biotechnology including the ability to transfer a
single, specific gene providing a useful trait to a target
organism, the more rapid development of varieties containing
new and desirable traits, the knowledge that a specific gene
or set of genes produce a desired trait, and the availability
of the entire span of genetic capabilities among all
organisms; and
Whereas, modern biotechnology is being used to increase the
productivity of crops and livestock, to improve the quality
of life by developing new high-yielding crops that require
fewer inputs and conserve natural resources, to increase the
food supply for a rapidly increasing human population, to
produce more nutritious foods with longer shelf lives, and to
continue to provide consumers with high-quality, low-cost
food products; and
Whereas, it is estimated that in 1999 about 100 million
acres worldwide were planted with transgenic varieties of
more than 20 crop species and the value of transgenic crops
grew from $75 million in 1995 to $1.64 billion in 1998; and
Whereas, the National Research Council has stated that
bioengineered crops should provide no greater risk to the
environment than those crops using traditional biotechnology;
and
Whereas, further advances in modern biotechnology may
result in crops, for example, that combat vitamin and mineral
deficiencies that afflict hundreds of millions of people
worldwide or that can be used to produce life-saving vaccines
and biodegradable plastics; and
Whereas, a 1999 report of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics
concluded that there is compelling moral imperative to enable
emerging economies to evaluate the use of modern
biotechnology to combat hunger and poverty; and
Whereas, a September 1999 Gallup Poll found that Americans
most familiar with modern biotechnology are also the most
supportive of its use to improve our food supply and that
more than three-fourths of Americans are confident in the
federal government to ensure the safety of the nation's food
supply; and
Whereas, federal law requires that all foods and food
ingredients, whether produced by traditional or modern
biotechnology, must be extensively reviewed for safety by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration and meet the provisions of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act before they can be
sold to consumers; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Twentieth
Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2000,
the Senate concurring, supports the responsible use of modern
biotechnology to benefit the people of Hawaii, the nation,
and the world, and the global environment through high-yield
agricultural production requiring the reduced use of farm
inputs and acreage; and be it further
Resolved, that a certified copy of this Concurrent
Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United
States, the Vice President of the United States, the
President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, the members of the
Hawaii U.S. Congressional Delegation, the Secretary of the
United States Department of Agriculture, the Director of the
United States Food and Drug Administration, the Administrator
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the
Governor of the State of Hawaii, the Chairperson of the
University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and
Human Resources, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the
American Crop Protection Association, the Western Crop
Protection Association, the Responsible Industry for a Sound
Environment, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the Hawaii
Food Industry Association, the Hawaii Food Manufacturers
Association, the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, the Hawaii
Crop Improvement Association, and the Hawaii Agriculture
Research Center.
____

POM-527. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Kansas relative to amending the Constitution
to restrict the ability of the federal judiciary to mandate
any state or subdivision thereof to levy or increase taxes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.

House Concurrent Resolution No. 5059

Whereas, Unfunded mandates by the United States Congress
and the executive branch of the federal government
increasingly strain already tight state government budgets if
the states are to comply; and
Whereas, To further compound this assault on state
revenues, federal district courts, with the blessing of the
United States Supreme Court, continue to order states to levy
or increase taxes to supplement their budgets to comply with
federal mandates; and
Whereas, The court's actions are an intrusion into a
legitimate legislative debate over state spending priorities
and not a response to a constitutional directive; and
Whereas, The Constitution of the United States of America
does not allow, nor do the states need, judicial intervention
requiring tax levies or increases as solutions to potentially
serious problems; and
Whereas, This usurpation of legislative authority begins a
process that over time could threaten the fundamental concept
of separation of powers that is precious to the preservation
of the form of our government embodied by the Constitution of
the United States of America; and
Whereas, Fifteen states, including Alabama, Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota,
Tennessee and Utah, have petitioned the United States
Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the

[[Page 9034]]

United States of America that reads as follows: ``Neither the
Supreme Court nor any inferior court of the United States
shall have the power to instruct or order a state or
political subdivision thereof, or and official of such state
or political subdivision, to levy or increase taxes.'': Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the State of Kansas, the House of
Representatives concurring therein: That the Kansas
Legislature respectfully requests and petitions the Congress
of the United States to propose submission to the states for
their ratification an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States of America to restrict the ability of the
United States Supreme Court or any inferior court of the
United States to mandate any state or political subdivision
of the state to levy or increase taxes; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of State is hereby directed to
send enrolled copies of this section to the President of the
United States; the President pro tempore of the United States
Senate; the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives; each member of the Kansas Congressional
Delegation; each member of the United States Supreme Court
and the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
and all federal district court judges for the district of
Kansas; and each member of the Kansas Supreme Court and the
Kansas Court of Appeals and all Kansas district court judges.

____________________

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following executive reports of committee were
submitted:

By Mr. WARNER for the Committee on Armed Services.
General John A. Gordon, United States Air Force, to be
Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, Department of Energy.

(The above nomination was reported with the recommendation that
confirmation be subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to
requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of
the Senate.)

The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army as Dean of the Academic Board, United States
Military Academy, and for appointment to the grade indicated
under title 10, U.S.C., section 4335:

To be brigadier general

Col. Daniel J. Kaufman, 0000

The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:

To be admiral

Vice Adm. Robert J. Natter, 0000

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

By Mr. MURKOWSKI for the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mildred Spiewak Dresselhaus, of Massachusetts, to be
Director of the Office of Science, Department of Energy.

(The above nomination was reported with the recommendation that she
be confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests
to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the
Senate.)

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. KERREY:
S. 2616. A bill for the relief of Luis A. Gonzalez and
Virginia Aguilla Gonzalez; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Dorgan,
Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 2617. A bill to lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. REID:
S. 2618. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
sell certain land to the town of Kingston, Nevada, for use as
an emergency medical air evacuation site and for other public
uses; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 2619. A bill to provide for drug-free prisons; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
S. 2620. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 2000 Vassar Street in Reno,
Nevada, as the ``Barbara F. Vucanovich Post Office
Building''; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. L. Chafee,
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Wyden, and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 2621. A bill to continue the current prohibition of
military cooperation with the armed forces of the Republic of
Indonesia until the President determines and certifies to the
Congress that certain conditions are being met; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2622. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to encourage stronger math and science programs at elementary
and secondary schools; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2623. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to establish and expand programs
relating to science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
education, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2624. A bill to establish and expand programs relating
to science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
education, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Hutchinson,
Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Murkowski, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Moynihan):
S. 2625. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
revise the performance standards and certification process
for organ procurement organizations; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. JEFFORDS:
S. 2626. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to improve access to tax-exempt debt for small non-profit
health care and educational institutions; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. BURNS:
S. 2627. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
provide funding for rehabilitation of the Going-to-the-Sun
Road in Glacier National Park, to authorize funds for
maintenance of utilities related to the Park, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. MACK:
S. 2628. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on R115777;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. HELMS:
S. 2629. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 114 Ridge Street in Lenoir,
North Carolina, as the ``James T. Broyhill Post Office
Building''; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Lott, Mr.
Helms, and Mr. Voinovich):
S. Con. Res. 117. A concurrent resolution commending the
Republic of Slovenia for its partnership with the United
States and NATO, and expressing the sense of Congress that
Slovenia's accession to NATO would enhance NATO's security,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 2617. A bill to lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

the trade normalization with cuba act of 2000

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and
Senators Roberts, Dorgan, and Lincoln, to introduce the Trade
Normalization With Cuba Act of 2000.
For 40 years, we have implemented a series of policies designed to
end Fidel Castro's leadership of Cuba. The instruments we have used
have included a trade embargo, an invasion of Cuba, assassination
attempts, and multilateral pressures. None of these measures has moved
Cuba any closer to democracy and a market economy. In fact, the result
has been just the opposite. Castro is as entrenched as ever. The
economy is in tatters. The Cuban people are suffering.
For four decades, Castro has suppressed his own citizens. He has been
responsible for the imprisonment and mistreatment of thousands, and the
emigration of hundreds of thousands. He has dispatched Cuban troops
around the world to support revolution.
During the Cold War, Cuba was an integral member of the Soviet bloc.
Castro was an eager and active participant

[[Page 9035]]

in the proxy battles fought between the United States and the Soviet
Union throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
The Cold War has been over for a decade. The embargo, which had the
goal of forcing Castro out of power, has failed totally. And it will
continue to have no impact on the longevity of Castro's rule.
What has the embargo and American policy actually done? It has
certainly done nothing to advance liberty and democracy for the Cuban
people. And there are no prospects that it will.
What has the embargo done? First, it prohibits all trade with Cuba.
It does include an exception for the sale of food and medicine.
However, the requirements are so complex and burdensome on U.S.
suppliers that very little food or medicine has been exported to Cuba.
We hurt the Cuban people. We hurt American business, American farmers,
and American workers. And we have had no impact on the regime.
We have succeeded in alienating virtually all potential allies who
would be willing to work with us in developing a realistic policy to
influence change in Cuba--the nations of the European Union, Canada,
the Organization of American States, the United Nations, even the Pope.
Another accomplishment of our policy of our trade embargo, we now
have a law, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, that
prohibits lifting the embargo until there is a transition government in
Cuba that does not include Castro. This is an ``all or nothing policy''
that cannot work in the real world.
Unilateral trade sanctions don't work. This is as true with Cuba as
it has been with China, Myanmar, Iraq, or North Korea. In some cases,
it hurts the people in those countries. And it hurts Americans, our
farmers, ranchers, workers, and businesses.
Forty years of sanctions have accomplished nothing in Cuba. It is
time for the Congress to recognize that. I fully support the efforts
being made again this year in both the Senate and the House to remove
the unilateral restraints we have put on our export of food and
medicine to a number of countries, including Cuba. This bill is not a
substitute for those efforts. Rather, this bill is directed only toward
Cuba, and goes far beyond liberalization of food and medicine exports.
Thomas Jefferson said ``Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny
and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the
dawn of the day.'' Current US policy turns Jefferson's statement on its
head. Our effort to isolate Cuba through the trade embargo and other
policies has failed to bring human rights improvement, has provided a
pretext for Castro's continued repression, makes the United States the
scapegoat for Castro's failed economic policies, and hurts the Cuban
people.
It is time to put together a responsible strategy to improve the
human condition in Cuba and set the stage for increased freedom and
respect for human rights once Fidel Castro leaves the scene.
Obviously, Cuba will not change overnight with the removal of the
trade embargo. But this bill is a first step down the road to a
peaceful transition to a democratic society and a market economy in
Cuba.
Before I conclude, I want to recognize my friend, Congressman Charles
Rangel, who has been a leader in trying to end the embargo and move
toward normalization of relations with Cuba. I look forward to working
closely with him to make this happen.
I urge my Senate colleagues to support our effort.
______

By Mr. REID:
S. 2618. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell
certain land to the town of Kingston, Nevada, for use as an emergency
medical air evacuation site and other public uses; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.

emergency landing strip conveyance

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Town of
Kingston Emergency Landing Strip Conveyance Act.
The Town of Kingston, Nevada, currently uses federal land as an
emergency landing strip at Kingston in southern Lander County, Nevada.
Kingston is a rural town located on a small island of private land in
the center of the state and is surrounded by both United States Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) public lands. The isolation
constrains the growth, economic diversity, and public services
available to those who live in or visit Kingston. Medic Air of Reno has
an agreement with local Fire and Rescue to provide 24-hour emergency
medical service to this landing strip. BLM has extended the existing
airport lease to the Kingston Town Board until September 30, 2000, but
cannot renew the lease because the strip does not meet FAA standards.
This Act will convey a total of 144.88 acres to the Town of Kingston.
Seventy acres will be conveyed at fair market value and 74.88 acres at
no cost. The 70 acres contains the main landing strip. The 74.88 acres
contains the balance of the approach and the disposal of this land for
no consideration will benefit the United States by disposing of an
isolated, segregated parcel that would be difficult to manage for
public use. It is my sincere hope that Congress will pass this bill
thereby allowing a win-win situation for both the United States and
Kingston, Nevada.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2618

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

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the lease by the Secretary of the Interior of certain
land to the town of Kingston, Nevada, for use as an emergency
airstrip is about to expire;
(2) rather than renew the airport lease (which would
require certification by the Federal Aviation
Administration), the Secretary and the Town desire that the
parcel on which the main landing strip is situated be sold to
the Town for fair market value as determined by the
Secretary;
(3) adjacent to that parcel is other land, most of which,
if the airstrip parcel is sold to the Town, would be isolated
from other land administered by the Secretary and would
therefore be difficult for the Secretary to manage;
(4) it would in the best interests of the United States and
the Town for the Secretary to convey to the Town both the
airstrip parcel and the adjacent parcel, at the fair market
value of the airstrip parcel; and
(5) the parcels have been determined to be suitable for
disposal in the Shoshone-Eureka Resource Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Adjacent parcel.--The term ``adjacent parcel'' means
the parcels of land in the State of Nevada, comprising 74.88
acres, described as Mount Diablo Meridian, T16N, R44E,
section 31, lot 4, E1/2NESE, S1/2SWNESE, S1/2S1/2NWSE.
(2) Airstrip parcel.--The term ``airstrip parcel'' means
the parcel of land, with a landing strip running on an
easterly bearing and a portion of a landing strip running on
a southerly bearing, in the State of Nevada, comprising 70.00
acres, described as Mount Diablo Meridian, T16N, R44E,
section 31, N1/2SESW, N1/2SWSE, N1/2SESE, SESESE.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management.
(4) Town.--The term ``Town'' means the town of Kingston,
Nevada.
(c) Conveyance.--In consideration of payment of the fair
market value of the airstrip parcel, the Secretary of the
Interior shall convey to the Town, subject to valid existing
rights, all right, title, and interest of the United States
in and to the airstrip parcel and the adjacent parcel,
totaling 144.88 acres.
(d) No Reservations.--The patent by which the conveyance
under subsection (c) is made shall contain no reservations.
(e) Lease Extension.--If for any reason the conveyance
under subsection (c) is not completed before September 30,
2000, the term of the airport lease, as in effect on the date
of enactment of this Act, shall be considered to be extended
until the date of the conveyance.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 2619. A bill to provide for drug-free prisons; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

The Drug-Free Prisons Act of 2000

Mr LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation--with
Senators Robb and Kennedy--that will

[[Page 9036]]

provide state and local governments additional tools to fight drug use
in our nation's prisons. It is critical that our prisons be drug-free,
both because lawbreaking within our correctional system is a national
embarrassment, and because prisoners who are released while still
addicted to drugs are far more likely to commit future crimes than
prisoners who are released sober. This bill includes numerous
provisions that will provide needed help to address drug abuse in
prisons throughout the country.
The bill establishes a new grant program that authorizes the Attorney
General to make $75 million a year in grants to state and local
governments to support comprehensive drug testing and treatment for
prisoners and other offenders. It would also permit states that
currently receive money under the Violent Offender Incarceration and
Truth in Sentencing Grant Program (VOI/TIS) to use those funds to pay
for drug testing and treatment, so long as the state receiving the
funds has penalties in place to address drug trafficking in prisons. In
addition, the bill would reauthorize appropriations for the Residential
Substance Abuse for State Prisoners (RSAT) grants program for the next
five years, and establish exemptions to the general four-year time
limit on Byrne grants for state and local law enforcement programs
involving drugs.
The bill also re-establishes the drug courts program and re-
authorizes funding for it. The majority repealed the program in the
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, in a
partisan bashing of Democratic programs. In my view, effective programs
dealing with drug abuse should not be used as political footballs. That
is why the Administration, with the strong support of the Department of
Justice, has continued to seek funding for the program, and why the
Congress has continued to fund drug courts in every year's
appropriations acts. This has been the right decision, and we should
undo the repeal.
Drug courts provide the opportunity to deal systematically with
nonviolent drug offenders at a substantial savings to taxpayers.
Instead of jailing these nonviolent offenders, the courts can order
alternative punishments that are mixed with mandatory testing and drug
treatment and human services such as education or vocational training.
Meanwhile, imprisonment is held out as a stick to ensure good behavior.
To qualify for federal assistance, a drug court program must mandate
periodic drug testing during any supervised release or probation
periods, provide drug abuse treatment for each participant, and must
hold out the possibility of prosecution, confinement, or incarceration
for noncompliance or failure to show satisfactory process. Violent
offenders are defined quite broadly, so we can be confident that we are
not funding programs that put dangerous people back on the streets.
Drug courts hold out the promise of providing a way that we can reach
out to younger offenders who are using drugs before they turn to a life
of crime, helping to save lives and significant government resources.
The bill permits state and local governments to spend up to 25
percent of unexpended VOT/TIS grants from fiscal years 1996-2001 to
implement graduated sanctions, including victim and community
restitution, intensive community supervision, regular drug testing, and
short-term incarceration. Such graduated sanctions initiatives would
free up additional prison space for violent offenders, and States would
have to use this program for that purpose. Indeed, the purpose of this
proposal is to ensure that States have sufficient flexibility to
guarantee that violent criminals serve their full sentences, the goal
of the Truth in Sentencing grants.
Drug abuse in prisons is a serious problem. The National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA) recently
found that drug and alcohol abuse was implicated in the crimes and
incarceration of 80 percent of those currently serving time in
America's prisons. This finding shows that we have a prison population
that has a history of substance abuse, and will seek out opportunities
to continue using drugs while imprisoned. Of course, if prisoners are
using drugs in prison, this will create serious behavioral and other
problems that corrections officers will have to address, at no small
risk to them.
The problem does not end there. The same CASA study shows that
inmates who are illegal drug and/or alcohol abusers are the most likely
to be repeat offenders. In fact, the study concluded that 61 percent of
state prison inmates who have two prior convictions are regular drug
users. The strong link between drug use and recidivism cannot be
ignored. Prison should provide an opportunity for us to break this
cycle and therefore reduce crime. We can do this through a concerted
effort to test prisoners for drug use--and penalize those who test
positive--and provide adequate drug treatment so that prisoners can
lead productive, non-criminal lives upon their release. As Joseph
Califano, former Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare and current president of CASA, recently said: ``Releasing drug-
addicted inmates without treatment helps maintain the market for
illegal drugs and supports drug dealers.'' And there is every
indication that the number of prisoners needing drug treatment is
increasing even faster than the prison population as a whole. According
to CASA, from 1993 to 1996, the number of inmates needing substance
abuse treatment rose from 688,000 to 840,000. There is no reason to
believe the problem has abated.
Indeed, just last December, the National League of Cities adopted a
resolution on the importance of drug testing and treatment in prisons.
The League cited studies showing that among inmates who completed drug
abuse treatment programs, only 3.3 percent were rearrested within the
first six months after release, compared to 12.1 percent of inmates who
did not receive treatment.
It is clear that if we do not take steps to stop the revolving doors
of our nation's prison system, we will continually be forced to spend
more and more public money to construct more and more prisons. To avoid
that result, we need to determine through testing which inmates are
addicted to drugs and alcohol, reduce the availability of drugs in
prisons, and ensure that inmates have access to the treatment they need
while incarcerated.
Some have advocated that every prisoner be tested before being
released, a proposal that, to my knowledge, no State has adopted. As
law enforcement officials in our States know, such testing would be
extraordinarily expensive and unnecessarily broad. The better and more
realistic approach is to provide resources that will enhance States'
ability to do targeted testing, allowing corrections officers to use
their judgment as to which prisoners are most likely to be abusing
drugs while providing a deterrent effect for prisoners generally. That
is the approach of this legislation I introduce today.
I realize some of my colleagues may be concerned about funds
originally designated for prison construction costs being used for drug
testing and treatment. Let me assure you that states will retain
complete flexibility under this bill as to how they allocate their
Truth in Sentencing and Violent Offender Incarceration grant funds. But
a powerful case can be made that it is in the fiscal interests of the
States to take advantage of the opportunity this bill offers. According
to the CASA study, it would cost States about $6,500 per year to
provide comprehensive and effective residential drug treatment services
to an inmate. In return, the study shows that society will see an
economic return of $68,800 for each inmate who successfully completes
such a program and returns to the community sober and with a job. This
figure represents the savings in the first year based on the much lower
likelihood that the former inmate will be arrested, prosecuted, or
incarcerated, and includes health care savings and the potential
earnings of a drug-free individual.
Funding both testing and treatment allows us to take a carrot-and-
stick approach to a persistent national problem. We cannot hope to get
a handle on

[[Page 9037]]

our drug problem so long as drug abuse and drug trafficking persist in
our prisons. We cannot afford the false choice between treatment and
testing; both are needed to keep order in our prisons and safety in our
streets.
This view is confirmed by the people who work with these issues every
day in my State of Vermont. For example, James Walton, Vermont's
Commissioner of Public Safety, and John Perry, the Director of Planning
for the Vermont Department of Corrections, wholeheartedly support this
proposal. I have always valued their counsel, as they have first-hand
knowledge of the real law enforcement needs in my state. They both feel
strongly that the bill will give law enforcement the tools it needs to
test and treat offender populations, both in jail and in the community.
I hope and expect that this bill will have the same effect across the
country.
For that reason and all of the above reasons, I urge the Senate to
take prompt action on this bill and support this effort to make our
prisons drug-free.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
S. 2620. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 2000 Vassar Street in Reno, Nevada, as the ``Barbara
F. Vucanovich Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.

barbara f. vucanovich post office building

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Barbara F.
Vucanovich Post Office Building Naming Act.
As many of my colleagues know, Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich was
the first female elected to represent the State of Nevada in Congress.
She was first elected in 1983 and retired in 1996, after serving in the
House of Representatives for 14 years. In her final year, she was an
influential member of the House Appropriations Committee and the
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction. Barbara and I
came to the House together as a result of the 1982 election. We both
represented all of Nevada; not solely Congressional Districts. Barbara
was a fine member of Congress. I miss her.
Mr. President, it gives me pleasure to introduce this bill to
commemorate Barbara Vucanovich's exemplary service to the State of
Nevada and the United States of America by renaming the main post
office in Reno, Nevada, as the ``Barbara F. Vucanovich Post Office
Building.'' Representatives Gibbons and Berkley introduced identical
legislation in the House on April 4, 2000. Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn
and former Senator Paul Laxalt join Nevada's congressional delegation
in thanking Barbara Vucanovich for her dedicated public service.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2620

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH POST OFFICE
BUILDING.

(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 2000 Vassar Street in Reno, Nevada, shall
be known and designated as the ``Barbara F. Vucanovich Post
Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Barbara F. Vucanovich Post Office
Building''.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. L. Chafee, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Wyden, and Mr.
Kennedy):
S. 2621. A bill to continue the current prohibition of military
cooperation with the armed forces of the Republic of Indonesia until
the President determines and certifies to the Congress that certain
conditions are being met; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

East Timor Repatriation and Security Act of 2000

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to keep a promise that I
made on this floor a few months ago.
In January, I came to the floor to talk about the tragic events that
occurred last fall in East Timor. I spoke about the need to encourage
the new Indonesian government in its commitment to reform and its
resolve to reject the climate of impunity. I withdrew an amendment that
would have codified the administration's suspension on military and
security assistance for Indonesia East Timor, although I believed then
and strongly believe today that Indonesia has not yet met the basic
conditions that should be prerequisites for any restoration of military
ties with Indonesia.
At that time, Mr. President, I pledged to continue to monitor events
in Indonesia and in East Timor closely. And I pledged to come to this
floor if what I saw troubled me.
Let me tell you what I see today.
First, I am sorry to say, Mr. President, there have been no trials
yet. No one has been brought to justice for the atrocities committed in
East Timor last year. I recognize that the Indonesian government has
taken some courageous steps in investigating the atrocities that took
place in East Timor, and I commend the Indonesian government for its
efforts to date. The Indonesian government and the U.N. have succeeded
in signing an agreement to exchange witnesses and evidence that could
lead to the prosecution of those responsible for the violence in East
Timor. A number of dedicated individuals within the new government
continue to work courageously for reform, justice, and accountability.
But I note, that obervers have been disturbed by the number of civilian
and military police officers that the government has appointed to the
team charged with investigating human rights abuses in East Timor. And
the simple fact remains--no one has yet been held accountable in a
court of law for the acts committed by the military and militias in
East Timor last year.
A second concern is there has been no change in the situation in West
Timor. Today, half a year after the referendum, some 100,000 people are
still living in the refugee camps of West Timor, afraid of what will
happen to them should they attempt to return home. Some will likely
choose to stay in Indonesia, but all reports from the area indicate
that many want to return home but do not because of continued
intimidation from militia groups.
Within the refugee camps, since January there have been about a dozen
incidents in which international agencies attempting to deliver aid to
the refugees were attacked. According to recent reports, one militia
group is so well-organized that it prints a newsletter of fabricated
horror stories aimed at dissuading refugees from returning to East
Timor.
This week the plight of these refugees--at this point the most
vulnerable of the original masses--was made even more difficult as they
contend with the heavy rains and floods that have already killed at
least 148 people. Over a hundred are still missing. When the flood
waters recede, these people should have every opportunity to put their
lives back together, free from threats and from fear.
I look at these facts and I consider that the administration has
chosen to take a first step toward lifting its suspension on all forms
of military assistance and contacts by inviting the Indonesians to
particiapte in a joint exercise, and I am indeed troubled.
Today I am introducing a bill, the East Timor Repatriation and
Security Act of 2000. The bill codifies the suspension of military and
security assistance to Indonesia until certain conditions are met--the
same conditions that have been articulated in the past; the same
conditions contained in last year's foreign operations appropriations
bill.
The bill would permit military and security assistance to resume only
when the President determines and submits a report to the appropriate
congressional committees that the Government of Indonesia and the
Indonesian Armed Forces are:

[[Page 9038]]

Taking effective measures to bring to justice members of the armed
forces and militia groups against whom there is credible evidence of
human rights violations;
Taking effective measures to bring to justice members of the armed
forces against whom there is credible evidence of aiding or abetting
militia groups;
Allowing displaced persons and refugees to return home to East Timor,
including providing safe passage for refugees returning from West
Timor;
Not impeding the activities of the United Nations Transitional
Authority in East Timor;
Demonstrating a commitment to preventing incursions into East Timor
by members of militia groups in West Timor; and,
Demonstrating a commitment to accountability by cooperating with
investigations and prosecutions of members of the Indonesian Armed
Forces and military groups responsible for human rights violations in
Indonesia and East Timor.
These certainly are not unreasonable conditions. They work in favor
of the forces of reform within Indonesia. And by linking military and
security assistance to these benchmarks, Congress will ensure that the
U.S. relationship with Jakarta avoids the mistakes of the past, and
that U.S. foreign policy comes closer to reflecting our core national
values.
To those who believe that all is well, to those who would prefer to
forgive and forget, to those who think that the issue is yesterday's
news, I would simply reiterate the simple facts. There have been no
trials for the perpetrators of abuses in East Timor, and the situation
in the refugee camps has remained unacceptable. Quite recently, Admiral
Dennis Blair, commander in chief of U.S. forces in the Pacific,
reaffirmed what Secretary of Defense Cohen articulated last year--the
U.S. will not resume a military relationship with Indonesia until the
military personnel responsible for the devastation in East Timor are
brought to justice, and the U.S. will not resume a military
relationship with Indonesia until the refugee crisis in West Timor has
been resolved. Specifically, Admiral Blair called on the Indonesians to
disband and cut off support to the militia members still terrorizing
the refugees. It is critical that the U.S. insist on nothing less. In
fact, we should insist on more--the militia members guilty of
atrocities should be brought to justice.
It is clear that these conditions have not yet been met. But the
administration's new proposals for joint exercises with the Indonesians
undermine Admiral Blair's words. The substance of the exercise
currently being planned does not necessarily trouble me, but its
significance does. The administration looks as if it suffers from a
lack of resolve and from a wavering sense of commitment.
Indonesia is an extraordinarily important country--strategically and
economically. Its future course will undoubtedly affect the United
States. For this very reason, we must stand firm, and insist upon
rebuilding U.S.-Indonesian ties on the firm foundation of respect for
the rule of law and for basic human rights.
It is because I believe this so strongly--and I know that many of my
colleagues share my views--that I have come back to the floor to raise
this issue again. I am keeping my promise. I am watching the situation
in East and West Timor very closely, and I still do not like what I
see.
______

By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2622. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
encourage stronger math and science programs at elementary and
secondary schools; to the Committee on Finance.

the national science education incentive act of 2000

S. 2623. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 to establish and expand programs relating to science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

the national science education enhancement act

S. 2624. A bill to establish and expand programs relating to science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

the national science education act

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce sweeping
legislation to reform and improve math, science, engineering and
technology education in American schools.
The fields of science, math, engineering and technology are critical
to U.S. economic success. Unfortunately, there is growing concern that
we do not measure up as evidenced by studies that show our students
cannot compete internationally. In fact, over half of students in our
esteemed graduate schools are from other countries. Our economic future
depends on science and we must ensure that our schools are preparing
students for the technological jobs that await them.
So many aspects of our national success depends on our technological
savvy. For instance, our strong economy has certainly prospered because
of technology advances. The economic boom, witnessed by average
consumers and Wall Street analysts alike, has high stakes in our
continued technology success. Meanwhile, our workforce is increasingly
staffed by people from other countries. Later this year, Congress will
be asked to again raise the quota of H-1B visas. While these workers
are key to our economic success, we must address this problem and grow
our own high-tech labor force. Moreover, we cannot forget how adversely
our national security could fare if our country were to fall behind in
technological pursuits. A key piece of our national security is at
stake--the strength of our military is built upon our technological
superiority.
There is a fundamental need for this legislation. I have introduced
the following three bills to help improve the quality of science and
technology teachers and curriculum through incentives and better
training:
The National Science Education Act. These provisions, utilizing the
National Science Foundation, set up Science Master Teachers and offer
grants to place one in every elementary school.
The National Science Education Enhancement Act. Recognizing that we
must keep good teachers and help them grow in their career, this bill
uses the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to set up Science
Teacher Mentors and Summer Professional Development Institutes. It also
expands the Eisenhower National clearinghouse to provide that this
information be available on the Internet.
The National Science Education Incentive Act. This bill provides tax
credits to help teachers with up to $10,000 of tuition and encourage
the private sector education contributions such as computers,
technology service, teacher training and teacher externships.
My legislation is mirrored in the House of Representatives with bills
by Representative Vernon Ehlers, the vice chairman of the House Science
Committee and author of ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National
Science Policy.'' Furthermore, I am pleased to have the support and
able assistance of the Senior Senator from Maine, Senator Olympia J.
Snowe in joining me to introduce this bill.
Mr. President, I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in
support of this effort to reform and improve math, science, engineering
and technology education in American schools. I ask unanimous consent
that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2622

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Science Education
Incentive Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) As concluded in the report of the Committee on Science
of the House of Representatives, ``Unlocking Our Future
Toward a New National Science Policy,'' which was

[[Page 9039]]

adopted by the House of Representatives, the United States
must maintain and improve its preeminent position in science
and technology in order to advance human understanding of the
universe and all it contains, and to improve the lives,
health, and freedoms of all people.
(2) It is estimated that more than half of the economic
growth of the United States today results directly from
research and development in science and technology. The most
fundamental research is responsible for investigating our
perceived universe, to extend our observations to the outer
limits of what our minds and methods can achieve, and to seek
answers to questions that have never been asked before.
Applied research continues the process by applying the
answers from basic science to the problems faced by
individuals, organizations, and governments in the everyday
activities that make our lives more livable. The scientific-
technological sector of our economy, which has driven our
recent economic boom and led the United States to the longest
period of prosperity in history, is fueled by the work and
discoveries of the scientific community.
(3) The effectiveness of the United States in maintaining
this economic growth will be largely determined by the
intellectual capital of the United States. Education is
critical to developing this resource.
(4) The education program of the United States needs to
provide for 3 different kinds of intellectual capital. First,
it needs scientists and engineers to continue the research
and development that is central to the economic growth of the
United States. Second, it needs technologically proficient
workers who are comfortable and capable dealing with the
demands of a science-based, high-technology workplace. Last,
it needs scientifically literate voters and consumers to make
intelligent decisions about public policy.
(5) Student performance on the recent Third International
Math and Science Study highlights the shortcomings of current
K-12 science and mathematics education in the United States,
particularly when compared to other countries. We must expect
more from our Nation's educators and students if we are to
build on the accomplishments of previous generations. New
methods of teaching mathematics and science are required, as
well as better curricula and improved training of teachers.
(6) Science is more than a collection of facts, theories,
and results. It is a process of inquiry built upon
observations and data that leads to a way of knowing and
explaining in logically derived concepts and theories.
(7) Students should learn science primarily by doing
science. Science education ought to reflect the scientific
process and be object-oriented, experiment-centered, and
concept-based.
(8) Children are naturally curious and inquisitive. To
successfully tap into these innate qualities, education in
science must begin at an early age and continue throughout
the entire school experience.
(9) Teachers provide the essential connection between
students and the content they are learning. High-quality
prospective teachers need to be identified and recruited by
presenting to them a career that is respected by their peers,
is financially and intellectually rewarding, and contains
sufficient opportunities for advancement.
(10) Teachers need to have incentives to remain in the
classroom and improve their practice, and training of
teachers is essential if the results are to be good. Teachers
need to be knowledgeable of their content area, of their
curriculum, of up-to-date research in teaching and learning,
and of techniques that can be used to connect that
information to their students in their classroom.

SEC. 3. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR PORTION OF TUITION PAID FOR
UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION OF CERTAIN TEACHERS.

(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
refundable credits) is amended by redesignating section 35 as
section 36 and by inserting after section 34 the following
new section:

``SEC. 35. TUITION FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION OF CERTAIN
TEACHERS.

``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual who is an
eligible teacher for the taxable year, there shall be allowed
as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle an
amount equal to 10 percent of qualified undergraduate tuition
paid by such individual.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Dollar amount.--The credit allowed by this section
for any taxable year shall not exceed $1,000.
``(2) Credit allowed only for 10 years.--No credit shall be
allowed under this section for any taxable year after the
10th taxable year for which credit is allowed under this
section.
``(c) Eligible Teacher.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `eligible teacher' means, with
respect to a taxable year, any individual--
``(A) who is a full-time teacher, including a full-time
substitute teacher, in any of grades kindergarten through
12th grade for the academic year ending in such taxable year,
``(B)(i) who teaches primarily math, science, engineering,
or technology courses in 1 or more of grades 9 through 12
during such academic year, or
``(ii) who teaches math, science, engineering, or
technology courses in 1 or more of grades kindergarten
through 8 during such academic year.
``(C) who completed a 5-year teaching training program
which meets the requirements of paragraph (3), and
``(D) who received a baccalaureate or similar degree with a
major in mathematics, science, engineering, or technology
from a qualified educational institution.
``(2) Special rule for administrative personnel.--School
administrative functions shall be treated as teaching courses
referred to in paragraph (1)(B) if such functions primarily
relate to such courses or are for a school which focuses
primarily on such courses.
``(3) 5-year teacher training program.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)(C)--
``(A) Elementary school teachers.--In the case of an
elementary school teacher, a teacher training program meets
the requirements of this paragraph if--
``(i) the program requires, in addition to education
courses, that the student complete courses in physics,
chemistry, and biology, and
``(ii) the program recommends completion of an earth
science.
``(B) Middle and high school teachers.--In the case of a
middle or high school teacher, a teacher training program
meets the requirements of this paragraph if the program
requires, in addition to education courses, that the student
also major in a science referred to in subparagraph (A) and
that the student also complete introductory courses in 2
other sciences referred to in subparagraph (A).
``(4) Qualified educational institution.--The term
`qualified educational institution' means any eligible
educational institution (as defined in section 25A(f)(2))
if--
``(A) more than 80 percent of such institution's graduates
who apply for certification by any State as a teacher are so
certified, and
``(B) such institution's school of education (or equivalent
unit) has an advisory committee--
``(i) which includes (on a rotating basis or otherwise)
practicing mathematicians and scientists and representatives
from several of the appropriate science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology departments of such institution,
and
``(ii) which publishes annually a report detailing
curricula reforms for such school (or unit) designed to align
teacher training curricula with State requirements and
expectations.
``(d) Qualified Undergraduate Tuition.--For purposes of
this section, the term `qualified undergraduate tuition'
means qualified higher education expenses (as defined in
section 529(e)(3)) for a qualified educational institution,
reduced as provided in section 25A(g)(2) and by any credit
allowed by section 25A with respect to such expenses.
``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes
of this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or
from section 35 of such Code''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking
the last item and inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 35. Tuition for undergraduate education of certain teachers.
``Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act; except that only periods of being an
eligible teacher (as defined in section 35(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this section) after such
date shall be taken into account under section 35(b)(2) of
such Code, as so added.

SEC. 4. CREDITS FOR CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS BENEFITING SCIENCE,
MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY
EDUCATION AT THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
SCHOOL LEVEL.

(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business related credits) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``SEC. 45D. CONTRIBUTIONS BENEFITING SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS,
ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION AT THE
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL LEVEL.

``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 38, the
elementary and secondary science, mathematics, engineering,
and technology (SMET) contributions credit determined under
this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to 100
percent of the qualified SMET contributions of the taxpayer
for such taxable year.
``(b) Qualified SMET Contributions.--For purposes of this
section, the term `qualified SMET contributions' means--

[[Page 9040]]

``(1) SMET school contributions,
``(2) SMET teacher externship expenses, and
``(3) SMET teacher training expenses.
``(c) SMET School Contributions.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `SMET school contributions'
means--
``(A) SMET property contributions, and
``(B) SMET service contributions.
``(2) SMET property contributions.--The term `SMET property
contributions' means the amount which would (but for
subsection (f)) be allowed as a deduction under section 170
for a charitable contribution of SMET inventory property if--
``(A) the donee is an elementary or secondary school
described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii),
``(B) substantially all of the use of the property by the
donee is within the United States for educational purposes in
any of the grades K-12 that are related to the purpose or
function of the donee,
``(C) the original use of the property begins with the
donee,
``(D) the property will fit productively into the donee's
education plan,
``(E) the property is not transferred by the donee in
exchange for money, other property, or services, except for
shipping, installation and transfer costs, and
``(F) the donee's use and disposition of the property will
be in accordance with the provisions of subparagraphs (B) and
(E).

The determination of the amount of deduction under section
170 for purposes of this paragraph shall be made as if the
limitation under section 170(e)(3)(B) applied to all SMET
inventory property.
``(3) SMET service contributions.--The term `SMET service
contributions' means the amount paid or incurred during the
taxable year for SMET services provided in the United States
for the exclusive benefit of students at an elementary or
secondary school described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) but
only if--
``(A) the taxpayer is engaged in the trade or business of
providing such services on a commercial basis, and
``(B) no charge is imposed for providing such services.
``(4) SMET inventory property.--The term `SMET inventory
property' means, with respect to any contribution to a
school, any property--
``(A) which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section
1221(a) with respect to the donor, and
``(B) which is determined by the school to be needed by the
school in providing education in grades K-12 in the areas of
science, mathematics, engineering, or technology.
``(5) SMET services.--The term `SMET services' means, with
respect to any contribution to a school, any service
determined by the school to be needed by the school in
providing education in grades K-12 in the areas of science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology, including teaching
courses of instruction at such school in any such area.
``(d) SMET Teacher Externship Expenses.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `SMET teacher externship
expenses' means any amount paid or incurred to carry out a
SMET externship program of the taxpayer but only to the
extent that such amount is attributable to the participation
in such program of any eligible SMET teacher, including
amounts paid to such a teacher as a stipend while
participating in such program.
``(2) SMET externship program.--The term `SMET externship
program' means any program--
``(A) established by a taxpayer engaged in a trade or
business within an area of science, mathematics, engineering,
or technology, and
``(B) under which eligible SMET teachers receive training
to enhance their teaching skills in the areas of science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology or otherwise improve
their knowledge in such areas.
``(3) Eligible smet teacher.--The term `eligible SMET
teacher' means any individual--
``(A) who is a teacher in grades K-12 at an educational
organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) which is
located in the United States or which is located on a United
States military base outside the United States, and
``(B) whose teaching responsibilities at such school
include, or are likely to include, any course in the areas of
science, mathematics, engineering, or technology.
``(e) SMET Teacher Training Expenses.--The term `SMET
teacher training expenses' means any amount paid or incurred
by a taxpayer engaged in a trade or business within an area
of science, mathematics, engineering, or technology which is
attributable to the participation of any eligible SMET
teacher in a regular training program provided to employees
of the taxpayer which is determined by such teacher's school
as enhancing such teacher's teaching skills in the areas of
science, mathematics, engineering, or technology.
``(f) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction shall be
allowed under this chapter for any amount allowed as a credit
under this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 38(b) of such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (11),
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12),
and inserting ``, plus'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) the elementary and secondary science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology (SMET) contributions credit
determined under section 45D.''.
(2) Subsection (d) of section 39 of such Code (relating to
carryback and carryforward of unused credits) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) No carryback of section 45d credit before enactment
of credit.--No portion of the unused business credit for any
taxable year which is attributable to the credit determined
under section 45D may be carried back to a taxable year
beginning before the date of the enactment of this
paragraph.''.
(3) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 45D. Contributions benefiting science, mathematics, engineering,
and technology education at the elementary and secondary
school level.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. ASSURANCE OF CONTINUED LOCAL CONTROL.

Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any
department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States
to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the
curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or
personnel of any educational institution or school system.
____

S. 2623

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National
Science Education Enhancement Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Assurance of continued local control.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF
1965

Sec. 101. Support for mentoring activities for science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology teachers.
Sec. 102. Expansion of Eisenhower National Clearinghouse.
Sec. 103. Summer Professional Development Institutes.
Sec. 104. Grants for teacher technology training software and
instructional materials.
Sec. 105. Reservation for after-school activities.
Sec. 106. After-school science day care at community learning centers.

TITLE II--OTHER PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Work-study amendments.
Sec. 202. Study.
Sec. 203. Report to Congress.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) As concluded in the report of the Committee on Science
of the House of Representatives, ``Unlocking Our Future
Toward a New National Science Policy,'' which was adopted by
the House of Representatives, the United States must maintain
and improve its preeminent position in science and technology
in order to advance human understanding of the universe and
all it contains, and to improve the lives, health, and
freedoms of all people.
(2) It is estimated that more than half of the economic
growth of the United States today results directly from
research and development in science and technology. The most
fundamental research is responsible for investigating our
perceived universe, to extend our observations to the outer
limits of what our minds and methods can achieve, and to seek
answers to questions that have never been asked before.
Applied research continues the process by applying the
answers from basic science to the problems faced by
individuals, organizations, and governments in the everyday
activities that make our lives more livable. The scientific-
technological sector of our economy, which has driven our
recent economic boom and led the United States to the longest
period of prosperity in history, is fueled by the work and
discoveries of the scientific community.
(3) The effectiveness of the United States in maintaining
this economic growth will be largely determined by the
intellectual capital of the United States. Education is
critical to developing this resource.
(4) The education program of the United States needs to
provide for 3 different kinds of intellectual capital. First,
it needs scientists and engineers to continue the research
and development that is central to

[[Page 9041]]

the economic growth of the United States. Second, it needs
technologically proficient workers who are comfortable and
capable dealing with the demands of a science-based, high-
technology workplace. Last, it needs scientifically literate
voters and consumers to make intelligent decisions about
public policy.
(5) Student performance on the recent Third International
Math and Science Study highlights the shortcomings of current
K-12 science and mathematics education in the United States,
particularly when compared to other countries. We must expect
more from our Nation's educators and students if we are to
build on the accomplishments of previous generations. New
methods of teaching mathematics and science are required, as
well as better curricula and improved training of teachers.
(6) Science is more than a collection of facts, theories,
and results. It is a process of inquiry built upon
observations and data that leads to a way of knowing and
explaining in logically derived concepts and theories.
(7) Students should learn science primarily by doing
science. Science education ought to reflect the scientific
process and be object-oriented, experiment-centered, and
concept-based.
(8) Children are naturally curious and inquisitive. To
successfully tap into these innate qualities, education in
science must begin at an early age and continue throughout
the entire school experience.
(9) Teachers provide the essential connection between
students and the content they are learning. High-quality
prospective teachers need to be identified and recruited by
presenting to them a career that is respected by their peers,
is financially and intellectually rewarding, and contains
sufficient opportunities for advancement.
(10) Teachers need to have incentives to remain in the
classroom and improve their practice, and training of
teachers is essential if the results are to be good. Teachers
need to be knowledgeable of their content area, of their
curriculum, of up-to-date research in teaching and learning,
and of techniques that can be used to connect that
information to their students in their classroom.

SEC. 3. ASSURANCE OF CONTINUED LOCAL CONTROL.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF
1965

SEC. 101. SUPPORT FOR MENTORING ACTIVITIES FOR SCIENCE,
MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY
TEACHERS.

(a) Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational
Agencies Through Professional Development.--Section
1119(b)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) include mentoring programs focusing on changing
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology teacher
behaviors and practices to help novice teachers develop and
gain confidence in their skills, to increase the likelihood
that they will continue in the teaching profession, and
generally to improve the quality of their teaching.''.
(b) Dissemination of Mentoring Information by Eisenhower
National Clearinghouse.--Section 2102(a)(3)(C) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6622(a)(3)(C)) is amended by striking ``materials'' and
inserting ``materials, including information on model
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology teacher
mentoring programs,''.
(c) Eisenhower Professional Development Program State
Applications.--Section 2205(b)(2) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6645(b)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (N);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (O)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(P) describe how the State will administer a mentoring
system to ensure consistent implementation of mentoring
programs for science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology teachers, provide a structure for local mentoring
program evaluation, provide technical assistance to local
mentoring programs, ensure compliance by local mentoring
programs with State teacher training requirements, and
provide incentives for local educational agencies to take
mentoring into consideration in assessing instructional staff
hiring needs.''.
(d) Eisenhower Professional Development Program Local
Activities.--Section 2210(b)(2) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6650(b)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) include mentoring programs focusing on changing
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology teacher
behaviors and practices to help novice teachers develop and
gain confidence in their skills, to increase the likelihood
that they will continue in the teaching profession, and
generally to improve the quality of their teaching.''.
(e) Accountability.--Section 2401(a) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6701(a)) is
amended by striking ``part.'' and inserting ``part, including
the impact of State and local mentoring programs on teaching
quality and teacher retention rates.''.

SEC. 102. EXPANSION OF EISENHOWER NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE.

(a) Allocation of Appropriated Amounts.--Section 2003(b)(1)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 6603(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``2103;'' and
inserting ``2103, and $10,000,000 shall be available to carry
out subparagraphs (A), (F), and (G) of section 2102(b)(3);''.
(b) Use of Funds.--Section 2102(b)(3) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6622(b)(3)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(including, to the
extent practicable,'' and inserting ``(including'';
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) by amending subparagraph (F) to read as follows:
``(F) solicit and gather (in consultation with the
Department, national teacher associations, professional
associations, and other reviewers and developers of education
materials and programs) all qualitative and evaluative
materials and all programs, including full text and graphics,
for the Clearinghouse, review the evaluation of the materials
and programs, rank the effectiveness of the materials and
programs on the basis of the evaluations, and distribute the
results of the reviews (in a short, standardized, and
electronic format that contains electronic links to an
electronic version of the original qualitative and evaluative
materials), excerpts of the materials and links to Internet-
based sites, and information regarding on-line communities of
users to teachers in an easily accessible manner, except that
nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to permit the
Clearinghouse to directly conduct an evaluation of the
materials or programs; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) develop and establish an Internet-based site offering
a search mechanism to assist site visitors in identifying
information available through the Clearinghouse on science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education
instructional materials and programs, including electronic
links to information on classroom demonstrations and
experiments, teachers who have used materials or participated
in programs, vendors, curricula, and textbooks.''.
(c) Clearinghouse.--Section 2102(b) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6622(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(9) Effective use of technology.--In reviewing
evaluations of materials and programs under this subsection
the Clearinghouse shall give particular attention to the
effective use of materials and technology in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education.''.
(d) Report.--Not later than two years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the National Academy of Sciences, in
conjunction with appropriate related associations and
organizations, shall--
(1) conduct a study on the Eisenhower National
Clearinghouse and whether the provisions enacted in the
amendments made by this section have resulted in the
Clearinghouse becoming a more effective entity; and
(2) submit to Congress a report on the study, including any
recommendations of the Academy regarding the Clearinghouse.

SEC. 103. SUMMER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTES.

(a) In General.--Section 2211 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6651) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Summer Professional Development Institutes for
Teachers.--
``(1) Program authorized.--From amounts made available to
carry out this subsection, the Secretary is authorized to
make grants to State agencies for higher education, working
in conjunction with the State educational agency (if such
agencies are separate), for activities described in paragraph
(3). Such grants shall be awarded on a competitive basis that
includes a peer review of the grant applications.
``(2) Subgrants.--
``(A) In general.--A recipient of a grant under paragraph
(1) shall carry out the activities described in paragraph (3)
by making subgrants to, or entering into contracts or
cooperative agreements with, institutions of higher
education, and nonprofit organizations of demonstrated
effectiveness, including museums and educational partnership
organizations, which must work in conjunction with a local
educational agency, consortium of local educational agencies,
or schools.

[[Page 9042]]

``(B) Priority.--In making awards under subparagraph (A), a
grant recipient shall give priority to applicants whose
application includes an assurance that the applicant will use
a curriculum recognized by the working group established
under section 17 of the National Science Foundation Act of
1950, particularly if the local educational agency (or
agencies) described in subparagraph (A), or the State
educational agency (if such agency is separate from the grant
recipient), has adopted such curriculum.
``(3) Allowable activities.--
``(A) In general.--Each recipient of funds under paragraph
(2) shall use the funds for the following:
``(i) The establishment and operation of science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology summer institutes
that provide professional development to elementary and
secondary school teachers. Such institutes shall be content-
based, build on school year curricula, and focus only
secondarily on pedagogy.
``(ii) To provide teachers with travel expense
reimbursement, a stipend, or classroom materials related to
such an institute.
``(iii) The establishment of a mechanism to provide
supplemental assistance and follow up training during the
school year for summer institute graduates.
``(B) Requirements for curricula.--The curricula referred
to in subparagraph (A)(i) shall be object-centered,
experiment-oriented, content-based, and grounded in current
research.
``(C) Requirements for institutes.--The summer institutes
referred to in subparagraph (A)(i)--
``(i) shall be conducted during a period of a minimum of
two weeks;
``(ii) shall provide for direct interaction between
students and faculty;
``(iii) shall have a component that includes use of the
Internet; and
``(iv) shall provide for follow-up training in the
classroom during the academic year for a period of a minimum
of three days, which shall not be required to be consecutive,
except that--

``(I) if the program at the summer institute is for a
period of only two weeks, the follow-up training shall be for
a period of more than 3 days; and
``(II) for teachers in rural school districts, follow-up
training through the Internet may be used.

``(4) Review of applications by national science
foundation.--The Secretary shall provide each application for
a grant under this subsection to the Director of the National
Science Foundation in order that such applications may
undergo the peer-review process described in paragraph
(5)(B), and shall implement the recommendations of the
Director in awarding grants under this subsection.
``(5) Requirements on national science foundation.--
``(A) In general.--Each year, not later than 6 months
before the application deadline for a subgrant, contract, or
cooperative agreement described in paragraph (2), the
Director of the National Science Foundation shall develop a
theme and structure for the summer institutes supported under
this subsection. Such applications shall address how funds
will be used in accordance with the theme and structure
developed by the Director.
``(B) Application peer-review process.--The Director--
``(i) shall establish a peer-review process for
applications for grants received under this subsection; and
``(ii) shall forward the applications selected by the
Director through such process to the Secretary.
``(C) Priority.--In making awards under paragraph (2)(A), a
grant recipient shall give priority to applicants whose
application includes an assurance that the applicant will use
a curriculum--
``(i) that is recognized by the working group established
under section 17 of the National Science Foundation Act of
1950, particularly if the local educational agency (or
agencies) described in paragraph (2)(A), or the State
educational agency (if such agency is separate from the grant
recipient), has adopted such curriculum; or
``(ii) that is three or four weeks in length.
``(6) Other requirements.--Paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of
subsection (a), and subsection (c), shall apply to recipients
of funds under this subsection in the same manner as such
provisions apply to recipients of funds under subsection
(a)(1).
``(7) Credit for participation.--Participation in an
institute supported under this subsection shall earn credit
toward--
``(A) State continuing education requirements for teachers;
or
``(B) a post-baccalaureate degree program at an institution
of higher education.''.
(b) Funding.--
(1) Allocation of appropriated amounts.--Section 2003(b)(2)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 6603(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``B;'' and
inserting ``B, of which $100,000,000, $150,000,000,
$200,000,000, and $200,000,000 shall be available to carry
out section 2211(d) for fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, and
2004, respectively;''.
(2) Reservation of funds.--Section 2202(a) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6642(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) the amount made available under section 2003(b)(2) to
carry out section 2211(d).''.

SEC. 104. GRANTS FOR TEACHER TECHNOLOGY TRAINING SOFTWARE AND
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS.

Section 3134 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6844) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) providing technology training software and
instructional materials to teachers.''.

SEC. 105. RESERVATION FOR AFTER-SCHOOL ACTIVITIES.

Section 10904(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8244) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph
(2);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) an assurance that if awarded a grant under this part,
the grant recipient shall use not less than 5 percent of the
amount received to provide after-school day care services
that focus on science activities.''.

SEC. 106. AFTER-SCHOOL SCIENCE DAY CARE AT COMMUNITY LEARNING
CENTERS.

Section 10905(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8245(3)) is amended by striking
``services.'' and inserting ``services, including after-
school day care services that focus on science activities for
children in grades kindergarten through the sixth grade.''.

TITLE II--OTHER PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. WORK-STUDY AMENDMENTS.

(a) Technology Training Treated as Community Service.--
Section 441(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
2751(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``technology training,''
after ``literacy training,''; and
(2) in paragraph (4)(A), by inserting before the semicolon
at the end the following: ``, including tutoring teachers in
the uses of classroom technology''.
(b) Additional Spending for Technology Training.--Section
443(b)(2)(B) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 2753(b)(2)(B)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``7 percent'' and inserting ``10 percent'';
(2) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``shall ensure that''; and
(3) by inserting after ``requirement of this subparagraph''
the following: ``, and (ii) at least 3 percent of the total
amount of funds granted to such institution under this
section for such fiscal year is used to compensate students
employed in technology training or tutoring teachers in the
uses of classroom technology (or both),''.

SEC. 202. STUDY.

The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with other
Government agencies, appropriate organizations, and private
businesses and corporations, shall conduct a study of--
(1) the feasibility and effectiveness of various
incentives, including tax credits, for corporations and
businesses to provide--
(A) personnel with regular compensation for time spent as
volunteers engaged in the technological training of teachers;
and
(B) facilities for the provision of such training of
teachers;
(2) alternative methods of providing financial support,
through income tax credits, loan forgiveness, or otherwise,
to individuals seeking training or retraining in mathematics,
science, and technology education;
(3) the effectiveness of colleges and universities in
training teachers who are able to use technology and able to
integrate technology into lesson plans and curricula,
including distance learning;
(4) methods to coordinate a working alliance at various
levels of government between the business and academic
community; and
(5) additional means of improving the efficiency of the
technological training of teachers.

SEC. 203. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall transmit to the
Congress a report outlining the results of the study
conducted under section 202. Such report shall include
proposals for a comprehensive approach to providing
technologically competent teachers to our Nation's schools.
With respect to any objectives described in paragraphs (1)
though (5) of section 202 that the Secretary determines are
feasible and effective, such report shall include a plan for
the accomplishing such objectives.
____

S. 2624

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Science Education
Act''.

[[Page 9043]]

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) As concluded in the report of the Committee on Science
of the House of Representatives, ``Unlocking Our Future
Toward a New National Science Policy,'' which was adopted by
the House of Representatives, the United States must maintain
and improve its preeminent position in science and technology
in order to advance human understanding of the universe and
all it contains, and to improve the lives, health, and
freedoms of all people.
(2) It is estimated that more than half of the economic
growth of the United States today results directly from
research and development in science and technology. The most
fundamental research is responsible for investigating our
perceived universe, to extend our observations to the outer
limits of what our minds and methods can achieve, and to seek
answers to questions that have never been asked before.
Applied research continues the process by applying the
answers from basic science to the problems faced by
individuals, organizations, and governments in the everyday
activities that make our lives more livable. The scientific-
technological sector of our economy, which has driven our
recent economic boom and led the United States to the longest
period of prosperity in history, is fueled by the work and
discoveries of the scientific community.
(3) The effectiveness of the United States in maintaining
this economic growth will be largely determined by the
intellectual capital of the United States. Education is
critical to developing this resource.
(4) The education program of the United States needs to
provide for 3 different kinds of intellectual capital. First,
it needs scientists and engineers to continue the research
and development that is central to the economic growth of the
United States. Second, it needs technologically proficient
workers who are comfortable and capable dealing with the
demands of a science-based, high-technology workplace. Last,
it needs scientifically literate voters and consumers to make
intelligent decisions about public policy.
(5) Student performance on the recent Third International
Math and Science Study highlights the shortcomings of current
K-12 science and mathematics education in the United States,
particularly when compared to other countries. We must expect
more from our Nation's educators and students if we are to
build on the accomplishments of previous generations. New
methods of teaching mathematics and science are required, as
well as better curricula and improved training of teachers.
(6) Science is more than a collection of facts, theories,
and results. It is a process of inquiry built upon
observations and data that leads to a way of knowing and
explaining in logically derived concepts and theories.
(7) Students should learn science primarily by doing
science. Science education ought to reflect the scientific
process and be object-oriented, experiment-centered, and
concept-based.
(8) Children are naturally curious and inquisitive. To
successfully tap into these innate qualities, education in
science must begin at an early age and continue throughout
the entire school experience.
(9) Teachers provide the essential connection between
students and the content they are learning. High-quality
prospective teachers need to be identified and recruited by
presenting to them a career that is respected by their peers,
is financially and intellectually rewarding, and contains
sufficient opportunities for advancement.
(10) Teachers need to have incentives to remain in the
classroom and improve their practice, and training of
teachers is essential if the results are to be good. Teachers
need to be knowledgeable of their content area, of their
curriculum, of up-to-date research in teaching and learning,
and of techniques that can be used to connect that
information to their students in their classroom.

SEC. 3. ASSURANCE OF CONTINUED LOCAL CONTROL.

SEC. 4. MASTER TEACHER GRANT PROGRAM.

The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861
et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 16 as section 18; and
(2) by inserting after section 15 the following new
section:

``Sec. 16. Grants and awards

``(a)(1) The Director of the National Science Foundation
shall conduct a grant program to make grants to a State or
local educational agency or to a private elementary or middle
school for the purpose of hiring a master teacher described
in paragraph (3).
``(2) In order to be eligible to receive a grant under this
subsection, a State or local educational agency or private
elementary or middle school shall submit to the Director a
description of the requirements for a master teacher of the
State or local educational agency or school, including
certification requirements and job responsibilities of the
master teacher, and a description of how professional
development will be integrated with the math or science
program of the State educational agency or local educational
agency or school including a master teacher.
``(3) A master teacher referred to in paragraph (1)--
``(A) shall provide support for not more than 10 teachers
at public and private schools in math, science, engineering
or technology programs for students in grades kindergarten
through the eighth grade; and
``(B) shall be responsible for in-classroom assistance and
oversight of hands-on inquiry materials, equipment, and
supplies, including supplying and repairing such materials.
``(4) Grants shall be made under this section out of funds
available for the National Science Foundation for Education
and Human Resources Activities.
``(b) In this section, the terms `State educational agency'
and `local educational agency' have the meaning given those
terms in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.''.

SEC. 5. HIGH-QUALITY EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE FOR ALL SCHOOLS.

The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861
et seq.) is further amended in section 16 (as added by
section 4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c)(1) The Director is authorized to award grants, on a
competitive basis, to secondary school and college students
working with university faculty, software developers, and
experts in educational technology, or to university faculty,
software developers, and experts in educational technology
working with secondary school or college students, for the
development of high-quality educational software and Internet
web sites by such students, faculty, developers, and experts.
``(2)(A) The Director shall recognize outstanding
educational software and Internet web sites developed with
assistance provided under this subsection.
``(B) The President is requested to, and the Director
shall, issue an official certificate signed by the President
and Director, to each student and faculty member who develops
outstanding educational software or Internet web sites
recognized under this subsection.
``(3) The educational software or Internet web sites that
are recognized under this subsection shall focus on core
curriculum areas.
``(4) The Director shall give priority to awarding grants
for the development of educational software or Internet web
sites in the areas of mathematics, science, engineering, and
technology.
``(5) The Director shall designate official judges to
recognize outstanding educational software or Internet web
sites assisted under this section.''.

SEC. 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF WORKING GROUP ON SCIENCE,
MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY
EDUCATION.

The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861
et seq.) is further amended by inserting after section 16 (as
added by section 4) the following new section:

``Sec. 17. Establishment of working group on science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education

``(a) There is established in the National Science
Foundation a working group to review and coordinate regular
and supplemental curricula in kindergarten through the
twelfth grade for science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology, taking into account--
``(1) the content, scope, and sequence of such curricula;
``(2) the research basis for such curricula; and
``(3) the demonstrated results of such curricula.
``(b) There shall be 15 members of the working group
established by subsection (a), who shall have experience in
the fields of life science, physical science, earth science,
chemistry, technology, math, or engineering, and who shall be
appointed by the Director for a three-year term that may be
extended once for an additional three years. The members
shall be appointed as follows:
``(1) 4 members appointed from among representatives from
appropriate professional societies representing the
scientific disciplines.
``(2) 3 members appointed from among business leaders who
are active in education.
``(3) 2 members appointed from among representatives of
institutions of higher education.
``(4) 2 members appointed from among representatives of
schools of education within such institutions.
``(5) 4 members appointed from among representatives of
professional societies that represent science teaching.
``(c)(1) The working group established by subsection (a)--
``(A) shall, beginning not later than three years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, award recognition annually
in predetermined categories;
``(B) shall publish all criteria upon which a review by the
working group under this section is based; and

[[Page 9044]]

``(C) shall disseminate information on award-winning
programs for the purpose of acting as a resource for State
and local educational agencies--
``(i) for determining the best methods for teachers to
present science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
subject areas to students; and
``(ii) for organizing science, mathematics, engineering,
and technology disciplines.
``(2) The information required to be disseminated by
paragraph (1)(C) shall include information describing the
activities of the award-winning programs and the awards made
in each category.''.

SEC. 7. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

(a) General Authority.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Grant program.--The Director shall, subject to
appropriations, carry out a demonstration project under which
the Director awards grants in accordance with this section to
eligible local educational agencies.
(B) Uses of funds.--A local educational agency that
receives a grant under this section may use such grant funds
to develop an information technology program that builds or
expands mathematics, science, and information technology
curricula, to purchase equipment necessary to establish such
program, and to provide professional development in such
fields.
(2) Program requirements.--The program described in
paragraph (1) shall--
(A) provide professional development specifically in
information technology, mathematics, and science; and
(B) provide students with specialized training in
mathematics, science, and information technology.
(b) Eligible Local Educational Agency.--For purposes of
this section, a local educational agency is eligible to
receive a grant under this section if the agency--
(1) provides assurances that it has executed conditional
agreements with representatives of the private sector to
provide services and funds described in subsection (c); and
(2) agrees to enter into an agreement with the Director to
comply with the requirements of this section.
(c) Private Sector Participation.--The conditional
agreement referred to in subsection (b)(1) shall describe
participation by the private sector, including--
(1) the donation of computer hardware and software;
(2) the establishment of internship and mentoring
opportunities for students who participate in the information
technology program; and
(3) the donation of higher education scholarship funds for
eligible students who have participated in the information
technology program.
(d) Application.--
(1) In general.--Each eligible local educational agency
desiring a grant under this section shall submit an
application to the Director in accordance with guidelines
established by the Director pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2) Guidelines.--
(A) Requirements.--The guidelines referred to in paragraph
(1) shall require, at a minimum, that the application
include--
(i) a description of proposed activities consistent with
the uses of funds and program requirements under subsection
(a)(1)(B) and (a)(2);
(ii) a description of the higher education scholarship
program, including criteria for selection, duration of
scholarship, number of scholarships to be awarded each year,
and funding levels for scholarships; and
(iii) evidence of private sector participation and
financial support to establish an internship, mentoring, and
scholarship program.
(B) Guideline publication.--The Director shall issue and
publish such guidelines not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Selection.--The Director shall select a local
educational agency to receive an award under this section in
accordance with subsection (e) and on the basis of merit to
be determined after conducting a comprehensive review.
(e) Priority.--The Director shall give special priority in
awarding grants under this section to eligible local
educational agencies that--
(1) demonstrate the greatest ability to obtain commitments
from representatives of the private sector to provide
services and funds described under subsection (c);
(2) demonstrate the greatest economic need; and
(3) use a curriculum recognized by the working group
established by section 17 of the National Science Foundation
Act of 1950 (as added by section 6).
(f) Assessment.--The Director shall assess the
effectiveness of activities carried out under this section.
(g) Study and Report.--The Director--
(1) shall initiate an evaluative study of eligible students
selected for scholarships pursuant to this section in order
to measure the effectiveness of the demonstration program;
and
(2) shall report the findings of the study to Congress not
later than 4 years after the award of the first scholarship.
Such report shall include the number of students graduating
from an institution of higher education with a major in
mathematics, science, or information technology and the
number of students who find employment in such fields.
(h) Definitions.--Except as otherwise provided, for
purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the
National Science Foundation;
(2) the term ``eligible student'' means a student enrolled
in the 12th grade who--
(A) has participated in an information technology program
established pursuant to this section;
(B) has demonstrated a commitment to pursue a career in
information technology, mathematics, science, or engineering;
and
(C) has attained high academic standing and maintains a
grade point average of not less than 3.0 on a 4.0 scale for
the last 2 years of secondary school (11th and 12th grades);
and
(3) the term ``local educational agency'' has the same
meaning given such term in section 14101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to
carry out this section, $3,000,000.
(j) Maximum Grant Award.--An award made to an eligible
local educational agency under this section may not exceed
$300,000.

SEC. 8. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON REQUIRED COURSE OF
STUDY FOR CAREERS IN SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS,
ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION.

The Director of the National Science Foundation shall,
jointly with the Secretary of Education, compile and
disseminate information (including, but not limited to,
through outreach, school counselor education, and visiting
speakers) regarding--
(1) standard prerequisites for middle school and high
school students who seek to enter a course of study at an
institution of higher education in science, mathematics,
engineering, or technology education for purposes of teaching
in an elementary or secondary school; and
(2) the licensing requirements in each State for science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology elementary or
secondary school teachers.

SEC. 9. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT STUDY EVALUATION.

(a) Study Required.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall enter into an agreement with the National
Academy of Sciences under which the Academy shall compile and
evaluate studies on the effectiveness of technology in the
classroom on learning and student performance, as measured by
State standardized tests. The study evaluation shall include,
to the extent available, information on the type of
technology used in each classroom, the reason that such
technology works, and the teacher training that is conducted
in conjunction with the technology.
(b) Deadline for Completion.--The study evaluation required
by subsection (a) shall be completed not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Definition of Technology.--In this section, the term
``technology'' has the meaning given that term in section
3113(11) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6813(11)).
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation
$600,000 for the purpose of conducting the study evaluation
required by subsection (a).

SEC. 10. TEACHER TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861
et seq.) is further amended in section 16 (as added by
section 4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) The Director shall establish a grant program under
which grants may be made for instruction of teachers for
grades kindergarten through the twelfth grade on the use of
technology in the classroom.''.

SEC. 11. MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LITERACY ASSISTANCE.

The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861
et seq.) is further amended in section 16 (as added by
section 4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e)(1) The Director is authorized to award grants to
assist States in reaching the goal of making all middle
school graduates in the State technology literate.
``(2) Grants awarded under this subsection shall be used
for teacher training in technology, with an emphasis on
programs that prepare 1 or more teachers in each middle
school in the State to become technology leaders who then
serve as experts and train other teachers.
``(3) Each State shall encourage schools that receive
assistance under this subsection to provide matching funds,
with respect to the cost of teacher training in technology to
be assisted under this subsection, in order to enhance the
impact of the teacher training and to help ensure that all
middle school graduates in the State are computer
literate.''.

SEC. 12. SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY
EDUCATION CONFERENCE.

(a) In General.--Within 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Science
Foundation shall

[[Page 9045]]

convene a conference of representatives from Federal, State,
and local governments, private industries, professional
organizations, educators, science, mathematics, engineering,
and technology educational resource providers, students, and
any other stakeholders the Director decides would provide
useful participation in the conference. Such conference shall
be known as the National Science Education Forum.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the conference convened
under subsection (a) shall be to--
(1) identify existing science, mathematics, engineering,
and technology education programs and resource providers;
(2) examine how well existing programs are coordinated and
how much collaboration exists among them;
(3) examine the common goals and differences among the
participants at the conference; and
(4) develop strategies that will support partnerships and
leverage resources.
(c) Report and Publication.--At the conclusion of the
conference the Director of the National Science Foundation
shall--
(1) transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate a report on the outcome and
conclusions of the conference; and
(2) ensure that a similar report is published and
distributed as widely as possible to stakeholders in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education.

SEC. 13. GRANTS FOR DISTANCE LEARNING.

The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861
et seq.) is further amended in section 16 (as added by
section 4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) The Director may make grants to a State or local
educational agency or to a private elementary, middle, or
secondary school, under any grant program administered by the
Director using funds appropriated for the National Science
Foundation for Education and Human Resources Activities, for
activities in which distance learning is integrated into the
education process in grades kindergarten through the twelfth
grade.''.

SEC. 14. AVAILABILITY OF CURRICULAR PROGRAMS THROUGH THE
INTERNET.

The Director of the National Science Foundation shall make
available through the Internet at no cost a complete field-
test version (including text and graphics) of any curricular
program, the development for which the National Science
Foundation provided funds.

SEC. 15. SCHOLARSHIPS TO PARTICIPATE IN CERTAIN RESEARCH
ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--The President, acting through the National
Science Foundation, shall provide scholarships to teachers at
public and private schools in grades kindergarten through the
twelfth grade in order that such teachers may participate in
research programs conducted at private entities or Federal or
State Government agencies. The purpose of such scholarships
shall be to provide teachers with an opportunity to expand
their knowledge of science and research techniques and
encourage incorporation of such techniques into the
classroom.
(b) Requirements.--In order to be eligible to receive a
scholarship under this section, a teacher described in
subsection (a) shall be required to develop, in conjunction
with the private entity or Government agency at which the
teacher will be participating in a research program, a
proposal to be submitted to the President describing the
types of research activities involved, and how techniques
with respect to such research may be incorporated into the
educational process.
(c) Period of Program.--Participation in a research program
in accordance with this section may be for a period of one
academic year or 2 sequential summers.
(d) Internet Site.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall establish an Internet web site which may be
used by students and teachers participating in the program
under this section to incorporate research knowledge and
techniques into the educational process.
______

By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Dorgan, Mr.
Lieberman, and Mr. Moynihan):
S. 2625. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise the
performance standards and certification process for organ procurement
organizations; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.

THE ORGAN PROCUREMENT ORGANIZATION CERTIFICATION ACT OF 2000

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Senator
Dodd, Senator Hutchinson, Senator Wellstone, Senator Murkowski, Senator
Torricelli, Senator Dorgan, Senator Lieberman and Senator Moynihan, to
introduce the Organ Procurement Organization Certification Act of 2000
to improve the performance evaluation and certification process that
the Health Care Financing Administration currently uses for organ
procurement organizations.
Our nation's 60 organ procurement organizations (OPOs) play a
critical role in procuring and placing organs and are therefore key to
our efforts to increase the number and quality of organs available for
transplant. They provide all of the services necessary in a particular
geographic region for coordinating the identification of potential
donors, requests for donation and recovery and transport of organs. The
professionals in the OPOs evaluate potential donors, discuss donation
with family members, and arrange for the surgical removal of donated
organs. They are also responsible for preserving the organs and making
arrangements for their distribution according to national organ sharing
policies. Finally, the OPOs provide information and education to
medical professionals and the general public to encourage organ and
tissue donation to increase the availability of organs for
transplantation.
According to the Institute of Medicine's (IOM's) 1999 report on organ
procurement and transplantation, a major impediment to greater
accountability and improved performance on the part of OPOs is the
current lack of a reliable and valid method for assessing donor
potential and OPO performance.
The current certification process for OPOs sets an arbitrary,
population-based performance standard for certifying OPOs based on
donors per million of population in their service areas. It sets a
standard for acceptable performance based on five criteria: donors
recovered per million, kidneys recovered per million, kidneys
transplanted per million, extrarenal organs (heart, liver, pancreas and
lungs) recovered per million, and extrarenal organs transplanted per
million. The HCFA assesses the OPOs' adherence to these standards every
two years. Each OPO must meet at least 75 percent of the national mean
for four of these five categories to be recertified as the OPO for a
particular area and to receive Medicare and Medicaid payments. Without
HCFA certification, an OPO cannot continue to operate.
The GAO, the IOM, the Harvard School of Public Health and others all
have criticized HCFA's use of this population-based standard to measure
OPO performance. According to the GAO, ``HCFA's current performance
standard does not accurately assess OPOs' ability to meet the goal of
acquiring all usable organs because it is based on the total
population, not the number of potential donors, within the OPO's
service areas.''
OPO service areas vary widely in the distribution of deaths by cause,
underlying health conditions, age, and race. These variations can pose
significant advantages or disadvantages to an OPO's ability to procure
organs, and a major problem with HCFA's current performance assessment
is that it does not account for these variations. An extremely
effective OPO that is getting a high yield of organs from the potential
donors in its service area may appear to be performing poorly because
it has a disproportionate share of elderly people or a high rate of
people infected with HIV or AIDS, which eliminates them for
consideration as an organ donor. At the same time, an ineffective OPO
may appear to be performing well because it is operating in a service
area with a high proportion of potential donors.
For example, organ donors typically die from head trauma and
accidental injuries, and these rates can vary dramatically from region
to region. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), in 1991, the number of drivers fatally injured in traffic
accidents in Maine was 15.54 per 100,000 population. In Mississippi,
however, it was 30.56, giving the OPO serving that state a tremendous
advantage over the New England Organ Bank, which serves Maine.
Use of this population-based method to evaluate OPO performance may
well result in the decertification of OPOs that are actually excellent
performers. Moreover, unlike other HCFA certification programs, the
certification

[[Page 9046]]

process for OPOs lacks a clearly defined due process component for
resolving conflicts--an OPO that has been decertified has no
opportunity for appeal to the Secretary of HHS on either substantive or
procedural grounds. The current system therefore forces OPOs to compete
on the basis of an imperfect grading system, with no guarantee of an
opportunity for fair hearing based on their actual performance. This
situation pressures many OPOs to focus on the certification process
itself rather than on activities and methods to increase donation,
undermining what should be the overriding goal of the program.
Moreover, the current two-year cycle--which is shorter than other
certification programs administered by HCFA--provides little
opportunity to examine trends and even less incentive for OPOs to mount
long-term interventions.
The legislation we are introducing today has four major objectives.
First, it imposes a moratorium on the current recertification process
for OPOs and on the use of population-based performance measurements.
Under our bill, the certification of qualified OPOs will remain in
place through January 1, 2002, for those OPOs that have been certified
as of January 1, 2000, and that meet other qualification requirements
apart from the current performance standards. Second, the bill requires
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate new rules
governing OPO recertification by January 1, 2002. These new rules are
to rely on outcome and process performance measures based on evidence
of organ donor potential and other relevant factors, and
recertification for OPOs shall not be required until they are
promulgated. Third, the bill provides an opportunity for an OPO to
appeal a decertification to the Secretary on substantive and procedural
grounds, and fourth the bill extends the current two-year certification
cycle to four years.
Mr. PRESIDENT, the bill we are introducing today makes much needed
improvements in the flawed process that HCFA currently uses to certify
and assess OPO performance, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us
in supporting it.
______

By Mr. JEFFORDS:
S. 2626. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve
access to tax-exempt debt for small non-profit health care and
educational institutions; to the Committee on Finance.

improving access to tax-exempt debt for small non-profit health care
and educational institutions.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing
legislation that will help small health and educational institutions
more effectively finance the cost of essential services and new
facility construction. By modifying the laws that restrict the
deductibility of ``bank eligible'' bonds, the bill I am introducing
today will increase access to tax-exempt financing for small non-profit
organizations that need it most, like small local hospitals and small
institutions of higher education.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 unintentionally discriminated against
small educational, health care and other non-profit institutions that
want to sell small amounts of tax-exempt debt to community banks.
Before 1986, banks and financial institutions could deduct the interest
incurred to carry a tax-exempt bond. This benefit enabled banks to
purchase tax-exempt bonds at attractive rates. The 1986 tax act
repealed bank deductibility, although an exception was retained for
small issuers that issue bonds of $10 million or less each year.
This exception was designed to preserve bank deductibility for small
beneficiaries, but in practice is of assistance only to private
placements issued by small local issuers. The small issuer exception
has proven to be of little value in many States, like Vermont, where
statewide health care and higher education bond issuing authorities
typically issue many millions of dollars of debt each year. My bill
will modify the small issuer exemption by granting the bond issuers the
right to apply the small issuer exemption at the level of the ultimate
beneficiary of the funding. Consequently, a small college or health
care facility borrowing less than $10 million in tax-exempt debt in any
one year could elect tax-exempt status for the debt, even if it is
issued by a statewide issuing authority. This would make the debt more
attractive to local banks, and could result in significant savings for
the beneficiary institution over the life of the bond.
My bill focuses the benefit of the small issuer exemption on smaller
non-profits, without regard to whether the bond issuer is government
entity issuing more than $10 in bonds per year. Small non-profits are
important community institutions; they stand to benefit from greater
access to tax-exempt debt. Wall Street and large banks may have little
interest in small amounts of debt from small institutions, which can
prove costly to administer. The bank across the street from a local
college or health care clinic, however, may have greater confidence and
insight in the institution. My bill would allow those banks to carry
tax-exempt debt at attractive rates and maintain commitments to the
people and institutions in their local communities.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
______

By Mr. BURNS:
S. 2627. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to provide
funding for rehabilitation of the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier
National Park, to authorize funds for maintenance of utilities related
to the Park, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

THE GLACIER NATIONAL PARK REHABILITATION DEMONSTRATION

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill
that will direct the Secretary of the Interior to provide funding for
the rehabilitation of the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National
Park, authorize funds to address the maintenance backlog facing the
park's sewer and drinking water infrastructure, and allow the Secretary
to enter into a demonstration project to rehabilitate the historic
hotels in Glacier National Park using private funds.
This legislation is a companion to a bill recently introduced by
Representative Rick Hill in the House of Representatives. The bill
would provide $20 million for much-needed water and sewer
infrastructure upgrades, which could extend the park's yearly operating
season to six months. Extending the season is extremely important to
ensure that revenue will be generated to rehabilitate these historic
structures in Glacier National Park.
Additionally, the legislation will allow the Secretary of the
Interior to enter into an extended concessionaire agreement so that the
concessionaire will be eligible for tax incentives that will make the
multi-million dollar investment in these historic lodges affordable.
The National Park Service is supportive of this effort and would
benefit from the added flexibility to exempt competitive concessions
contracts from the current 20-year maximum contract length. Permitting
this exemption would allow concessionaires to qualify for historic
preservation tax credits and dedicate funds toward Many Glacier Hotel
and the Lake McDonald Lodge.
The marriage of public and private investment allowed by this pilot
project is the only workable solution that we have found that will save
the park's historic structures in a timely manner. With a multi-billion
dollar backlog of maintenance projects in our National Parks, it is
highly unlikely the rehabilitation projects could be funded using
purely public funds. Glacier Park is a place that all Montanans hold
dear, and its historic hotels are a significant part of its rich
heritage. After years of use, these hotels are now in dire need of
rehabilitation, and unfortunately the funds just aren't available at
the federal level. This pilot project offers us a unique opportunity to
begin the work necessary to maintain Glacier Park's preeminent place in
our national park system and preserve it for generations to come. The
legislation still ensures a competitive concessionaire program, but
will also ensure that America's citizens are able

[[Page 9047]]

to enjoy these century old buildings for generations to come.
Finally, the legislation authorizes funding to rehabilitate the
Going-to-the-Sun Road. This highway is a true feat of engineering, and
one of the most beautiful roadways in the world. It is the centerpiece
of Glacier National Park, and must receive this added attention as soon
as possible to avoid risking public safety and increasing the eventual
cost of rehabilitating the road to acceptable standards.
I look forward to swift consideration of this legislation and the
support of my colleagues.
______

By Mr. MACK:
S. 2628. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on R115777; to the
Committee on Finance.

LEGISLATION TO SUSPEND TEMPORARILY THE DUTY ON R115777

Mr. MACK. 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. 2628

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

SECTION 1. R115777.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by
inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

`` 9902.33.40 R115777, (R)-6- Free No change No change On or before 12/
[amino(4- 31/2003 ''
chlorophenyl)(1- .
methyl-1H-
imidazol-5-
yl)methyl]-4-(3-
chlorophenyl)-1-
methyl-2(1H)-
quinoline, in
bulk active
form as the
active drug to
treat
pancreatic
cancer (CAS No.
192185-72-
1)(provided for
in subheading
2933.40.26)....

(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. HELMS:
S. 2629. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 114 Ridge Street in Lenoir, North Carolina, as the
``James T. Broyhill Post Office Building''; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

james t. broyhill post office building

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I will shortly offer legislation
authorizing the naming of the Post Office 114 Ridge Street Lenoir,
N.C., for The Honorable James T. Broyhill, one of North Carolina's more
distinguished servants, philanthropists, and businessmen.
Congressman Richard Burr and Congressman Cass Ballenger are offering
companion House legislation, which is cosponsored by the entire North
Carolina delegation in that body.
He was born in Lenoir, NC on August 19, 1927 to the late J.E. and
Satie (Hunt) Broyhill. He is a 1950 graduate of the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill with a degree in Business Administration.
After graduation he served as Vice-President of Broyhill Furniture
Industries and as a member of the Lenoir Chamber of Commerce, which he
served as President from 1955 to 1957. As many Senators are aware,
Broyhill Furniture Industries has a worldwide reputation as one of the
finest furniture manufacturers in the world.
Mr. President, in 1962, Jim Broyhill was elected to the U.S. House of
Representatives where he served 12 terms ending in June of 1986. During
his service in the House he was the Ranking Member of the House Energy
and Commerce Committee and was instrumental in guiding Republican
legislative efforts through that committee.
In May 1986 he won the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat
vacated by Senator John P. East. Following Senator East's tragic death
in June of 1986, Jim Broyhill was appointed to the U.S. Senate by then
Governor Jim Martin to serve the remainder of Senator East's term. His
committee assignments include seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee
and Senate Armed Services Committee.
While he was unsuccessful in his 1986 election bid for the U.S.
Senate, but this did not dampen his willing commitment to help others
in North Carolina. In addition he was selected (by then Governor Jim
Martin) to serve as Chairman of the North Carolina Economic Development
Board. In 1989, he was appointed by Governor Martin to serve as North
Carolina's Secretary of Commerce, which he held until 1991.
He then retired to Winston-Salem. His wife is the former Louise
Robbins and has three fine children; and they have three children:
Marylin Beach, James Edgar Broyhill II, and Philip R. Broyhill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the enabling legislation
(S. 2629) be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2629

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

SECTION 1. JAMES T. BROYHILL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 114 Ridge Street in Lenoir, North
Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ``James T.
Broyhill Post Office Building''.
(b) References.-- Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``James T. Broyhill Post Office
Building''.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 662

At the request of Mr. L. Chafee, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Stevens) was added as a cosponsor of S. 662, a bill to amend title
XIX of the Social Security Act to provide medical assistance for
certain women screened and found to have breast or cervical cancer
under a federally funded screening program.

S. 821

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

S. 978

At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Hagel) was added as a cosponsor of S. 978, a bill to specify that
the legal public holiday known as Washington's Birthday be called by
that name.

S. 1017

At the request of Mr. Mack, the name of the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Reid) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1017, a bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the State ceiling on the low-income
housing credit.

S. 1074

At the request of Mr. Torricelli, the names of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Hollings), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter),
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), and the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Edwards) were added as cosponsors of S. 1074, a bill to
amend the Social Security Act to waive the 24-month waiting period for
medicare coverage of individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
(ALS), and to provide medicare coverage of drugs and biologicals used
for the treatment of ALS or for the alleviation of symptoms relating to
ALS.

S. 1333

At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1333, a bill to expand
homeownership in the United States.

S. 1351

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Crapo) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1351, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify

[[Page 9048]]

the credit for electricity produced from newable resources.

S. 1361

At the request of Mr. Stevens, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Mr. Gorton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1361, a bill to
amend the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to provide for an
expanded Federal program of hazard mitigation, relief, and insurance
against the risk of catastrophic natural disasters, such as hurricanes,
earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, and for other purposes.

S. 1472

At the request of Mr. Sarbanes, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1472, a bill to amend
chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code, to modify employee
contributions to the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal
Employees Retirement System to the percentages in effect before the
statutory temporary increase in calendar year 1999, and for other
purposes.

S. 1900

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

S. 2003

At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Thomas) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2003, a bill to restore
health care coverage to retired members of the uniformed services.

S. 2077

At the request of Mr. Santorum, the names of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Mack) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. DeWine) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2077, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow nonitemizers a deduction for a portion of their
charitable contributions.

S. 2087

At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2087, a bill to amend title 10,
United States Code, to improve access to benefits under the TRICARE
program; to extend and improve certain demonstration programs under the
Defense Health Program; and for other purposes.

S. 2232

At the request of Mr. Graham, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Hollings) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2232, a bill to
promote primary and secondary health promotion and disease prevention
services and activities among the elderly, to amend title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to add preventive benefits, and for other purpose.

S. 2256

At the request of Mr. Biden, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2256, a bill to amend title
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide
standards and procedures to guide both State and local law enforcement
agencies and law enforcement officers during internal investigations,
interrogation of law enforcement officers, and administrative
disciplinary hearings, to ensure accountability of law enforcement
officers, to guarantee the due process rights of law enforcement
officers, and to require States to enact law enforcement discipline,
accountability, and due process laws.

S. 2274

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

S. 2287

At the request of Mr. L. Chafee, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Hollings) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2287, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the Director of the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to make grants for
the development and operation of research centers regarding
environmental factors that may be related to the etiology of breast
cancer.

S. 2311

At the request of Mr. Jeffords, the names of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Bryan), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) and the Senator
from California (Mrs. Feinstein) were added as cosponsors of S. 2311, a
bill to revise and extend the Ryan White CARE Act programs under title
XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, to improve access to health care
and the quality of health care under such programs, and to provide for
the development of increased capacity to provide health care and
related support services to individuals and families with HIV disease,
and for other purposes.

S. 2334

At the request of Mr. L. Chafee, the names of the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. Lugar) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2334, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to extend expensing of environmental remediation costs for
an additional 6 years and to include sites in metropolitan statistical
areas.

S. 2344

At the request of Mr. Brownback, the names of the Senator from
Montana (Mr. Burns) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2344, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to treat payments under the Conservation Reserve Program
as rentals from real estate.

S. 2357

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

S. 2379

At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Washington
(Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2379, a bill to provide
for the protection of children from tobacco.

S. 2408

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Warner) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2408, a bill to authorize
the President to award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to the
Navajo Code Talkers in recognition of their contributions to the
Nation.

S. 2416

At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2416, a bill to
designate the Federal building located at 2201 C Street, Northwest, in
the District of Columbia, which serves as headquarters for the
Department of State, as the ``Harry S. Truman Federal Building''.

S. 2434

At the request of Mr. L. Chafee, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2434, a bill
to provide that amounts allotted to a State under section 2401 of the
Social Security Act for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 shall remain
available through fiscal year 2002.

S. 2460

At the request of Mr. Feingold, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2460, a bill to authorize
the payment of rewards to individuals furnishing information relating
to persons subject to indictment for serious violations of
international humanitarian law in Rwanda, and for other purposes.

S. 2528

At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2528, a bill to provide
funds for the purchase of automatic external defibrillators and the
training of individuals in advanced cardiac life support.

S. 2599

At the request of Mr. Abraham, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Voinovich) was added as a cosponsor of

[[Page 9049]]

S. 2599, a bill to amend section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and for other purposes.

S. CON. RES. 100

At the request of Mr. Hagel, the names of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Thompson), the Senator
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), the Senator from
Washington (Mr. Gorton), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Cleland), the Senator from Maine (Ms. Collins), the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Grams), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) were
added as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 100, a concurrent resolution
expressing support of Congress for a National Moment of Remembrance to
be observed at 3:00 p.m. eastern standard time on each Memorial Day.

____________________

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 117--COMMENDING THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA
FOR ITS PARTNERSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES AND NATO, AND EXPRESSING THE
SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT SLOVENIA'S ACCESSION TO NATO WOULD ENHANCE
NATO'S SECURITY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Lott, Mr. Helms, and Mr.
Voinovich) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

S. Con. Res. 117

Whereas on June 25, 1991, the Republic of Slovenia declared
its independence;
Whereas on December 23, 1991, the Parliament of the
Republic of Slovenia adopted the State's new constitution
based on the values of human rights, market economy, rule of
law, and democracy;
Whereas on April 7, 1992, the United States formally
recognized the Republic of Slovenia;
Whereas, since its independence, Slovenia has demonstrated
an excellent record on human rights;
Whereas Slovenia has developed a successful and growing
market economy and enjoys the highest per capita gross
domestic product in Central and Eastern Europe;
Whereas the European Union has recognized Slovenia's
economic prosperity and the strength of its democracy by
initiating accession negotiations with Slovenia as well as by
putting into effect Slovenia's Association Agreement with the
European Union;
Whereas Slovenia has demonstrated its commitment to bring
peace, security, stability, democracy, and economic
prosperity to Southeastern Europe through its membership in
NATO's Partnership for Peace, the Central European
Initiative, the Central European Free Trade Association
(CEFTA), and the Stability Pact for Southeast Europe;
Whereas Slovenia has been an active contributor to peace
support operations around the world, including the NATO
Stabilization Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina, NATO's Kosovo
Force, and United Nations peacekeeping operations in Cyprus
and Lebanon;
Whereas Slovenia made invaluable contributions to NATO's
Operation ALLIED FORCE by providing NATO access and use of
its airspace and ground transportation systems and by
assisting the NATO efforts to provide Albania humanitarian
relief during the air campaign against Yugoslavia;
Whereas Slovenia has contributed financial and humanitarian
aid to the assistance effort in Kosovo, including refuge for
more than 3500 people who had fled the region as a
consequence of the violence that occurred in Kosovo;
Whereas Slovenia promotes regional cooperation through its
contributions to the Trilateral Multinational Land Force, a
multinational brigade established with Italy and Hungary;
Whereas Slovenia, a leader in the effort to remove land
mines from the war-torn regions of the former Republic of
Yugoslavia, established the highly effective International
Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims Assistance; and
Whereas the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996,
passed by the Senate on July 25, 1996, identified Slovenia,
along with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, as being
among the NATO applicant states most prepared for the burdens
and responsibilities of NATO membership; Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That (a) it is the policy of the United States
to--
(1) support the integration of the Republic of Slovenia
into transatlantic and European political, economic, and
security institutions, including the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and the European Union; and
(2) continue and further reinforce the partnership between
the United States and Slovenia, particularly their joint
efforts to bring lasting peace and stability to all of
Europe.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Republic of Slovenia is to be commended for--
(A) its commitment to democratic principles, human rights,
and rule of law;
(B) its transition from a communist, centrally planned
economic system to a thriving free market economy; and
(C) its partnership with the United States and NATO during
the recent conflicts that have undermined peace and stability
in Southeastern Europe; and
(2) the accession of the Republic of Slovenia to full
membership in transatlantic and European institutions would
be an important step toward a Europe that is undivided, whole
and free.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

______

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS BILL

______

MIKULSKI (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 3166

Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Bennett, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Kennedy, and Mr. Durbin) proposed an amendment to the bill (S. 2603)
making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert:

SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE COMMENDING CAPITOL POLICE.

The Senate finds that--
(a)(1) the United States Capitol is the people's house,
and, as such, it has always been and will remain open to the
public;
(2) millions of people visit the Capitol each year to
observe and study the workings of the democratic process;
(3) the Capitol is the most recognizable symbol of liberty
and democracy throughout the world and those who guard the
Capitol guard our freedom;
(4) on July 24, 1998, Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective
John Michael Gibson of the United States Capitol Police
sacrificed their lives to protect the lives of hundreds of
tourists, Members of Congress, and staff;
(5) the officers of the United States Capitol Police serve
their country with commitment, heroism, and great patriotism;
(6) the employees of the United States working in the
United States Capitol are essential to the safe and efficient
operation of the Capitol building and the Congress;
(7) the operation of the Capitol and the legislative
process are dependent on the professionalism and hard work of
those who work here, including the United States Capitol
Police, congressional staff, and the staff of the
Congressional Research Office, the General Accounting Office,
the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Printing
Office, and the Architect of the Capitol; and
(8) the House of Representatives should restore the cuts in
funding for the United States Capitol Police, congressional
staff, and congressional support organizations.
(b) It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United States Capitol Police and all legislative
employees are to be commended for their commitment,
professionalism, and great patriotism; and
(2) the conferees on the legislative branch appropriations
legislation should maintain the Senate position on funding
for the United States Capitol Police and all legislative
branch employees.
______

BENNETT (AND FEINSTEIN) AMENDMENTS NOS. 3167-3170

Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein) proposed four amendments
to the bill, S. 2603 supra; as follows:

Amendment No. 3167

Amendment No. 3168

At the appropriate place insert:

Administrative Provision

[[Page 9050]]

(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) The Architect of the Capitol is authorized to
solicit, receive, accept, and hold amounts under section
307E(a)(2) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1989
(40 U.S.C. 216c(a)(2)) in excess of the $14,500,000
authorized under subsection (a), but such amounts (and any
interest thereon) shall not be expended by the Architect
without approval in appropriation Acts as required under
section 307E(b)(3) of such Act (40 U.S.C. 216c(b)(3)).''.
____

Amendment No. 3169

At the end of title III, insert:

SEC. 312. CENTER FOR RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT.

Each member appointed under this paragraph shall serve for a
term of 3 years. Any vacancy shall be filled in the same
manner as the original appointment and the individual so
appointed shall serve for the remainder of the term. Members
of the Board shall serve without pay, but shall be entitled
to reimbursement for travel, subsistence, and other necessary
expenses incurred in the performance of their duties.
(b) Purpose and Authority of the Center.--
(1) Purpose.--The purpose of the Center is to establish, in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2), a program to
enable emerging political leaders of Russia at all levels of
government to gain significant, firsthand exposure to the
American free market economic system and the operation of
American democratic institutions through visits to
governments and communities at comparable levels in the
United States.
(2) Grant program.--Subject to the provisions of paragraphs
(3) and (4), the Center shall establish a program under which
the Center annually awards grants to government or community
organizations in the United States that seek to establish
programs under which those organizations will host Russian
nationals who are emerging political leaders at any level of
government.
(3) Restrictions.--
(A) Duration.--The period of stay in the United States for
any individual supported with grant funds under the program
shall not exceed 30 days.
(B) Limitation.--The number of individuals supported with
grant funds under the program shall not exceed 3,000 in any
fiscal year.
(C) Use of funds.--Grant funds under the program shall be
used to pay--
(i) the costs and expenses incurred by each program
participant in traveling between Russia and the United States
and in traveling within the United States;
(ii) the costs of providing lodging in the United States to
each program participant, whether in public accommodations or
in private homes; and
(iii) such additional administrative expenses incurred by
organizations in carrying out the program as the Center may
prescribe.
(4) Application.--
(A) In general.--Each organization in the United States
desiring a grant under this section shall submit an
application to the Center at such time, in such manner, and
accompanied by such information as the Center may reasonably
require.
(B) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall--
(i) describe the activities for which assistance under this
section is sought;
(ii) include the number of program participants to be
supported;
(iii) describe the qualifications of the individuals who
will be participating in the program; and
(iv) provide such additional assurances as the Center
determines to be essential to ensure compliance with the
requirements of this section.
(c) Establishment of Fund.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a trust fund to be known as the ``Russian
Leadership Development Center Trust Fund'' (the ``Fund'')
which shall consist of amounts which may be appropriated,
credited, or transferred to it under this section.
(2) Donations.--Any money or other property donated,
bequeathed, or devised to the Center under the authority of
this section shall be credited to the Fund.
(3) Fund management.--
(A) In general.--The provisions of subsections (b), (c),
and (d) of section 116 of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 1989 (2 U.S.C. 1105 (b), (c), and (d)),
and the provisions of section 117(b) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
1106(b)), shall apply to the Fund.
(B) Expenditures.--The Secretary of the Treasury is
authorized to pay to the Center from amounts in the Fund such
sums as the Board of Trustees of the Center determines are
necessary and appropriate to enable the Center to carry out
the provisions of this section.
(d) Executive Director.--The Board shall appoint an
Executive Director who shall be the chief executive officer
of the Center and who shall carry out the functions of the
Center subject to the supervision and direction of the Board
of Trustees. The Executive Director of the Center shall be
compensated at the annual rate specified by the Board, but in
no event shall such rate exceed level III of the Executive
Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States Code.
(e) Administrative Provisions.--
(1) In general.--The provisions of section 119 of the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1989 (2 U.S.C. 1108)
shall apply to the Center.
(2) Support provided by library of congress.--The Library
of Congress may disburse funds appropriated to the Center,
compute and disburse the basic pay for all personnel of the
Center, provide administrative, legal, financial management,
and other appropriate services to the Center, and collect
from the Fund the full costs of providing services under this
paragraph, as provided under an agreement for services
ordered under sections 1535 and 1536 of title 31, United
States Code.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
(g) Transfer of Funds.--Any amounts appropriated for use in
the program established under section 3011 of the 1999
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-31;
113 Stat 93) shall be transferred to the Fund and shall
remain available without fiscal year limitation.
(h) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--This section shall take effect on the date
of enactment of this Act.
(2) Transfer.--Subsection (g) shall only apply to amounts
which remain unexpended on and after the date the Board of
Trustees of the Center certifies to the Librarian of Congress
that grants are ready to be made under the program
established under this section.
____

Amendment No. 3170

Section 309(1) of the bill is amended by striking ``fiscal
year 2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 1999 and 2000''.
______

THE BRING THEM HOME ALIVE ACT OF 1999

______

HELMS (AND BIDEN) AMENDMENT NO. 3171

Mr. SESSIONS (for Mr. Helms (for himself and Mr. Biden)) proposed the
following amendment to the bill (S. 484) 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; as follows:

On page 6, line 23, after ``Radio'' insert the following:
``, VOA-TV, VOA Radio,''.
On page 7, line 12, strike ``the 10-day period that begins
on'' and insert ``the 30-day period that begins 15 days
after''.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

committee on armed services

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to
consider the nomination of General John A. Gordon, USAF to be
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of
Energy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2000.

[[Page 9051]]

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

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, for purposes of
conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to
begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider
pending calendar business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on environmental and public works

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full
Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, at 9:30 a.m., to
conduct a hearing to receive testimony on the Administration's Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 proposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a
hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing
on S. 611, the Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act
of 1999. The hearing will be held in the Committee room, 485 Russell
Senate Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on administrative oversight and the courts

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts be authorized
to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, May 24, 2000, at 9 a.m., in
226 Dirksen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on water and power

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, May 24, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing. The
subcommittee will receive testimony on S. 2163, a bill to provide for a
study of the engineering feasibility of a water exchange in lieu of
electrification of the Chandler Pumping Plant at Prosser Diversion Dam,
Washington; S. 2396, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to enter into contracts with the Weber Basin Water Conservancy
District, Utah, to use Water Basin Project facilities for the
impounding, storage, and carriage of nonproject water for domestic,
municipal, industrial, and other beneficial purposes; S. 2248, a bill
to assist in the development and implementation of projects to provide
for the control of drainage water, storm water, flood water, and other
water as part of water-related integrated resource management,
environmental infrastructure, and resource protection, and development
projects in the Colusa Basin Watershed, California; S. 2410, a bill to
increase the authorization of appropriations for the Reclamation Safety
of Dams Act of 1978, and for other purposes; and S. 2425, a bill to
authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the planning,
design, and construction of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project,
Oregon, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two rules
committee minority staff interns, Melissa Pansiri and Khalil Malouf, be
granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate and
rollcall votes on the nominees to the Federal Election Commission.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

CONGRATULATING THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign
Relations Committee be discharged from consideration of S. Con. Res.
110, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the concurrent resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 110) congratulating
the Republic of Latvia on the tenth anniversary of the
reestablishment of its independence from the rule of the
former Soviet Union.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
concurrent resolution and the preamble be agreed to, en bloc, the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements
relating to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 110) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The concurrent resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Con. Res. 110

Whereas the United States had never recognized the forcible
incorporation of the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania into the former Soviet Union;
Whereas the declaration on May 4, 1990, of the
reestablishment of full sovereignty and independence of the
Republic of Latvia furthered the disintegration of the former
Soviet Union;
Whereas Latvia since then has successfully built democracy,
passed legislation on human and minority rights that conform
to European and international norms, ensured the rule of law,
developed a free market economy, and consistently pursued a
course of integration into the community of free and
democratic nations by seeking membership in the European
Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; and
Whereas Latvia, as a result of the progress of its
political and economic reforms, has made, and continues to
make, a significant contribution toward the maintenance of
international peace and stability by, among other actions,
its participation in NATO-led peacekeeping operations in
Bosnia and Kosovo: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress hereby--
(1) congratulates Latvia on the occasion of the tenth
anniversary of the reestablishment of its independence and
the role it played in the disintegration of the former Soviet
Union; and
(2) commends Latvia for its success in implementing
political and economic reforms, which may further speed the
process of that country's integration into European and
Western institutions.

____________________

BRING THEM HOME ALIVE ACT OF 1999

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 560, S. 484.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 484) 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 POW/MIAs may be present, if those nationals assist in
the return to the United States of those POW/MIAs alive.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Amendment No. 3171

(Purpose: To make technical amendments)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senators Helms and Biden have an
amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

[[Page 9052]]

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for Mr. Helms, for
himself and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 3171.

The amendment is as follows:

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3171) was agreed to.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill,
as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The bill (S. 484) was read the third time and passed, as follows:

S. 484

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 ``Bring Them Home Alive Act of
2000''.

SEC. 2. AMERICAN VIETNAM WAR POW/MIA ASYLUM PROGRAM.

(a) Asylum for Eligible Aliens.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Attorney General shall grant refugee
status in the United States to any alien described in
subsection (b), upon the application of that alien.
(b) Eligibility.--Refugee status shall be granted under
subsection (a) to--
(1) any alien who--
(A) is a national of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, or any
of the independent states of the former Soviet Union; and
(B) personally delivers into the custody of the United
States Government a living American Vietnam War POW/MIA; and
(2) any parent, spouse, or child of an alien described in
paragraph (1).
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) American vietnam war pow/mia.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term ``American Vietnam War POW/MIA'' means an
individual--
(i) who is a member of a uniformed service (within the
meaning of section 101(3) of title 37, United States Code) in
a missing status (as defined in section 551(2) of such title
and this subsection) as a result of the Vietnam War; or
(ii) who is an employee (as defined in section 5561(2) of
title 5, United States Code) in a missing status (as defined
in section 5561(5) of such title) as a result of the Vietnam
War.
(B) Exclusion.--Such term does not include an individual
with respect to whom it is officially determined under
section 552(c) of title 37, United States Code, that such
individual is officially absent from such individual's post
of duty without authority.
(2) Missing status.--The term ``missing status'', with
respect to the Vietnam War, means the status of an individual
as a result of the Vietnam War if immediately before that
status began the individual--
(A) was performing service in Vietnam; or
(B) was performing service in Southeast Asia in direct
support of military operations in Vietnam.
(3) Vietnam war.--The term ``Vietnam War'' means the
conflict in Southeast Asia during the period that began on
February 28, 1961, and ended on May 7, 1975.

SEC. 3. AMERICAN KOREAN WAR POW/MIA ASYLUM PROGRAM.

(a) Asylum for Eligible Aliens.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Attorney General shall grant refugee
status in the United States to any alien described in
subsection (b), upon the application of that alien.
(b) Eligibility.--Refugee status shall be granted under
subsection (a) to--
(1) any alien--
(A) who is a national of North Korea, China, or any of the
independent states of the former Soviet Union; and
(B) who personally delivers into the custody of the United
States Government a living American Korean War POW/MIA; and
(2) any parent, spouse, or child of an alien described in
paragraph (1).
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) American korean war pow/mia.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term ``American Korean War POW/MIA'' means an
individual--
(i) who is a member of a uniformed service (within the
meaning of section 101(3) of title 37, United States Code) in
a missing status (as defined in section 551(2) of such title
and this subsection) as a result of the Korean War; or
(ii) who is an employee (as defined in section 5561(2) of
title 5, United States Code) in a missing status (as defined
in section 5561(5) of such title) as a result of the Korean
War.
(B) Exclusion.--Such term does not include an individual
with respect to whom it is officially determined under
section 552(c) of title 37, United States Code, that such
individual is officially absent from such individual's post
of duty without authority.
(2) Korean war.--The term ``Korean War'' means the conflict
on the Korean peninsula during the period that began on June
27, 1950, and ended January 31, 1955.
(3) Missing status.--The term ``missing status'', with
respect to the Korean War, means the status of an individual
as a result of the Korean War if immediately before that
status began the individual--
(A) was performing service in the Korean peninsula; or
(B) was performing service in Asia in direct support of
military operations in the Korean peninsula.

SEC. 4. BROADCASTING INFORMATION ON THE ``BRING THEM HOME
ALIVE'' PROGRAM.

(a) Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The International Broadcasting Bureau
shall broadcast, through WORLDNET Television and Film Service
and Radio, VOA-TV, VOA Radio, or otherwise, information that
promotes the ``Bring Them Home Alive'' refugee program under
this Act to foreign countries covered by paragraph (2).
(2) Covered countries.--The foreign countries covered by
paragraph (1) are--
(A) Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, and North Korea; and
(B) Russia and the other independent states of the former
Soviet Union.
(b) Level of Programming.--The International Broadcasting
Bureau shall broadcast--
(1) at least 20 hours of the programming described in
subsection (a)(1) during the 30-day period that begins 15
days after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) at least 10 hours of the programming described in
subsection (a)(1) in each calendar quarter during the period
beginning with the first calendar quarter that begins after
the date of enactment of this Act and ending five years after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Availability of Information on the Internet.--
International Broadcasting Bureau shall ensure that
information regarding the ``Bring Them Home Alive'' refugee
program under this Act is readily available on the World Wide
Web sites of the Bureau.
(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
RFE/RL, Incorporated, Radio Free Asia, and any other
recipient of Federal grants that engages in international
broadcasting to the countries covered by subsection (a)(2)
should broadcast information similar to the information
required to be broadcast by subsection (a)(1).
(e) Definition.--The term ``International Broadcasting
Bureau'' means the International Broadcasting Bureau of the
United States Information Agency or, on and after the
effective date of title XIII of the Foreign Affairs Reform
and Restructuring Act of 1998 (as contained in division G of
Public Law 105-277), the International Broadcasting Bureau of
the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

SEC. 5. INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION
DEFINED.

In this Act, the term ``independent states of the former
Soviet Union'' has the meaning given the term in section 3 of
the FREEDOM Support Act (22 U.S.C. 5801).

____________________

ORDER FOR COMMITTEES TO FILE

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that,
notwithstanding the adjournment of the Senate, committees have from 11
a.m. until 1 p.m. on Thursday, June 1, in order to file legislative
matters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME--H.R. 1291, H.R. 3591, H.R. 4051, AND H.R.
4251

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand that the following bills
are at the desk: H.R. 1291, H.R. 3591, H.R. 4051, and H.R. 4251. I ask
for the first reading of each of these bills, and ask unanimous consent
that it be in order to read the titles consecutively.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bills by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1291) to prohibit the imposition of access
charges on Internet service providers, and for other
purposes.
A bill (H.R. 3591) to provide for the award of a gold medal
on behalf of the Congress to former President Ronald Reagan
and his wife Nancy Reagan in recognition of their service to
the Nation.
A bill (H.R. 4051) to establish a grant program that
provides incentives for States to enact mandatory minimum
sentences for certain firearms offenses, and for other
purposes.
A bill (H.R. 4251) to amend the North Korea Threat
Reduction Act of 1999 to enhance congressional oversight of
nuclear transfers to North Korea, and for other purposes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on these
bills at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bills will remain at the desk.

____________________

[[Page 9053]]

APPOINTMENTS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the majority and
minority leaders of the Senate and the Speaker and minority leader of
the House of Representatives, pursuant to section 301(b) of Public Law
104-1, announces the joint appointment of Barbara L. Camens of the
District of Columbia and Roberta L. Holzwarth of Illinois to five-year
terms on the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance.

____________________

ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, MAY 25, 2000

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30
a.m. on Thursday, May 25. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately
following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date,
the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be
reserved for their use later in the day. I further ask consent that the
Senate then proceed to a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m.,
with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following
exceptions: Senator Biden, or his designee, 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. and
Senator Thomas, or his designee, 10 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. SESSIONS. On behalf of the majority leader, and for the
information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. on
Thursday and be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m.
Following morning business, the Senate will resume debate on the
Mikulski amendment to the legislative branch appropriations bill for 10
minutes prior to a vote on the amendment. Following that vote, the
Senate will immediately proceed to a vote on third reading of the bill.
Therefore, Senators can expect two back-to-back votes at approximately
10:45 a.m.
I ask unanimous consent that after the votes the Senate return to a
period of morning business for 1 hour with Senators Roberts and Cleland
in control of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is hoped that the Senate can consider
the crop insurance conference report tomorrow afternoon. Therefore,
Senators can expect votes throughout the day.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. SESSIONS. If there is no further business to come before the
Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in
adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator
Leahy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I note that Senator Leahy is not here. I
believe he is not coming, so I renew my unanimous consent request to
adjourn.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 5:20 p.m., adjourned until
Thursday, May 25, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

____________________

CONFIRMATIONS

Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate May 24, 2000:

corporation for national and community service

CHRISTOPHER C. GALLAGHER, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, TO BE A MEMBER
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR A TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 6, 2003.
AMY C. ACHOR, OF TEXAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY
SERVICE FOR A TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 6, 2003.

department of the treasury

JAY JOHNSON, OF WISCONSIN, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE MINT FOR A
TERM OF FIVE YEARS.

executive office of the president

KATHRYN SHAW, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS.

federal election commission

DANNY LEE MCDONALD, OF OKLAHOMA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FOR A TERM EXPIRING APRIL 30,
2005.
BRADLEY A. SMITH, OF OHIO, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMISSION FOR A TERM EXPIRING APRIL 30, 2005.

department of state

ALAN PHILLIP LARSON, OF IOWA, TO BE UNITED STATES ALTERNATE
GOVERNOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS; UNITED STATES ALTERNATE
GOVERNOR OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR A TERM OF
FIVE YEARS; UNITED STATES ALTERNATE GOVERNOR OF THE AFRICAN
DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS; UNITED STATES
ALTERNATE GOVERNOR OF THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND; UNITED
STATES ALTERNATE GOVERNOR OF THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK; AND
UNITED STATES ALTERNATE GOVERNOR OF THE EUROPEAN BANK FOR
RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT.

asian development bank

N. CINNAMON DORNSIFE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE
UNITED STATES DIRECTOR OF THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK, WITH
THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR.

department of state

EARL ANTHONY WAYNE, OF MARYLAND, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE AN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE (ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS).

national commission on libraries and information science

BOBBY L. ROBERTS, OF ARKANSAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE FOR
A TERM EXPIRING JULY 19, 2003.

national science foundation

MICHAEL G. ROSSMANN, OF INDIANA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FOR A
TERM EXPIRING MAY 10, 2006.
DANIEL SIMBERLOFF, OF TENNESSEE, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FOR A
TERM EXPIRING MAY 10, 2006.

corporation for national and community service

LESLIE LENKOWSKY, OF INDIANA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY
SERVICE FOR A TERM EXPIRING FEBRUARY 8, 2004.
JUANITA SIMS DOTY, OF MISSISSIPPI, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR A TERM EXPIRING JUNE 10, 2004.

national commission on libraries and information science

JOAN R. CHALLINOR, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE A
MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND
INFORMATION SCIENCE FOR A TERM EXPIRING JULY 19, 2004.

railroad retirement board

JEROME F. KEVER, OF ILLINOIS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING AUGUST 28,
2003.
VIRGIL M. SPEAKMAN, JR., OF OHIO, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING AUGUST 28,
2004.

national security education board

HERSCHELLE S. CHALLENOR, OF GEORGIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION BOARD FOR A TERM OF FOUR YEARS.

department of the interior

THOMAS A. FRY, III, OF TEXAS, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT.
THOMAS N. SLONAKER, OF ARIZONA, TO BE SPECIAL TRUSTEE,
OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR.

department of labor

EDWARD B. MONTGOMERY, OF MARYLAND, TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY
OF LABOR.

harry s truman scholarship foundation

MEL CARNAHAN, OF MISSOURI, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE HARRY S TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION FOR A
TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 10, 2005.
SCOTT O. WRIGHT, OF MISSOURI, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE HARRY S TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION FOR
THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 10, 2003.

corporation for national and community service

MARC RACICOT, OF MONTANA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY
SERVICE FOR A TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 6, 2004.
ALAN D. SOLOMONT, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR A TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 6, 2004.

national foundation on the arts and the humanities

NATHAN O. HATCH, OF INDIANA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING JANUARY 26,
2006.

metropolitan washington airports authority

JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, OF ARKANSAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS
AUTHORITY FOR A TERM OF FOUR YEARS.
NORMAN Y. MINETA, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS
AUTHORITY FOR A TERM OF SIX YEARS.
ROBERT CLARKE BROWN, OF OHIO, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS
AUTHORITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING NOVEMBER 22, 2005.

national transportation safety board

JOHN GOGLIA, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING
DECEMBER 31, 2003.
CAROL JONES CARMODY, OF LOUISIANA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING
DECEMBER 31, 2004.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

EDWARD MCGAFFIGAN, JR., OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOR THE TERM OF FIVE YEARS
EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2005.

Overseas Private Investment Corporation

GARY A. BARRON, OF FLORIDA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION FOR
A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 17, 2002.

Department of State

THOMAS G. WESTON, OF MICHIGAN, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, FOR THE
RANK OF AMBASSADOR DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS SPECIAL
COORDINATOR FOR CYPRUS.
CAREY CAVANAUGH, OF FLORIDA, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR
FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR, FOR THE RANK OF
AMBASSADOR DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS SPECIAL NEGOTIATOR
FOR NAGORNO-KARABAKH AND NEW INDEPENDENT STATES REGIONAL
CONFLICTS.
CHRISTOPHER ROBERT HILL, OF RHODE ISLAND, A CAREER MEMBER
OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR,
TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND.
DONALD ARTHUR MAHLEY, OF VIRGINIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE, FOR THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR DURING
HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS SPECIAL NEGOTIATOR FOR CHEMICAL AND
BIOLOGICAL ARMS CONTROL ISSUES.

[[Page 9054]]

GREGORY G. GOVAN, OF VIRGINIA, FOR THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR
DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS CHIEF U.S. DELEGATE TO THE
JOINT CONSULTATIVE GROUP.

Department of the Treasury

MICHELLE ANDREWS SMITH, OF TEXAS, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
THE ABOVE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE NOMINEE'S
COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY
BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.

The Judiciary

TIMOTHY B. DYK, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT.
JAMES D. WHITTEMORE, OF FLORIDA, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.
RICHARD C. TALLMAN, OF WASHINGTON, TO BE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
MARIANNE O. BATTANI, OF MICHIGAN, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.
DAVID M. LAWSON, OF MICHIGAN, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.
JOHN ANTOON II, OF FLORIDA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

Department of Justice

MARK REID TUCKER, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE UNITED STATES
MARSHAL FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA FOR THE
TERM OF FOUR YEARS.

Department of Defense

BRUCE SUNDLUN, OF RHODE ISLAND, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION BOARD FOR A TERM OF FOUR YEARS.
MANUEL TRINIDAD PACHECO, OF ARIZONA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION BOARD FOR A TERM OF FOUR YEARS.

The Judiciary

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
GERARD E. LYNCH, OF NEW YORK, TO BE A UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
ROGER L. HUNT, OF NEVADA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA.
KENT J. DAWSON, OF NEVADA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA.

Department of Justice

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, OF MISSOURI, TO BE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI FOR THE TERM OF
FOUR YEARS.
STEVEN S. REED, OF KENTUCKY, TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY FOR THE TERM OF FOUR
YEARS.
DONALD W. HORTON, OF MARYLAND, TO BE UNITED STATES MARSHAL
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE TERM OF FOUR YEARS.
E. DOUGLAS HAMILTON, OF KENTUCKY, TO BE UNITED STATES
MARSHAL FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY FOR THE TERM OF
FOUR YEARS.
JOSE ANTONIO PEREZ, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE UNITED STATES
MARSHAL FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE TERM
OF FOUR YEARS.
DONNIE R. MARSHALL, OF TEXAS, TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF DRUG
ENFORCEMENT.

The Judiciary

JAMES J. BRADY, OF LOUISIANA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.
MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
BERLE M. SCHILLER, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
RICHARD BARCLAY SURRICK, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA.
PETRESE B. TUCKER, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Foreign Service

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING JOHN PATRICE GROARKE,
AND ENDING JAMES CURTIS STRUBLE, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON MAY 11, 1999.
FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING MATTIE R. SHARPLESS,
AND ENDING HOWARD R. WETZEL, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 24, 2000.
FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING NANCY M. MCKAY, AND
ENDING NANCY MORGAN SERPA, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 24, 2000.

Public Health Service

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING EDWIN L. JONES
III, AND ENDING COLLEEN E. WHITE, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON NOVEMBER 19, 1999.
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING SUSAN J.
BLUMENTHAL, AND ENDING WILLIAM TOOL, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON NOVEMBER 19, 1999.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

May 24, 2000

[[Page 9055]]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, May 24, 2000

The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. LaTourette).

____________________

DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

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

Washington, DC,

May 24, 2000.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Steven C. LaTourette to act
as Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

____________________

PRAYER

The Reverend Monsignor William P. Fay, National Conference of
Catholic Bishops, offered the following prayer:
God of all creation, and source of unending peace, be with this House
and bless it. Let good work be done within its walls. May only truth be
spoken here.
Give to those standing in this Chamber the wisdom to know their
weakness, the humility to acknowledge Your strength, and the courage to
let justice be the sole motivator of their work.
By the manner of their lives, let them proclaim the rightness of
walking freely in Your sight.
By their love for our country and for their fellow citizens, may they
serve well those who sent them to this place; may they lead by
following You, the author of all truth, and show the way, by cherishing
Your presence in their hearts.
Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a
vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the Chair's approval of
the Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. 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 345,
nays 54, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 34, as follows:

[Roll No. 224]

YEAS--345

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (FL)

NAYS--54

Aderholt
Baird
Bilbray
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Clay
Clyburn
Costello
Crane
DeFazio
Dickey
English
Filner
Ford
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Holden
Jones (OH)
Klink
Kucinich
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
McDermott
Miller, George
Moore
Oberstar
Olver
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Ramstad
Rogan
Sabo
Schaffer
Slaughter
Stark
Strickland
Sweeney
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Waters
Weller
Wu

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Tancredo

NOT VOTING--34

Blunt
Burton
Chenoweth-Hage
Cummings
Delahunt
Ehrlich
Engel
Fattah
Fossella
Ganske
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Hulshof
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Larson
Lazio
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
McKinney
Minge
Mollohan
Morella
Nadler
Pascrell
Pease
Rodriguez
Rush

[[Page 9056]]

Scarborough
Stupak
Tauzin
Udall (CO)
Weiner
Young (AK)

{time} 1022

Mr. OBERSTAR changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. VENTO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the Journal was approved.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Will the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Mr. KILDEE led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

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

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

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

S. Con. Res. 116. Concurrent resolution commending Israel's
redeployment from southern Lebanon.

The message also announced that in accordance with sections 1928-
1928d of title 22, United States Code, as amended, the Chair, on behalf
of the Vice President, appoints the following Senators as members of
the Senate Delegation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Parliamentary Assembly during the Second Session of the One Hundred
Sixth Congress, to be held in Budapest, Hungary, May 26-30, 2000--
the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), Acting Chairman;
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter);
the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi); and
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for a 1-minute speech. All other 1-minutes will
be postponed until the end of the legislative day.

____________________

WELCOME TO REVEREND MONSIGNOR WILLIAM P. FAY

(Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome our guest chaplain,
Monsignor William P. Fay. Monsignor Fay was recently elected to serve
as the General Secretary of the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops, U.S. Catholic Conference. His 5-year term begins next
February.
He has served as Associate General Secretary of the conference since
1995. In this capacity, Monsignor Fay has overseen the public policy
work of the U.S. Catholic Conference. Monsignor Fay helped to
coordinate the most recent visit of Pope John Paul II to the United
States when the Holy Father traveled to St. Louis in January 1999.
Monsignor Fay was ordained to the priesthood for the Archdiocese of
Boston in 1974. After his ordination, Monsignor Fay was an associate
pastor in several parishes in Massachusetts. Immediately before coming
to the Catholic conference, he was a professor of philosophy at St.
John's Seminary in Brighton, Massachusetts. He also served as the Dean
of the College of Liberal Arts there and chairman of the department of
philosophy.
Please join me in welcoming Monsignor William P. Fay.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4444, AUTHORIZING EXTENSION
OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 510 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 510

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
4444) to authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment
(normal trade relations treatment) to the People's Republic
of China. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways
and Means now printed in the bill, the amendment in the
nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) three hours of debate on the bill, as
amended, equally divided among and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and
Means, Representative Stark of California or his designee,
and Representative Rohrabacher of California or his designee;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very dear friend from South Boston,
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) with whom I spend many long evenings
upstairs in the Committee on Rules, including last night, to get this
measure down here, 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, as is customary for consideration of trade legislation,
H.Res. 510 is a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4444, a
bill to authorize extension of normal trade relations to the People's
Republic of China. The rule provides 3 hours of debate in the House
equally divided among the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) or their designees.
The rule provides that in lieu of the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means,
the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on
Rules report accompanying the rule shall be considered as adopted.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, today's vote on trade with China is probably the most
important vote that we will face in this session of Congress. Make no
mistake about it. This vote is a win-win-win for America's workers,
America's first-class businesses, and the very important goal of
promoting American values. This will be a win for American workers
because China will finally be required to play by the rules when they
trade with America. They are opening their markets to American
exporters which means good jobs across the United States. This is also
a major win for world-class American businesses. We are home to the
world's best high-tech companies, entertainers, farmers, and financial
institutions.

{time} 1030

These industries are at the heart of my home State of California's
vibrant growing economy. They dominate global markets, and they will do
the same in China if we let them.
However, as good a trade deal as this is, it does not get any more
one sided in our favor than this. We do not face a choice between
American pocketbooks and American values.
The fact is, trade with China is good for the Chinese people. It is
good for human rights. It is good for democratic reform. It is good for
national security, and it is good for American values. Yes, high-tech
industries strongly support this bill. Yes, farmers across America
strongly support this bill.
Yes, this bill is key to spreading the Internet across China. That is
all great. But the real story is that leading human rights activists,
democratic reformers and religious leaders in China support permanent
normal trade

[[Page 9057]]

relations and China entering the World Trade Organization.
Mr. Speaker, China is in the midst of great and dynamic change; and
free market reform is the primary engine pushing that change. In fact,
market reform is the single most powerful force for positive change in
the 5,000-year history of Chinese civilization.
Mr. Speaker, if we care about the Chinese people, we cannot ignore
reality that free market reforms have lifted hundreds of millions of
Chinese people out of the depths of poverty. They have led to greater
personal freedom for nearly everyone in China.
Mr. Speaker, supporters of trade with China, those of us who are
supporters are not fools. We know that there are huge problems in
China, and we do not ignore those problems. China is a country of 1.3
billion people with, as I said, 5,000 years of history dominated by
both poverty and repression. Freedom and prosperity will not come to
China overnight, or in a year or two. But if we stand for trade, if we
stand for trade, we stand with Martin Lee, the leading democracy
activist in Hong Kong, with Chen Shui-bian, the newly-elected president
of Taiwan, who, the morning after he was elected, said one of the top
priorities is China's accession to the World Trade Organization.
Billy Graham, who has not injected himself into this debate, other
than to say that he believes that communication with China and openness
is very important for us. Colin Powell, who just yesterday talked about
the importance of this with Governor George W. Bush; Alan Greenspan,
the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board; and, of course, former
Presidents George Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford; as well as Ren
Wanding, who is leader of China's 1978 Democracy Wall Movement in
China; and a host of other Chinese human rights activists. People like
Wei Jinhsheng, who for 7 years was imprisoned following the Tiananmen
Square protests, people like this have come forward and said this is a
very important thing to do.
So when we vote yes on permanent normal trade relations today, Mr.
Speaker, we will be standing with winners. We stand with the people
that will win in today's debate. We stand with the people that will win
with this very important, but most important, Mr. Speaker, we stand
with the winning tide of history that is slowly lifting the people of
China from the depth of poverty and repression into the community of
nations based on freedom and human dignity.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, my dear friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee
on Rules for yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, every year Congress votes to extend normal trade
relations with China. Today, the House will vote on whether to make
that status permanent. Today, the House will decide whether we should
treat the Chinese Government exactly the same way we treat nearly every
other government.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the Chinese Government has yet
earned that privilege. Now, I am not saying we should not trade with
China. It is the most populous country in the world; and, as such, it
is a potential gold mine for American business. That is why I vote for
annual normal trade relations for China.
But, Mr. Speaker, if we do not reconsider that status every year, we
are going to lose what little chance we have of effecting any change in
China. Mr. Speaker, China needs to change.
According to Mary Robinson, the chief of human rights of United
Nations, in the last 2 years, human rights in China have gotten worse.
My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman,
just said that we are going to stand with these people if we vote for
China. Here is some of the other people we are going to stand with.
This is the government that killed its own people with demonstrating in
Tiananmen Square.
This is the government that jails hundreds of people who believe in
the Falun Gong spiritual movements.
It is the same government that sells missiles and nuclear technology
to North Korea and Iraq.
This is the same government that is home to at least 1100 slaved
labor camps; and this is the same government that devastates its
environment by building the Three Gorges Dam, ignores workers' rights
and trades in endangered species.
Mr. Speaker, if we grant the Chinese Government permanent normal
trade relations, we will be giving away what little chance we have to
exert some influence on some of these horrible practices, particularly,
the abuse of religious freedoms.
The United States Commission on Internal Religious Freedom reported
that in China that Roman Catholic and Protestant underground house
churches suffered increased repression, the crackdown included the
arrests of bishops, priests, and pastors, one of whom was found dead on
the street moments after he was arrested.
Mr. Speaker, since the United States consumes one-third of China's
exports, we have a great opportunity to change the current practices in
China, and we should not squander that opportunity for the sake of the
almighty dollar.
I am not naive enough to think that the United States should pass up
all trade with China, but I do think that we should at least reconsider
that decision each and every year. Each year that Congress reconsiders
the most favored nation trading status for China, the debate resurfaces
here in the halls of the Congress, in the newspapers, on television
screens. Each year we have the debate, attention again is focused again
on China; and heat is kept on. And if we are to make that status
permanent, the debate would end and human and workers' rights would be
completely off the radar screen.
If we do not reconsider China's trade status every year, we lock
ourselves into an inescapable trade agreement that hurts workers, hurts
the environment and does nothing to stop religious persecution, slave
labor, or the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the lead author of the very important
legislation which is incorporated in this bill, which I believe will
play a key role in bringing about its victory today.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I
want to commend, the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and
the Committee on Rules for this excellent rule.
While providing China with permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, it
is very clearly and overwhelmingly in America's short-term and long-
term national interests; and a convincing case can be made for passing
PNTR on its merits alone. Legitimate specific concerns in Congress
about China and Sino-American relations continue. That is why the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and this Member have
offered a PNTR compatible parallel proposal in order to address those
concerns which, I emphasize, this rule self-executes into H.R. 4444.
During the markup in the Committee on Ways and Means of that
legislation, the important special 12-year import anti-surge
protections for the U.S. as originally proposed in the Levin-Bereuter
package were incorporated into the PNTR bill. This is an effective
deterrent and defense against any huge import surges from China that
could cause specific American business or agricultural sectors some
damage. It is a special 12-year anti-surge provision that goes above
and beyond that which we have with any other of the 135 members of the
WTO.
With this rule, the PNTR legislation is expanded to incorporate the
remainder of the Levin-Bereuter proposal which includes, first, the
congressional executive commission on the People's Republic of China.
This commission is based upon the OSCE or Helsinki Commission model and
would be comprised of Members of this body, the other body, and of the
executive branch.

[[Page 9058]]

The commission would produce an annual report to the President and
Congress evaluating human rights in China with, should it deem
appropriate, recommendations. Within 30 days of the receipt of that
report, the House Committee on International Relations would be
required to hold at least one public hearing on the report, and on the
basis of that recommendation or recommendations in the report, decide,
in a specified time frame a short period what legislation to report to
the House floor.
Secondly, we enhance the monitoring enforcement of China's WTO
commitments, and that is very important. The U.S. Trade Representative
is directed to seek the annual review by the WTO of China's compliance
with its commitments to the WTO and is required to report annually to
the Congress on China's compliance record.
Additional staff and resources are authorized for the Departments of
Commerce, State, and Agriculture and the USTR to monitor and support
enforcement of China's trade commitments. A trade law technical
assistance center would be established to assist businesses and workers
in evaluating the potential remedies to any trade violations by China.
Third, a task force is created in the executive branch on prison
labor exports. This would improve the enforcement of our laws
preventing the importation of prison labor products. It would be
authorized and the administration will be directed to enter into
agreements.
Then, of course, we express the sense of the Congress that Taiwan
should enter the same General Council meeting of the WTO when China is
provided WTO membership as provided in an earlier Dunn-Bereuter bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bill, H.R. 4444.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to establishing permanent normal
trade relations with the People's Republic of China. China's record on
human rights, religious persecution, forced abortions, political
freedom, and workers safety is bad. It is getting worse.
A recent study by the Congressional Research Service concluded that
the annual congressional debate on China trade has, in fact, played a
prominent role in winning the release of some Chinese political
prisoners. And by granting China permanent normal trade relations, we
will lose that opportunity to review China's human rights record.
There are some benefits to the United States in this trade agreement.
Some companies in our country, of course, will make a few bucks, but if
we look at the agreements that we have had with the Chinese Government,
they have not fully kept the promises that they have made to us so many
times before.
There is no reason to believe that it will honor the terms of this
agreement. I have always been a student of Asia, at least I have tried
to be. I lived in Asia for a few years, and the one thing that I know
about Asians is that they respect courage. They respect patience. They
respect politeness, but they really respect toughness. I think China
looks at us on issues like this and laughs, and says Americans are
weak. They give in too quickly on their principles.
This legislation is a dog, and it smells. It deserves to go down.
Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Fairfax, Virginia (Mr. Davis), my good friend, one of the great
champions of globalization and trade.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
and for the resolution. For America, this agreement is a one-way
street, our markets are already open to the Chinese; if there is going
to be job loss, we have seen it.
In terms of some of these low-wage markets that have already been
moved in the Pacific Rim into China and to these other areas, what this
does for the first time, and by adopting PNTR, China's markets are now
going to be more accessible to American companies, American products.
1.2 billion Chinese, America only has 5 percent of the world's
consumers. China is the largest, second largest economy in the world,
100 million Chinese today making $40,000 a year U.S. annually. A middle
class that is burgeoning and growing, and this is going to increase the
pressures for democratization inside of China.

{time} 1045

China already joins the WTO regardless of what we do here today. That
already happens. The question is: Are American products, are American
corporations, are American workers, going to get the WTO preference by
our granting PNTR and does America get the benefits of the World Trade
Organization tribunals for resolving trade issues that we do not get if
we just go on to an annual basis?
Under PNTR, the answer is yes, we get those benefits. With only
annual trade relations agreements the answer is no.
Look, we all agree that China's human rights record is abysmal; it is
terrible. But does withholding PNTR bring about any of those changes?
No. That is why Martin Lee, the great democracy leader in Hong Kong,
the Dalai Lama and others endorse PNTR.
The best way to change China and to change their pitiful human rights
record and their abuses is through trade, by opening up their borders,
by exporting our values and our goods to China; to the opening of the
Internet, the opening of their media, opening up to free commerce.
History teaches that revolutions occur when things are getting
better, not when things are getting worse. It is a historical law of
relative deprivation. Things are improving in China; and if the rising
expectation of those people come forward, we will see this historical
law move to a huge change in China in their human rights and democratic
abuses that they have today.
Economic forces that will be unleashed by free trade and commerce are
going to overwhelm the current forces fighting to maintain socialism,
to main totalitarianism and repression in China. Political freedom will
follow the economic freedom in the opening up of the markets in this
case. Let us be visionary and understand that the information
revolution that is taking this planet, the globalization of the
economy, these are very strong forces which will be enhanced by
adopting this agreement today, and this will change China forever in a
way that withholding our support can never get to.
It changed Taiwan, which just a few years ago was a dictatorship. It
changed Korea, which was a dictatorship. These forces are overwhelming
and we are unleashing these forces by adopting this resolution today.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and to vote yes on this
resolution.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the chief deputy whip of the Democratic Party.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
rule and permanent normal trade relations for China. We must stand up
for human rights and democracy throughout the world. Where is the
freedom of speech? Where is the freedom of assembly? Where is the
freedom to organize? Where is the freedom to protest? Where is the
freedom to pray? It is not in China. The people of China want to
practice their own religion. They want to speak their mind. They want
to live in a free, open, and democratic society. If we stand for civil
rights and human rights in America and other places around the world,
we must stand up for human rights in China and speak for those who are
not able to speak for themselves.
Today with our vote we have an opportunity to speak for the dignity
of man and the destiny of democracy. I urge all of my colleagues to
oppose the rule and PNTR for China. It is not the right thing to do. It
is not the right way to go. We are sending the wrong

[[Page 9059]]

message. Let us stand up for human rights today.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very
good friend, the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), the
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of
the House.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am the first one to stipulate that China has problems
with its people and its government on human rights on labor and the
environment. But after approving normal trade relations for 20 years,
have we changed that? Is this about that? This is not a gift to the
Chinese Government. It may be a gift to America's workers. We already
have the lowest tariffs in the world, and all this will do will take
down the tariffs in China and open a market of 1.3 billion people to
our workers to sell goods and services.
It may be a gift to the Chinese people because they will have a much
broader range of consumer products at a much lower price for them to
buy, to enhance their standard of living.
Why permanent? The American businessman and woman needs some degree
of predictability to make commitments over the long haul, and going
back to the well once a year to ever-increasing votes, but once a year
to hammer China on human rights to wonder if they are going to have
open markets again does not give them the ability to make long-range
plans.
Let me just close by saying something that Chris Patten wrote. He was
the last governor of Hong Kong, the British Empire. He wrote in the
Economist, and he said if a spaceship had come to the planet from Mars
in the 16th century and landed in the teepee settlements of North
America to the typhoid-ridden flats of London, to the warring clans in
Europe, and settled in the 16th century Mandarin Dynasty, he would have
concluded without a second's thought that China would rule the world
for centuries. They had invented gun powder, the printing press, the
compass. They had an armada at sea. They had an efficient government,
an improved cultural base, the envy of the world.
Then they withdrew behind the wall and history told a different tale.
We are breaking down the great wall of China with our travel and our
access to it. The last wall is tariffs to our products, the products
that our workers make. We must help them bring that wall down. This
bill will do it today, and I urge a yes vote.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the first of many on this side
of the aisle that urge support of this rule to govern debate on
extending permanent normal trade relations to China. We live in a
rapidly changing and ever-shrinking world. Globalization has taken
hold, whether we like it or not. Our challenge is to recognize the
changes and to do our best to remain competitive and successful while
we still retain our values, and today we can do both.
This week China moved closer to finalizing entry into the World Trade
Organization, a rules-based organization that gives the international
community tremendous leverage to ensure that China complies with its
trade agreements and moves to a more open and free society. China's
recent trade pact with the European community raises the stakes for
PNTR here in the United States. Our working families and companies
deserve a level playing field in competing for business in China.
Mr. Speaker, permanent normal trade relations with China is good for
our businesses and even better for our working families. Moreover, many
Chinese dissidents, including the Dalai Lama, have continually said
that exposing the Chinese people to our way of life is the best way to
encourage change in that country. I urge my colleagues to strongly
support this rule and to even more strongly support permanent trade
relations with China this afternoon.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, for the record, the Dalai Lama has not
come out for this legislation.
This rule makes in order a commission to review human rights
violations in China. Why do we need a commission when we have a
Congress? We cannot expect corporations to stand up for human rights.
Congress must stand up for human rights. This Congress has the power in
an annual review to uphold human rights and worker rights.
The commission could be called a fig leaf to try to cover up human
rights and worker rights violations. Will we choose a fig leaf or will
we use the power of our voting cards annually? Why have a commission
when we have a Congress? It is upside down to insist that no U.S. trade
review of human rights violations in China is better than an annual
review. This Congress must insist that we stand up for America's
dearest and most cherished values, for freedom, for justice. That is
the American way; and if we are going to make this world a better
place, we have to stand for it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of PNTR for China and for this rule. Without question, China has a
horrible record on a whole series of issues: human rights, labor
standards, religious freedom. That is not the question before the House
today. The question before the House today is what path is most likely
to make it better? And what we have seen, from Presidents Nixon to
Reagan to Bush to Clinton, is an embracement of the policy of
engagement, of bringing them into our world with our values to help
improve the system. Giving China a stake in a different world order
than the one they subscribe to now will have the best likelihood of
moving them forward.
I want to make one critical point. However we vote on this, I do not
think we should kid ourselves that this is going to solve the problem
with China one way or the other. The problem of improving China's human
rights record, their labor standards, their religious freedom, is going
to take a whole lot of work for decades to come. This one vote is not
going to cut it down or set it up. We have to keep working on the
problem.
As human rights leaders in China, as Taiwan and a lot of people
recognize, we are not going to make any progress whatsoever if we
isolated China and cut them off from the rest of the world. Then they
have nothing to lose by behaving in a way that the rest of the world
does not like.
On the annual vote that we are giving up, we hear how great this
annual vote is. It is kind of interesting in listening to the debate I
have heard people say the annual vote has made no difference whatsoever
but we cannot afford to lose it. That is sort of a contradictory
argument. The bottom line is, whatever we do here in the U.S. has a
minimum amount of impact on moving China forward. But the question is,
what is going to move it forward or backwards? We are not going to stop
talking about China's human rights record just because we do not have
an annual vote. I mean, who is kidding who on that? We are going to
continue to talk about it, on a whole series of issues. But by not
taking this vote, we lose the opportunity to pull China into the WTO,
to pull them closer to the rest of the world, so that we have some hope
of moving them forward.
This is not a guarantee. Anyone who stands up and says voting for
this is somehow going to make democracy and freedom appear in China is
kidding us, but it is going to move it in the right direction, and we
should take this vote.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca).
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and against
the PNTR China agreement. I feel that this is injustice and inequality
to the environment and human rights and most importantly to the
workers' rights. The issue is about principle, right and wrong, the
future of this country. It is

[[Page 9060]]

about the future of this country and protecting American jobs in the
global economy. I do not oppose China's current trade status. I believe
in annual review of China's smart policy.
Bishop Barnes from the San Bernardino diocese came to me to express
his concern over religious freedom and humanitarian rights to the
people, not only in this country but throughout the world as well.
Close to 4 million veterans and 52 percent of Americans believe that
this agreement would hurt American workers and that it is dangerous to
American society. Yet some feel that this is best for the American
people. This country's judicial system is based on what is called
reasonable doubt. No man is convicted if there is reasonable doubt.
In this agreement, there is more than reasonable doubt; and yet some
want to convict this country and its workers and say yes to a country
that has violated every rule.
I say ``si se puede.'' Say no to this rule. Say no to the PNTR China
agreement
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of PNTR, a
vote that is good for New York and the United States and an important
step in integrating China with the West. China will enter the WTO
regardless. This vote opens China to U.S. exports. Our market is
already open. This is about fairness. I believe that a vote for PNTR is
also a vote to improve labor rights, human rights, and respect for the
environment in China. Many opponents of PNTR have taken this floor to
discuss indefensible violations of basic human rights that are now
occurring in China. Opponents of PNTR argue that we should not give up
the leverage of a yearly NTR vote; but for 20 years we have approved
NTR, and these violations of human rights are still occurring.

{time} 1100

By granting PNTR, we allow for greatly increased interaction between
China and the West. As one example, the ability to access the Internet
over U.S. manufactured equipment could have a tremendous impact on the
free flow of ideas in China.
The fact is that China is unique. No other country has gone to such
lengths to isolate itself for so many hundreds of years.
PNTR presents a unique opportunity for us to get behind China's great
wall and engage the Chinese people. Over time, PNTR will raise the
standard of living of the people in China and its trading partners.
From a national security point of view, a stable China and a forward-
looking U.S.-China relationship is in the interest of the United
States. Our allies in the region, including Korea, Japan, and Taiwan,
favor China's entry into the WTO. The Dalai Lama himself, who knows
quite a bit about Chinese oppression, favors China's entrance into the
WTO and its integration into the world community.
Change in China will take many years. I will vote for PNTR because it
puts us on the right course morally and economically.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday in Copenhagen, Denmark, the Dalai Lama said
he supported China's entry into the World Trade Organization.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), a very hard-working Member from the Committee on Rules, my
friend from the ``Big D.''
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
giving me 1 minute to express my sincere appreciation, not only to him
for the hard work he has done in this endeavor, but also for the good
work that this is going to mean.
Twenty years we have been working with China, American businesses in
China. Now is the time to make it permanent. Now is the time to say to
American companies, please do, go invest in China. I believe that we
are going to find that American and Chinese workers working together,
that we are going to find products that flow between America and China
will be to the advantage of free people.
That is what this is all about. This is about the ability of people
in China to, not only have what they want, which is freedom, but also
American products to enjoy. This will be a great day, not only in
Beijing, but a great day in Washington.
I support the rule. I intend to vote for PNTR. I encourage my
colleagues to do so also.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair please inform the gentleman
from California (Chairman Dreier), my dear friend, and myself how much
time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) each have 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to tell my
chairman that the Dalai Lama did not come out in favor of PNTR. He came
out in favor of the World Trade Organization.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. MOAKLEY. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I just say, what I said, as I stood up, is
that, in Copenhagen, Denmark last Sunday morning, the Dalai Lama said
that he supported China's entry into the World Trade Organization.
Mr. MOAKLEY. That is right, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DREIER. That is what I said.
Mr. MOAKLEY. But it did not say anything about the PNTR, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I understand that. But I think that the
global community recognizes that the U.S. presence in the World Trade
Organization enabling access to China is very important.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Dalai Lama did not come out in favor of
PNTR.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I never said he did.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, this letter is from the International
Committee on Tibet.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Klink).
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me
this time.
It is a bit of deja vu as I walk into this well and remember 1993
when the subject was NAFTA, and the sides were divided somewhat
similarly. We kept hearing all of the former Presidents are in favor of
this agreement, all of these industries are in favor of such agreement,
this is going to do such wonderful things for us.
The reality is that we went from a $3 billion trade surplus with
Mexico after the passage of NAFTA to a $17 billion trade deficit. Open
warfare developed in Chiapas right after NAFTA passed. There was an
increase in political assassinations in Mexico.
We find out in my home State of Pennsylvania last month we lost
22,000 jobs to Mexico after the passage of NAFTA. I would ask those
that are in support of PNTR, what are they willing to sacrifice on the
altar of free trade. 22,000 Pennsylvania workers sacrificed their jobs.
They laid their sacrifice on the altar of free trade. How much worse
will it be when one was asked to make the same kind of sacrifice with a
country that is so much larger than Mexico, and that is with China?
The reality is the Mexican workers make 60 cents an hour. Many of the
Chinese workers make less than a quarter an hour. In fact, many of them
work in state-owned industries that were really little more than
slaves.
What happened to the fact that our forefathers said all men and women
are created equal? What happened to the fact that the United States
Congress is supposed to, not only control commerce, but is supposed to
stand up for

[[Page 9061]]

human rights and workers' rights and environmental conditions across
this whole world? We have forgotten that now. We yield to corporate
profits. We yield to what the next month's profits are going to be for
these corporations.
The reality here is that, if somebody is making 25 cents an hour in a
factory in Chongqing, what are they going to buy that we make in this
country? Are they going to buy our Boeing airplanes? No. Are they going
to buy our automobiles our appliances? They are not even going to buy
our beepers or our phones.
The reality is that Members should vote against this rule and vote
against PNTR. It is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have created 20 million jobs and have an unemployment
rate of less than 4 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous
Material of the Committee on Commerce, a hard-working member of our
whip team on this issue.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and this
legislation.
Let me relate a story, since I only have a minute. I attended a trip
to China a few years ago. It was headed up by our former colleague,
Jack Fields. One of the opportunities that we had was to have a
luncheon with an American company, in this case AT&T, that was trying
to penetrate the Chinese market in telephones.
I was seated beside a young lady, Chinese, in her late 20's who was
the number one assistant to the executive vice president of AT&T. I
asked her what her job was, and she related a little bit about her job.
I said, What is your background? She said, Congressman, I am enjoying
my lifelong dream. I said, What is that? She said, I was educated at
Brown University in your country, I returned to China to build a new
China, and I am working for an American company.
That really tells us what we need to know about this change that is
taking place in China. We have to have the courage and we have to have
the vision, and most of all, we have to have the patience that these
young people can rise to leadership in China. We can do it by passing
PNTR.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Committee on Rules rejected
the Berman-Weldon amendment. That amendment would simply have provided
that China loses its normal trade relations if it invades or blockades
Taiwan.
Now, China will look at this rule and look at the RECORD of this
House and see a green light to blockade Taiwan. It would keep its trade
with the United States at the same time.
Taiwan can be blockaded easily. They merely need to hit one ship with
a missile and announce that the next freighter will face a similar
fate.
If my colleagues vote for this rule, they are endorsing a record that
tells China blockade Taiwan and your friends in America will keep
trading with you.
We have to defeat this rule regardless of what happens to the bill.
Defeat the rule, demand the Berman-Weldon amendment, demand a chance to
vote to say that we will send a clear message to China that, if it
blockades or invades Taiwan, it loses its trade privileges.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Chen Shui-bian the new
President of Taiwan strongly supports the entry into the World Trade
Organization without any conditions whatsoever because they know it
will benefit both Taiwan, China, and the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen), a hard-working member of our whip team.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule
and extending permanent normal trade relations with China.
First, extending permanent normal trade relations with China is a win
for fairness, Mr. Speaker. This agreement forces China to adhere to our
rules-based trading system. Without an agreement, there are no rules,
and we have no say whatsoever in how China conducts its business with
the rest of the world.
Secondly, it is a win for U.S. workers and businesses. China is an
incredibly important emerging market with more than a billion
consumers. America's world-class businesses, large and small, know that
being shut out of China, especially as China opens its doors to the
rest of the world, is a very big mistake.
Thirdly, trade with China is a win for American values inside China.
Through free and fair trade, America will not only export many products
and services, but will deliver a good old-fashioned dose of our
democratic values and free market values. These ideals are already
percolating in China. Interestingly enough, today there are more
Chinese shareholders in private companies in China than there are
members of the communist party.
Fourthly, international trade, whether with China or any other
nation, means jobs to people in my State and our continued prosperity.
Out of New Jersey's 4.1 million member workforce, almost 600,000 people
Statewide, from Main Street to Fortune 500 companies, are employed
because of exports-imports or foreign direct investment.
Fifth, and finally, in the interest of world peace, it is absolutely
a mistake to isolate China with the world's largest standing Army.
America's democratic allies in Asia support China's entry into the
World Trade Organization because they know that a constructive
relationship with China means a stable Asia that offers the best chance
for reducing the regional tensions along the Taiwan Strait and for
avoiding a new arms race elsewhere in Asia.
Mr. Speaker, PNTR in China is a win for American workers, farmers,
and businesses of all sizes. It is a win for spreading American values.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, China's deplorable record on human rights should not be
rewarded with permanent normal trade status. Normal trade relations
would indicate that China is living by certain standards or norms, a
respect for human dignity. However, the record on human rights and
religious freedom in China is contrary to even the minimal norms of
human decency.
In China, many religious believers are detained and imprisoned. Until
there is general progress on religious freedom and until there is at
least a measure of respect for human dignity, I cannot in good
conscience support permanent normal trade relations with China.
If China wants normal trade relations, let them treat their people
normally.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Newport Beach, California (Mr. Cox), my very good
friend, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, who has worked
long and hard on this issue and is a strong supporter of both the rule
and PNTR.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, the
chairman, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for consideration
of our debate on permanent normal trade relations with the People's
Republic of China, because it makes in order legislation to correct a
serious flaw in the bill sent up here by the Clinton-Gore
administration to establish PNTR.
That bill did two things. It provided for permanent normal trade
relations, but it also would have repealed our annual debate on human
rights here in the Congress.
I am happy to say that our annual role for Congress will now be
preserved. In addition to consideration of human rights in the
commission that will be set up to evaluate China's human rights
performance each year, there will now be a mandatory procedure in

[[Page 9062]]

the Congress for consideration of these as well on an annual basis.
The human rights on which we will focus will be expanded from the
original Jackson-Vanik focused solely on immigration to include
religious freedom, the plight of political prisoners, protections
against arbitrary arrest, and that heinous form of punishment exile
that has been reserved for such democracy activists as Wei Jinhsheng.
We must not and we will not, as a result of this rule, throw out the
human rights baby with the trade sanctions bath water.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, none of us have rose-colored glasses when it
comes to China, but we have to ask this question: What is the more
powerful force for breaking the strangle cord of the Chinese
Government. Twenty million Chinese armed with cell phones and Internet
access and independent businesses or 435 members of the House giving
sometimes eloquent speeches about China. Chinese freedom will advance
when the Chinese have an independent basis to break the strangle cord
of the Chinese Government, and this agreement will advance that cause.
Three days ago, aerospace machinists, Local 751, representing 44,000
aerospace workers in the Puget Sound area endorse this treaty. They did
this for this reason, they recognize the real contest here is this, who
will have the trade benefits of this agreements, the workers in
Toulouse, France or the workers in Seattle, Washington.

{time} 1115

I am voting for the workers in Seattle, Washington, to make sure
those workers have the benefit of this agreement; those workers get
those trade benefits. I am supporting those workers in this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Palm
Beach, Florida (Mr. Foley), a member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his eloquence in the
debate.
I am quite shocked at the Democrats not supporting their President
today or their Vice President in his trade policy. In the twilight of
his administration, I would think the party would rally behind the
President and support him.
As chairman of the House Entertainment Industry Caucus, this is a
good bill for videos, for movies, and for music sales. As co-chair of
the Travel and Tourism Caucus, we can expect more travel in both
directions because of this bill.
And as a representative of Florida's vital citrus industry, we
finally have our enjoyable and nutritious product making its way to
China, and more will be on its way thanks to this bill.
Relative to the comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania about
Taiwan, if, in fact, China attacks Taiwan, the President can put in a
trade sanction against the Chinese. There is protection in law to
prevent those types of occurrences.
But, please, I admonish the people on the other side of the aisle to
support their President in the final months of his administration;
support the Vice President, as he tries to succeed President Clinton,
and do what is right for international policy, human rights for the
Chinese, more business for all in China, and more business for United
States companies.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Let us be clear what this debate is about. There is a reason why the
largest multinational corporations in this country are spending tens of
millions of dollars to see this legislation passed, and that reason is
they like doing business in China where they can pay people 10 cents an
hour, 15 cents an hour, rather than paying the workers in this country
a living wage.
And there is another reason why the environmental community is
opposed to this agreement, why the veterans community is opposed to
this agreement, why religious organizations like the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops are opposed to this agreement, and that
is this agreement is bad for workers, it is bad for human rights, it is
bad for the environment, and it is bad for national security.
I would hope that the Members of this Congress have the courage to
stand up to the big money interests who are flooding Congress with
contributions, with lobbying efforts, and with advertising, and do the
right thing for the vast majority of the American people. Vote against
this rule; vote against this agreement.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining on
both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Ewing), another of our hard- working advocacy workers
here in the House.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today in strong support of this rule and the
underlying legislation.
This monumental piece of trade legislation will provide tremendous
benefits for Americans. By prying open the closed door of Communist
China, Western ideals, freedoms, as well as trade, will be let in.
Now, corn and soybeans are the heart of the district I represent in
Illinois, and this legislation is very important to our Nation's
struggling agricultural economy. Opponents of PNTR say that China gets
everything it wants, unconditional, unlimited, permanent access for
Chinese-made goods into the U.S. market. The reality is that China has
access to U.S. markets right now and will continue to have that access
regardless of the outcome of this vote. China will be admitted to the
World Trade Organization with or without our approval. This vote comes
down to whether the U.S. will have improved access to the Chinese
market or will we cede that to our European and Asian competitors.
Opponents of this bill talk about human rights. While it is true the
Chinese record on human rights is not good, closing the door between
the U.S. and China will not advance the cause of human rights.
There are currently 9 million Internet users in China, and that
figure doubles every 6 months. The Chinese have tried to censor their
Internet. We would not like that, but they have failed in that attempt.
The number one item that people in China log on the Internet for is
news.
A vote for PNTR is a vote for development of the Internet. This is
right for America. It is right to do now. Vote ``yes.''
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I rise today to support granting China permanent normal
trade relations.
The growing relationship between the United States and China has
helped support my home State of North Carolina's economy and its
leadership in world trade. Even without PNTR, in 1998 alone, my State
exported over $215 million worth of goods, everything from stone and
glass to electronics, to this market. This measure will reduce barriers
to our exports and create more opportunities to support our goals.
The rapidly growing Triangle area saw their exports jump 86 percent
in just 5 years. Granting China PNTR will also open up their market to
our high-quality North Carolina agricultural products, from tobacco, to
pork, to poultry. Our Nation's economic future depends upon our access
to new and growing markets and investing in our people and our
technology to compete and winning in these global markets. This is an
essential component of that policy.
While I support the opening of the relationship with China, I, like
many

[[Page 9063]]

others today, am concerned about the human rights record. But I side
with Reverend Billy Graham, who said, ``I believe it is far better for
us to thoughtfully strengthen positive aspects of our relationship with
China than to threaten it as an adversary. It is my experience nations
can respond with friendship just as much as people do,'' and I happen
to agree with Reverend Graham.
By exporting our American goods and services and citizenship to the
Chinese market, we will also export American values, information,
freedom, democracy and human rights.
Mr. Speaker, at the dawn of this next century, America is enjoying
unprecedented opportunity and we should move forward.
But, Mr. Speaker, if our nation is to continue to prosper, we must
not slam the door on one fourth of the world's population. From the
factory to the farm, PNTR is a good deal for American businesses and
farmers and a good deal for the Chinese people. I urge Members to vote
in favor of H.R. 4444.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a hard-working member of the Committee on Rules and
Secretary of the Republican Conference.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of granting
permanent normal trade relation status to China, and I want to
congratulate the Chairman of the Committee on Rules (Mr. Dreier), and
so many others, on their very hard work on this issue.
We come here together on the eve of a very historical vote that will
define our vision as a Congress and secure America's place in the world
community. The evidence of the importance of granting PNTR is clear.
Just look at my home State of Ohio. Ohio is the Nation's fifth
largest soybean producer and sixth largest corn producer. Under these
terms, Chinese tariffs on soybeans will be set at a new low of 3
percent and 1 percent for grains. This means increased exports for
Ohio. Increased exports means new business, new jobs, and greater
prosperity in Ohio.
If my colleagues question the importance of these economic benefits,
then they should keep this fact firmly in mind: China will join the WTO
with our without our support. Therefore, the question that really faces
us is whether we want to be a part of the process and reap the
significant economic benefits or whether we want to find ourselves on
the outside looking in.
If anyone should remain unpersuaded by irrefutable economic benefits
for America, then remember that our vote also represents new hope for
the people of China. I firmly believe the best way to foster change and
social improvement for China is for the United States to remain
engaged. Let us shine the light of liberty across the ocean, over the
Great Wall, and into the heart of China by expanding our trade
relationship.
Greater economic freedom is a precursor to political freedom. We must
decide whether we will extend our hands to assist the pro-reform
elements in Chinese society or turn our backs and allow the misguided
militant socialist forces to strengthen their hold. We must take the
battle of freedom versus tyranny to the Chinese people.
Change in China will not occur overnight, but change will not occur
at all if we shut out China from the world market and shut ourselves
off from the world as well. We cannot turn our backs on the Chinese
people, and we cannot turn our backs on this opportunity for America.
We must support PNTR.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my
colleagues on the Republican side are extolling us Democrats to support
our President, yet for 7\1/2\ years I would have thought, to hear them,
that he is the devil himself. For the last few months, however, they
are saying they agree with him.
I rise in opposition to permanent normal trade relations with the
People's Republic of China. Over the last few months, I have felt that
the progress of China on both the social and economic front have
evaporated compared to when I was there and what I saw 2 years ago. I
see a Chinese retrenchment, I see a clamping down more on social and
religious freedom, continuing threats on Taiwan, and again not opening
their markets as easily as they should have, until now that we have
this big treaty. I think we need to look at their record on religious
and social freedoms and their record on Taiwan.
Each year I have supported granting normal trade relations with
China, and even last year, even though Beijing condoned the stoning of
the U.S. embassy. I think we should be concerned when a superpower is
willing to reach that level to advance their foreign policy
initiatives.
China is a great country. Cultural wonders and discoveries by this
great nation have benefited mankind for many years, and the people of
China should continue to express their individual initiative. But we
cannot overlook the tool of moderation that Congress has been able to
use by looking at this every year.
I want our business communities to have every opportunity possible to
sell their products, but not our industries, to China. However, this
desire is not strong enough to overlook the continuing problems China
is experiencing as it tries to transition to a free market economy.
How will China employ the millions of displaced workers moving from
their cities in search of jobs? Will they move the production from our
country to theirs? William Jennings Bryan said that ``American
principles are above price; American values are not bought and sold.''
And what he was really saying is that Americans should value our basic
freedoms of individual liberty, religious freedom, and freedom of
speech.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote against this resolution.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan opposed Communism with a
passion. Reagan once even said about the old Soviet Union that they
were an evil empire, and the Communist world was stunned. They were
angered over Reagan's statement.
But Ronald Reagan never flinched, and Ronald Reagan taught us all a
lesson we should not forget today. Look at the history. After Reagan's
pressure, the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Berlin Wall collapsed.
Communism became an endangered species. The world was safer until
today.
Today, the Congress of the United States breathes a second life into
Communism. I say if Congress joins the White House in granting this
Communist nation, that has missiles pointed at us, a sweetheart trade
deal worth $80 billion a year, then Congress, in my opinion, will do
several things: they will now stabilize Communism around the world. We
will now finance the resurgence of Communism. We, in fact, reinvent
Communism today. And, finally, I think we endanger America.
How soon we forget, my colleagues, Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall,
Vietnam, North Korea, Ronald Reagan's struggle keeping the pressure on,
making sure those Communists did not destroy free enterprise, did not
destroy America.
I say a Congress that today will prop up Communism is a Congress that
today endangers every worker, every one of our kids, and every one of
our grandkids by giving a country $80 billion a year whose missiles are
pointed at every major American city, and Taiwan, who we have turned
our backs on.

{time} 1130

I yield back Pearl Harbor. I yield back Ronald Reagan. And I yield
back the second breath of life that Congress is granting to the
Communist bloc nations.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss), the very distinguished vice chairman of
the Committee on Rules, chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and
Budget Process, and, most important in this instance, the chairman of
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman

[[Page 9064]]

from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules,
for the opportunity to speak and also for his very extraordinary
leadership in bringing this matter finally to culmination.
Mr. Speaker, I think that, as we go through the debate today, we are
going to find out that there are many ways to look at this debate, many
ways to look at the issue. We certainly have already heard some during
the subject of this very fair rule, very appropriate rule for this
particular legislation.
My perspective today is the consequences of this debate on our
national security. There will be consequences. There is no question
about that. The status quo can no longer remain once this debate has
been engaged. And it has been engaged.
So what we have to look at, from my perspective, is what is best for
the security of the United States of America, Americans at home and
abroad, in whatever their pursuit may be.
I cannot predict with any certainty, and neither can anybody else,
whether China will be our allies or our opponents or our friends or our
enemies as we go into the future. But I can say with very sincere
conviction, from my perspective as the chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence that supporting this legislation is in
the best national security interest. I firmly believe that.
I make this assertion after reviewing the materials, after discussing
with knowledgeable people, and after weighing the pros and cons
literally on a yellow pad of a China opened up for U.S. trade and
influence versus a China isolated as a denied area to the powers of the
free market and the beneficial influences of the United States.
I also believe that the true reformers in China, and there are some,
will have their best opportunity for success in a society that is more
open to new ideas and new products. I know there are some who will be
disagreeing with that. I know there are some who have said that CIA has
taken a policy position one way or another on this matter. That is
simply not true. CIA does not take policy positions. It is not a policy
agency. It is a capability agency, and it also does provide assessments
about threats to national security.
As I said, the status quo is over. We are now into the next century
and a new type of relationship with China. I think that we need to
understand there are short-term consequences of getting things wrong
because things are so tense in the Taiwan Straits and a miscalculation
could hurt.
One of the best ways to avoid miscalculation is to have open dialogue
and open understanding. I think that is yet another reason to move
forward with this legislation.
For any Members who feel that my position would like further
explanation more than time allows now, I would be happy to consult with
them if they will come and contact me on the floor of the House during
this debate. I will be happy to share my yellow pad on how I got to
this conclusion.
I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for the
opportunity to state my position.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I believe in the New Economy, but I believe
in a New Economy with Old Values. I believe in full commerce with
China, but I believe in commerce with a conscience.
I rise in opposition to permanent normal trade relations with China.
We should vote ``yes'' on full trade with China. But Congress should
keep its ability to check on our relations with a police state. And as
long as China remains a police state, we must never have relations with
China which are permanent, which are normal, or which are insulated
from moral concerns.
Until China has proven itself a full member of the moral citizenship
of the world, we should play the moral role of keeping a check upon
them while having full trade relations.
Under the 1979 bilateral agreement with China, which they cannot get
out of, we get most of the benefits of WTO, almost all of them. That is
really not in dispute. But if we break the link with human rights, with
forced labor, with religious repression, with nuclear proliferation, we
will break faith with 200 years of American leadership in the world; we
will dim the beacon of freedom and diminish America in the eyes of
those who yearn for the simple right to live without fear of a police
raid in the night.
This vote may be about stock values; yes, but it is also about human
values. That is the role of the United States in this debate.
We believe in the Internet. I have worked on the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection for 24 years. I
believe in its power. But in the United States, we hold sacrosanct the
ability of an American to put full encryption, full privacy protection,
on their information as they are talking to other citizens in our
country. The police must get a court order to gain access to that
information.
In China, they are prohibiting encryption; they are prohibiting
privacy. The Internet is the best of wires and it is the worst of wires
simultaneously. Yes, it will give people the power to communicate; but
it is also going to give the PLA, the police in China, the ability to
gain access to any information they want about any individual in their
country.
We should condition any deal with China on their keeping out their
one million semiautomatic assault weapons that they were selling in the
United States for under a hundred bucks apiece until 1994. This
agreement makes those weapons legal again.
We should condition this agreement on the prohibition of them
reselling nuclear materials into Pakistan or any other country in the
world. They have been historically the K-Mart of international nuclear
commerce.
We should condition this deal yearly--full trade relations with us
and access to our American market--upon their maintenance of human
rights, religious dignity, the abolishment of slave labor in their
country.
Vote for Commerce with a conscience. Vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote
``no'' on PNTR.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being elected to the Congress in
November of 1980, the same day that Ronald Reagan was elected President
of the United States; and Ronald Reagan said, ``Give people a taste of
freedom, and they will thirst for more.'' That is exactly what is
happening today in the People's Republic of China.
My friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), just said
that, basically, the genie is out of the bottle and the Internet is
expanding. There are 9 million Internet users in China today, 70
million cellular telephones. So the fact is the genie is out of the
bottle. And guess what? They are getting that taste of freedom, and
they are thirsting for more.
Now, we have people who are here making all kinds of arguments with a
load of acronyms: PNTR, PLA, MFN, MTR, WTO. All of these acronyms are
being thrown out there. Somebody supports PNTR. Somebody does not
support PNTR.
The fact of the matter is the Dalai Lama stands for human rights. The
Dalai Lama's statement in Copenhagen, Denmark, last Sunday was very
clear. The Dalai Lama, the great spiritual leader of Tibet, said that
openness and creating greater economic freedom will, in fact, lead to
democracy, and he never supported anything that would isolate China.
A ``no'' vote on this rule and on this vote that we are going to have
later this afternoon would, in fact, isolate China. It would really
isolate the United States of America, the great global leader, the
beacon of hope and opportunity for the rest of the world. It would
isolate us from China, and it would jeopardize our ability to get our
American values into China.
Look at other leaders. I am so proud of what my friend, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Goss), just said here. He spent time working on this
issue. There is no one who is more committed to the security of the
United States of America than the gentleman from

[[Page 9065]]

Florida (Mr. Goss). I believe that any Member who has any question on
the issue of national security should, in fact, talk with him.
My friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), sitting in the
second row here, has anguished over this issue. He has opposed it in
the past but has come to the conclusion that expanding freedom this way
is the way to go. And the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
sitting two rows behind him who has worked long and hard in support of
this and is vigorously pursuing human rights with the Bereuter-Levin
proposal.
And when we look at others who want to encourage openness, the
Reverend Billy Graham is not involving himself in this debate, but he
is a strong supporter of openness. And openness with China is,
obviously, going to be promoted through granting permanent normal trade
relations.
The former Presidents who stood with President Clinton down at the
White House just a couple of weeks ago in strong support of this,
talking about the national security aspect.
I know this issue of Taiwan is going to be an important part of the
debate over the next several hours. The morning after the election,
Chen Shui-bian, the least desirable candidate in the eyes of Beijing,
who was elected president on Taiwan, that great island with 24 million
people, said that he believed that China's entry into the World Trade
Organization was very important because he knows, and it is included in
the Bereuter-Levin resolution, we call for simultaneity. But, frankly,
Taiwan will enter the World Trade Organization shortly after China
does.
This is the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we need to
stand with the likes of Colin Powell and those former Presidents and
all who are pursuing freedom.
So I urge an ``aye'' vote on the rule and an ``aye'' vote on
permanent normal trade relations so that we can, in fact, continue to
be the world's paramount leader.
Mr. STARK, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the rule on
H.R. 4444. I cosponsored two amendments to this bill to clarify some of
the many concerns I have with granting China permanent normal trade
relations status. Unfortunately the rule blocked these amendments in
the continued interest of those Members under the influence of big
business campaign cash, big business, and the administration that have
been pushing for passage of this legislation.
The first amendment addressed Taiwan's accession to the World Trade
Organization. The amendment would have guaranteed Taiwan's accession by
conditioning permanent normal trade relations [PNTR] status to China on
Taiwan's entrance to the WTO. Once China enters the WTO it will
actively spearhead efforts to block Taiwan's entry into the WTO.
Proponents of permanent NTR claim that this is nothing more than a
scare tactic on the part of PNTR opponents. However this claim is well
founded in the truth and the Pelosi-Stark amendment is quite necessary.
The administration assured me that China has already verbally agreed
to allow Taiwan to enter the WTO without resistance from China after
China accedes to the Organization. If China has made a verbal
agreement, then there should be no problem with legislating such a
proposal. However, on May 16, 2000, the very same day I offered a
similar amendment to the Ways and Means Committee markup bill, China
proved that it will, in fact, try to block Taiwan's entry into the WTO.
The PRC led the charge against Taiwan's fourth bid for observer status
in the World Health Organization [WHO]. If China is willing to go to
great lengths to block Taiwan from the World Health Organization, it is
certain to lead a full campaign against Taiwan's application for WTO
membership.
China has demonstrated time and again that it is not to be trusted.
China has broken every bilateral agreement it has with the United
States. If we can't trust China with a signed agreement then this
Congress is completely foolish to trust them with a verbal agreement.
China has no intention of allowing Taiwan to enter the WTO without a
fight. The Pelosi-Stark amendment to condition PNTR on Taiwan's WTO
accession ensures a smooth accession for that democratic nation.
I also cosponsored an amendment with Representatives Pelosi and
Markey that conditions extension of permanent NTR on an additional
agreement between the United States and China on President Clinton's
1994 embargo on arms and ammunition imports.
In 1994, as a condition of granting China annual MFN status,
President Clinton issued an order than bans the imports of assault
weapons from China. Under World Trade Organization [WTO] rules, the
United States is required to treat foreign and domestic goods
identically. Although the United States bans these imports from China,
it continues to manufacture and sell assault weapons. Clearly, by
banning China from selling to the United States market, but allowing
domestic manufacturers to continue with business as usual, the United
States does not treat foreign and domestic goods identically.
This means that once China accedes to the WTO, they will have every
right as a member to dispute the United States ban. And since the order
does violate WTO rules, the WTO will most likely find the United States
in violation treating China's assault weapons differently from those in
the United States. This would mean that the United States would have to
lift the import ban on China, or ban the sale and manufacture of its
own assault weapons as well as the imports from other countries.
China accounted for 42 percent of all rifles imported into the United
States civilian market between 1987 and 1994, the year in which
President Clinton finally blocked the flood of assault weapons from the
China. The PRC's weapons dumping was so great that it increased the
overall import of guns into the United States. Chinese rifles and
handguns accounted for 15 percent of all firearms imported for the
civilian market in six of the eight years between 1987 and 1994. The
import of Chinese guns was effectively stopped in 1994 when President
Clinton imposed a ban as a condition of renewing China's most favored
nation status.
Proponents of PNTR will claim that the United States ban will be
upheld if challenged by China under the WTO dispute settlement process.
The claim is that the United States can hide behind the clause that
allows for protection of security interests. However, this clause is
narrowly defined providing an exception only as a means for self-
defense. No WTO dispute settlement body is going to believe that the
United States needs to keep Chinese assault weapons off its streets for
national security reasons.
If we grant China permanent most favored nation trade status, China,
not the Members of the 106th Congress, will dictate United States gun
import policy.
The issues I have presented today are just two, of a much greater
list, of the problems I have with granting China permanent NTR status.
But they clearly highlight two problems with the current negotiated
bilateral trade agreement between the United States and China. In
addition, these amendments would serve to demonstrate that granting
China PNTR is not a win-win situation for the United States. Many
people will suffer if we grant permanent normal trade relations to
China without receiving some significant concessions from China first.
These amendments are two concessions China must make before Congress
votes to relinquish the only leverage it has with China.
I urge Members to vote against this rule and send a message to the
Rules Committee that these concerns must be addressed by the House
before we sell our country to China lock, stock, and barrel.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. 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 294,
nays 136, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 225]

YEAS--294

Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)

[[Page 9066]]

Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--136

Abercrombie
Andrews
Baca
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Clay
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doyle
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goode
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Luther
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Rahall
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Schakowsky
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--5

Lazio
Pease
Scarborough
Stupak
Weiner

{time} 1205

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

____________________

APPOINTMENT AS MEMBERS TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, and
pursuant to Section 301 of Public Law 104-1, the Chair announces on
behalf of the Speaker and minority leader of the House of
Representatives and the majority and minority leaders of the United
States Senate their joint appointment of the following individuals to a
5-year term to the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance to
fill the existing vacancies thereon:
Ms. Barbara L. Camens, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Roberta L. Holzwarth, Rockford, Illinois.
There was no objection.

____________________

AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAL TRADE
RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 510, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4444) to authorize extension of nondiscriminatory
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the People's Republic
of China, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
510, the bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 4444 is as follows:

H.R. 4444

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE
TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF
CHINA.

(a) Presidential Determinations and Extension of
Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision
of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et
seq.), the President may--
(1) determine that such title should no longer apply to the
People's Republic of China; and
(2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with
respect to the People's Republic of China, proclaim the
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade
relations treatment) to the products of that country.
(b) Accession of the People's Republic of China to the
World Trade Organization.--Prior to making the determination
provided for in subsection (a)(1) and pursuant to the
provisions of section 122 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(19 U.S.C. 3532), the President shall transmit a report to
Congress certifying that the terms and conditions for the
accession of the People's Republic of China to the World
Trade Organization are at least equivalent to those agreed
between the United States and the People's Republic of China
on November 15, 1999.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) Effective Date of Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--The
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment pursuant to section
1(a)(1) shall be effective no earlier than the effective date
of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the
World Trade Organization.
(b) Termination of Applicability of Title IV.--On and after
the effective date under subsection (a) of the extension of
nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of the People's
Republic of China, title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall
cease to apply to that country.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in House Report 106-
636 is adopted in lieu of the amendment printed in the bill.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
House Report 106-626 is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

DIVISION A--NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS FOR THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

TITLE I--NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS

SEC. 101. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE IV
OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO THE PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

(a) Presidential Determinations and Extension of
Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision
of

[[Page 9067]]

chapter 1 of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2431 et seq.), as designated by section 103(a)(2) of this
Act, the President may--
(1) determine that such chapter should no longer apply to
the People's Republic of China; and
(2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with
respect to the People's Republic of China, proclaim the
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade
relations treatment) to the products of that country.
(b) Accession of the People's Republic of China to the
World Trade Organization.-- Prior to making the determination
provided for in subsection (a)(1) and pursuant to the
provisions of section 122 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(19 U.S.C. 3532), the President shall transmit a report to
Congress certifying that the terms and conditions for the
accession of the People's Republic of China to the World
Trade Organization are at least equivalent to those agreed
between the United States and the People's Republic of China
on November 15, 1999.

SEC. 102. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) Effective Date of Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--The
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment pursuant to section
101(a) shall be effective no earlier than the effective date
of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the
World Trade Organization.
(b) Termination of Applicability of Title IV.--On and after
the effective date under subsection (a) of the extension of
nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of the People's
Republic of China, chapter 1 of title IV of the Trade Act of
1974 (as designated by section 103(a)(2) of this Act) shall
cease to apply to that country.

SEC. 103. RELIEF FROM MARKET DISRUPTION.

(a) In General.--Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2431 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in the title heading, by striking ``CURRENTLY'';
(2) by inserting before section 401 the following:

``CHAPTER 1--TRADE RELATIONS WITH CERTAIN COUNTRIES''; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new chapter:

``CHAPTER 2--RELIEF FROM MARKET DISRUPTION TO INDUSTRIES AND DIVERSION
OF TRADE TO THE UNITED STATES MARKET

``SEC. 421. ACTION TO ADDRESS MARKET DISRUPTION.

``(a) Presidential Action.--If a product of the People's
Republic of China is being imported into the United States in
such increased quantities or under such conditions as to
cause or threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic
producers of a like or directly competitive product, the
President shall, in accordance with the provisions of this
section, proclaim increased duties or other import
restrictions with respect to such product, to the extent and
for such period as the President considers necessary to
prevent or remedy the market disruption.
``(b) Initiation of an Investigation.--(1) Upon the filing
of a petition by an entity described in section 202(a) of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252(a)), upon the request of
the President or the United States Trade Representative (in
this subtitle referred to as the `Trade Representative'),
upon resolution of either the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives, or the Committee on Finance of
the Senate (in this subtitle referred to as the `Committees')
or on its own motion, the United States International Trade
Commission (in this subtitle referred to as the `Commission')
shall promptly make an investigation to determine whether
products of the People's Republic of China are being imported
into the United States in such increased quantities or under
such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause market
disruption to the domestic producers of like or directly
competitive products.
``(2) The limitations on investigations set forth in
section 202(h)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2252(h)(1)) shall apply to investigations conducted under
this section.
``(3) The provisions of subsections (a)(8) and (i) of
section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252(a)(8)
and (i)), relating to treatment of confidential business
information, shall apply to investigations conducted under
this section.
``(4) Whenever a petition is filed, or a request or
resolution is received, under this subsection, the Commission
shall transmit a copy thereof to the President, the Trade
Representative, the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
of Representatives, and the Committee of Finance of the
Senate, except that in the case of confidential business
information, the copy may include only nonconfidential
summaries of such information.
``(5) The Commission shall publish notice of the
commencement of any proceeding under this subsection in the
Federal Register and shall, within a reasonable time
thereafter, hold public hearings at which the Commission
shall afford interested parties an opportunity to be present,
to present evidence, to respond to the presentations of other
parties, and otherwise to be heard.
``(c) Market Disruption.--(1) For purposes of this section,
market disruption exists whenever imports of an article like
or directly competitive with an article produced by a
domestic industry are increasing rapidly, either absolutely
or relatively, so as to be a significant cause of material
injury, or threat of material injury, to the domestic
industry.
``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `significant
cause' refers to a cause which contributes significantly to
the material injury of the domestic industry, but need not be
equal to or greater than any other cause.
``(d) Factors in Determination.--In determining whether
market disruption exists, the Commission shall consider
objective factors, including--
``(1) the volume of imports of the product which is the
subject of the investigation;
``(2) the effect of imports of such product on prices in
the United States for like or directly competitive articles;
and
``(3) the effect of imports of such product on the domestic
industry producing like or directly competitive articles.

The presence or absence of any factor under paragraph (1),
(2), or (3) is not necessarily dispositive of whether market
disruption exists.
``(e) Time for Commission Determinations.--The Commission
shall make and transmit to the President and the Trade
Representative its determination under subsection (b)(1) at
the earliest practicable time, but in no case later than 60
days (or 90 days in the case of a petition requesting relief
under subsection (i)) after the date on which the petition is
filed, the request or resolution is received, or the motion
is adopted, under subsection (b). If the Commissioners voting
are equally divided with respect to its determination, then
the determination agreed upon by either group of
Commissioners may be considered by the President and the
Trade Representative as the determination of the Commission.
``(f) Recommendations of Commission on Proposed Remedies.--
If the Commission makes an affirmative determination under
subsection (b), or a determination which the President or the
Trade Representative may consider as affirmative under
subsection (e), the Commission shall propose the amount of
increase in, or imposition of, any duty or other import
restrictions necessary to prevent or remedy the market
disruption. Only those members of the Commission who agreed
to the affirmative determination under subsection (b) are
eligible to vote on the proposed action to prevent or remedy
market disruption. Members of the Commission who did not
agree to the affirmative determination may submit, in the
report required under subsection (g), separate views
regarding what action, if any, should be taken to prevent or
remedy market disruption.
``(g) Report by Commission.--(1) Not later than 20 days
after a determination under subsection (b) is made, the
Commission shall submit a report to the President and the
Trade Representative.
``(2) The Commission shall include in the report required
under paragraph (1) the following:
``(A) The determination made under subsection (b) and an
explanation of the basis for the determination.
``(B) If the determination under subsection (b) is
affirmative, or may be considered by the President or the
Trade Representative as affirmative under subsection (e), the
recommendations of the Commission on proposed remedies under
subsection (f) and an explanation of the basis for each
recommendation.
``(C) Any dissenting or separate views by members of the
Commission regarding the determination and any recommendation
referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
``(D) A description of--
``(i) the short- and long-term effects that implementation
of the action recommended under subsection (f) is likely to
have on the petitioning domestic industry, on other domestic
industries, and on consumers; and
``(ii) the short- and long-term effects of not taking the
recommended action on the petitioning domestic industry, its
workers, and the communities where production facilities of
such industry are located, and on other domestic industries.
``(3) The Commission, after submitting a report to the
President under paragraph (1), shall promptly make it
available to the public (but shall not include confidential
business information) and cause a summary thereof to be
published in the Federal Register.
``(h) Opportunity To Present Views and Evidence on Proposed
Measure and Recommendation to the President.--(1) Within 20
days after receipt of the Commission's report under
subsection (g) (or 15 days in the case of an affirmative
preliminary determination under subsection (i)(1)(B)), the
Trade Representative shall publish in the Federal Register
notice of any measure proposed by the Trade Representative to
be taken pursuant to subsection (a) and of the opportunity,
including a public hearing, if requested, for importers,
exporters, and other interested parties to submit their views
and evidence on the appropriateness of the proposed measure
and whether it would be in the public interest.

[[Page 9068]]

``(2) Within 55 days after receipt of the report under
subsection (g) (or 35 days in the case of an affirmative
preliminary determination under subsection (i)(1)(B)), the
Trade Representative, taking into account the views and
evidence received under paragraph (1) on the measure proposed
by the Trade Representative, shall make a recommendation to
the President concerning what action, if any, to take to
prevent or remedy the market disruption.
``(i) Critical Circumstances.--(1) When a petition filed
under subsection (b) alleges that critical circumstances
exist and requests that provisional relief be provided under
this subsection with respect to the product identified in the
petition, the Commission shall, not later than 45 days after
the petition containing the request is filed--
``(A) determine whether delay in taking action under this
section would cause damage to the relevant domestic industry
which would be difficult to repair; and
``(B) if the determination under subparagraph (A) is
affirmative, make a preliminary determination of whether
imports of the product which is the subject of the
investigation have caused or threatened to cause market
disruption.
If the Commissioners voting are equally divided with respect
to either of its determinations, then the determination
agreed upon by either group of Commissioners may be
considered by the President and the Trade Representative as
the determination of the Commission.
``(2) On the date on which the Commission completes its
determinations under paragraph (1), the Commission shall
transmit a report on the determinations to the President and
the Trade Representative, including the reasons for its
determinations. If the determinations under paragraph (1) are
affirmative, or may be considered by the President or the
Trade Representative as affirmative under paragraph (1), the
Commission shall include in its report its recommendations on
proposed provisional measures to be taken to prevent or
remedy the market disruption. Only those members of the
Commission who agreed to the affirmative determinations under
paragraph (1) are eligible to vote on the proposed
provisional measures to prevent or remedy market disruption.
Members of the Commission who did not agree to the
affirmative determinations may submit, in the report,
dissenting or separate views regarding the determination and
any recommendation of provisional measures referred to in
this paragraph.
``(3) If the determinations under paragraph (1) are
affirmative, or may be considered by the President or the
Trade Representative as affirmative under paragraph (1), the
Trade Representative shall, within 10 days after receipt of
the Commission's report, determine the amount or extent of
provisional relief that is necessary to prevent or remedy the
market disruption and shall provide a recommendation to the
President on what provisional measures, if any, to take.
``(4)(A) The President shall determine whether to provide
provisional relief and proclaim such relief, if any, within
10 days after receipt of the recommendation from the Trade
Representative.
``(B) Such relief may take the form of--
``(i) the imposition of or increase in any duty;
``(ii) any modification, or imposition of any quantitative
restriction on the importation of an article into the United
States; or
``(iii) any combination of actions under clauses (i) and
(ii).
``(C) Any provisional action proclaimed by the President
pursuant to a determination of critical circumstances shall
remain in effect not more than 200 days.
``(D) Provisional relief shall cease to apply upon the
effective date of relief proclaimed under subsection (a),
upon a decision by the President not to provide such relief,
or upon a negative determination by the Commission under
subsection (b).
``(j) Agreements With the People's Republic of China.--(1)
The Trade Representative is authorized to enter into
agreements for the People's Republic of China to take such
action as necessary to prevent or remedy market disruption,
and should seek to conclude such agreements before the
expiration of the 60-day consultation period provided for
under the product-specific safeguard provision of the
Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China to
the WTO, which shall commence not later than 5 days after the
Trade Representative receives an affirmative determination
provided for in subsection (e) or a determination which the
Trade Representative considers to be an affirmative
determination pursuant to subsection (e).
``(2) If no agreement is reached with the People's Republic
of China pursuant to consultations under paragraph (1), or if
the President determines than an agreement reached pursuant
to such consultations is not preventing or remedying the
market disruption at issue, the President shall provide
import relief in accordance with subsection (a).
``(k) Standard for Presidential Action.--(1) Within 15 days
after receipt of a recommendation from the Trade
Representative under subsection (h) on the appropriate
action, if any, to take to prevent or remedy the market
disruption, the President shall provide import relief for
such industry pursuant to subsection (a), unless the
President determines that provision of such relief is not in
the national economic interest of the United States or, in
extraordinary cases, that the taking of action pursuant to
subsection (a) would cause serious harm to the national
security of the United States.
``(2) The President may determine under paragraph (1) that
providing import relief is not in the national economic
interest of the United States only if the President finds
that the taking of such action would have an adverse impact
on the United States economy clearly greater than the
benefits of such action.
``(l) Publication of Decision and Reports.--(1) The
President's decision, including the reasons therefor and the
scope and duration of any action taken, shall be published in
the Federal Register.
``(2) The Commission shall promptly make public any report
transmitted under this section, but shall not make public any
information which the Commission determines to be
confidential, and shall publish notice of such report in the
Federal Register.
``(m) Effective Date of Relief.--Import relief under this
section shall take effect not later than 15 days after the
President's determination to provide such relief.
``(n) Modifications of Relief.--(1) At any time after the
end of the 6-month period beginning on the date on which
relief under subsection (m) first takes effect, the President
may request that the Commission provide a report on the
probable effect of the modification, reduction, or
termination of the relief provided on the relevant industry.
The Commission shall transmit such report to the President
within 60 days of the request.
``(2) The President may, after receiving a report from the
Commission under paragraph (1), take such action to modify,
reduce, or terminate relief that the President determines is
necessary to continue to prevent or remedy the market
disruption at issue.
``(3) Upon the granting of relief under subsection (k), the
Commission shall collect such data as is necessary to allow
it to respond rapidly to a request by the President under
paragraph (1).
``(o) Extension of Action.--(1) Upon request of the
President, or upon petition on behalf of the industry
concerned filed with the Commission not earlier than the date
which is 9 months, and not later than the date which is 6
months, before the date any relief provided under subsection
(k) is to terminate, the Commission shall investigate to
determine whether action under this section continues to be
necessary to prevent or remedy market disruption.
``(2) The Commission shall publish notice of the
commencement of any proceeding under this subsection in the
Federal Register and shall, within a reasonable time
thereafter, hold a public hearing at which the Commission
shall afford interested parties and consumers an opportunity
to be present, to present evidence, and to respond to the
presentations of other parties and consumers, and otherwise
to be heard.
``(3) The Commission shall transmit to the President a
report on its investigation and determination under this
subsection not later than 60 days before the action under
subsection (m) is to terminate.
``(4) The President, after receiving an affirmative
determination from the Commission under paragraph (3), may
extend the effective period of any action under this section
if the President determines that the action continues to be
necessary to prevent or remedy the market disruption.

``SEC. 422. ACTION IN RESPONSE TO TRADE DIVERSION.

``(a) Monitoring by Customs Service.--In any case in which
a WTO member other than the United States requests
consultations with the People's Republic of China under the
product-specific safeguard provision of the Protocol of
Accession of the People's Republic of China to the World
Trade Organization, the Trade Representative shall inform the
United States Customs Service, which shall monitor imports
into the United States of those products of Chinese origin
that are the subject of the consultation request. Data from
such monitoring shall promptly be made available to the
Commission upon request by the Commission.
``(b) Initiation of Investigation.--(1) Upon the filing of
a petition by an entity described in section 202(a) of the
Trade Act of 1974, upon the request of the President or the
Trade Representative, upon resolution of either of the
Committees, or on its own motion, the Commission shall
promptly make an investigation to determine whether an action
described in subsection (c) has caused, or threatens to
cause, a significant diversion of trade into the domestic
market of the United States.
``(2) The Commission shall publish notice of the
commencement of any proceeding under this subsection in the
Federal Register and shall, within a reasonable time
thereafter, hold public hearings at which the Commission
shall afford interested parties an opportunity to be present,
to present evidence, to respond to the presentations of other
parties, and otherwise to be heard.
``(3) The provisions of subsections (a)(8) and (i) of
section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974

[[Page 9069]]

(19 U.S.C. 2252(a)(8) and (i)), relating to treatment of
confidential business information, shall apply to
investigations conducted under this section.
``(c) Actions Described.--An action is described in this
subsection if it is an action--
``(1) by the People's Republic of China to prevent or
remedy market disruption in a WTO member other than the
United States;
``(2) by a WTO member other than the United States to
withdraw concessions under the WTO Agreement or otherwise to
limit imports to prevent or remedy market disruption;
``(3) by a WTO member other than the United States to apply
a provisional safeguard within the meaning of the product-
specific safeguard provision of the Protocol of Accession of
the People's Republic of China to the WTO; or
``(4) any combination of actions described in paragraphs
(1) through (3).
``(d) Basis for Determination of Significant Diversion.--
(1) In determining whether significant diversion or the
threat thereof exists for purposes of this section, the
Commission shall take into account, to the extent such
evidence is reasonably available--
``(A) the monitoring conducted under subsection (a);
``(B) the actual or imminent increase in United States
market share held by such imports from the People's Republic
of China;
``(C) the actual or imminent increase in volume of such
imports into the United States;
``(D) the nature and extent of the action taken or proposed
by the WTO member concerned;
``(E) the extent of exports from the People's Republic of
China to that WTO member and to the United States;
``(F) the actual or imminent changes in exports to that WTO
member due to the action taken or proposed;
``(G) the actual or imminent diversion of exports from the
People's Republic of China to countries other than the United
States;
``(H) cyclical or seasonal trends in import volumes into
the United States of the products at issue; and
``(I) conditions of demand and supply in the United States
market for the products at issue.

The presence or absence of any factor under any of
subparagraphs (A) through (I) is not necessarily dispositive
of whether a significant diversion of trade or the threat
thereof exists.
``(2) For purposes of making its determination, the
Commission shall examine changes in imports into the United
States from the People's Republic of China since the time
that the WTO member commenced the investigation that led to a
request for consultations described in subsection (a).
``(3) If more than 1 action by a WTO member or WTO members
against a particular product is identified in the petition,
request, or resolution under subsection (b) or during the
investigation, the Commission may cumulatively assess the
actual or likely effects of such actions jointly in
determining whether a significant diversion of trade or
threat thereof exists.
``(e) Commission Determination; Agreement Authority.--(1)
The Commission shall make and transmit to the President and
the Trade Representative its determination under subsection
(b) at the earliest practicable time, but in no case later
than 45 days after the date on which the petition is filed,
the request or resolution is received, or the motion is
adopted, under subsection (b). If the Commissioners voting
are equally divided with respect to its determination, then
the determination agreed upon by either group of
Commissioners may be considered by the President and the
Trade Representative as the determination of the Commission.
``(2) The Trade Representative is authorized to enter into
agreements with the People's Republic of China or the other
WTO members concerned to take such action as necessary to
prevent or remedy significant trade diversion or threat
thereof into the domestic market of the United States, and
should seek to conclude such agreements before the expiration
of the 60-day consultation period provided for under the
product-specific safeguard provision of the Protocol of
Accession of the People's Republic of China to the WTO, which
shall commence not later than 5 days after the Trade
Representative receives an affirmative determination provided
for in paragraph (1) or a determination which the Trade
Representative considers to be an affirmative determination
pursuant to paragraph (1).
``(3) Report by Commission.--
``(A) Not later than 10 days after a determination under
subsection (b), is made, the Commission shall transmit a
report to the President and the Trade Representative.
``(B) The Commission shall include in the report required
under subparagraph (A) the following:
``(i) The determination made under subsection (b) and an
explanation of the basis for the determination.
``(ii) If the determination under subsection (b) is
affirmative, or may be considered by the President or the
Trade Representative as affirmative under subsection (e)(1),
the recommendations of the Commission on increased tariffs or
other import restrictions to be imposed to prevent or remedy
the trade diversion or threat thereof, and explanations of
the bases for such recommendations. Only those members of the
Commission who agreed to the affirmative determination under
subsection (b) are eligible to vote on the proposed action to
prevent or remedy the trade diversion or threat thereof.
``(iii) Any dissenting or separate views by members of the
Commission regarding the determination and any recommendation
referred to in clauses (i) and (ii).
``(iv) A description of--
``(I) the short- and long-term effects that implementation
of the action recommended under clause (ii) is likely to have
on the petitioning domestic industry, on other domestic
industries, and on consumers; and
``(II) the short- and long-term effects of not taking the
recommended action on the petitioning domestic industry, its
workers and the communities where production facilities of
such industry are located, and on other domestic industries.
``(C) The Commission, after submitting a report to the
President under subparagraph (A), shall promptly make it
available to the public (with the exception of confidential
business information) and cause a summary thereof to be
published in the Federal Register.
``(f) Public Comment.--If consultations fail to lead to an
agreement with the People's Republic of China or the WTO
member concerned within 60 days, the Trade Representative
shall promptly publish notice in the Federal Register of any
proposed action to prevent or remedy the trade diversion, and
provide an opportunity for interested persons to present
views and evidence on whether the proposed action is in the
public interest.
``(g) Recommendation to the President.--Within 20 days
after the end of consultations pursuant to subsection (e),
the Trade Representative shall make a recommendation to the
President on what action, if any, should be taken to prevent
or remedy the trade diversion or threat thereof.
``(h) Presidential Action.--Within 20 days after receipt of
the recommendation from the Trade Representative, the
President shall determine what action to take to prevent or
remedy the trade diversion or threat thereof.
``(i) Duration of Action.--Action taken under subsection
(h) shall be terminated not later than 30 days after
expiration of the action taken by the WTO member or members
involved against imports from the People's Republic of China.
``(j) Review of Circumstances.--(1) The Commission shall
review the continued need for action taken under subsection
(h) if the WTO member or members involved notify the
Committee on Safeguards of the WTO of any modification in the
action taken by them against the People's Republic of China
pursuant to consultation referred to in subsection (a). The
Commission shall, not later than 60 days after such
notification, determine whether a significant diversion of
trade continues to exist and report its determination to the
President. The President shall determine, within 15 days
after receiving the Commission's report, whether to modify,
withdraw, or keep in place the action taken under subsection
(h).

``SEC. 423. REGULATIONS; TERMINATION OF PROVISION.

``(a) To Carry Out Restrictions and Monitoring.--The
President shall by regulation provide for the efficient and
fair administration of any restriction proclaimed pursuant to
the subtitle and to provide for effective monitoring of
imports under section 422(a).
``(b) To Carry Out Agreements.--To carry out an agreement
concluded pursuant to consultations under section 421(j) or
422(e)(2), the President is authorized to prescribe
regulations governing the entry or withdrawal from warehouse
of articles covered by such agreement.
``(c) Termination Date.--This subtitle and any regulations
issued under this subtitle shall cease to be effective 12
years after the date of entry into force of the Protocol of
Accession of the People's Republic of China to the WTO.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table on contents of the
Trade Act of 1974 is amended--
(1) in the item relating to title IV, by striking
``CURRENTLY'';
(2) by inserting before the item relating to section 401
the following:

``Chapter 1--Trade Relations With Certain Countries''; and

(3) by adding after the item relating to section 409 the
following:

``Chapter 2--Relief From Market Disruption to Industries and Diversion
of Trade to the United States Market

``Sec. 421. Action to address market disruption.
``Sec. 422. Action in response to trade diversion.
``Sec. 423. Regulations; termination of provision.''.

SEC. 104. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 123 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974--
COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

Section 123(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2133(a)(1)) is amended by inserting after ``title III'' the
following; ``, or under

[[Page 9070]]

chapter 2 of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974''.

DIVISION B--UNITED STATES-CHINA RELATIONS

TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This division may be cited as the ``U.S.-
China Relations Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this
division is as follows:

TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 202. Findings.
Sec. 203. Policy.
Sec. 204. Definitions.

TITLE III--CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC
OF CHINA

Sec. 301. Establishment of Congressional-Executive Commission on the
People's Republic of China.
Sec. 302. Functions of the Commission.
Sec. 303. Membership of the Commission.
Sec. 304. Votes of the Commission.
Sec. 305. Expenditure of appropriations.
Sec. 306. Testimony of witnesses, production of evidence; issuance of
subpoenas; administration of oaths.
Sec. 307. Appropriations for the Commission.
Sec. 308. Staff of the Commission.
Sec. 309. Printing and binding costs.

TITLE IV--MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF
CHINA'S WTO COMMITMENTS

Subtitle A--Review of Membership of the People's Republic of China in
the WTO

Sec. 401. Review within the WTO.

Subtitle B--Authorization To Promote Compliance With Trade Agreements

Sec. 411. Findings.
Sec. 412. Purpose.
Sec. 413. Authorization of appropriations.

Subtitle C--Report on Compliance by the People's Republic of China With
WTO Obligations

Sec. 421. Report on compliance.

TITLE V--TRADE AND RULE OF LAW ISSUES IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Subtitle A--Task Force on Prohibition of Importation of Products of
Forced or Prison Labor From the People's Republic of China

Sec. 501. Establishment of Task Force.
Sec. 502. Functions of Task Force.
Sec. 503. Composition of Task Force.
Sec. 504. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 505. Reports to Congress.

Subtitle B--Assistance To Develop Commercial and Labor Rule of Law

Sec. 511. Establishment of technical assistance and rule of law
programs.
Sec. 512. Administrative authorities.
Sec. 513. Prohibition relating to human rights abuses.
Sec. 514. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE VI--ACCESSION OF TAIWAN TO THE WTO

Sec. 601. Accession of Taiwan to the WTO.

TITLE VII--RELATED ISSUES

Sec. 701. Authorizations of appropriations for broadcasting capital
improvements and international broadcasting operations.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) In 1980, the United States opened trade relations with
the People's Republic of China by entering into a bilateral
trade agreement, which was approved by joint resolution
enacted pursuant to section 405(c) of the Trade Act of 1974.
(2) Since 1980, the President has consistently extended
nondiscriminatory treatment to products of the People's
Republic of China, pursuant to his authority under section
404 of the Trade Act of 1974.
(3) Since 1980, the United States has entered into several
additional trade-related agreements with the People's
Republic of China, including a memorandum of understanding on
market access in 1992, 2 agreements on intellectual property
rights protection in 1992 and 1995, and an agreement on
agricultural cooperation in 1999.
(4) Trade in goods between the People's Republic of China
and the United States totaled almost $95,000,000,000 in 1999,
compared with approximately $18,000,000,000 in 1989,
representing growth of approximately 428 percent over 10
years.
(5) The United States merchandise trade deficit with the
People's Republic of China has grown from approximately
$6,000,000,000 in 1989 to over $68,000,000,000 in 1999, a
growth of over 1,000 percent.
(6) The People's Republic of China currently restricts
imports through relatively high tariffs and nontariff
barriers, including import licensing, technology transfer,
and local content requirements.
(7) United States businesses attempting to sell goods to
markets in the People's Republic of China have complained of
uneven application of tariffs, customs procedures, and other
laws, rules, and administrative measures affecting their
ability to sell their products in the Chinese market.
(8) On November 15, 1999, the United States and the
People's Republic of China concluded a bilateral agreement
concerning terms of the People's Republic of China's eventual
accession to the World Trade Organization.
(9) The commitments that the People's Republic of China
made in its November 15, 1999, agreement with the United
States promise to eliminate or greatly reduce the principal
barriers to trade with and investment in the People's
Republic of China, if those commitments are effectively
complied with and enforced.
(10) The record of the People's Republic of China in
implementing trade-related commitments has been mixed. While
the People's Republic of China has generally met the
requirements of the 1992 market access memorandum of
understanding and the 1992 and 1995 agreements on
intellectual property rights protection, other measures
remain in place or have been put into place which tend to
diminish the benefit to United States businesses, farmers,
and workers from the People's Republic of China's
implementation of those earlier commitments. Notably,
administration of tariff-rate quotas and other trade-related
laws remains opaque, new local content requirements have
proliferated, restrictions on importation of animal and plant
products are not always supported by sound science, and
licensing requirements for importation and distribution of
goods remain common. Finally, the Government of the People's
Republic of China has failed to cooperate with the United
States Customs Service in implementing a 1992 memorandum of
understanding prohibiting trade in products made by prison
labor.
(11) The human rights record of the People's Republic of
China is a matter of very serious concern to the Congress.
The Congress notes that the Department of State's 1999
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for the People's
Republic of China finds that ``[t]he Government's poor human
rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year, as
the Government intensified efforts to suppress dissent,
particularly organized dissent.''.
(12) The Congress deplores violations by the Government of
the People's Republic of China of human rights, religious
freedoms, and worker rights that are referred to in the
Department of State's 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices for the People's Republic of China, including the
banning of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, denial in many
cases, particularly politically sensitive ones, of effective
representation by counsel and public trials, extrajudicial
killings and torture, forced abortion and sterilization,
restriction of access to Tibet and Xinjiang, perpetuation of
``reeducation through labor'', denial of the right of workers
to organize labor unions or bargain collectively with their
employers, and failure to implement a 1992 memorandum of
understanding prohibiting trade in products made by prison
labor.

SEC. 203. POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States--
(1) to develop trade relations that broaden the benefits of
trade, and lead to a leveling up, rather than a leveling
down, of labor, environmental, commercial rule of law, market
access, anticorruption, and other standards across national
borders;
(2) to pursue effective enforcement of trade-related and
other international commitments by foreign governments
through enforcement mechanisms of international organizations
and through the application of United States law as
appropriate;
(3) to encourage foreign governments to conduct both
commercial and noncommercial affairs according to the rule of
law developed through democratic processes;
(4) to encourage the Government of the People's Republic of
China to afford its workers internationally recognized worker
rights;
(5) to encourage the Government of the People's Republic of
China to protect the human rights of people within the
territory of the People's Republic of China, and to take
steps toward protecting such rights, including, but not
limited to--
(A) ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights;
(B) protecting the right to liberty of movement and freedom
to choose a residence within the People's Republic of China
and the right to leave from and return to the People's
Republic of China; and
(C) affording a criminal defendant--
(i) the right to be tried in his or her presence, and to
defend himself or herself in person or through legal
assistance of his or her own choosing;
(ii) the right to be informed, if he or she does not have
legal assistance, of the right set forth in clause (i);
(iii) the right to have legal assistance assigned to him or
her in any case in which the interests of justice so require
and without payment by him or her in any such case if he or
she does not have sufficient means to pay for it;
(iv) the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent,
independent, and impartial tribunal established by the law;
(v) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law; and
(vi) the right to be tried without undue delay; and

[[Page 9071]]

(6) to highlight in the United Nations Human Rights
Commission and in other appropriate fora violations of human
rights by foreign governments and to seek the support of
other governments in urging improvements in human rights
practices.

SEC. 204. DEFINITIONS.

In this division:
(1) Dispute settlement understanding.--The term ``Dispute
Settlement Understanding'' means the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes referred
to in section 101(d)(16) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(19 U.S.C. 3511(16)).
(2) Government of the people's republic of china.--The term
``Government of the People's Republic of China'' means the
central Government of the People's Republic of China and any
other governmental entity, including any provincial,
prefectural, or local entity and any enterprise that is
controlled by the central Government or any such governmental
entity or as to which the central Government or any such
governmental entity is entitled to receive a majority of the
profits.
(3) Internationally recognized worker rights.--The term
``internationally recognized worker rights'' has the meaning
given that term in section 507(4) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2467(4)) and includes the right to the elimination
of the ``worst forms of child labor'', as defined in section
507(6) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2467(6)).
(4) Trade representative.--The term ``Trade
Representative'' means the United States Trade
Representative.
(5) WTO; world trade organization.--The terms ``WTO'' and
``World Trade Organization'' mean the organization
established pursuant to the WTO Agreement.
(6) WTO agreement.--The term ``WTO Agreement'' means the
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization entered
into on April 15, 1994.
(7) WTO member.--The term ``WTO member'' has the meaning
given that term in section 2(10) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(10)).

TITLE III--CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC
OF CHINA

SEC. 301. ESTABLISHMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION
ON THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

There is established a Congressional-Executive Commission
on the People's Republic of China (in this title referred to
as the ``Commission'').

SEC. 302. FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Monitoring Compliance With Human Rights.--The
Commission shall monitor the acts of the People's Republic of
China which reflect compliance with or violation of human
rights, in particular, those contained in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, including, but not limited to,
effectively affording--
(1) the right to engage in free expression without fear of
any prior restraints;
(2) the right to peaceful assembly without restrictions, in
accordance with international law;
(3) religious freedom, including the right to worship free
of involvement of and interference by the government;
(4) the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose
a residence within the People's Republic of China and the
right to leave from and return to the People's Republic of
China;
(5) the right of a criminal defendant--
(A) to be tried in his or her presence, and to defend
himself or herself in person or through legal assistance of
his or her own choosing;
(B) to be informed, if he or she does not have legal
assistance, of the right set forth in subparagraph (A);
(C) to have legal assistance assigned to him or her in any
case in which the interests of justice so require and without
payment by him or her in any such case if he or she does not
have sufficient means to pay for it;
(D) to a fair and public hearing by a competent,
independent, and impartial tribunal established by the law;
(E) to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according
to law; and
(F) to be tried without undue delay;
(6) the right to be free from torture and other forms of
cruel or unusual punishment;
(7) protection of internationally recognized worker rights;
(8) freedom from incarceration as punishment for political
opposition to the government;
(9) freedom from incarceration as punishment for exercising
or advocating human rights (including those described in this
section);
(10) freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile;
(11) the right to fair and public hearings by an
independent tribunal for the determination of a citizen's
rights and obligations; and
(12) free choice of employment.
(b) Victims Lists.--The Commission shall compile and
maintain lists of persons believed to be imprisoned,
detained, or placed under house arrest, tortured, or
otherwise persecuted by the Government of the People's
Republic of China due to their pursuit of the rights
described in subsection (a). In compiling such lists, the
Commission shall exercise appropriate discretion, including
concerns regarding the safety and security of, and benefit
to, the persons who may be included on the lists and their
families.
(c) Monitoring Development of Rule of Law.--The Commission
shall monitor the development of the rule of law in the
People's Republic of China, including, but not limited to--
(1) progress toward the development of institutions of
democratic governance;
(2) processes by which statutes, regulations, rules, and
other legal acts of the Government of the People's Republic
of China are developed and become binding within the People's
Republic of China;
(3) the extent to which statutes, regulations, rules,
administrative and judicial decisions, and other legal acts
of the Government of the People's Republic of China are
published and are made accessible to the public;
(4) the extent to which administrative and judicial
decisions are supported by statements of reasons that are
based upon written statutes, regulations, rules and other
legal acts of the Government of the People's Republic of
China;
(5) the extent to which individuals are treated equally
under the laws of the of the People's Republic of China
without regard to citizenship;
(6) the extent to which administrative and judicial
decisions are independent of political pressure or
governmental interference and are reviewed by entities of
appellate jurisdiction; and
(7) the extent to which laws in the People's Republic of
China are written and administered in ways that are
consistent with international human rights standards,
including the requirements of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.
(d) Bilateral Cooperation.--The Commission shall monitor
and encourage the development of programs and activities of
the United States Government and private organizations with a
view toward increasing the interchange of people and ideas
between the United States and the People's Republic of China
and expanding cooperation in areas that include, but are not
limited to--
(1) increasing enforcement of human rights described in
subsection (a); and
(2) developing the rule of law in the People's Republic of
China.
(e) Contacts With Nongovernmental Organizations.--In
performing the functions described in subsections (a) through
(d), the Commission shall, as appropriate, seek out and
maintain contacts with nongovernmental organizations,
including receiving reports and updates from such
organizations and evaluating such reports.
(f) Cooperation With Special Coordinator.--In performing
the functions described in subsections (a) through (d), the
Commission shall cooperate with the Special Coordinator for
Tibetan Issues in the Department of State.
(g) Annual Reports.--The Commission shall issue a report to
the President and the Congress not later than 12 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and not later than the
end of each 12-month period thereafter, setting forth the
findings of the Commission during the preceding 12-month
period, in carrying out subsections (a) through (c). The
Commission's report may contain recommendations for
legislative or executive action.
(h) Specific Information in Annual Reports.--The
Commission's report under subsection (g) shall include
specific information as to the nature and implementation of
laws or policies concerning the rights set forth in
paragraphs (1) through (12) of subsection (a), and as to
restrictions applied to or discrimination against persons
exercising any of the rights set forth in such paragraphs.
(i) Congressional Hearings on Annual Reports.--(1) The
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives shall, not later than 30 days after the
receipt by the Congress of the report referred to in
subsection (g), hold hearings on the contents of the report,
including any recommendations contained therein, for the
purpose of receiving testimony from Members of Congress, and
such appropriate representatives of Federal departments and
agencies, and interested persons and groups, as the committee
deems advisable, with a view to reporting to the House of
Representatives any appropriate legislation in furtherance of
such recommendations. If any such legislation is considered
by the Committee on International Relations within 45 days
after receipt by the Congress of the report referred to in
subsection (g), it shall be reported by the committee not
later than 60 days after receipt by the Congress of such
report.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) are enacted by the
Congress--
(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives, and as such are deemed a part of the rules
of the House, and they supersede other rules only to the
extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
the House to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedure of the House) at any time, in the same manner and

[[Page 9072]]

to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the
House.
(j) Supplemental Reports.--The Commission may submit to the
President and the Congress reports that supplement the
reports described in subsection (g), as appropriate, in
carrying out subsections (a) through (c).

SEC. 303. MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Selection and Appointment of Members.--The Commission
shall be composed of 23 members as follows:
(1) Nine Members of the House of Representatives appointed
by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Five members
shall be selected from the majority party and four members
shall be selected, after consultation with the minority
leader of the House, from the minority party.
(2) Nine Members of the Senate appointed by the President
of the Senate. Five members shall be selected, after
consultation with the majority leader of the Senate, from the
majority party, and four members shall be selected, after
consultation with the minority leader of the Senate, from the
minority party.
(3) One representative of the Department of State,
appointed by the President of the United States from among
officers and employees of that Department.
(4) One representative of the Department of Commerce,
appointed by the President of the United States from among
officers and employees of that Department.
(5) One representative of the Department of Labor,
appointed by the President of the United States from among
officers and employees of that Department.
(6) Two at-large representatives, appointed by the
President of the United States, from among the officers and
employees of the executive branch.
(b) Chairman and Cochairman.--
(1) Designation of chairman.--At the beginning of each odd-
numbered Congress, the President of the Senate, on the
recommendation of the majority leader, shall designate one of
the members of the Commission from the Senate as Chairman of
the Commission. At the beginning of each even-numbered
Congress, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall
designate one of the members of the Commission from the House
as Chairman of the Commission.
(2) Designation of cochairman.--At the beginning of each
odd-numbered Congress, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives shall designate one of the members of the
Commission from the House as Cochairman of the Commission. At
the beginning of each even-numbered Congress, the President
of the Senate, on the recommendation of the majority leader,
shall designate one of the members of the Commission from the
Senate as Cochairman of the Commission.

SEC. 304. VOTES OF THE COMMISSION.

Decisions of the Commission, including adoption of reports
and recommendations to the executive branch or to the
Congress, shall be made by a majority vote of the members of
the Commission present and voting. Two-thirds of the Members
of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for purposes of
conducting business.

SEC. 305. EXPENDITURE OF APPROPRIATIONS.

For each fiscal year for which an appropriation is made to
the Commission, the Commission shall issue a report to the
Congress on its expenditures under that appropriation.

SEC. 306. TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE;
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS; ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS.

In carrying out this title, the Commission may require, by
subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such
witnesses and the production of such books, records,
correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and
electronically recorded data as it considers necessary.
Subpoenas may be issued only pursuant to a two-thirds vote of
members of the Commission present and voting. Subpoenas may
be issued over the signature of the Chairman of the
Commission or any member designated by the Chairman, and may
be served by any person designated by the Chairman or such
member. The Chairman of the Commission, or any member
designated by the Chairman, may administer oaths to any
witness.

SEC. 307. APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION.

(a) Authorization; Disbursements.--
(1) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Commission for fiscal year 2001, and each fiscal year
thereafter, such sums as may be necessary to enable it to
carry out its functions. Appropriations to the Commission are
authorized to remain available until expended.
(2) Disbursements.--Appropriations to the Commission shall
be disbursed on vouchers approved--
(A) jointly by the Chairman and the Cochairman; or
(B) by a majority of the members of the personnel and
administration committee established pursuant to section 308.
(b) Foreign Travel for Official Purposes.--Foreign travel
for official purposes by members and staff of the Commission
may be authorized by either the Chairman or the Cochairman.

SEC. 308. STAFF OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Personnel and Administration Committee.--The Commission
shall have a personnel and administration committee composed
of the Chairman, the Cochairman, the senior member of the
Commission from the minority party of the House of
Representatives, and the senior member of the Commission from
the minority party of the Senate.
(b) Committee Functions.--All decisions pertaining to the
hiring, firing, and fixing of pay of personnel of the
Commission shall be by a majority vote of the personnel and
administration committee, except that--
(1) the Chairman shall be entitled to appoint and fix the
pay of the staff director, and the Cochairman shall be
entitled to appoint and fix the pay of the Cochairman's
senior staff member; and
(2) the Chairman and Cochairman shall each have the
authority to appoint, with the approval of the personnel and
administration committee, at least 4 professional staff
members who shall be responsible to the Chairman or the
Cochairman (as the case may be) who appointed them.

Subject to subsection (d), the personnel and administration
committee may appoint and fix the pay of such other personnel
as it considers desirable.
(c) Staff Appointments.--All staff appointments shall be
made without regard to the provisions of title 5, United
States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51
and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
classification and general schedule pay rates.
(d) Qualifications of Professional Staff.--The personnel
and administration committee shall ensure that the
professional staff of the Commission consists of persons with
expertise in areas including human rights, internationally
recognized worker rights, international economics, law
(including international law), rule of law and other foreign
assistance programming, Chinese politics, economy and
culture, and the Chinese language.
(e) Commission Employees as Congressional Employees.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of pay and other employment
benefits, rights, and privileges, and for all other purposes,
any employee of the Commission shall be considered to be a
congressional employee as defined in section 2107 of title 5,
United States Code.
(2) Competitive status.--For purposes of section 3304(c)(1)
of title 5, United States Code, employees of the Commission
shall be considered as if they are in positions in which they
are paid by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the
House of Representatives.

SEC. 309. PRINTING AND BINDING COSTS.

For purposes of costs relating to printing and binding,
including the costs of personnel detailed from the Government
Printing Office, the Commission shall be deemed to be a
committee of the Congress.

TITLE IV--MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF
CHINA'S WTO COMMITMENTS

Subtitle A--Review of Membership of the People's Republic of China in
the WTO

SEC. 401. REVIEW WITHIN THE WTO.

It shall be the objective of the United States to obtain as
part of the Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of
China to the WTO, an annual review within the WTO of the
compliance by the People's Republic of China with its terms
of accession to the WTO.

Subtitle B--Authorization To Promote Compliance With Trade Agreements

SEC. 411. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The opening of world markets through the elimination of
tariff and nontariff barriers has contributed to a 56-percent
increase in exports of United States goods and services since
1992.
(2) Such export expansion, along with an increase in trade
generally, has helped fuel the longest economic expansion in
United States history.
(3) The United States Government must continue to be
vigilant in monitoring and enforcing the compliance by our
trading partners with trade agreements in order for United
States businesses, workers, and farmers to continue to
benefit from the opportunities created by market-opening
trade agreements.
(4) The People's Republic of China, as part of its
accession to the World Trade Organization, has committed to
eliminating significant trade barriers in the agricultural,
services, and manufacturing sectors that, if realized, would
provide considerable opportunities for United States farmers,
businesses, and workers.
(5) For these opportunities to be fully realized, the
United States Government must effectively monitor and enforce
its rights under the agreements on the accession of the
People's Republic of China to the WTO.

SEC. 412. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this subtitle is to authorize additional
resources for the agencies and departments engaged in
monitoring and enforcement of United States trade agreements

[[Page 9073]]

and trade laws with respect to the People's Republic of
China.

SEC. 413. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Department of Commerce.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Commerce, in addition to
amounts otherwise available for such purposes, such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal year 2001, and each fiscal year
thereafter, for additional staff for--
(1) monitoring compliance by the People's Republic of China
with its commitments under the WTO, assisting United States
negotiators with ongoing negotiations in the WTO, and
defending United States antidumping and countervailing duty
measures with respect to products of the People's Republic of
China;
(2) enforcement of United States trade laws with respect to
products of the People's Republic of China; and
(3) a Trade Law Technical Assistance Center to assist
small- and medium-sized businesses, workers, and unions in
evaluating potential remedies available under the trade laws
of the United States with respect to trade involving the
People's Republic of China.
(b) Overseas Compliance Program.--
(1) Authorization of appropriation.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Commerce and the
Department of State, in addition to amounts otherwise
available, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2001, and each fiscal year thereafter, to provide staff for
monitoring in the People's Republic of China that country's
compliance with its international trade obligations and to
support the enforcement of the trade laws of the United
States, as part of an Overseas Compliance Program which
monitors abroad compliance with international trade
obligations and supports the enforcement of United States
trade laws.
(2) Reporting.--The annual report on compliance by the
People's Republic of China submitted to the Congress under
section 421 of this Act shall include the findings of the
Overseas Compliance Program with respect to the People's
Republic of China.
(c) USTR.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Office of the United States Trade Representative, in addition
to amounts otherwise available for such purposes, such sums
as may be necessary for fiscal year 2001, and each fiscal
year thereafter, for additional staff in--
(1) the Office of the General Counsel, the Monitoring and
Enforcement Unit, and the Office of the Deputy United States
Trade Representative in Geneva, Switzerland, to investigate,
prosecute, and defend cases before the WTO, and to administer
United States trade laws, including title III of the Trade
Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411, et seq.) and other trade laws
relating to intellectual property, government procurement,
and telecommunications, with respect to the People's Republic
of China;
(2) the Office of Economic Affairs, to analyze the impact
on the economy of the United States, including United States
exports, of acts of the Government of the People's Republic
of China affecting access to markets in the People's Republic
of China and to support the Office of the General Counsel in
presenting cases to the WTO involving the People's Republic
of China;
(3) the geographic office for the People's Republic of
China; and
(4) offices relating to the WTO and to different sectors of
the economy, including agriculture, industry, services, and
intellectual property rights protection, to monitor and
enforce the trade agreement obligations of the People's
Republic of China in those sectors.
(d) Department of Agriculture.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Agriculture, in addition to
amounts otherwise available for such purposes, such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal year 2001, and each fiscal year
thereafter, for additional staff to increase legal and
technical expertise in areas covered by trade agreements and
United States trade law, including food safety and
biotechnology, for purposes of monitoring compliance by the
People's Republic of China with its trade agreement
obligations.

Subtitle C--Report on Compliance by the People's Republic of China With
WTO Obligations

SEC. 421. REPORT ON COMPLIANCE.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the entry into
force of the Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic
of China to the WTO, and annually thereafter, the Trade
Representative shall submit a report to Congress on
compliance by the People's Republic of China with commitments
made in connection with its accession to the World Trade
Organization, including both multilateral commitments and any
bilateral commitments made to the United States.
(b) Public Participation.--In preparing the report
described in subsection (a), the Trade Representative shall
seek public participation by publishing a notice in the
Federal Register and holding a public hearing.

TITLE V--TRADE AND RULE OF LAW ISSUES IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Subtitle A--Task Force on Prohibition of Importation of Products of
Forced or Prison Labor From the People's Republic of China

SEC. 501. ESTABLISHMENT OF TASK FORCE.

There is hereby established a task force on prohibition of
importation of products of forced or prison labor from the
People's Republic of China (hereafter in this subtitle
referred to as the ``Task Force'').

SEC. 502. FUNCTIONS OF TASK FORCE.

The Task Force shall monitor and promote effective
enforcement of and compliance with section 307 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307) by performing the following
functions:
(1) Coordinate closely with the United States Customs
Service to promote maximum effectiveness in the enforcement
by the Customs Service of section 307 of the Tariff Act of
1930 with respect to the products of the People's Republic of
China. In order to assure such coordination, the Customs
Service shall keep the Task Force informed, on a regular
basis, of the progress of its investigations of allegations
that goods are being entered into the United States, or that
such entry is being attempted, in violation of the
prohibition in section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on entry
into the United States of goods mined, produced, or
manufactured wholly or in part in the People's Republic of
China by convict labor, forced labor, or indentured labor
under penal sanctions. Such investigations may include visits
to foreign sites where goods allegedly are being mined,
produced, or manufactured in a manner that would lead to
prohibition of their importation into the United States under
section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
(2) Make recommendations to the Customs Service on seeking
new agreements with the People's Republic of China to allow
Customs Service officials to visit sites where goods may be
mined, produced, or manufactured by convict labor, forced
labor, or indentured labor under penal sanctions.
(3) Work with the Customs Service to assist the People's
Republic of China and other foreign governments in monitoring
the sale of goods mined, produced, or manufactured by convict
labor, forced labor, or indentured labor under penal
sanctions to ensure that such goods are not exported to the
United States.
(4) Coordinate closely with the Customs Service to promote
maximum effectiveness in the enforcement by the Customs
Service of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect
to the products of the People's Republic of China. In order
to assure such coordination, the Customs Service shall keep
the Task Force informed, on a regular basis, of the progress
of its monitoring of ports of the United States to ensure
that goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part
in the People's Republic of China by convict labor, forced
labor, or indentured labor under penal sanctions are not
imported into the United States.
(5) Advise the Customs Service in performing such other
functions, consistent with existing authority, to ensure the
effective enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff Act of
1930.
(6) Provide to the Customs Service all information obtained
by the departments represented on the Task Force relating to
the use of convict labor, forced labor, or/and indentured
labor under penal sanctions in the mining, production, or
manufacture of goods which may be imported into the United
States.

SEC. 503. COMPOSITION OF TASK FORCE.

The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce,
the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of State, the
Commissioner of Customs, and the heads of other executive
branch agencies, as appropriate, acting through their
respective designees at or above the level of Deputy
Assistant Secretary, or in the case of the Customs Service,
at or above the level of Assistant Commissioner, shall
compose the Task Force. The designee of the Secretary of the
Treasury shall chair the Task Force.

SEC. 504. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
2001, and each fiscal year thereafter, such sums as may be
necessary for the Task Force to carry out the functions
described in section 502.

SEC. 505. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) Frequency of Reports.--Not later than the date that is
one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and not
later than the end of each 1-year period thereafter, the Task
Force shall submit to the Congress a report on the work of
the Task Force during the preceding 1-year period.
(b) Contents of Reports.--Each report under subsection (a)
shall set forth, at a minimum--
(1) the number of allegations of violations of section 307
of the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to products of the
Peoples' Republic of China that were investigated during the
preceding 1-year period;
(2) the number of actual violations of section 307 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to the products of the
People's Republic of China that were discovered during the
preceding 1-year period;
(3) in the case of each attempted entry of products of the
People's Republic of China in violation of such section 307
discovered during the preceding 1-year period--
(A) the identity of the exporter of the goods;

[[Page 9074]]

(B) the identity of the person or persons who attempted to
sell the goods for export; and
(C) the identity of all parties involved in transshipment
of the goods; and
(4) such other information as the Task Force considers
useful in monitoring and enforcing compliance with section
307 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

Subtitle B--Assistance To Develop Commercial and Labor Rule of Law

SEC. 511. ESTABLISHMENT OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND RULE OF
LAW PROGRAMS.

(a) Commerce Rule of Law Program.--The Secretary of
Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is
authorized to establish a program to conduct rule of law
training and technical assistance related to commercial
activities in the People's Republic of China.
(b) Labor Rule of Law Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, is authorized to establish a
program to conduct rule of law training and technical
assistance related to the protection of internationally
recognized worker rights in the People's Republic of China.
(2) Use of amounts.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Secretary of Labor shall focus on activities including, but
not limited to--
(A) developing, laws, regulations, and other measures to
implement internationally recognized worker rights;
(B) establishing national mechanisms for the enforcement of
national labor laws and regulations;
(C) training government officials concerned with
implementation and enforcement of national labor laws and
regulations; and
(D) developing an educational infrastructure to educate
workers about their legal rights and protections under
national labor laws and regulations.
(3) Limitation.--The Secretary of Labor may not provide
assistance under the program established under this
subsection to the All-China Federation of Trade Unions.
(c) Legal System and Civil Society Rule of Law Program.--
The Secretary of State is authorized to establish a program
to conduct rule of law training and technical assistance
related to development of the legal system and civil society
generally in the People's Republic of China.
(d) Conduct of Programs.--The programs authorized by this
section may be used to conduct activities such as seminars
and workshops, drafting of commercial and labor codes, legal
training, publications, financing the operating costs for
nongovernmental organizations working in this area, and
funding the travel of individuals to the United States and to
the People's Republic of China to provide and receive
training.

SEC. 512. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES.

In carrying out the programs authorized by section 511, the
Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor (in
consultation with the Secretary of State) may utilize any of
the authorities contained in the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 and the Foreign Service Act of 1980.

SEC. 513. PROHIBITION RELATING TO HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.

Amounts made available to carry out this subtitle may not
be provided to a component of a ministry or other
administrative unit of the national, provincial, or other
local governments of the People's Republic of China, to a
nongovernmental organization, or to an official of such
governments or organizations, if the President has credible
evidence that such component, administrative unit,
organization or official has been materially responsible for
the commission of human rights violations.

SEC. 514. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Commercial Law Program.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce to carry out the
program described in section 511(a) such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal year 2001, and each fiscal year
thereafter.
(b) Labor Law Program.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Labor to carry out the
program described in section 511(b) such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal year 2001, and each fiscal year
thereafter.
(c) Legal System and Civil Society Rule of Law Program.--
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
State to carry out the program described in section 511(c)
such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2001, and each
fiscal year thereafter.
(d) Construction With Other Laws.--Except as provided in
this division, funds may be made available to carry out the
purposes of this subtitle notwithstanding any other provision
of law.

TITLE VI--ACCESSION OF TAIWAN TO THE WTO

SEC. 601. ACCESSION OF TAIWAN TO THE WTO.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) immediately upon approval by the General Council of the
WTO of the terms and conditions of the accession of the
People's Republic of China to the WTO, the United States
representative to the WTO should request that the General
Council of the WTO consider Taiwan's accession to the WTO as
the next order of business of the Council during the same
session; and
(2) the United States should be prepared to aggressively
counter any effort by any WTO member, upon the approval of
the General Council of the WTO of the terms and conditions of
the accession of the People's Republic of China to the WTO,
to block the accession of Taiwan to the WTO.

TITLE VII--RELATED ISSUES

SEC. 701. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BROADCASTING
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL
BROADCASTING OPERATIONS.

(a) Broadcasting Capital Improvements.--In addition to such
sums as may otherwise be authorized to be appropriated, there
are authorized to be appropriated for ``Department of State
and Related Agency, Related Agency, Broadcasting Board of
Governors, Broadcasting Capital Improvements'' $65,000,000
for the fiscal year 2001.
(b) International Broadcasting Operations.--
(1) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to such
sums as are otherwise authorized to be appropriated, there
are authorized to be appropriated $34,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 for ``Department of State and
Related Agency, Related Agency, Broadcasting Board of
Governors, International Broadcasting Operations'' for the
purposes under paragraph (2).
(2) Uses of Funds.--In addition to other authorized
purposes, funds appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall
be used for the following:
(A) To increase personnel for the program development
office to enhance marketing programming in the People's
Republic of China and neighboring countries.
(B) To enable Radio Free Asia's expansion of news research,
production, call-in show capability, and web site/Internet
enhancement for the People's Republic of China and
neighboring countries.
(C) VOA enhancements, including the opening of new news
bureaus in Taipei and Shanghai, enhancement of TV Mandarin,
and an increase of stringer presence abroad.
Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to authorize
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade
relations treatment) to the People's Republic of China, and
to establish a framework for relations between the United
States and the People's Republic of China.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from California
(Mr. Stark), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) each
will control 45 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).

General Leave

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4444.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at this historic moment in this debate today, all
Members should keep an open mind to objectively make the right
decision, without pressure from outside groups, as to what is in the
best interests of the United States, its people and its values. This
vote will be the most important vote that we cast in our congressional
careers. Why? Because it will affect America for generations to come.
International trade has meant a greater standard of living for our
families here at home. Yes, nearly $3,000 more in purchasing power a
year, employment for over 12 million American workers, and wages that
are up to 20 percent higher than those for the domestic market, that is
what trade has meant to Americans.
But passage of this historic legislation will mean more than just
American jobs created here at home. It will mean the expansion of
American ideals, principles, and values throughout the world, as well
as the Orient.
We have already started to see that sort of change occur, as China
has opened up since Nixon's memorable visit. Today, most Americans do
not know that over 90 percent of China's 930,000 villages now hold
democratic elections for their local leaders, and that means nearly 1
billion rural Chinese have started to experience the freedom that
democratic elections produce.
The bill's opponents raise concerns about China's human rights
standards and environmental and labor conditions; and, yes, they need
to be greatly

[[Page 9075]]

improved. But how would severing our relations with China help to
achieve this change which opponents say they want? It does not.
How will failure to pass this accomplish anything the opponents say
they want? It will not. How does cutting off U.S. workers, farmers and
businesses to a market of 1.3 billion customers, a market the Europeans
and Japanese will have ready access to, help our cause? It will not.

{time} 1215

Voting against this bill will help the Japanese, it will help the
Europeans, but it will hurt America, and it will hurt the very people
who want human rights and religious freedom in China to have a better
chance to ultimately reach that goal.
How will denying American culture and American products and services
to the Chinese help? How will it help to close off more of America
within China? It will not. How does strengthening the hand of hard-
liners in Beijing improve our national security? It will not. That is
why we cannot afford to fail here today.
One of the best ways to open the minds of the Chinese is through open
markets, and engagement with China does not mean endorsement of their
human rights record. Congress, in the past has, and will continue, to
monitor China's human rights record, and thanks to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter),
this bill provides a way to do that. But we deny the unchangeable tides
of history if we think we can force China to alter its behavior by
simply turning our backs on them.
Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues hear from no one else today before they
vote on this historic issue, they should listen to the American people.
The American people want America to get the benefit of the Chinese
concessions which opens their markets to our product. They have said
this overwhelmingly in all of the polling data in the last week. The
American people, not Wall Street, not Main Street, not special
interests, but American family interests. The overwhelming majority of
Americans say that expanded trade with China will not only boost U.S.
jobs, but it will improve China's human rights, improve the
environment, and bring about the type of change and freedoms with which
we stand here today and so jealously cherish. History has shown us that
no government can withstand the power of individuals who are driven by
the taste of freedom and the rewards of opportunity.
So I say to my colleagues, let us make history today and pass this
legislation for American values that we all hold so dear.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the leadership on both sides of
the aisle for the level of the debate which we will have. Truly, this
is a very contentious issue. Members have deep-seated feelings. I do
not remember anything being lobbied so hard by the administration, by
the private sector, the Chamber of Commerce and unions, and certainly
our constituents. But we have to appreciate the fact that no matter how
Members vote, even though I rise in strong support of PNTR, that we
have to respect the Members for believing what they are doing is in the
best interests of their districts, as well as the country, and remember
that we do our best work when we work in a bipartisan way. So at the
end of the day, I do hope that we are able to say that regardless of
the outcome of the vote, it was one of the finest hours of this
honorable body.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Matsui), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), the dean of our Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that this is probably going to be the most
important national security foreign policy vote that we will be taking
in a number of years. I have to say that there are two most important
relationships from a foreign policy point of view that the United
States will have in the next 20 years. One is obviously the U.S.-
Russian relationship, and the other is the U.S.-China relationship.
China is 22 percent of the world population. One out of every five
people on this Earth is Chinese. China will soon have a capacity in
terms of its growth that will be second only to the United States.
China will never be our friend, but this vote will determine whether or
not we will be able to coexist with China, or whether China will become
an enemy of the United States, so that we can have for the next 40 or
50 years another Cold War.
What surprises me are the two issues that have been raised by the
opponents. One is the economic issue, and the other is the human rights
issue. I would like to address those.
In terms of the economic issues, we are by far the most powerful
economy in this world. We are second to none. We have the best educated
workforce, we have the most talented workforce, we have the best R&D,
we have the best higher education system, second to none. We should not
fear anybody. We have an unemployment rate of under 4 percent, the
lowest in decades, and as my colleagues know, we have a growth rate for
the last 10 years, over 120 months that would be the envy of all other
trading partners of the United States.
Yet, many people are opposed to this. At the same time, believe it or
not, the United States, under this agreement, under this bill, gives up
nothing. Our tariffs do not go down to the Chinese products; we do not
give them larger distribution markets. So why are they opposed to this,
particularly when China's tariffs will go from 25 percent down to 9
percent for all U.S. goods; automobiles, 100 percent today, if we
export into China will go down to 20 percent, but the UAW is opposed.
The Teamsters Union would have hundreds and thousands of more jobs
because more packages will go to China from U.S. products, but they are
opposed as well.
Mr. Speaker, this is an agreement in the interest of the American
worker, and this is an agreement that will create more jobs, more
growth, and more prosperity for America.
Now, let me also talk about the issue of human rights. China's human
rights record is terrible. We understand that. We, obviously, should
put the focus on them, and we believe that the Levin-Bereuter bill,
will, in fact, do that. But what is really interesting is that many of
the Chinese dissidents that have the luxury of living in the United
States are opposed to this. But those that live in China, the Chinese
Democracy Movement, they want us to pass this, because they want to
engage the United States. They think if they gain economic power, they
will be able to opposes the central government of China. So we need to
vote yes on this legislation for the future of our country and
certainly, for prosperity and peace throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on this bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in vehement opposition to granting the
People's Republic of China (PRC) permanent and unconditional trade
relations status. Although proponents of this measure call it permanent
normal trade relations, or PNTR, there is nothing normal about this
relationship. The PRC makes promises to the U.S., the U.S. engages
Beijing and Beijing breaks those promises. But China has absolutely no
reason to keep their promises. The U.S. grants China most favored
nation (MFN) trading status year after year while ignoring China's
myriad of trade, labor, human rights, and nonproliferation violations.
Now, the Administration wants Congress to hand over our only form of
leverage to Beijing. I oppose extending permanent normal trade
relations (PNTR) to China because the agreement signed last November is
bad for U.S. as well as Chinese workers, and because the legislation
before us cannot deliver what its backers promise.

i. the agreement

We don't really know what the agreement between the U.S. and China
will bear because China breaks its current agreements on
nonproliferation, intellectual property rights, human rights and forced
labor. Chinese officials have

[[Page 9076]]

been telling the U.S. that they're opening their markets and telling
their own business leaders that once they've entered the WTO, they'll
protect certain markets--such as telecom, electronics and autos. Unfair
competition is an integral part of Beijing's economic system. China
restricts imports of U.S. goods through various formal and informal
trade barriers. The 1992 memorandum of understanding agreement China
signed on market access and intellectual property has been and
continues to be violated. China cannot be trusted.
Factory workers in China earn as little as thirteen cents per hour.
The average individual income in China is $108. This hardly sounds like
a burgeoning middle class. But the Administration keeps telling us--as
they did with NAFTA and Mexico--that if we don't capitalize on this
market, Europe will. All I know is that a Chinese factory worker, or a
rural peasant, making $108 per year isn't able to afford goods made in
the U.S. when they can't even afford goods made in their own country. I
do know that this agreement encourages U.S. businesses to set-up shop
in China and ensures them access to exploit China's cheap labor. This
is a bad deal for the U.S. workers and a bad deal for the Chinese
worker.

ii. the legislation before us

Many Members feel that they are able to vote for today's bill because
it offers assurances that workers and human rights will be protected
while promoting the rule of law in China. This is a tall order when we
have yet to get China to keep any of its commitments made to the U.S.
The bill before us sets up another commission to monitor human
rights. On May 18, 1998, 375 Members of the 105th Congress voted to
establish the United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom. When the Commission brought its findings on China's egregious
religious violations, the 106th Congress looked the other way. The
Commission recommended that we not give PNTR to China at this time. If
this body is going to ignore the recommendations of the Commission that
we established, why would we want to set-up another one? No Commission
will be effective if Congress is going to ignore the fact that China
abuses its people for practicing Falun Gong or any other religion not
endorsed by the barbaric regime. The human rights provision in this
legislation is hollow. The provisions set forth by the Levin-Bereuter
proposal do not guarantee enforcement of China's harsh practices.

iii. conclusion

I'm not suggesting we end trade with China. I'm not even asking that
we reform our trading practices with China. I merely want China to
abide by the promises it has already made.
I urge my colleagues to look closely at China's record. I urge my
colleagues to scrutinize China's current practices and ask yourselves
if you believe China will keep its word. I don't! Oppose Congress
giving up its only tool to enforce China's promises. Oppose PNTR for
China.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader, a gentleman
who recognizes that the trade deal with China gives away our leverage
to protect the lives of environmental, human, and religious activists
in China; who recognizes that the Religious Freedom Commission set up
by Congress in 1998 recommended Congress not give PNTR to China; who
recognizes that the Levin-Bereuter provisions are hollow and do not
provide for human rights violation enforcement; and recognizes that
this agreement does not provide enforcement of China's promises.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for a wonderful
institution. This is the room where all of the feelings and emotions of
the American people on this very important issue get channeled and
espoused and spoken as we make a collective decision on what is a very,
very important issue for our country, for China, and for the world.
I believe and fully expect this debate to be in the tradition of John
Quincy Adams and James Madison and Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, and
other great voices that have been heard in this building through the
years.
As I begin the debate, I would like to commend the leaders on both
sides of the aisle who have worked to carry on this debate in the
highest tradition of the House. I commend the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Bonior) who has led the opposition on our side. There is not a
greater proponent of human rights that I know.
I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) who have worked so hard to espouse
their viewpoint. I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who
is one of the finest people I have ever known in the Congress, who does
everything from his heart to do what is right. I honor the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi). There is not a greater fighter for human
rights in our Congress than she is and a more staunch advocate for her
views.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak on this issue. This debate is
testament to what makes the United States the greatest country that has
ever existed in the history of the world, based on the ideals of
freedom; freedom of expression and freedom and liberty of religion and
political speech.
These ideals are what cause me to finally be against this bill. This
debate would not happen in China. This freedom of expression that we
are exercising on this floor and outside this building and in rooms all
over this country in the last days would not happen in a country like
China. In fact, if one insisted on speaking against the policy of the
government in China, one would be arrested.
America began with a simple revolutionary statement: We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that
among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And
remember that when these rights were proclaimed 100 years later,
Abraham Lincoln made it clear that the rights that were set out in the
declaration were not just for the American people, but applied to
everyone. Abraham Lincoln said this, the Declaration of Independence
gave liberty not alone to the people of this country, but hope to all
the world for future time.
These ideals guided us through all kinds of conflicts and
difficulties, World War II, the Cold War, bringing down the Berlin
Wall, Soviet communism, the civil rights movement in our own country,
apartheid in South Africa. I remember standing on this floor with many
of my colleagues against the wind of public opinion, here and in the
world, saying that the only way we will bring change in South Africa is
by standing for these ideals, even though the rest of the world would
not.
Some would argue that this is just about trade. I would remind them
that our greatest export is not our products and our services, our
greatest exports are our ideals and our values. Getting acceptance of
these ideals is also vital for trade. A country that fails to respect
basic rights of people will not respect the rule of law, and without
the rule of law in China, the rights of our businesses will not be
accepted.
China has not obeyed the agreements that they have made with us on
trade. We have been promised access; we have not gotten it. We have
been promised protection of intellectual property; we have not gotten
it. Our trade deficit is now $85 billion with China, the highest as a
percent of total trade of any country in the world. We export more now
to Singapore, a nation of 3.5 million people, than we export to China,
a country of 1.3 billion people. The track record is poor on compliance
with treaties. Let us not reward them before we get them to comply.
China's leaders show contempt for the rule of law.

{time} 1230

People are persecuted for their religious beliefs. People are in
prison and tortured for speaking out politically. They are cooperating
in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They threaten
Taiwan even up to and including the latest election in Taiwan.
The issue today is not trade. The issue today is whether or not to
take away the annual leverage that comes with our voted-on review of
progress on human rights in China. China will be in the WTO. We trade
with China now. As I said, we have a deficit of $85 billion a year. The
issue is, will we take away the review, the leverage? Advocates of
doing this say the annual review is meaningless. If it is so
meaningless, why does the Chinese Government insist, as a price of
giving us access to their market, that we take it away?

[[Page 9077]]

I will say why they ask for it so vociferously because they do not
want the pressure. They do not want the annual debate on this floor.
They do not want the light of the world to come in and see how they are
performing, and this real pressure, I submit, will bring change. If we
do not lead, who will? I ask, if we give this up, is anyone else in the
world going to ask for this kind of review? I think not.
When we debated apartheid in South Africa, everybody in the world
said lay off of South Africa. Trade will change them. Do we really
believe that we would have an end to apartheid in South Africa if we
had not stood alone, leading the world, to say this must not stand?
Supporters say that trade alone will solve the problem. There is some
truth in that argument. I give them credit because I agree in part with
that agreement. I want more trade with China. I want the Internet in
China. I want the people to use computers in China. I think it will
have an impact, but the evidence that we have to deal with is that as
trade has expanded, repression of rights has also expanded.
Our own U.S. State Department has said in its last three reviews of
human rights that there has been bad deterioration each and every year.
Last week, I met with Wei Jingsheng, a hero of mine. He lives here, in
forced exile without his family and friends who are still in China. He
was jailed for 17 years for writing on the Democracy Wall thoughts
about political freedom and liberty in China.
He told me in my office that when we press for human rights, things
get better in China, and when we lay off on human rights things get
worse. He said this, in 1979 President Carter normalized relations in
China. He was in prison soon thereafter. He said in 1989 President Bush
guaranteed MFN, even though there were problems in China, and soon
thereafter the guns blazed in Tiananmen Square. He said in 1994,
President Clinton delinked MFN and trade with other kinds of questions
in China on human rights. He said he was immediately arrested. In 1997,
after intense pressure from President Clinton and many in this room, he
was finally released, under duress, to come to the United States. When
we stand up, things get better in China for human rights. When we stand
down, things get worse; and that is what this debate and that is what
this question is all about.
These have been good days in America. This debate has been healthy
for America. I am pleased that so many people have participated in this
debate. I am pleased there has been so much conversation and
communication between our citizens and our representatives. I am
pleased and proud to stand with labor activists and environmentalists
and human rights activists and religious leaders. I am also proud that
our business leaders have come here and argued from their heart about
what they believe is right.
The lobbying and the conversation is about to end. We are about to
have to vote. All I ask is that as we vote, we keep in our heart and
our mind two quotes: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with
certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness'', and that this Declaration of Independence
``gave liberty not alone to the people of this country but hope to all
the world for future time.''
This country is an ideal and now in 2000, on this question, I hope we
will stand for those ideals.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will remind all
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or
other audible conversations are in violation of the rules of the House.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today both sides agree on the importance of today's
vote. This is not a vote about severing ties with China or isolating
China, which is absurd. This is not even about trade with China,
frankly, just free trade anyway. It is about a specific trade policy
and policies of the United States Government in dealing with one of the
world's most powerful dictatorships.
The debate today, and in this debate, we will hear about jobs and the
selling of American products; and when we hear people talk about that,
I hope that the people who are listening will remind themselves that
these people are not talking about the sale of U.S. consumer items.
What they are talking about, when they talk about this commercial tie
with China, is not the sale of commercial items but the transfer of
factories and technology, this transfer to Communist China of American
factories. Almost none of this trade deals with consumer items.
Yesterday, of course, we heard from the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo) that once there, our business leaders who set up these
factories in China end up in partnership, if not controlled by, the
People's Liberation Army. We are setting the People's Liberation Army
up in business with normal trade relations, and this makes it permanent
normal trade relations.
The driving force behind this debate, which the other side dutifully
refuses to acknowledge, is that with PNTR, as they have set it up, the
American corporate interests will continue to be eligible for American-
taxpayer subsidized loans and taxpayer-guaranteed loans through the
Export-Import Bank and other financial institutions. Without NTR, those
corporate interests building factories in China will not get the loan
subsidies and the guarantees supported by the American taxpayer. So
much for free trade.
That is the primary issue here and yet the other side continually
refuses to address that issue of subsidized transfer of technology and
manufacturing to Communist China.
This vote is about confirming government policies that have created a
perverse incentive for American businessmen to close manufacturing
facilities in the United States, where they have no loan guarantees,
and set them up in Communist China. Over the last 10 years, American
investment backed by the U.S. taxpayer has built the manufacturing and
technological infrastructure of the world's worst human rights abuser,
Communist China, a major competitor of the United States and a country
that is America's number one potential enemy in the years ahead.
Nixon, on his death bed, told writer William Safire that his China
strategy may have created a Frankenstein.
Our policy of most favored nation status, or normal trade relations,
has created a monster that uses slave labor to compete with the
American worker and is in the process of building a high-tech military
force capable of defeating our military if there is a confrontation and
incinerating millions of Americans, if necessary.
The over-$500 billion in trade surplus that we have had under this
normal trade relations that people want to now make permanent, what
have they done with this $500 billion in trade surplus over these last
10 years? Well, that is about the same amount of money they pumped into
modernizing their military, building their missiles and rockets,
building their airplanes and ships; and often, of course, these things
are being built in factories supplied to them by American investors.
Today we are voting whether or not to freeze NTR in place and to make
it permanent. We are voting today to take away Congress' annual review
of the heinous human rights abuses that have gotten worse under NTR,
and we are voting to muzzle those in Congress who fear the
technological transfer and the building of manufacturing plants in
Communist China.
The last thing we should do is make this system permanent and to
limit congressional oversight and debate and to turn all enforcement
mechanisms for disputes over to Third World-dominated World Trade
Organization panels and commissions.
Let us champion liberty and justice. Let us not finance our
competitors and our potential enemies. Let us defeat making permanent
normal trading status that has worked against our country's security
and against the economic interests of the American people. If we do not
champion liberty and

[[Page 9078]]

justice, who will? If we do not champion liberty and justice, we will
not only be betraying our Founding Fathers but we will be demoralizing
those people all over the world who look to America for hope. We will
be betraying the vision of America as a shining city on a hill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard some very intense rhetoric thus far in
this discussion of granting permanent normal trade relations for China,
and I think it is important for folks to recognize that the permanent
normal trade relations with China opens China's market to the United
States, which has not been opened heretofore. If we were to continue
the annual renewal of normal trade relations with China, 134 countries
on the face of this earth will have access to that huge market, the
biggest market on the face of this earth. They will have accessed that
market, and we will be the only country that has not accessed that
market.
We have let them, since 1980, access our market and that has produced
indeed a rather sizable trade deficit; and it has produced a sizable
trade deficit because we have not enjoyed reciprocity. What we are
accomplishing here with China's accession into the World Trade
Organization is reciprocity.
I would like to include one more comment here and it is by Clyde
Prestowitz, and it was in the Wall Street Journal and he points out,
``There is a final, most important reason to grant China PNTR.'' And
keep in mind he was a trade negotiator for the Reagan administration,
and he is currently president of the Economic Strategy Institute, a
Washington-based think tank. He says, ``For 30 years the U.S. has
worked to bring China more fully into the community of nations, and to
promote both economic development and a more liberal society. The
policy has been working. Anyone who saw China in the early 1980s and
compares it with today must be amazed. Bicycles and drab Mao suits have
morphed into traffic jams and bright fashions; the freedom and the
range of individual choices available to the average person has
expanded exponentially. After years of estrangement, China is asking to
join the international community. To turn it down at the very moment it
is moving in the direction we have desired would be a tragic and
historic mistake.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Dunn), our distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about another facet of this
great debate about opening up trade with China. For decades our foreign
policy needed to rely on strong international leadership that was
backed by scientific ingenuity embodied in the tip of ballistic
missiles. It was our unwavering commitment to freedom and confidence in
our ideals that helped to seal the victory over Communism. Although our
ideals and our commitment are the same today, clearly the tools of
freedom and democracy are changing.

{time} 1245

In the next century, it will be the diplomacy of trade, and the
growth of the Internet that ensure continued United States leadership
throughout the globe.
The power of the Internet will define the way we communicate in our
personal relationships, our business dealings, and in our political
advocacy throughout this new century. And once again, the United States
is leading the revolution. In fact, some of the most powerful and
innovative high-tech companies in the world are based in the United
States.
These companies employ the most highly-paid, highly-skilled workforce
in the world and are helping to raise the standard of living for
millions of Americans. So what does it mean that the new bilateral
trade agreement signed between the United States and China commits
China to living under the information technology agreement?
Mr. Speaker, it means that tariffs on United States computer
equipment will phase down to zero in China and the growing middle class
in China will begin to have access to low-cost tools with which to link
themselves to the world.
Despite attempts by the Beijing government to control content on the
Web, the unleashing of the Internet by foreign-owned companies can only
mean less control from Beijing and greater independence and control for
the Chinese people to experience economic freedom. The Internet is a
liberating force for Chinese citizenry who are anxious to engage in the
world.
If we do not normalize trade relations with China, however, we will
cede our international leadership to our trading partners, such as the
European Union, which just finalized a trade agreement with China last
week.
Equally as important, if we do not clear the way for China's
accession to the World Trade Organization, the strong Democratic
Government which continues to flourish on the island of Taiwan will
never be admitted to this international body of trading nations. That
is why Chen Shui-bian, the newly-elected President of Taiwan, supports
normalizing the trade between China and the United States.
Clearly, the United States and every other WTO member country will
benefit by having Taiwan as an official member of the WTO. Yet it is
the policy of the WTO that Taiwan will not accede to the body and enjoy
the benefits of its membership until China itself accedes.
Earlier this year, I introduced a resolution to express a sense of
Congress that Taiwan should accede to the WTO as the next order of
business at the same general council meeting at which China accedes.
I am very pleased that my colleagues, the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) have agreed
to include this language in their proposal.
Mr. Speaker, the United States has proven to be on the right side of
history time and time again, because we do not deny the fundamental
need of the human spirit, individual liberty.
As the promise of free and fair trade spreads this message, we should
neither fear this opportunity nor apologize for the advancement of
American ideals. Engaging China as a willing trade partner and taking
our message to her people will prove time and time again to be the
right course.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this effort.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the
sovereign State of Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, up until the vote in the
Committee on Ways and Means last week, I had truly been undecided by
this issue. I believe in the benefits of free trade, but that does not
mean that one signs up for a bad deal; that is why I voted against
NAFTA. But as a supporter of annual renewal of normal trade relations
with China, I found it hard to be adamantly opposed to doing in one
vote what I was prepared to do on a year-by-year basis, especially
considering the benefits of the agreement to the United States.
I take human rights, labor rights, religious freedom and
environmental protection seriously, and no Member of this House has had
a stronger labor voting record over the last 12 years. But I find it
hard to accept the notion that the failure to move China sufficiently
on these issues meant that we had to continue the same old strategy.
I took seriously the argument that China has never lived up to its
trade agreements in the past, and it certainly bothers me, and I think
it will be a long-term struggle to get China to fully implement this
agreement, a job with a greater chance of success if we work within the
world community, rather going our own way.
I believe the Levin-Bereuter proposal to be crucial to this vote and
want to commend both gentlemen for their outstanding efforts. While
opponents of China PNTR must oppose and downplay the proposal at this
time, I think

[[Page 9079]]

a commission which functions daily to promote the cause of human rights
and labor rights in China is far more valuable than an annual debate
that threatens nobody.
And I found great comfort in my talk with former President Jimmy
Carter about advancing human and labor rights in China. Who, in the
annals of American political life, has more impeccable credentials
about human rights than Jimmy Carter?
Finally, I do worry about the national security implications of
rejection of China by the United States. I fail to see how this helps
Taiwan or how it helps make China a more responsible actor in the Asia-
Pacific region. It would not be fair to say that China would be
isolated if we deny them PNTR, because they will still be part of the
WTO, no matter what we do. It would be fair to say, however, they would
be more isolated from us.
It is a tough call, Mr. Speaker, but in the last analysis, granting
China PNTR is far better for the United States than denying it.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit).
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. I rise in
opposition to granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Let
me be very clear, I am not opposed to an open trade policy and I am not
an isolationist. But, I also do not believe in trade at any price. Our
experiences in this body and on this floor with so-called ``free
trade'' agreements show they have all come with fairly high price tags.
They end up being neither free nor fair.
Since 1992, we have entered into four bilateral trade agreements with
China. In these agreements, China agreed to open their markets, end
exporting products made in forced labor camps, limit quotas on Chinese
textiles exports and pledged to protect US patents, trademarks and
copyrights for intellectual piracy.
Yet, according to annual reports of the United States Trade
Representative and the U.S. State Department, China has violated each
of these agreements. Is it any wonder our trade deficit with China has
grown from $6 billion in 1989 to $70 billion in 1999?
In terms of trade alone, there is more than enough reason to merit a
``no'' vote. Yet there are many other reasons which stack together in
building a no vote.
I am particularly disturbed when I hear how this bill is somehow
American agriculture's new best friend. Under last year's agreement for
China's accession to the World Trade Organization, China agreed to
import ``all types of U.S. wheat from all regions of the U.S. to all
ports in China.'' Yet, it is very interesting to note China's chief WTO
negotiator said earlier this year that his government agreed only
theoretically.
``. . . It is a complete misunderstanding to expect this grain to
enter the country . . . Beijing only conceded a theoretical opportunity
for the export of grain,'' he was quoted as saying in the South China
Morning Post.
As far as beef is concerned, the Administration said it expects China
to lift the ban on all U.S. meat and poultry exports, yet this same
Chinese official said: ``In terms of meat imports, we have not actually
made any material concessions.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues why are we so willing to jump on the
agriculture bandwagon? Growers in my district are already placed on an
uneven slope because of the phase out of Methyl Bromide. With entry
into the WTO--which incidentally recognizes China as a `developing'
nation the same as Mexico and Chile--Chinese farmers will be allowed to
use Methyl Bromide until 2015 while our producers adhere to the
Montreal Protocol and phase out the fumigant.
Though we have extended our unilateral phase out until 2005, where is
there a guarantee the WTO will not continue to define China as a
developing country allowing even further unfavorable treatment?
In regards to our relationship with Taiwan--who happens to be one of
our largest trading partners--I am very disappointed that we didn't
allow the amendment of my good friend, the gentleman from California,
to ensure that should we adopt this agreement if China should attack or
blockade Taiwan, PNTR would be revoked. I think that is a very
reasonable and balanced approach.
It also leads to a bigger problem--that of U.S. national security
interests. China is one of the world's largest exporters of missile
technology and weapons of mass destruction. Their clientele reads like
America's Most Wanted list: Libya, Iran, North Korea. China has
repeatedly sold components and missiles capable of carrying nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons to rogue nations. Should we dismiss the
Cox Report and its findings that China has stolen information on our
latest nuclear weapons placing us at jeopardy?
In it's findings, the Cox Report wrote, ``. . . a PRC (People's
Republic of China) deployment of mobile thermonuclear weapons, or
neutron bombs, based on stolen U.S. design information, could have
significant effect on the regional balance of power, particularly with
respect to Taiwan. PRC deployments of advanced nuclear weapons based on
stolen U.S. design information would pose greater risks to U.S. troops
and interests in Asia and the Pacific.''
In terms of human rights and religious persecution, the Chinese
record is simply abysmal. I have never been one to insist our trading
partners or even our allies to be just like us in the way they conduct
their lives. I fully support self determination but the Chinese record
in this area is horrible. I reject the notion that somehow China will
mystically transform itself into a Western-style democracy in the areas
of free speech, worker's rights, political dissent, religious
persecution and protecting the environment with this agreement.
What this comes down to is big business is looking to become even
bigger. Sometimes, however, the price of doing business is just too
steep to pay.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown) who realizes that, like NAFTA, PNTR will promote global
business and undermine environmental protections, undermine labor
standards and undermine human rights.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Stark) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, here in Congress we pride ourselves in our commitment
toward the spread of democratic ideals and the improvement of human
rights around the globe, but something in our China policy is amiss.
During the weeks approaching this vote, America's most prominent CEOs
walked the halls of Congress and told us they want access to the 1.2
billion Chinese customers, what they do not say is that their real
interest is in access to 1.2 billion Chinese workers, workers whom they
pay 20 cents, 30 cents, 40 cents an hour.
These CEOs will tell us that increasing trade with China will allow
human rights to improve. They will tell us that democracy will flourish
with increased trade. But as these CEOs speak democratic ideals, their
companies systematically violate the most fundamental of human and
worker rights. Engagement with China, 10 years of engagement has not
worked because investors in China have not wanted change.
In the last 5 years, Western investment in developing countries has
shifted from countries like India, a democracy, to countries like
China, where workers are paid only a few cents an hour, from countries
like Taiwan, a democracy, to countries like Indonesia with
authoritarian regimes.
The share of developing country exports to the U.S. for democratic
nations fell from 53 percent to 34 percent. In manufacturing goods,
developing democracies saw their share of developing country exports
fall 21 points from 56 percent to 35 percent. The money went from
developing democracies to developing authoritarian countries.
Western corporations want to invest in countries that have below-
poverty wages, poor environmental standards, no worker benefits, no
opportunity to bargain collectively. As developing countries make
progress towards democracies, as they increase worker rights and create
laws to protect the environment, the American business community
punishes them by pulling its trade and investment in favor of a
totalitarian government.
Decisions, Mr. Speaker, about the Chinese economy are made by three
groups, the Chinese Communist party, the People's Liberation Army, and
Western investors. Which one of these three want Chinese society to
change? Does the Chinese Communist party want the Chinese people to
enjoy increased human rights? I do not think so. Does the People's
Liberation Army want to close the labor camps in China? I do not think
so. Do Western

[[Page 9080]]

investors want Chinese workers to bargain collectively and pay higher
wages? I do not think so.
Mr. Speaker, passing PNTR will lock in the status quo: More slave
labor, more child labor, more human rights violations, more threats
against Taiwan, more crackdowns on religious freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues vote ``no'' on PNTR.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Crane) has 33 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) has 38\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Stark) has 37 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) has 39\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have heard today that there is
reciprocity in PNTR. Anyone who talks about reciprocity in PNTR
probably has not read this. Let me just say that, at the end of 5
years, there are still going to be 25 percent tariffs; on cars, 45
percent; on motorcycles, 30 percent; these are all tariffs on American
goods while our tariff has virtually been eliminated.
There is no reciprocity with PNTR. They may bring down their
outrageously immoral and anti-American tariffs, this unfair situation
we have now, but they then still keep the tariffs way above anything in
the United States. We eliminate ours. They freeze their high tariffs
against their products in permanently. That is not reciprocity.
Plus there are still requirements that American companies going there
will have to partner in many cases, for example, 51 percent of all
telecommunications investment has to be owned and controlled by
Chinese. We are providing them technology, manufacturing, investment.
What are they providing us? They are flooding our markets with cheap
goods and putting our people out of work.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues come to the floor and
vote, there are three questions that we must consider. First, will
China comply with the agreements under PNTR better than they have done
in the past? Two, will China continue to use its trade surplus with the
U.S. to expand its military complex? Three, will democracy increase in
China because of this agreement?
Let us look at this first chart. I would like to point out that China
has lowered its tariffs as part of its prior agreement. In fact, in
1995, they lowered it from 42 percent to 17 percent. But as my
colleagues can see, the deficit increased dramatically. In fact, last
year, it was $70 billion. So based on history, I questioned the real
benefits of China's lowering its tariffs.
I would also like to point out that while some agricultural products
received very favorable treatment, others did not. So I submit that not
everyone will benefit from this agreement.
Remember, there are 700 million farmers in China, and we have about 2
million. In this chart, my colleagues will see that China consistently
overproduces its agriculture commodities and actually exports some
citrus products up to 300 times what it imports.
Finally, can China be trusted? China, as we know, has violated both
the letter and the spirit of past agreements, ranging from intellectual
property rights to weapon proliferation.
Furthermore, China's defense spending has grown roughly at the same
rate as its economy. We can expect the trend to continue as China takes
in more U.S. dollars.
On a final note, our last chart, in 1989, students erected this
statue in Tiananmen Square, the Goddess of Democracy, a model of the
Statue of Liberty because the symbol of democracy was a movement in
China at that time, that point.
I ask my colleagues, in conclusion, is China closer to freedom than
it was in 1989? Are they continuing to get more belligerent? The real
question is, would it not be wiser to grant incremental agreements with
China and then trust but verify periodically? Those are the questions
you must answer honestly before you vote ``yes'' for PNTR.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to some of the points
brought up by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
First of all, some of the agricultural and other export subsidies are
eliminated by the agreement or substantially reduced and that will
affect the trade statistics be offered now and in the future.
Additionally, of course, in the PNTR agreement that the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and I offered, we have strong compliance and
enforcement resources made available to our executive branch to better
assure that China does keep its promise and promote the rule of law.
China does have a mixed trade record on compliance. But I would
remind the gentleman, that just very recently, kept their promise to
buy citrus products from the gentleman's State. However, I say most
importantly, China's entry into the WTO subjects them to the WTO
dispute settlement mechanism. That is the big advancement to require
compliance with the trade promises in its accession agreements.
Mr. Speaker, extending my remarks this member reminds his colleague
that today this body will cast one of its most significant votes
affecting American national security and economic prosperity when it
determines the fate of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status
for China. Despite the supercharged and misleading claims by opponents
that this is a vote about rewarding China, it is not that at all, but
instead a vote for our own national interests. And, PNTR is, indeed, in
America's short- and long-term national interest for three crucial
reasons.
First, PNTR benefits American economic prosperity. Regardless of how
this body votes on PNTR, China will join the WTO and be required to
take major actions to open up its vast market of 1.2 billion consumers.
As part of China's WTO accession process, the U.S. negotiated an
outstanding market access agreement which significantly lowers China's
high import tariffs and allows for direct marketing and distributing in
China. For example, the tariff on beef will fall from 45 percent to
just 12 percent. Quantitative restrictions on oilseeds and soybean
imports are abolished. Indeed, it is projected that by 2003, China
could account for 37 percent of future growth in U.S. agricultural
exports. Given that America's markets are already open at WTO standards
to Chinese exports, the U.S. has effectively given up nothing; all the
concessions have been made by China. Prior to the agreement, China
frequently required manufacturing offsets--most products sold in China
had to be made in China. This export-oriented agreement abolishes that
unfair offset and eliminates currently required industrial technology
transfers allowing products made in America to be sold in China.
Approval of PNTR makes it less likely that American companies need to
open foreign factories and thereby export jobs.
To access all of these benefits, WTO rules require the U.S. to
provide China with permanent Normal Trade Relations status, something
that is granted to all the other 135 members of the WTO and have
provided to China on an annual basis for over 20 years. The failure to
provide PNTR to China will remove the legal obligation for China to
provide any of these hard-sought benefits to the United States even as
China is required to open up its market to our foreign competitors and
all other WTO members. Without PNTR, America is unilaterally giving
away the Chinese marketplace to our Japanese, European and other
international competitors at the disastrous expense of U.S. exports and
the jobs they create at home.
Second, PNTR supports the U.S. national security objective of
maintaining peace and stability in East Asia. Sino-American relations
are increasingly problematic and uncertain. In the wake of our
accidental bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade and China's confusion
about U.S. continuing support for Taiwan, rejection of PNTR could
result in a resurgence of resentful nationalism as hard-liners in
Beijing characterize a negative PNTR vote as an American attempt to
weaken and contain China. Resources China currently devotes to economic
reform could easily be reallocated to military expansion with adverse
consequences for Taiwan and our allies in Korea and Japan, and a
destabilized region. Confronting China in this scenario will require
much more than the 100,000 strong force we presently have in the
Pacific. China is not a strategic partner; it

[[Page 9081]]

is increasingly as economic competitor that is growing as a regional
power. However, it is not an adversary. If the United States is astute
and firm--if America increases our engagement with China and helps
integrate it into the international community--it is certainly still
possible to encourage China along the path to a complementary
relationship with America instead of an incredible level of conflict.
Third, China is emerging from years of isolation and the future
direction of China remains in flux--more than any major country. WTO
accession and PNTR are critical for the success of China's economic
reform process and Chinese leaders, like Premier Zhu Ronghi, who
support it. These reforms, being pursued over the formidable opposition
of old-style Communist hardliners, will eventually provide the
foundation for a more open economy there, a process that, in the long
term, should facilitate political liberalization and improved human
rights. In the near term, China will be required more and more to
govern civil society on the basis of the rule of law, clearly a
positive development we should be encouraging.
China's accession to the WTO with PNTR status does not guarantee that
China will always take a responsible, constructive course. That is why
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and this Member
proposed an initiative that incorporates special import anti-surge
protections for the U.S. and other trade enforcement resources for our
government to ensure China's compliance with WTO rules. This initiative
also proposes a new Congressional-Executive Commission on Chinese Human
Rights that will report to the Congress annually on human rights
concerns, including recommendations for timely legislative action.
When it is time to cast the vote, Congress must ask, ``is PNTR in
America's long and short term national interest?'' On all accounts, the
answer is clearly, ``yes.''

The levin-bereuter proposal

Mr. Speaker, following the signing of the ``Agreement on market
Access Between the People's Republic of China and the United States of
America'' on November 15, 1999, it became apparent to this Member that
the House would finally consider providing China with Permanent Normal
Trade Relations (PNTR) in the context of China's accession to the World
Trade Organization (WTO) sometime during this Congress. However, the
concerns in Congress about Sino-American relations continue to multiply
in scope and seriousness. These concerns are strong enough with enough
of our colleagues so as to make the passage of a simple, clean PNTR
bill uncertain. Something else would be needed to help address these
concerns in a meaningful way and replace what has become an annual
debate on China resulting from the annual NTR renewal process. This
Member concluded that there would be a need for PNTR-compatible
parallel legislation. The distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin) was of the same mind-frame and working on his won parallel
proposal. About a month ago we combined our efforts and have worked
closely together in a very cooperative and bipartisan manner to produce
the China-specific Levin-Bereuter proposal.
Mr. Speaker, the special 12-year important anti-surge protections in
our original package were incorporated into H.R. 4444 by the Ways and
Means Committee during its mark-up of the bill. The remainder of the
Levin-Bereuter proposal was incorporated into H.R. 4444 by the Rules
Committee.
This includes:
1. The Congressional-Executive Commission on the people's Republic of
China. This Commission is based on the OSCE Commission model and would
be comprised of nine Members of the House, nine Senators and five
appointees from the Executive Branch. The Commission would produce an
annual report to the President and Congress evaluating human rights in
China with, should it deem appropriate, recommendations. Within 30 days
of the receipt of this report, the House International Relations
Committee would be required to hold at least one public hearing on the
report, and on the basis of recommendations in the report, decide, in a
timely manner, what legislation to report for House action.
2. Monitoring and Enforcement of China's WTO Commitments. Included in
this section of the legislative proposal is a direction to the U.S.
Trade Representative to seek an annual review by the WTO of China's
compliance and commitments to the WTO. We authorize additional staff
and resources to the Department of Commerce, State, and Agriculture and
to the USTR to monitor and support the enforcement of China's trade
commitments. The establishment of a Trade Law Technical Assistance
Center to assist businesses and workers in evaluating the potential
remedies to any trade violations by China is also authorized. We also
require an annual report by the USTR to the Congress evaluating China's
compliance with its WTO commitments.
3. Task Force on Prison Labor Exports. The Levin-Bereuter proposal
establishes a new inter-agency task forced to improve the enforcement
of our own laws preventing the importation of prison labor products. It
also directs the U.S. to enter into new agreements with China to
improve the ability to investigate prison-labor export concerns.
4. Trade and Rule of Law Programs. The proposal authorizes new
commercial, labor, legal and civil society rule of law programs for
China.
5. Taiwan and the WTO. Incorporating the language of H. Con. Res.
262, the Dunn-Bereuter resolution, we call for the accession of Taiwan
to the WTO as the next order of business at the same general counsel
meeting after China's accession--in other words, the near simultaneity
of accession by Taiwan.
Mr. Speaker, this Member believes that these additional provisions,
particularly the Commission on Chinese Human Rights with the guaranteed
review of its findings and recommendations by the appropriate standing
committee in the House, do, indeed, address the multi-faceted concerns
of our colleagues. The Levin-Bereuter initiative assures that China's
compliance with their commitments and their human rights record will
certainly not be ignored by the Congress or the Executive Branch after
China receives PNTR. The Commission will be a far more effective way to
address human rights issues than the noisy but ineffective annual
debate on extending NTR.
Now, to respond to some of the points that have been raised in this
debate, this Member will offer the following rebuttals:

on granting pntr versus granting ntr

China has been provided with Normal Trade Relations (previously known
as Most Favored Nation) status since 1979--for over 20 years. During
the first 10 of those years, no one objected even though the economic
and human rights situation in China was worse than today. Since the
U.S. gives up nothing and China makes all the concessions with the new
bilateral WTO accession agreement, what is the real difference between
providing NTR and PNTR for China? The removal of what has become a
noisy but ineffective debate on China. Indeed, with PNTR, we will
replace this one-day debate with a Congressional-Executive Commission
on Chinese Human Rights that will concentrate on China every day--365
days a year, will report annually to Congress and whose report and
recommendations are guaranteed to be considered in the Congress
annually.

on the transfer of u.s. jobs to china

Since, in the U.S.-China bilateral trade agreement the U.S. gives up
nothing, who benefits most from PNTR? U.S. exporters.
Since the bilateral agreement requires China to halt its current
practice of requiring technology transfer and manufacturing offsets,
who benefits most from PNTR? American workers. This provision makes it
much less likely that U.S. companies build factories in China. With
PNTR, American products can be exported, distributed and marketed
directly in China. That means jobs STAY in America.
Opponents reference to an International Trade Commission (ITC) study
purportedly stating PNTR will result in job losses is wrong. Here in
writing is a letter from the ITC itself verifying that it did not
generate any forecasts regarding jobs. The ITC itself says that its
study has been misrepresented and its methodology misunderstood by the
special-interest supported Economic Policy Institute reported opponents
are quoting.

on the concern that pntr only benefits communists

The claim is made that PNTR only rewards the Communists in China.
That is inaccurate. Up 40% of the Chinese economy, according to the
State Department, is now privatized and corporatized and this sector of
the Chinese economy is growing every day. These are private
enterprises, non-communist entrepreneurs and American investors. This
is the economic sector that will IMPORT American products, services and
ideas. In contrast, the Communist hardliners are opposed to PNTR and
China's WTO accession because they accurately see PNTR and WTO
accession as foundations for building a strong private sector--the
nemesis of Communist control!

on the concern that china has never complied with trade agreements

China's record is admittedly mixed. Failure to provide PNTR
guarantees that America's Japanese, European and other foreign
competitors have access to China's market at the disastrous expense of
U.S. exports. Even a deal honored in a patchy manner would help
American business more than no deal at all. Allowing Airbus rather than
Boeing to export to

[[Page 9082]]

China hurts American workers. That's why Boeing's 40,000-strong
machinists union endorses PNTR.
The Levin-Bereuter addition to PNTR has important China trade
compliance monitoring and enforcement resources.
Access to the WTO dispute settlement process, availably only with
PNTR, gives us a significant multi-lateral trade agreement enforcement
mechanism.
China HAS complied with trade agreements--note the recent Bilateral
Agricultural agreement. China has already purchased wheat from the
Northwest, Citrus from Florida, California and Arizona and hogs from
Nebraska.

on the u.s.-china trade deficit

Opponents are taking the ITC study way out of context. The ITC does
not take U.S. services or distribution into account. Services now
represent \2/3\ of the U.S. economy. The ITC only examines \1/3\ of the
U.S. economy.
While the ITC report stated that the U.S. bilateral trade deficit
with China would likely increase at first with China's accession to the
WTO, it also continued stating that ``at the same time the U.S. global
trade deficit would decrease as a result of larger exports to other
East Asian countries.'' Overall, we benefit and our deficit decreases.
China will join the WTO regardless of our vote today. Failure to
provide PNTR unilaterally gives away the Chinese market to our
Japanese, European and other foreign competitors at the expense of
American exports--our outstanding and hard-sought agreement with China
is export-oriented allowing products made in America to be sold and
distributed in china. Restricting U.S. exports, which denial of PNTR
would do, would increase our deficit with China. Giving American
exports a fair chance to compete in china will help lower the deficit.

on concerns with regard to religious freedom

Religious freedom is repressed in China. Promoting economic reform
and rule of law in China, which PNTR and engagement does, is superior
to isolating China and turning our back on religious followers. voting
NO on PNTR only bolsters the position of the hard-liners in Beijing--
the very element repressing religion. That is why religious leaders,
including the Dalai Lama, and especially those in the underground in
China support China's accession to the WTO and reliable U.S.
engagement.
The Helsinki-type Human Rights Commission in the PNTR legislation is
required to monitor and report on ``religious freedom, including the
right to worship free of involvement of and interference by the
government''. Voting no on PNTR is a rejection of this Commission.
When asked whether the new Commission on Chinese Human Rights truly
addresses the concerns raised by the current Religious Freedom
Commission, Commissioner Elliot Abrams responded, ``I think it does
address the kind of concerns that we've raised. We're looking for some
kind of mechanism for constant monitoring, and it does address that.''
(Ways and Means Committee testimony, 5/3/00)

on taiwan and wto

President Chen of Taiwan has endorsed PNTR for China (LA Times
Interview, 3/22/00). It appears a little self-presumptuous for us to
claim to know and care more about Taiwan's position than Taiwan's own
democratically-elected President.
The Levin-Bereuter addition to the PNTR legislation calls for the
near simultaneity of WTO accession by Taiwan-as the next order of
business at the same general council meeting after China's accession.
Given Taiwan's significant investment in China, it is in China's own
self-interest to allow Taiwan's accession.
If China threatens or attacks Taiwan, the President of the United
States already has the authority under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to suspend PNTR benefits. He can even go
much further and restrict imports from or even embargo China! IEEPA is
fully consistent with Article 21 of the WTO. Remember, Iran, Iraq and
Libya all have PNTR and Cuba is a member of the WTO, yet we have WTO-
consistent embargoes against all of them!
Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges adoption passage of H.R.
4444.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) from Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I do want to compliment everyone involved in
this process. When the democratically-elected representative
legislative system functions, it is a wonder to behold, and we are in
the process of doing that today.

{time} 1300

I do hear these concerns. I am not going to talk about trade,
although I am on the Subcommittee on Trade. Just go back and read the
history on Smoot-Hawley. No one should argue that this is not going to
benefit all concerned, especially the United States.
I do want to address my colleagues who are concerned about the
progress that has been made in China with this Communist regime that
has been in for about 50 years. We inherited a lot of concepts of
Western Civilization. Probably the most important, coming from the
Greeks, is the inherent worth of the individual, the concept that one
is worth something simply because one is alive. We have institutions
structured on that basis. The institutions are here to further the
individual, not the other way around.
But if we go back to 1776 when we declared our independence and we
said all men are created equal, it was 12 years later, in 1788, that we
wrote the Constitution. There was not religious freedom as we know it
in the first amendment in 1788. It was not until 1791, when the Bill of
Rights was ratified. And as a matter of fact, the Bill of Rights was
not ratified in Massachusetts, Georgia, or Connecticut until 1939.
Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence, the 13th
Amendment ended slavery; 144 years after the Declaration of
Independence, women were given the right to vote; 178 years after the
Declaration of Independence, we said separate but equal is inherently
unequal; and it was 186 years after the Declaration of Independence
that we said one person, one vote. The purest statement of all men are
created equal.
So when people are upset over a 10- or a 20- or a 30-year period of
the failure of China to take a foreign concept, the inherent worth of
the individual, and fundamentally restructure their society, I would
say, take a look at our history.
And lastly, let me say this, for those of my colleagues who are going
to vote ``no.'' We do know what that ``no'' vote means. It does not
mean that we will keep China out of the WTO. It does mean that the
hard-liners, the people who are looking for excuses inside China to
continue to foment real concern about our national security, will have
a card that they can play at any time. And probably, most importantly,
one of the reasons I am so pleased we have come together today is that
it will be reported that my colleagues voting ``no'' are on the wrong
side of history.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of our committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, my first concern in evaluating this
agreement has been deciding what course would be most supportive of the
interests of central Texas families. I believe that more trade will
mean more good, high-wage, technology jobs not only for central Texas
but for all of America.
A vote against normal trade with China will only deny American firms
the access to Chinese markets that will now be open to all of our
competitors around the world. This would likely disrupt commerce
without resolving any of our human rights, worker rights or
environmental concerns.
I applaud the successful effort of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) to amend this
bill to create a commission to monitor human rights and trade policy in
China. To be sure, this is an imperfect answer, but so is the way we
have conducted our annual review process for the last 20 years. That
unusual existing process does not appear to have been particularly
effective over in the last two decades in securing improvement in these
areas either. I believe that this Commission represents a better
alternative. We will not gain leverage over the Chinese by voting
against continuing our commercial relationship. Rather, engagement and
continual annual reminders through this commission of the need to have
a more open Chinese society are more likely to produce that result.
I also appreciate the willingness of the administration to provide
both

[[Page 9083]]

more meaningful environmental review of our trade agreements and the
first genuine participation by the environmental and public health
communities in shaping trade policy. Our trade policy must be
significantly improved to take into consideration the environmental and
public health consequences of our decisions. Recognizing its many
shortcomings, and recognizing the need for significant reforms to open
it up to meaningful public participation, the World Trade Organization
will at least be one more form of international rule with which the
Chinese must comply.
Both sides of this debate have advanced some meritorious arguments,
and some overstatements. I believe a vote to continue normal trade
relations with China, a country containing one-fifth of the people of
the world, will neither guarantee a new China nor the catastrophical
end of old jobs in America. On balance, an affirmative vote is the best
overall choice for the security of American families.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Clement), who recognizes that a trade deal with China
gives away our leverage to protect the lives and human beings and
slaves in China.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today as a strong supporter of fair trade and free
trade, but as one who is convinced that relinquishing the leveraging
tool the annual vote on normal trade relations provides is a grave
mistake.
Let me be clear. I am not here to call for an end to our trade
relationship with China. I know the importance of trade to our current
economic prosperity, and I support economic engagement. I supported
NAFTA, GATT, Fast Track, and the African trade bill we just recently
passed. But what I cannot support is relinquishing our annual review of
China's progress towards free market reform and a democratic society. I
cannot, in good conscience, award China PNTR when there are serious
national security concerns; when China's records of compliance with
past agreements leaves much to be desired; and when China's progress on
economic power and technological development has overlooked progress on
human rights and religious freedom.
I was one of the authors of the International Religious Freedom Act,
which established an independent commission led by Ambassador-at-Large
Bob Seiple. This commission released earlier this month a report which
notes a marked deterioration in China's religious freedom during the
last year. This is unconscionable.
If America stands for anything, it stands for personal freedom and
inalienable rights for all people. Granting PNTR today sends China the
message that we approve of their political system as it stands today,
and that is clearly not the case.
While I was home last weekend, I talked to a number of farmers and
small businessmen who expressed their concern that they felt like they
were not getting a fair shake, and I could not agree more. Our farmers
and small business people are facing tremendous challenges these days.
But I am convinced that replacing annual normal trade relations with
permanent normal trade relations is not the answer.
I am not sure this switch will solve our problem. Vote ``no.''
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I did want to say, with respect to the
gentleman from Tennessee, that first of all the commission established
by the initiative of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and this
member gives Congress this annual report and recommendations not just
annually but on any occasion during the year. And the House
International Relations Committee would be required upon receipt of an
annual report of findings and recommendations to hold at least one
public hearing, within 30 days, to make a decision within 45 days
whether to advance legislation to the floor and to have such resolution
available for House action within 60 days from the receipt of the
annual report.
This OSCE-type commission is a far more effective mechanism than the
annual ineffective harangue during the NTR extension vote that goes on
here once a year.
Mr. Speaker, this Member would also say that action on the
recommendation of the OSCE-type Commission, the China Human Rights
Commission, takes only the action of this Congress, unlike the Helsinki
Commission, which effectively requires the action of over 50 nation
members.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Metcalf) and would just note that I disagree totally
with what was just said.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, in February this year, China's army
threatened long-distance missile strikes against the U.S. Later that
month, its defense minister threatened to attack U.S. aircraft carriers
if they came near the Taiwan Strait. In April, the Chinese military
review threatened neutron bomb attacks against both U.S. carriers and
against the U.S. mainland. America was threatened with heavy
casualties.
The leading reformer that we are asked to support, the Chinese
premier, has pledged to end the democratic independence of Taiwan, a
critical U.S. ally. The outrageous threats of Chinese militarists
during the lead-up to this PNTR vote have been beyond the pale.
Let us engage China, yes. Let us trade with China. But at this time
let us continue to review the relationship on an annual basis. Reject
permanent PNTR.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a respected member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I will enter quotations from Chinese human
rights' activists at the appropriate place in the Congressional Record
who all agree that the best way to open minds is through open markets.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I in Congress remain deeply concerned
about human rights' violations in China, but one of the best ways to
instill American ideals of individual freedom and liberty is through
opening China's borders to American goods and services. That is what
this agreement does, and that is why I support this agreement. China's
old hard-line regime would like nothing more than for these American
values and ideas to be denied access to their country. China's
membership in the WTO will force China to play by the rules, protecting
human rights.
May I suggest that engaging China is the best possible way that
Americans can influence Chinese behavior, enhance human rights,
strengthen labor standards, and improve the environment. And as we can
see, a number of human rights' activists in China agree that opening
the markets would open the door for improving human rights.
Mr. Speaker, China's involvement in the international trading
community has already improved human rights. We know that the most
repressive periods of China's history occurred at times of
international isolation. Exposure to the outside world has increased
openness, social mobility, and personal liberties for the Chinese
people. I think people need to recognize that engagement does not mean
endorsement. Congress will continue to monitor China's human rights'
record. Nothing prevents Congress from legally sanctioning China and
invoking its penalties should Congress feel China has violated the
spirit and the rule of law with respect to human rights, even if we
pass this agreement.
Annual human rights reviews will continue. Future administrations
will continue to conduct annual reviews of China's human rights'
record. Nothing in this legislation changes that. Rather, we have
enhanced it under this legislation thanks to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
I would ask everyone to keep in mind that this legislation is not
only about exporting American goods to China; it is also about
exporting American values.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the quotes I referred to
earlier:

Human Rights Activists Agree that open markets mean open
minds.

[[Page 9084]]

The participation of China in the WTO would not only have
economic and political benefits, but would serve to bolster
those in China who understand that the country must embrace
the rule of law, which of course is a key principle
underlying active membership in global trade organizations .
. . For those of us who have long pressed for vigorous
adherence to the rule of law in China, it is encouraging that
so many Chinese officials support the nation's entry into
groups such as the WTO.''--Martin Lee, Chairman of the
Democratic Party of Hong Kong.
``An isolated China will resist change at home and be
likely to behave more aggressively towards its regional
neighbors. None of that serves American interests. Admitting
China into the WTO may not cause it to shed dictatorship for
democracy. But it's the right step toward realizing that
goal.''--Randy Tate, Co-Chair of Working Families for Free
Trade, and Former Executive Director of the Christian
Coalition.
``All of the fights--for a better environment, labor rights
and human rights--these fights we will fight in China
tomorrow. But first we must break the monopoly of the state.
To do that, we need a freer market and the competition
mandated by the WTO.''--Dai Qing, prominent Chinese
environmentalist.
``It is obvious this is a good thing for China . . . I
appreciate the efforts of friends and colleagues to help our
human rights situation but it doesn't make sense to use trade
as a lever. It just doesn't work.''--Bao Tong, prominent
Chinese dissident.
``For so many years of China's reform and opening, these
areas couldn't be opened up and remained state monopolies.
But if economic monopolies can be broken, controls in other
areas can have breakthroughs as well. These breakthroughs
won't necessarily happen soon. But in the final analysis, in
the minds of ordinary people, it will show that breakthroughs
that were impossible in the past are indeed possible.''--Li
Ke, Former Chinese Editor of the Democratic Journal Fangfa.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I think anyone listening to this debate
would agree that we are all interested in changing the behavior of the
Chinese Government towards its people and human rights and all the
rest. We differ merely on how best to do it.
I am not going to talk about trade either, much, except to say that
this should not be called the China PNTR bill; it ought to be the
America PNTR bill. We give up no leverage. We can change tomorrow what
we have done today. There is nothing permanent around here.
But let me just say why I think it is America's trade bill. The
problem is we do not have any closed markets to China. They have got
their stuff here. If my colleagues do not believe me, go to Wal-Mart.
The problem is, we cannot get our stuff there. And that is why this is
a good deal for America's workers.
One cannot, by voting no, isolate China. One, by voting no, can
isolate us. Do my colleagues not understand that the EU, the South
Americans, Japan, and the rest of Asia are going to move into that
market while we sit here and watch job loss occur in our country
because we are the ones isolated?

{time} 1315

Now, let me say something about that. If one reads history, every
great civilization that has fallen has in one way or another practiced
some form of isolationism. They have tried to erect barriers against
the outside world. China is now and has been paying a terrible price.
China used to be traders years ago, centuries ago. They went into an
isolation mode, and now we see the remnants of what was once a great
free civilization in the throes of this communist dictatorship.
This is about America in the next century. As I believe the last
century was about the United States and the Soviet Union and the
military powers that existed then, the Cold War, this new century is
about trade and about our relationship with China, leading the world
toward human rights through openness and engagement.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), someone who realizes that slave labor is not
the American way to get cheap T-shirts at Wal-Mart.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Stark) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, we should not reward a totalitarian regime that is run
by a Communist party, a dictatorship, with little regard for human
dignity and common decency. We should not reward a nation that has,
through its actions and deeds, done so much evil.
Mr. Speaker, we are free Americans, nurtured on the Declaration of
Independence. We are the land of Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson,
Americans who believe in justice and the dignity of man.
So let us not abandon our patriotic morals in favor of corporate
profits. Let me run that by my colleagues once again. Let us not
abandon our patriotic morals in favor of corporate profits. Let us not
forget the democratic ideals that formed the foundation of this Nation.
I urge my colleagues to remember the lessons from our idealistic
youth of right and wrong and do what is right and vote ``no'' on PNTR
from China.
Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the world lies an ancient nation
with over 1.2 billion people living on a land mass covering 3.7 million
miles. It is a 3,500-year-old civilization that has been at times a
friend, at times an enemy, and at times a stranger. It is a nation of
contradictions: clinging to its 3,500-year-old traditions yet reaching
to embrace the 21st century; governing by a communist ideology yet
striving for capitalist riches. With more than a hint of elitism and
without the self-effacing humility Confucius taught, the Chinese
referred to their nation as the Middle Kingdom for hundreds of years
until the mid-19th century when Britain and Western powers fought, won
and carved up China like freshly killed fame.
For the Chinese, one of the worst things to suffer from is the loss
of respect or ``to lose face'', and in the years following the first
Opium Wars, that is exactly what happened to China. It was not just one
Chinese person who ``lost face'', it was an entire nation. Therein lies
the psyche of the Chinese civilization and of many of the Chinese
people. Wounds still fresh from its harried humiliation by the Western
powers--150 years is merely a catnap for a nation so old--China yearns
to be a global superpower. For much of the 20th century, China has been
playing catch up with the West. An inordinate amount of time and energy
went toward improving China's economy, military and diplomacy to
achieve the most elusive yet important goal for the Chinese people as a
collective whole--to regain what had been lost--respect. It is the
motivational undercurrent in China's actions. That is the important
lesson to be learned for the international community, and the United
States in particular. The lesson is that China is willing to do
whatever it takes, regardless of ruling ideology, to become a global
superpower.
The dangers of such a motivating factor are readily apparent. China,
despite its official pronouncements, has acted in some instances no
different than a rogue nation, such as Libya, North Korea, or Iraq.
Military spending has shot up over 40 percent in the 1990's, and
research and development of high-tech weapons of warfare and mass
destruction have been prioritized. China has illegally sold nuclear
technology to Pakistan, smuggled AK-47s into San Francisco, and
collaborates with terrorist nations such as Iran to improve their
missile and weapons technology. The leaders in Beijing also shot
missiles at Taiwan when that democratic island of 22 million people
held its first democratic elections. This year, the Chinese leaders in
Beijing boldly trumpeted the threat of force to retake Taiwan if
reunification talks do not begin.
In addition, China's utter contempt for human rights is well
documented. In fact, this year the Clinton administration's own State
Department came out with a report detailing China's deteriorating human
rights record. On November 29, 1999, Chinese police summarily arrested
and beat Fu Sheng, a member of the illegal China Democracy Party. Since
last July, more than 35,000 people associated with the Falun Gong
spiritual movement have been detained. No one is safe. Even Christians
are imprisoned and thrown in forced labor camps strictly on the basis
of their religious beliefs. As recently as February of this year, the
80-year-old head of China's underground Roman Catholic Church who was
previously imprisoned for nearly for 30 years for refusing to denounce
the Pope.
China, despite its communist roots and totalitarian regime, realizes
that in the modern world it not only takes military strength to become
a superpower, it also takes economic strength. By borrowing pages from
the success stories of Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong, China
turned toward and embraced a managed market economy driven by

[[Page 9085]]

export growth as one of the primary engines for economic growth.
As part of the plan to raise China's stature in the international
community, China has been involved in long and protracted negotiations
to join GATT, and now, WTO. The 13-year long effort finally came to a
head on November 15, 1999 when the administration signed an agreement
with China to provide for her accession to the WTO.
China is widely viewed as having made a number of major concessions
in the agreement, but can we really trust China? Chinese leaders say
one thing and do another. China has historically agreed to many things
and has implemented relatively few of them. For example, after
threatened with major trade sanctions by the United States, China
agreed to a sweeping 1992 market access agreement to remove major
market barriers to United States products. The agreement was supposed
to have been fully implemented by the end of 1997. We're still waiting.
Mr. Speaker, growing up in post-World War II Chicago was a learning
experience for me. In school, in church, and in the ballfields, we
learned the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, friends
and enemies.
When we played 16-inch softball, we knew the rules, and we played by
them. We played with honor. It was wrong to cheat, and cheaters were
punished. In school, we learned about our Nation's history and how to
be good citizens and proud patriots. In the schoolyards, we learned who
were our friends and who weren't. In church, we learned about morality,
God's teachings on good and evil, and right and wrong. Those lessons
remain with me to this day.
These things don't change and, unfortunately, neither has the
People's Republic of China. Despite all their words, despite all their
promises, their actions speak louder. They continue to imprison and
torture Chinese dissidents, set up slave labor camps, practice forced
abortions, shoot missiles at democratic Taiwan, sell weapons technology
to Libya, and break trade agreements. They pretend to be our friends,
yet through their actions, reveal themselves as anything but.
We should not reward a totalitarian regime that is run by a Communist
party--a dictatorship with little regard for human dignity and common
decency. We should not reward a nation that has, through its actions
and deeds, done so much that is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, we are free Americans nurtured on the Declaration of
Independence. We are the land of Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson--
Americans who believe in justice and the dignity of man.
So, let us not abandon our patriotic morals in favor of corporate
profits. Let us not forget the democratic ideals that form the
foundation of this nation.
I urge my colleagues to remember the lessons from their youth--of
right and wrong--and do what is right.
Vote ``no'' to PNTR for China.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I was rated in the top five free traders in the 105th
Congress; and yet, I reluctantly oppose PNTR for China, for a couple of
different reasons.
First of all, we have a mechanical problem. And that is, if my
colleagues look at WTO, it is a rule-based system. And yet, look at the
dispute over hormone beef. Look at the dispute over bananas with EU.
And what we see is another culture that has democratic governance, that
has intellectual property rights, that has a rule of law, that has
property rights, has basically said, we are just going to ignore the
rules of WTO, we are going to ignore our agreement with America because
we want to.
And if we have that kind of disagreement within a culture that is
very similar to our own, can my colleagues imagine the disagreement
that we will find in a culture that is very different.
In fact, history suggests that that inclination is right, because the
1998 USTR's Foreign Trade Barriers Report said that fully 400 of 1,200,
one-third, of all products that were in the 1992 agreement between
China and America were still subject to nontariff barriers.
So what we are doing here is we are dropping a 400-pound gorilla in
the swimming pool, and it will have implications for WTO itself.
Also, we have a problem in that any time with the Cox report that we
have a country engaged in espionage to steal our nuclear secrets, I do
not know that that deserves award. That does not make common sense to
me.
And three, and most disturbing to me, is that, if we look in the
South China Sea, I think we see a trend toward if not expansionism,
certainly bullying. If we look at Mischief Reef, if we look at Spratly
Islands, if we look at how in 1997 China moved an oil drilling rig into
what was clearly territorial water of Vietnam, if my colleagues look at
their behavior toward Taiwan, if we look at their taking of the Paracel
Islands in the 1970s from Vietnam, we see a trend that is disturbing.
So I will admit that is a very blunt instrument, but is the only
instrument that I have to use as a legislator in signaling displeasure
toward China's behavior.
We also need to look at OPEC and other arrangements that help
companies to go to China and displace them.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues who are wavering on
China PNTR to cast a ``yes'' vote for U.S. world leadership, U.S. jobs,
and the continued prosperity of the U.S. economy.
The ``yes'' vote that we cast today is not a vote for China. It is a
vote for the United States. It is not a vote to allow China into our
market. China is already in our market. Rather, it is a vote to allow
our workers, our farmers, our investors, ideals and ingenuity to
compete successfully in the world market.
This is not a vote to maintain the status quo. Rejecting this
resolution today will not force the world economy into a fixed and
stationary condition, with the U.S. as leader in its own smug, self-
satisfied isolation.
Denying China PNTR will not deny the Chinese access to the WTO, nor
will it deny them access to European service providers, Asian
technology, or Latin American grains. Denying China PNTR denies only
the United States.
If there is one thing we have learned in these early moments of the
21st century, it is this: The new economy allows nothing to remain
static, no one to remain unaffected, and no single player to hold all
the cards.
So before my colleagues waver toward a ``no'' vote today, imagine for
a moment the world we create by denying PNTR for China. Do not just
imagine the morning after the vote when financial markets register the
most immediate and negative response to our action. Imagine further
into the future as European and Asian competitors lock out our workers,
investors, and farmers from the largest market in the world. Imagine 5
years into the future, then 10, then 20 when the full and awful truth
of our action is evident in the remains of a once great world economic
power. Make no mistake, denying China PNTR denies our own future.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, Franklin Roosevelt once said, ``The only
thing we have to fear is fear itself.''
While some of our trade policy today causes very genuine and
legitimate concern and hesitation on the part of our working people, we
must be guided by hope and opportunity, not fear and trepidation.
Right now our policy with China does not work, the status quo is not
good. We have too many big trade deficits, too many human rights
violations. So we have negotiated a new one for our new economy with
our old enduring values.
What does China get from this agreement? They have to cut tariffs,
open up their markets. Our goods penetrate their markets across the
board, telecommunications, agriculture, you name it.
What do we give? Nothing. We just accept this agreement. This
benefits America.
Secondly, on human rights, I want to applaud the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). We
talk

[[Page 9086]]

about MFN being annual review of human rights. With this new human
rights institution, a committee, we will monitor human rights daily by
the hour, with staff, with Members, not yearly with MFN.
Finally, on human rights, a human rights leader in China, Ran Wan
Ding said this: Before the sky was black. Now there is light. This can
be a new beginning. With our new economy, let's open up one of the
oldest cultures in world history to American optimism, to American
products, and to American values.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) who realizes that to honor China and punish Cuba
is the height of hypocrisy.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Stark) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I am a firm believer in self-determination for China.
Now China is a Communist country whether we agree with it or not.
However, countries, regardless of their political or economic system,
should not be rewarded when they are allowed to round up and intimidate
and arrest people, put people in slave labor camps with no due process.
Why would the United States enact a trade policy that rewards this
behavior, as well as environmental degradation and religious
persecution and violation of women's rights? This is wrong.
Annual review, at the very least, provides a tool to help ensure
China's respect for human rights and nuclear nonproliferation.
With regard to our own country, the Economic Policy Institute
estimates over 870,000 United States jobs will be lost over the next
decade, with the loss of over 84,000 jobs in my own State of
California. This is really scary.
We do not want to cut off our relationship with China. I support fair
and free trade. We simply believe that human rights and fairness for
American and Chinese workers should be the bottom line.
This vote defines who we are as a people and as a Nation. I urge my
colleagues to oppose PNTR for China.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Long Beach, California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, since becoming a Member of Congress in 1993, I
have opposed normal trade relations with China as a matter of
conscience. I see no change in the human rights situation in China.
The level of trade between our two countries began to grow two
decades ago, but the daily lot of the average Chinese worker is dismal.
There is no excuse for American companies in China to pay workers as
little as 22 cents an hour for 12- and 15-hour shifts.
Trade has increased wealth in China, and some people enjoy limited
freedom in their personal lives. Mostly, they are in the Party. But the
Chinese Communist Party still oversees a system that jails, tortures,
and kills those it deems to be a threat to the Party's arbitrary rule.
China's own constitution states that Chinese citizens are entitled to
the rights of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religious belief.
Really?
Ask tens of thousands of Tibetans, Christians, Falun Gong
practitioners, or human rights and labor activists. It is hard to hear
their voices. They are imprisoned, and worse, for exercising those
basic rights.
Today we can send a strong message: human rights cannot be separated
from our other policy interests in China. This debate is as much about
how we define ourselves and what this Nation stands for. It is not just
about China's conduct.
Some Members of Congress hope we can address this fundamental issue
by creating a commission to monitor human rights failures in China.
Unfortunately, this commission would be powerless to sanction Chinese
misbehavior. The real questions in the debate are very clear: Why would
we think that a country that does not respect the most basic rights of
its own people will now respect the rights of its foreign trade
partners? How do we expect to enforce fair trade rules when they have
been unable to enforce them in the past? Having witnessed China's
threats against Taiwan and the United States, what will it take to
condemn China's actions in the future?
In 1981, 15 university presidents met with students in 25
universities, technical institutes, and specialized colleges. When we
talked to students--out of the eyes and ears of Chinese intelligence
agents--those students wanted ``freedom.''
To open up our markets involves mutual trust and respect.
This Congress should not send a signal that we honor a country that
has little regard for America or the values in which Americans believe
most strongly--dignity, fairness, and individual freedom.
This Congress should vote ``no.''
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Speaker, listening to this debate, one would, I think, come to
the conclusion that this is a complex issue. But it really is not.
There are three basic questions I think we have to answer.
One, is it going to help or hurt our economy if China gets PNTR and
joins the World Trade Organization? Second, can we best advance the
cause of human rights and religious freedom in China by isolating them
or engaging them in further trade. And third, are our security
interests in that region going to be hurt or helped by China's
membership into the WTO?
Now, how we answer that question is really how we look at the world
and, to a greater extent, how we look at the United States.
Pessimists would look at this issue and they would see only the
risks. I choose to look at this issue and see opportunities. I believe
that more trade is more good than bad. I believe that more markets for
agricultural products and for manufactured goods is more good than bad.
And I believe that our economy, our workers, our farmers, our
entrepreneurs can compete with the people in China. So I choose to be
an optimist.
This is really a one-sided agreement. China gives up everything. They
give up access to their markets. They tear down the barriers and
tariffs. And we get more access and opportunity in the process.

{time} 1330

But this is also going to unleash another form of competition and
that is the competition of values. Do Members believe that their values
or our values are going to prevail in that competition? Because after
this occurs, China will no longer be able to lock our values out of
their society. There are more people in China who speak English than
there are in the United States. There is a hunger for our values and
our system there. I believe our values will prevail.
How about our security interest? All the past Secretaries of Defense
and current ones support this agreement, but let us look at what our
allies say. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, all say that China's membership
in WTO and permanent normal trade relations will make our security
interest more secure in that region.
So I choose to be an optimist. I choose to believe in America, in our
values. I urge my colleagues to support PNTR, to support China's
membership in the WTO, and to vote for this bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we should vote for PNTR today. At the
beginning of the millennium, we should not regress and isolate China.
We should help engage China in the world community. In truth, we had a
Cold War. Communism lost, capitalism won. Now our economic and
political system will help deliver freedom, peace and prosperity
throughout the world because free markets cannot prosper in
authoritarian regimes. In a global economy, authoritarian regimes
cannot long survive the impact of freedom and free markets. Engaging
China and exposing China to the sunlight of free market economies and
democratic values is the best way to bring about evolution towards
freedom in China. We

[[Page 9087]]

here in Congress all agree upon our goals: a strong, free, prosperous
America in a world that is free, peaceful, and prosperous. But like a
family, we in Congress and people in our great country can disagree on
the best way to achieve that goal. It is my strong belief that helping
to engage China in the world community will advance the cause of
freedom.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) who recognizes to open our border to cheap
Chinese assault weapons will cause the deaths of thousands of American
children.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I look at this bill and I ask myself, why
did I come here? I came here to defend the rights of Americans and the
rights of people all around the world.
I look at China, I see no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion,
no freedom of association, no freedom to do anything unless the
government says so. That alone is enough to vote against this bill.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and recognize that he represents many people
in the Armed Forces who will suffer by the things that are produced in
those factories that we are building for the Communist Chinese.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition
to extending PNTR for China. I want to start by quoting Bill Safire who
wrote in his column on May 18 in The New York Times:

I confess to writing speeches for Richard Nixon assuring
conservatives that trade with China would lead to the
evolution of democratic principles in Beijing.

I further quote Mr. Safire:

But we've been trading for 30 years now, financing its
military-industrial base, enabling it to buy M-11 missiles
from the Russians and advanced computer technology from us.

Mr. Speaker, the United States has tried for more than three decades
to build a relationship with China and to foster democratic values in
the communist nation. In 1995, we extended most favored nation status
to China if China would agree to stop its abusive human rights
practices and stop exporting nuclear technology. The very next year,
the CIA reported that China was the greatest supplier of weapons-of-
mass-destruction-related goods and technology to foreign countries.
Despite repeated promises that trade would make China more free, it has
failed to end its long and established history of human rights abuses
like forced abortion and sterilization.
Years of maintaining the lax policy of constructive engagement with
China have proven dangerous. As the Rumsfield Commission found in 1998,
China's proliferation of ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass
destruction threatens the security of the United States. When China
steals technology and sells it to our enemies, steals our nuclear
secrets and tries to influence our election process, how can we grant
PNTR for China? Extending normal trade relations status to China
impacts more than the economy, Mr. Speaker. It takes away our economic
leverage with a Communist country, and it stands to affect the security
of each and every American citizen.
I close by repeating William Safire:

We've been trading for 30 years now, financing its
military-industrial base, enabling it to buy M-11 missiles
from the Russians and advanced computer technology from us.

Mr. Speaker, until China can prove to the people of America that it
can be trusted, we should not pass PNTR for China.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of
permanent normal trade relations with China. The economic benefits are
undeniable for our country and are particularly favorable for my region
and my State. North Carolina has much to gain from opening and
expanding markets in China, currently our 13th largest export market
and the consumer of over $300 million in North Carolina goods and
services annually. The commodities of goods involved range from pork
and poultry and soybeans to furniture, communications equipment,
software and computers--very broad economic benefits indeed.
But this debate, Mr. Speaker, is not just about trade. I have not
heard any proponent suggest that we should turn a blind eye to human
rights and political problems in China in the name of commerce. Nor is
this legislation a blessing of China's past and current behavior, no
matter how often the opponents of the bill might repeat it.
On the contrary, the point is to bring China within a framework that
will provide powerful incentives and constraints to play by the rules,
both in the realm of trade and beyond. As China moves further into the
world economy, we need to be clear-eyed about our future with China. We
must continue to press on human rights and religious freedom and the
self-determination of Taiwan, the freedom of Tibet, nuclear
proliferation, and espionage. Isolating China economically will do more
harm than good in all of these areas.
Martin Lee, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong and a
human rights leader has said: ``The participation of China in the WTO
would not only have economic and political benefits but would serve to
bolster those in China who understand that the country must embrace the
rule of law.''
Trade is no panacea. But to refuse trade, to isolate China
economically, would risk empowering the most rigid, hard-line anti-
democratic elements of China, those who want to pull their country away
from the democratic world. This is not a prospect America or the
Chinese people can afford.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of opening opportunities for American
workers, farmers, and businesses, and I stand with those committed to
improving our national security, economic freedom in China, and the
quality of life for the Chinese people. I rise in support of Permanent
Normal Trade Relations with China.
As my colleagues know, in November the United States and China signed
a bilateral agreement to bring China into the World Trade Organization
(WTO). The agreement would open Chinese markets to our goods and
services and reduce Chinese tariffs and quotas on our products. What
does the United States give up? Nothing. All we have to do is grant
PNTR to benefit from this decidedly one-way deal.
The economic benefits are undeniable for our country and are
particularly favorable for my region and state. It is clear that North
Carolina has much to gain from opening and expanding markets in China,
currently our 13th largest export market and consumer of over $300
million in North Carolina goods and services.
The Chinese will be compelled to open their markets to services like
telecommunications, banking, software, computer, and environmental
services. Tariffs will be eliminated on computers, telecommunications
equipment, semiconductors, and furniture. North Carolina companies will
benefit from major tariff reductions on optical fibers, chemicals, pulp
and paper, wood products, agriculture equipment, medical equipment, and
environmental technology equipment. In agriculture, our farmers will no
longer have to compete with export subsidies on China's agriculture
products and will benefit from tariff cuts on poultry, pork, tobacco,
soybeans, and other commodities. For the first time, our companies will
be able to sell and distribute products in China made by workers here
in America, without being forced to relocate manufacturing to China,
sell through the Chinese government or transfer valuable technology.
Now that the European Union has signed an agreement with China,
clearing the last remaining hurdle to China's accession to the WTO, a
vote against PNTR could cost America jobs, as our competitors in
Europe, Asia and elsewhere capture Chinese markets that we otherwise
would have served. To benefit from the agreement that opens Chinese
markets to American products and investment, this Congress must first
grant permanent normal trading status--the same arrangement we have
given all other countries in the WTO.
Much has been said about what we lose if we give up an annual review
of our trade status with China. I would just suggest that our annual
vote has not been particularly effective. Even after Tiananmen Square,
this body did not revoke ``most favored nation'' status. I do not
suggest turning a blind eye to the human rights and political situation
in China in the name of commerce, nor do I view this agreement as a
blessing of China's past and current

[[Page 9088]]

behavior. On the contrary, the point is to bring China within a
framework that will provide powerful incentives and constraints to play
by the rules, both in the realm of trade and beyond.
As China moves further into the world economy, we need to be clear-
eyed abut the future of our relationship and must continue to press on
issues such as human rights, religious freedom, the self-determination
of Taiwan, the freedom of Tibet, nuclear proliferation, and espionage.
I believe isolating China economically would do more harm than good in
these areas.
Martin Lee, chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong and a
leader of the human rights movement, wrote: ``The participation of
China in the WTO would not only have economic and political benefits,
but would serve to bolster those in China who understand that the
country must embrace the rule of law.'' To him, the agreement
``represents the best long-term hope for China to become a member of
good standing in the international community. We fear that should
ratification fail, any hope for political and legal reform process
would also recede.''
A recent New York Times article (``Chinese See U.S. Bill as Vital to
Future Reforms,'' May 21) noted that a ``broad array of educated
Chinese--top government officials, publishers, bankers, artists,
lawyers and pro-democracy advocates--have come together in
extraordinary agreement on the issue, investing their hope for progress
in China'' in this vote. ``Chinese government leaders and economists
hope the normalization of trade with America will help close
inefficient state enterprises. Authors and artists here are convinced
it will reduce censorship. Lawyers suggest it will force China's
mercurial judges to follow the law.''
Zhou Daichun, a commercial lawyer in Beijing said, ``What's important
is not how this vote will affect this or that industry. What's
important is that this is an opportunity to push for reform and
reorganization in China and without that impetus, many reforms are
impossible.''
Taiwan supports China's entry into the WTO. And the Dalai Lama, the
spiritual leader of Tibet, has said, ``Joining the WTO, I think, is one
way (for China) to change in the right direction . . . I have always
stressed that China should not be isolated. China must be brought into
the mainstream of the world community . . . Forces of democracy in
China get more encouragement through that way.''
As we all know, Chinese actions demand our attention. Mr. Levin and
Mr. Bereuter have crafted provisions included in this legislation that
help us maintain our sharp focus on the issues of human rights,
religious freedom, and economic fair play. Under the Levin-Bereuter
provisions, the U.S. will create a Congressional-Executive Commission
on China, modeled after the Helsinki Commission, to evaluate human
rights in China. The Commission will submit an annual report of its
findings to the President and Congress, including WTO-consistent
recommendations for action. This bill puts into law China-specific
anti-surge safeguards to guard American businesses and workers from
inport surges from China. We strengthen monitoring and enforcement of
China's commitment to WTO obligations with an annual review of China
within the WTO.
Mr. Speaker, only through a comprehensive system of relationships can
the United States hope to influence the internal policies of the
Chinese government. This vote is a significant opportunity for us to
encourage positive change in China. We must pull China in the right
direction, not turn our backs. Trade is no panacea. But to refuse
trade, to isolate China economically, would risk empowering the most
rigid, hard-line, anti-democratic elements of China, those who want to
pull their country away from the democratic world. This is not a
prospect America or the Chinese people can afford.
In light of this strategy of engagement and our nation's interest,
not only in selling to China, but also in bringing China into
conformity with accepted rules of international conduct, I urge my
colleagues to support PNTR.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu) who understands that the slogan ``We Bring Good Things
to Life'' will not help murdered female children in China.
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, that I can address you from this well today is a
tribute to the courage, the perseverance and the sacrifice of my
parents. My father left for America when I was 4 months old, and I did
not see him again until I was 7. I could only recognize him from
photographs. My parents endured 7 years of separation so that they
could bring our family to this place of freedom and of opportunity.
People have said to me, ``You're a trade lawyer. You've got to like
this agreement. You represent a trade-dependent district. You have to
support this agreement. If you have to vote your conscience, just vote
and walk away.''
I refuse to do that because I will refuse to turn my back on the
sacrifice of my parents and countless other Americans who have stood
and fought in the cause of freedom. This is a bad trade agreement. This
is bad policy, and this is counter to fundamental American values.
It is a bad agreement because the basic concept is wrong. Let us take
the WTO proponents' arguments at their face value. America is a market
economy. China is not. America has an exchangeable currency. China does
not. If we both dropped our tariffs to absolute zero, we would lose
control over our imports and China would not. Through their command and
control economy they can still determine how much to buy and exactly
from whom to buy.
This is a flawed agreement. This is bad policy because the day after
we vote to give China permanent most favored nation trading status,
hard-liners in Beijing will say, We thumbed our noses at the Americans
with respect to nuclear weapons, we thumbed our noses at the Americans
with respect to missile proliferation, we thumbed our noses at the
Americans with respect to human rights, we thumbed our noses at the
Americans with respect to saber rattling in the Taiwan Strait, we
thumbed our noses at the Americans with respect to all these things and
yet they still gave us the central goal of our foreign policy for the
last 12 years. Why should we ever listen to what the Americans have to
say?
But the most important reason for voting no is to keep our commitment
to American values and the sacrifices of countless families like mine
and every other American family today.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, when the students in Tiananmen Square looked to America,
they saw the Statue of Liberty. When we look to China, we see dollar
signs. I think their vision is better than ours. I have heard some
statements by proponents that I disagree with.
China gives up everything in this deal? Not true. They become
enriched. This regime becomes more powerful, flush with cash.
If you have capitalism and Communists existing in China, it is the
political death warrant of the Chinese Communist regime? I disagree.
When people take to the streets, they will bring out tanks bought with
this money.
The ultimate question was, is this about being friend or foe with
China? One of the first speakers said this will determine whether or
not we are friends or foes. The Communist Chinese will never be our
friends. How can somebody be your friend when the government punishes
somebody for having one child too many they say is enough, three times
your annual salary if you have more than one child? You can never be
America's friends when you murder people under government authority.
You can never be America's friends when you cheat on agreements signed.
For the last 20 years, they have cheated on every textile agreement
signed with the United States.
These people are not our friends. They are the enemy of every
freedom-loving person in the world.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of granting normal
trade relations to China. First and close to my heart, Michigan farm
families, employers and working men and women win with this. Passage of
today's legislation will mean that Michigan farmers will no longer have
to compete with high tariff barriers on U.S. agricultural products.
Restrictions on the importation of meat and poultry will be eliminated
and products like fruit and vegetables will see tariffs cut in the
range of 65 to 75 percent. Tariffs on auto

[[Page 9089]]

parts will be reduced by 57 percent. And motor vehicles, cut by 70
percent. I do not need to tell Members that these things mean a lot to
the people of Michigan and America.
There are some people who claim that we cannot grant normal trade
relations with China because of their human rights record. We can all
agree that China's people are mistreated, but I will not agree that
isolating China is an improvement.
I would like to illustrate some of the changes that our trade with
China has resulted in. In 1990, 400,000 Bibles were sent to China. This
year, we will deliver 4 million Bibles to China. Human rights activists
who have been involved in China for years have voiced their support for
this agreement, including the Reverend Billy Graham and Leonard
Woodcock, the former President of the United Autoworkers and former
Ambassador to China.
I would like to address one other issue that is very important to me.
I have worked hard to advance the issue of international adoption.
China's cruel policy of limited family size has left thousands of
orphans living in deplorable conditions. However, since opening
relations with China, adoption agencies have been able to go into China
and develop a network to allow these children to come to the United
States. In 1989, 200 Chinese children were adopted. In 1998 over 4,000
Chinese orphans were adopted by loving American families.
I urge a yes vote on normal trade status for China.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner).

{time} 1345

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, if we deny PNTR to China, businesses,
workers, farmers and ranchers in my district in East Texas and across
the Nation will lose the benefits of a trade agreement that, on its
face, is very favorable to the United States. Unlike the NAFTA
agreement in which the United States had to eliminate its own trade
barriers, China will reduce its tariffs on American goods, while we
make no similar concessions. Rejecting PNTR means the benefits of trade
and job growth will go to other nations who open the door to trade,
while we slam it shut.
As a Member of the Committee on Armed Services, I believe granting
PNTR to China is in America's national security interests. While
dealing with China as a rising economic and military power will not be
easy, we should not make the road more difficult than it has to be. If
we reject PNTR, we will be sending a powerful signal to China and the
entire world that we are walking away from a constructive relationship
with China.
On the other hand, engagement will further our nuclear
nonproliferation efforts, encourage the Chinese to embrace democracy
and the rule of law, and further the expansion of human rights and
freedom for the Chinese people. Progress in these areas will not be
uninterrupted, but history and common sense and human relationships
teach us that engagement is the best hope for world peace for our
children and grandchildren.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 45
seconds to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), who understands
that the 600,000 jobs lost because of the $70 billion trade deficit to
China has affected many of the footwear manufacturers in the
northeastern part of this country.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot give up my vote and I cannot give up the voice
of the people I represent on an annual basis, to hand that over to the
World Trade Organization in the hope that the farmers and the fishermen
and the people who are working in forestry and small business and
family business are going to have their interests looked out for. I
cannot turn that over on a permanent basis to the World Trade
Organization.
I tried to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) to
fashion serious and substantive parallel legislation that would allow
this Congress and each one of us to have a vote and a voice, a
guarantee that we would have a vote and voice, and that it would be
tied to bilateral trade and economic sanctions which would be in
compliance, which we could do and still retain our authority. This
legislation does not do it, the leadership did not allow it, and as a
result of those concerns, I am going to be voting against this
legislation.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, noting that the other side still
ignores the charges that PNTR freezes in the taxpayer subsidies for
businesses closing here and setting up shop in China, I would yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, we have not talked much about our national security. The
Chinese have a $68 billion trade surplus; and after this agreement is
signed, if it passes today and passes the Senate and is signed by the
President, they are going to have more of a surplus, and that is more
money with which to buy rope to hang us with.
Let us look at what the Chinese have done and what they are doing.
They stole our nuclear secrets. They are now capable, with our secrets
they stole from the Los Alamos and Livermore Laboratories, they are
able to build a mobile launch missile carrier, a rocket that can fire
halfway around the world and can split into 10 parts with our W-88
warhead and hit 10 cities and kill over 50 million people, and we have
no defense for it. We have been cutting our defense budget.
They now have access to both ends of the Panama Canal, one of the
things that is most important to our commerce. They are going to
control the Panama Canal. Just yesterday we found out they are going to
control part of the Suez Canal and probably all of it. They signed a
30-year agreement with Egypt to have Port Said controlled by them, in
effect, because they are going to control the shipping port there.
They are building the largest army in the world. They have the
largest standing army in the world, and it is going to get bigger, and
we are going to pay for it. We are going to pay for it, and all the
while our defenses are being lowered and lowered.
They threatened Los Angeles when we talked about coming to the aid of
our ally, Taiwan. So they have threatened the United States in the not
too distant pass. Yet we continue to say, Don't worry about that.
They are stealing from us. They are stealing our secrets. They are an
enemy of the free world. They threatened Taiwan, as well as the rest of
that part of the world, and I think they are a threat to the entire
world.
Mr. Speaker, what are we doing about it? Instead of facing up to it
and building our defenses to be prepared, we are doing exactly what
happened prior to World War II. We unilaterally disarmed prior to World
War II, and Winston Churchill warned about the future and the Nazis,
and nobody paid any attention. What did they do? They gave more
commerce to Germany, while Hitler built up his military. What are we
doing? We are doing the same thing with China; and we ought to think
about that. Long-term, what does it mean for America and our security?
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a respected Member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of PNTR for China for three reasons.
First, it does not just enable America's goods and services to flow
into the fastest-growing market in the world by cutting China's
tariffs. It also eliminates state-mandated middlemen and China's
prohibition on our distributing and servicing our own products. It
eliminates quotas and special licensing requirements, and prohibits
conditioning investment on local content requirements, offsets,
research in China or technology transfer.
Secondly, it will help us enforce our trade agreements with China
because

[[Page 9090]]

we will not be solo at the enforcement table. All 136 nation members of
the WTO will be on the enforcement team. Further, this is a unique,
remarkably enforceable agreement because the obligations it imposes are
concrete and specific, with clear time tables for implementation and
firm end dates for full compliance. In addition, for the first time the
agreement involves surge protections, unique provisions that will
enable us to moderate any surge of imports to protect American
producers and give them the time they need to become competitive.
Finally, this agreement is the best way to change China's policy
toward human rights. As a Chinese evangelist Christian clergyman
testified, ``The WTO agreement obligates China to play by the rules. In
the process, China will need to strengthen its legal institutions,
train more legal professionals, learn to follow international legal
procedures, and educate its people about the concept of rights, law,
and international norms. This process alone is a breakthrough with
important philosophical implications for China as a nation. When a
Chinese realizes that he has rights as an investor that government
should not violate, then more likely he will also realize that he has
other rights as a human being.''
Support PNTR for China. It is good for the United States, it is good
for reform in China, and it will move us toward a more prosperous and
peaceful world.
This week, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a bill that
would do more to strengthen our economy and provide job security for
American workers than any vote this year. The bill would simply open
China's market to American-made products. Home to more than one billion
potential consumers, China presently blocks American goods with high
tariffs, arbitrary requirements, and wholesale prohibitions on direct
business dealings with the Chinese people, while exporting freely to
U.S. shores.
All this will change if Congress passes legislation granting china
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR), the same status China has
enjoyed for 20 years and the same status as our other trading partners.
President Clinton and former Presidents Carter and Ford support this
measure, as do Senators Dodd and Lieberman.
The reason is simple: under the new trade agreement the United States
recently negotiated, China will tear down the walls that keep our goods
and services out of their markets and nearly every American industry
will benefit. The agreement reduces or eliminates manufacturing and
farming tariffs. It eliminates state-mandated middlemen so we can sell
directly to Chinese consumers. It permits American-owned distribution
and customer support operations so we can service the products we sell.
It protects intellectual property rights for software, movies, music
and high-tech designs. And it prohibits conditioning investment on
offsets, local content, or technology transfer requirements.
This is good for working families in Connecticut because it means
we'll sell more Connecticut made jet engines, elevators, construction
equipment, medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, environmental
technology, and insurance products in China. This will benefit hundreds
of small shops supplying exporters and create more high wage jobs as on
average export related jobs pay up to 20 percent more than non-export
related jobs.
By granting PNTR, we will be the beneficiaries of these across-the-
board concessions that will bring down the curtain on Chinese
protectionism. And what is the price for all these benefits? They are
free--ours for the taking. The United States doesn't have high tariffs
nor barriers to trade from China, so we are not forced to give up
anything in exchange for Chinese concessions. All Congress must do is
approve PNTR--make permanent the trading status that we have approved
every year for 20 years and for essentially every other country in the
world. It is the bargain of the century.
China has every reason to make such concessions: they are trying to
reform their economy. After decades of economic dead ends, Chinese
leaders have concluded that the most efficient way to grow their
economy is by entering the international market and accepting its
international rules. While this will cause some problems, China has
changed enough in the last decade to understand that entering the
international market and abiding by international rules is their only
hope of prosperity.
This dramatic decision by China has three consequences for us: first,
if we don't pass PNTR, we won't receive any of the benefits of the
agreement we negotiated with China, while Europe, Japan, and other
trading nations will. With their products 10 percent to 50 percent
cheaper, we will lose significant export trade so critical to our
economic health.
Second, instead of working alone to enforce trade agreements with
China as we have in the past, we will have the help of all 136 members
of the World Trade Organization. If China fails to deliver, the WTO
lays out clear and decisive steps to hold China accountable.
Furthermore, this agreement is unique. It has very precise timetables
for very specific actions, making enforcement far easier. In addition,
it includes new protections no trade agreement has ever provided. Its
``surge'' protections allow a timely response to slow down any big
increase in imports. From my work on voluntary restraint agreements in
the past, I know this approach works and enables U.S. competitors to
succeed.
Third, it is the best way to reduce abuses of human rights in China.
As a Chinese Christian clergyman testified ``The WTO agreement
obligates China to play by the rules. In the process, China will need
to strengthen its legal institutions, train more legal professionals,
learn to follow international legal procedures and educate its people
about the concept of rights, law and international norms. This process
alone is a breakthrough with important philosophical implications for
China as a nation. When a Chinese realizes that he has rights as an
investor that government should not violate, then more likely he will
also realize that he has other rights as a human being.''
Free trade is a potent catalyst for change because it works from the
inside out. under PNTR, we get to post the best advertisement in the
world for democracy in the heart of China itself. Signing a free trade
agreement with China, opening its markets to our goods and values,
bringing china into the rule based international trading community, is
not only good for Connecticut jobs, but it is good for reform in China
and will move us toward a more prosperous world community. Congress
should pass PNTR.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, this vote is about choosing an alternative
to a policy of annual review which has failed to open China's markets
and its people to the United States. To be sure, this is a vote about
trade and export of American goods and services, but it is also about
trade and export of American ideals and principles.
We can make a difference in China when it comes to human rights, when
it comes to religious freedom and workers' rights. Today's vote will
determine whether we will make a difference in China. I urge everyone
to vote yes for permanent normal trade relations with China.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who recognizes that forced
child labor is not stylish, even at the Gap.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose PNTR for
China, such as gross violations of human rights and the lack of fair
labor standards in China. These reasons have all been expressed
eloquently by other speakers.
What concerns me most is our Nation's selective trade policies and
the policies of the WTO itself. Why China and not Cuba? Cuba is only 90
miles from our shores. I am especially concerned about our Nation's
policy toward Cuba. The people of Cuba would like to buy food and
medicine and agricultural products from the United States, yet the
United States continues to maintain an embargo against Cuba.
It makes no sense to expand trade benefits for China while
prohibiting all trade with Cuba. What is good for the goose is good for
the gander.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, we hear time and again that greater trade will somehow
make China freer. I suggest that greater trade as it is structured
through PNTR will enhance the dictatorship in China.
People in China themselves do not need to be convinced that they want
the tyrant's boot off of their face. This idea that if we trade more we
are going to reach more people with the Internet, telephones, et
cetera, it is ridiculous. Those people know they do not want to live in
tyranny.
But what we are doing by giving this PNTR, we are giving the
Communist Chinese regime their number one primary objective. We will
embolden

[[Page 9091]]

them. They think we are suckers, they think we are saps, they think we
are cowards, unable to watch out for our own interests or to champion
the cause of liberty and justice.
Why should we be setting up factories? Again, the opposition refuses
to address that the fact that taxpayers under this proposal will pay
subsidies to businessmen who set up factories over there and close them
in the United States. That is a central point here.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I will have to leave this debate at this
point. I am chairing a hearing today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to
control it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I have wondered long and hard what one might say in the
very few minutes that I have to convince my colleagues that this is not
the thing to do. It is hard to determine what few important words might
get us to realize that giving China permanent trade relations with
America is wrong today. I feel very, very passionately about that. But
I also want to say that there are good friends and others in this room
who feel passionately that we should, and that is the beauty and the
wonder of this debate. It has brought together such a mismatched group
of people in Congress to come together and oppose and be for this
particular amendment. That is the beauty of this body.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear, we are not debating an end to
normal trade relations with China. We are not isolating China. Now, I
support normal trade with China, with congressional review. I simply
oppose making this permanent, in light of China's present conduct.
China has normal trade relations with us today, right now; and they
are going to continue to have normal trade relations under the same
terms, whether the President's bill passes or does not. Both China and
the United States will be able to trade with each other under the WTO
rules, whether this bill passes or not. This is the one issue in my few
minutes I hope Members will listen to.
The United States will not lose any advantage to international
competition or competitors by not approving this bill. This has been a
real, honest to goodness fear for many of our Members, so please listen
to this very carefully. I quote, ``The United States and China agree to
accord firms, companies, corporations and trading organizations of the
other party treatment no less favorable than is afforded to any third
country or region.'' Where did that come from? That is Article 3(A) of
the 1979 Bilateral Trade Agreement, our current agreement.
If China joins the WTO, they have to give the United States the same
trade privileges they grant any WTO member nation, regardless of
whether we approve or disapprove permanent relations.
So why are so many people adamant about passing PNTR? What does the
bill really do? The answer is that it restricts the practical ability
of this Congress to monitor China's progress in fair trade, in human
rights and in military threats.
So for my colleagues who were thinking of voting yes in order to not
shut down trade with China, please reevaluate that. Under our current
agreement, China trade will continue, and likely expand, whether this
measure passes or not.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
simply to respond very quickly to my friend from Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from Georgia has not read the entire agreement
or read the 1979 agreement between the Chinese and the U.S., obviously,
because what he said is not valid. There are many things in this
agreement which are not included in the 1979 agreement, and we will
lose the benefit of those if we do not approve this bill today.

{time} 1400

That happens to be a fact and a reality. Unfortunately, the 1979
agreement the Chinese made with us is not as broad, not as
comprehensive, will not include all of the concessions that will be
available to us if we approve this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire
(Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding me this time, to rise in support of permanent normal trade
relations with China.
Passage of this agreement helps us, not them. They have agreed to
lower tariffs on agricultural produce by over 50 percent, industrial
tariffs from 24.6 percent a couple of years ago down to 9.4 percent,
and most importantly, provide access to telecommunications, insurance,
banking, and information technology markets. Although I do recognize
the benefits of U.S. engagement with China, I also understand our
concerns about labor conditions, human rights and national security.
After all, I serve on the Committee on Intelligence.
But if the goal is to promote constructive change in China, we had
best be at the table. Because if we do not pass normal trade relations
with China and they do join the WTO, these decisions about making long-
term changes internally in China will go to the Pacific Rim countries
like Japan and Korea and to the Europeans.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good, sound policy, not only for the issues of
democracy, human rights, but it is also good for trade and for the
economy of our Nation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the eloquent gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I come from a city that in many ways
exemplifies this transition to a global economy, for Memphis is the
distribution capital of the United States. Every conceivable product
from soybeans to microprocessors lands in our airports, docks at our
harbors, or travels our highways. Markets and trade directly affect how
people in my district live.
This agreement, as it has been said over and over again, only opens
their markets to ensure that cotton and wheat and soybeans, jet
engines, insurance, automobiles, and even Internet services can be sold
to our new friends in China. At a time when family farmers are
struggling, it seems to me to be only right that we open up a market
where 1.2 billion people live.
But our vote today should not be interpreted as a blank check for the
deplorable abuses taking place in China. As a matter of fact, trade
should not be interpreted as acceptance, but as really a challenge. For
trade builds wealth, wealth spreads freedom, and freedom defeats
tyranny. In cities across the world our values are followed, our
products are imitated, and our culture is envied. Give those in China
the opportunity to envy us here in America.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support normalizing permanent
trade relations with China.
Mr. Speaker, today America has a straight-forward choice to make:
whether we want to benefit from a historic opportunity to open China's
market to American goods, agricultural products, and services--or
whether we want to isolate the 1.2 billion people of China, and in
turn, punish America and the American worker.
I have scrutinized this legislation to see if it will truly promote
American interests and values. Like some who may oppose this
legislation, I have long been concerned with human rights in China. I
want freedom and democracy to flourish just as much as anyone else. And
I have scrutinized this bill's impact on workers here at home. I have
listened to those arguments. And I have concluded that normalizing
trade relations with China is right for America. It is right for
ensuring American engagement as a world leader and safeguarding our
national security interests; it is right for promoting American
competitiveness abroad; and it is right for the ideals of human rights
and democracy.
Guaranteeing America's National Security Interests. America has
fought three wars in

[[Page 9092]]

Asia in the last 50 years. I don't want to see us fight another.
Cordell Hull, a great Tennessean--who hailed from Carthage and who held
the seat that Vice President Gore held and that his father held before
him--had a favorite saying: ``When goods don't cross borders, armies
do.'' Integrating China into the global trading system will do more for
the cause of national security than a fleet of warships could ever do.
One must only look at what happen in the recent elections in Taiwan.
The power of inclusion in the WTO counseled against any belligerence
that the Chinese may have contemplated in the aftermath of the
Taiwanese election. China held back, and the cause of peaceful
reconciliation was advanced--in no small measure, because China knew
that its trading partners were watching. America has genuine strategic
interests in Asia, and as Secretary Cohen, Secretary Albright, the
Joint Chiefs, Gen. Colin Powell and many others have said, normalizing
trade relations with China will greatly advance the cause of peace and
security.
Ensuring American Competitiveness. China will come into the World
Trade Organization and the international economic system whether we
like it or not. We cannot stop this process, even if we wanted to. The
only question before us is: should we lead and promote our values of
competition and fairness or should we sit on the sidelines while other
countries profit from selling to the Chinese? Ask the small business
owner or farmer in my state, and the answer will be clear: of course,
we want to benefit from this deal. For the first time, China is
slashing tariffs and barriers to America's superior goods, services,
and farm products. Our trade negotiators made absolutely no concessions
to China; it is, as the President has said, ``one-way'' deal. We will
be able to sell them everything from wheat to jet engines to insurance
to Internet services. If we turn our back on that opportunity, we will
only be punishing ourselves. And I simply cannot go home to the
hardworking people of my state and say that I kicked away a once-in-a-
lifetime chance to help them lead, compete, and win.
Promoting Human Rights and Democracy. The Chinese people, like all of
God's children, deserve the basic dignities and rights that accompany
freedom. By making China play by the rules, and by exposing the Chinese
people to American values and American know-how, I submit that freedom
will inevitably follow. This won't be easy, and it won't happen
overnight, and I am a clear-eyed realist. But I also know that no
political change can happen overnight. We have to have a toe-hold
there, and we have to expand it and build bridges between our two
countries. We don't have to approve of everything they do, and we
won't. But if we isolate China, we will embolden the hard-liners and
the rejectionists. When American companies go to China, they'll pay a
better wage, and they'll give workers more freedom. And when the
Chinese people click onto the Internet, there will be no stopping the
flow of ideas, and we all know that great political transformations
have their seeds in the spread of powerful ideas. If we are truly
concerned about the cause of human rights and democracy, we must engage
China, not isolate it.
Mr. Speaker, today in the People's House we have an opportunity to
grant PNTR not for China, but for America. This legislation helps
American businesses, American farmers, and American workers, and it
will help spread the irresistible American forces of freedom,
democracy, peace and stability. To those who would rather hold on to a
symbolic annual vote, my response is simple: I cannot in good
conscience sacrifice American leadership and American businesses,
farmers, and workers on the alter of symbolism. We have the power to
make the future more profitable and more secure for all of God's
children--and history will not forgive us if we fail to do what's
right.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Evans), who recognizes that China sells weapons to
terrorists which may very well be turned on American civilians.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues have received a copy of the
report, Made in China. This report outlines why corporations like Wal-
Mart and Nike have become identified with child labor, forced labor,
and hazardous working conditions. These are not the values we want to
bring to other countries.
By granting PNTR, we give up any hope of influencing China's policy
on workers and human rights. We are inviting U.S. companies to leave
the U.S. to produce goods in a country which does not support the
minimum wage, basic safety regulations, or the right of association.
Mr. Speaker, let us export our values, not our jobs. I urge my
colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, we have been told wonderful things will
flow from expanded trade with China. Workers' rights will be respected,
religious freedom will be enhanced, and probably Jeffersonian study
groups will be popping up all over China before long.
Well, let us look at the historical facts which, in reality, is all
we have in order to determine future actions on the part of the
Communist Chinese.
In fact, from the last 10 years since Tiananmen Square, China has
been engaged. For the past 10 years, investments in China have grown
exponentially, factories have been built employing Chinese workers,
creating enormous expansion of Chinese GNP. These things are
indisputable facts.
Mr. Speaker, here are some more facts. Over the last 10 years,
according to the State Department and the newly created United States
Commission on International Religious Freedom, there has been a steady
deterioration, I say deterioration, of human rights, workers' rights,
religious liberty.
I just came from the Committee on International Relations where this
report was given to us by the Commission. Here it is. The Report of the
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The
Commission members are from all sides of the political spectrum. Rabbi
David Saperstein, the Chair, told us that every single part of the
spectrum was represented on this commission, and here is what they
reported. Quote: ``A grant of PNTR at this juncture could be seen by
the Chinese people struggling for religious freedom as an abandonment
of their cause at a moment of great difficulty. The Commission,
therefore, believes that Congress should not approve PNTR for China
until China makes substantial improvements in respect for religious
freedom as measured by the following standards,'' and then it lists
them out.
This is the Commission report. We are waiting for the Bereuter
Commission; we have a Commission report right before us today. It was
established by this Congress. The report was issued on May 1. It is in
front of us. Read it. Anybody who is going to be influenced by the
Bereuter Commission in the future, Members have it before them.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger), our distinguished colleague.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of giving American
farmers, producers, and exporters a level playing field in China
bypassing permanent normal trade relations.
While there have been compelling arguments made on both sides of this
difficult issue, I believe that approving PNTR is clearly in America's
best interests. This opportunity is especially important to our
Nation's farmers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that
farm exports to China could grow by $2 billion annually as a result of
PNTR. But normalizing trade with China would do far more than just
increase American exports. It will also expand democratic influence in
China as American businesses bring our democratic ideals directly to
the Chinese people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support PNTR.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), who recognizes that the 500,000 Bibles
printed in Chinese in China is not even enough to provide one to each
political or religious prisoner, much less leave any in the motel
rooms.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to PNTR for China.
Granting permanent normal trade relations to China would send the
wrong message to the Chinese government and to the American people.
China's

[[Page 9093]]

workers earn pitifully low wages and work without even minimal safety
standards in their factories. The factories in China are not subject to
environmental standards common in other countries around the world.
Some claim that by trading with China, workers' rights and
environmental standards will improve. In China, however, labor leaders
are routinely arrested and detained for long periods under harsh
conditions.
The Chinese government has shown over and over again that it will not
tolerate the formation of labor unions. It is unlikely that foreign or
Chinese factory owners will push to change this policy. Manufacturing
firms in China are also not likely to demand environmental standards.
Ending the United States' right to review the terms of trade with
China yearly will only slow the pace of reform and remove a powerful
deterrent to the most flagrant, visible abuses of human rights in
China. I encourage my colleagues to vote against PNTR until the Chinese
government makes visible progress on these issues.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the leader in human rights in this Congress.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, a man does not live by bread alone, and if one
listens to the debate, one would begin to wonder.
It was 55 years ago last month that Dietrich Bonhoffer was marched
from his prison cell in Flossenburg Prison in Nazi Germany and hung
because he stood on behalf of human rights and speaking out. There are
modern Dietrich Bonhoffers in prison today in China, and this Congress
and this administration ignores it.
We talk about the Berlin Wall falling; to my side, the Berlin Wall
did not fall. Ronald Reagan pushed it down. He pushed it down with the
help of the Pope and the AFL-CIO who helped Lech Walesa and Natan
Sharansky and Andrei Sakharov and others.
We say that we are changing the tactics that work to defeat
communism. Can anyone imagine a Member getting up in this body in the
1980s saying, let us help give more money to Russia, that way we will
defeat them.
We say we are a pro-family Congress and a pro-family party. Mr.
Speaker, 500 women a day in China commit suicide and endure forced
abortion and forced sterilization.
We say we are for a strong defense, and if Members got the CIA
briefing and unfortunately, not many did, they see the threat to this
country, and they see that every major veterans' group supports defeat
of this.
In closing, Ronald Reagan said on December 4, 1992, ``Do not forget
those who suffer under tyranny and violence. Do not abandon them to the
evils of totalitarian rule or democratic neglect. For the freedom we
celebrate is not the freedom to starve, the freedom to languish in a
long, starless night of the soul. This, at least, is something that
should be beyond debate.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge and pray that the Members who are undecided,
particularly on our side, which has been a party that has been against
communism, for human rights, for religious freedom and for defense,
will vote this down.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we have heard a lot said, I am not
going to go over the statistics here, I am just going to say that not
only for New Jersey, but for the Nation, the bottom line here is that
this is a jobs bill. It is a jobs bill for all of us throughout the
country.
I must say to my colleagues that all reliable and objective
economists and business analysts agree and assert these truths. We
would not have all of the governors and all of the business groups and
all of the groups across the country with a strong endorsement here,
including defense groups supporting this, if these truths were not
self-evident.
Mr. Speaker, I must also tell my colleagues that it is an American
jobs bill because it is estimated that a quarter of a trillion dollars
in infrastructure over the next 10 years will have to be spent in
China, and that means American energy, gas, construction, telecom, and
engineering companies will compete for the vast majority of these
dollars. By the way, it should be stressed, there is no doubt but that
the European Union and Japan is waiting to take over these markets if
we fail in this opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of granting Permanent Normal
Trade Relations with China. This will be one of the most significant
votes in years. The stakes are high. This is a defining moment for
American workers and American businesses. When the House votes on
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for China we will be deciding
whether the United States will continue to lead in the global economy.

an american jobs bill

Mr. Speaker, this legislation can not just be considered a trade
bill. Today we will vote on an American jobs bill. The benefits of
trade with China effect every state in the nation. Direct exports from
my state of New Jersey to China totaled over $373 million in 1998.
Approximately 25% of all goods produced in New Jersey are exported. New
Jersey ports and their workers handled $9.4 billion in imports from
China in that same year. It is also estimated that 1 out of every 8 New
Jersey jobs are connected to producing goods for export. The bottom
line is that trade with China creates millions of good jobs at good
wages in New Jersey and all across the nation.
This is an American jobs bill because it is estimated that China will
need to spend almost a quarter of a trillion dollars on infrastructure
alone over the next ten years. American energy, gas, construction,
telecom, and engineering companies will compete for a majority of these
dollars. A recent study by Goldman Sachs estimates that increased
access to China's markets from PNTR would be worth an additional $13
billion annually to U.S. workers, farmers and companies by 2005.
In the expanding global economy, we cannot ignore that China
represents a dynamic, expanding market for our exports. Once Congress
votes for PNTR and China enters the World Trade Organization (WTO),
American businesses, manufacturers, and farmers will have unprecedented
direct access to China's 1.3 billion people. This will open the door
for them to do what they do best--compete and win by offering the best
product or service.
It is the American economy that stands to win from approval of PNTR.
Denial of PNTR status to China will damage our own economy and only
serve the interests of our international trade competitors. The
Europeans have already negotiated a trade deal with China and are just
waiting for us to turn our back on potential Chinese customers so they
can step into the breach. Japan is also waiting for these trade
advantages.

concerns about china

I understand the concerns raised by those who oppose PNTR for China.
I, too, continue to be deeply concerned about some of the actions of
China's government. Clearly, there exists much room for improvement.
But with this vote, the question is not whether we approve or
disapprove of China's record on human rights or their international
posturing. The question is what is the best way to approach China to
influence their future behavior?
I believe the answer is for Congress to grant PNTR. In fact former
Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford, Governor Bush and Vice President
Gore, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Reverend Billy
Graham, nine former Secretaries of the Treasury, six former Secretaries
of State, eight former Secretaries of Agriculture, 40 Governors, and
leading Chinese activists all believe the answer is for Congress to
grant PNTR for China.
If Congress votes in favor of PNTR, China will not change overnight.
It will take time for the old monolith to fall away in favor of a
dynamic new society. But just look at the difference American business
is making in China. The best and brightest of Chinese workers are
flocking away from the old state owned enterprises in favor of working
for foreign owned businesses. American businesses offer the Chinese not
only better pay and benefits but also allows them the opportunity to
excel and move up the economic and social ladder. I submit that the
momentum behind these changes once unleashed will be impossible to
slow.
Clearly, trade relations will strengthen the rule of law. And an
historical truth is that economic ties open borders and expand human
rights, bringing them closer to the world community.

conclusion

Yes, it will take time for China to change. But their participation
in the WTO will pull them closer into the family of nations and enforce
the rule of law. Our engagement with

[[Page 9094]]

China will create jobs here at home and will breathe the
entrepreneurial spirit and freedom throughout their land.
In summary: (1) this landmark agreement will mean more American jobs
at good wages here at home.
(2) This will strengthen rule of law and expand human rights by
bringing them into the world community.
(3) And significantly, if we reject PNTR it will further open the
European countries and Japan to take over these profitable markets. I
urge support for PNTR.
I urge my colleagues to support PNTR for China.

support for permanent normal trade relations with china

American Leaders and Veterans: Presidents Bush and Ford, both World
War II veterans; General Colin Powell; Joint Chiefs of Staff; Secretary
of Defense William Cohen; Former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney; Six
former Secretaries of State; Forty seven Governors including George W.
Bush; and Senator John McCain.
Business Groups: New Jersey Chamber of Commerce; New Jersey Business
and Industry Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and National
Association of Manufacturers.
Agriculture: New Jersey Farm Bureau; and Northeast Farmer Cooperative
(representing New Jersey Dairy Farmers).
Religious Leaders: The Reverend Billy Graham, and Pat Robertson.
All believe the answer is for Congress to grant PNTR for China.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), one of the outstanding members of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time.
During the last several months, it has become clear to me that the
action we are taking today is not just the annual review of whether
China should be given normal trade relations, but a major policy
initiative by the Clinton administration.
I am concerned that the rejection of this agreement could have
serious national security ramifications. However, that does not mean
that this body should just automatically approve permanent normal trade
relations with China.
It was important to me, and I think to many Members of this body,
that in order for us to support this change, there needed to be an
adequate package of related issues incorporated in the vote. That has
happened.
First, we have incorporated the provisions concerning human rights. I
do not think any of us believe that we would now reject the annual
review of normal trade relations with China. That has been an
ineffective way to review human rights progress within China. The new
mechanism which institutionalizes that review will be a more effective
way to review human rights.

{time} 1415

Second, the provisions provide for enforcement of our trade laws
against China.
Third, we have codified the new surge provisions which provide a more
liberal standard to be able to take action against China for illegally
imported products.
Fourth, the President has made it clear that environment and labor
will be our priorities in the new rounds of WTO discussions.
Lastly, let me say that I applaud the administration in its
commitment to use all the resources of its office to enforce our
existing trade laws. It is important that we not only protect U.S.
industries against illegally imported products from China, but from all
of our trading partners.
I believe that if we look at the total package, plus the statements
that have been made by the administration, we now have a package that
is worth supporting.
Mr. Speaker, if the sole issue before us today is whether Congress
will approve the administration's initiative to normalize trade with
China, subject China to the standards of the rule of law within WTO,
based upon the package that is being presented and the commitments of
the administration, I believe it is in our national interests to
approve this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, and urge the House
to adopt this important measure.
I am pleased that the Rules Committee has incorporated the bipartisan
Levin-Bereuter provisions into the underlying bill which authorizes the
accession of China into the WTO. My support for this legislation was
and is contingent on the Levin-Bereuter provisions on human rights,
workers' rights, and anti-surge safeguards. In addition, I am pleased
that the legislation provides for strict monitoring and enforcement of
China's compliance with its WTO obligations by the United States.
During the past several months, I have received a great deal of
information from the opponents and proponents of PNTR. The information
that I have received has been very helpful in my consideration of this
difficult issue.
It has been increasingly clear that this vote on PNTR is not just
another trade vote, but a major foreign policy initiative by our
government. Traditionally Congress has delegated this responsibility to
the President. Regardless of how one feels about trade with China, I am
convinced that the rejection of this agreement by Congress will have
serious ramifications for the natural security interests of the United
States and our friends in Asia. The failure of this legislation will
strengthen the hand of the hard-liners in Beijing who want to keep
China out of the community of nations.
With respect to the economic issues that underlie this agreement, we
must recognize that China already has access to our markets. The
bilateral agreement concluded between the United States and China as
part of China's accession to the WTO will only help US manufacturers,
producers and farmers gain access to the China market.
With respect to human rights, I have always believed that trade could
be an effective tool in achieving human rights goals. Human rights
considerations have led me to consistently oppose the annual extension
of most favored nation for China. Yet I acknowledge that the annual
review of NTR has not been effective in advancing human rights in
China. Most human rights advocates have now concluded that it is
unrealistic to expect that the US would ever revoke NTR for China.
Mr. Speaker, let me briefly review the important provisions of the
legislation that have led me to my decision to support this proposal.
The key provisions address my concerns regarding human rights,
oversight and enforcement of China's WTO obligations, workers' rights,
and anti-surge provisions. They impose conditions that are much
stronger than have ever been presented during the consideration of the
annual extension of trade with China.
Most important, the legislation would establish a Congressional-
Executive Commission on China. This Commission is modeled on the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), of which I am
proud to serve as a member and a Commissioner. The China Commission
will: 1) monitor human rights and religious freedom in China; (2)
monitor overall aspects of labor market issues in China; and (3)
monitor and encourage the development of rule-of-law and democracy-
building in China.
The Commission will submit annual reports to Congress and the
President, including appropriate WTO-consistent recommendations for
legislative and/or executive action. It will maintain a list of victims
of human rights abuses in China, and it will provide Members of
Congress with information on the issues within its purview.
I expect that the Commission will institutionalize Congressional
examination of measures by the Chinese Government that affect US
interests. It will serve to identify needed reforms in China's policies
and call attention to any troubling activities of the Chinese
government. Nobody supposes that passage of PNTR will bring an
immediate end to the abusive practices of the Chinese government. PNTR
will, however, bring the pressure of international economic activity to
bear on the repressive practices of the Chinese.
At the same time, the Commission will provide an important conduit
between Chinese citizens, on the one hand, and the U.S. Government and
public, on the other hand. I firmly believe that increased exposure to
U.S. values will accelerate progress in China on human rights and
economic freedom. Finally, the Commission will be a strong, effective,
an unique point of contact on China issues between Congress and the
Administration.
The legislation also requires the U.S. Trade Representative to issue
an annual report on China's compliance with WTO obligations. The report
will cover compliance by China with commitments made in connection with
its accession to the WTO, including both multilateral commitments and
any bilateral commitments made to the U.S. The report will be a guide
to where and how to commit the enforcement resources of the US
Government.

[[Page 9095]]

The Administration has also agreed to press for a mechanism for
reviewing China's compliance with WTO obligations on an annual basis.
Such a mechanism will be especially valuable as we proceed through the
early stages of development of a free market and the rule of law in
China.
The legislation also calls for additional resources to be allocated
to the U.S. Trade Representative as well as other Cabinet agencies to
strengthen the ability of the United States to monitor and enforce
Chinese compliance with trade agreements.
We are all aware that China has engaged in abusive and horrendous
practices of employing forced and prison labor in the production of
goods. Our efforts to highlight these practices and pressure the
Chinese to end them have had little success to this point. This
legislation instructs the President to establish an interagency task
force to monitor and promote effective enforcement of the prohibition
on the importation of goods made by forced or prison labor into the
United States.
The legislation before us also calls for the allocation of resources
to the Departments of Commerce, State, and Labor to provide training
and technical assistance in China for purposes of developing the rule
of law with respect to commercial and labor market standards. The
departments will establish programs to assist China in bringing its
laws into compliance with international requirements, including WTO
rules, and in developing processes to enforce the rule of law.
One of the strongest features of the bilateral agreement negotiated
by the Clinton Administration is product-specific safeguard which will
be included in China's protocol of accession to the WTO. This special
anti-surge safeguard will apply to China for a period of 12 years
following China's accession to the WTO. These provisions are more
reasonable, and more favorable for U.S. industry and workers, than the
comparable provisions that apply in general U.S. trade law to our other
trading partners. The China safeguard contains lower causation and
injury standards than ordinarily would apply between WTO members under
section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. The codification of this
provision by the Levin-Bereuter package is a vital feature of today's
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I also believe that we should amend our trade laws to
apply the China standards on dumping to all countries. Such
Congressional action would be consistent with our WTO obligations. I
have prepared and offered such a bipartisan amendment, with my
colleague Mr. English of Pennsylvania, in both the Ways & Means
Committee and in the Rules Committee. The amendment contains several
provisions from HR 1505, the bipartisan Fair Trade Law Enhancement Act
of 1999, introduced by Representative English and myself in the first
session of this Congress.
In 1999, we witnessed a surge of subsidized imported steel into the
U.S. While some of that import surge came from China, it also came from
Russia, Japan, Brazil, and South Korea. Our existing anti-dumping and
countervailing duty laws and relief under Section 201 of the Trade Act
of 1974 were not able to help U.S. industries from these illegal
imports. The new surge provisions negotiated with China will help in
regards to future China imports. However, they will do nothing to help
in regards to our other trading partners. Under WTO, we should use the
more realistic China causation standards for all countries rather than
using the causation standards included, for example, currently in
Section 201. My amendment would have corrected this inconsistency.
Unfortunately, my amendment was not made in order for consideration
by the full House. I am hopeful that, after we act today to codify the
trade laws applying to China, the next logical step will be to extend
these standards to all of our trading partners. In addition, the
Administration has given me assurances that it will vigorously use the
full resources of its authority to enforce existing trade laws and that
the Administration will not tolerate any illegal dumping. The Commerce
Department is currently preparing a detailed report and analysis on
last year's steel dumping. I plan to work closely with the
Administration and concerned members from both sides of the aisle and
workers and management in affected industries to make sure that we
adopt measures to prevent future occurrences similar to what happened
in 1999.
There has been much discussion as to how to advance international
standards for labor and environment in our trade negotiations. Progress
in that regard has been made in the China agreement.
It is also important to note that President Clinton made it clear to
our trading partners in Seattle that any future trade rounds under the
World Trade Organization must include the discussion of international
labor and environmental standards. I wholeheartedly support the
President in insisting that international labor and environmental
standards be included among our nation's priorities in negotiations
with our trading partners.
The sole issue before us today is whether Congress will approve the
Administration's initiative to normalize trade with China and subject
China to the standards and rule of law within the World Trade
Organization. We all understand that China is far from a model citizen
in the world community of nations. The question is how to move the
world's largest country, a country which, in our lifetimes, will become
the world's largest economy, in the direction of democracy, openness,
and economic freedom. Based on the full package that is being presented
and the steps taken by the Administration to enforce our existing trade
laws, I believe that Congress's ratification of the President's
ratification of the President's initiative is in the best interest of
our country.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley), who understands that China will soon surpass the
United States to become the leading emitter of greenhouse gases and
that will not abate.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, although I am for free and fair trade, as
well as engagement with China, now is not the time for permanent normal
trade relations. China has simply not matured enough politically or
economically to have permanent normal trade relations with the U.S.
China still poses a danger to our national security, has a record of
gross human rights violations, including the use of prison labor, and a
lack of religious freedom. China also has a terrible record on the
environment and has some of the most polluted cities in the entire
world.
I think it is dangerous to give up the most important leverage we
have in order to get China to comply with the agreements, the annual
review process, and the carrot of permanent relations. You do not give
away the carrot before you get the results that you want.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose granting
permanent normal trade relations to China.
Although I am for free and fair trade, as well as engagement with
China, now is not the time for Permanent NTR.
China, has simply not matured enough politically or economically to
have permanent normal trade relations with the United States. China
still poses a danger to our national security, has a record of gross
human rights violations, including the use of prison labor and a lack
of religious freedom. China also has a terrible record on the
environment and has some of the most polluted cities in the world.
Additionally, China has violated every agreement it has made with the
Untied States. Even the Administration doesn't trust them in this
respect, which is why they've proposed a rapid response team to monitor
China's compliance with this deal.
I think it is dangerous to give up the most important leverage we
have in getting China to comply with its agreements, the annual review
process and the carrot of permanent relations. You don't give away the
carrot before you get the result you want.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to oppose granting China
Permanent NTR until they have proven they can abide by their
international obligations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) The Chair announces that the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has 27\1/2\ remaining.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).
Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, our decision to give permanent normal trade relations to
China should not be based on what is profitable for our country today
at the expense of our future.
Arguments that trade with China would lead to the evolution of
democratic principles which will spread to the people hold no weight.
The truth is, we have been engaged in trade with China for 30 years;
yet they remain the most repressive government in the world. Has our
strengthening of China's regime through trade brought political
freedom? Absolutely not.

[[Page 9096]]

I cannot close my eyes to the human rights abuses, to the political
oppression of religious intolerance of the Chinese Government. I cannot
turn a deaf ear to the workers on both sides of the ocean who clamor
for better working conditions and fairer wages.
I refuse to turn my back on the nuclear and security threat that
China poses to our great Nation and its neighbors like Taiwan. And it
is unbelievable to me that we are on the brink of giving the Chinese
all of our electronic and computer capability to help them guide their
missiles to our cities.
As the dragon stands knocking at our door, knocking ever so loudly,
do we permanently give it free access inside, when in the past it is
broken its promises, stolen our technology, compromised our security?
Do we allow the Chinese Government to prosper when it treats its
citizens, the very people it should be protecting so poorly, so
unjustly?
China has been promising economic concessions to buy its way into the
WTO. But it has shown no willingness to change its political dogma.
Abolishing our yearly review of trade relations gives carte blanche to
the Chinese Government. We should not permanently reward and appease
its intransigence.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against PNTR for China.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Permanent Trade relations
with China.
My district encompasses the Sacramento Valley in California.
Agriculture is the dominant industry in the region. One of the reasons
I support free trade is that it's good for my farmers.
We've all heard about how PNTR with China will increase Ag. exports
and boost the rural economy. We've also heard about how PNTR with China
will increase exports in manufacturing, high tech, and services. All
these things are true.
In fact, during the debate over PNTR with China, the proponents have
consistently highlighted the tremendous export possibilities of trade
with China.
But free trade benefits all Americans, not just companies that
export. Lets review some of the benefits of free trade to the American
people.
1. Comparative Advantage.--In the theory of Comparative Advantage,
Americans will produce products that we are best at producing and other
nations will produce products that they are best at producing.
With free trade, we don't have to waste time and labor on producing
low quality products. By importing certain goods, American workers are
freed to produce higher quality items that bring higher wages.
2. Increase Competitiveness.--Open trade forces American companies to
compete with foreign companies. This competitiveness causes U.S.
businesses to continually try to improve their products and lower their
prices.
Does anyone in this Congress believe that the U.S. auto industry
would be as healthy, or that U.S. cars would be of such high quality,
if not for the competition from Japan?
As a result of that competition, our auto industry is competitive
around the world and American consumers can buy world class American/
made automobiles.
3. Keeps Inflation in Check.--Trade also helps keep inflation in
check by acting as a safety valve when the economy heats up. The recent
period of robust economic growth, low unemployment, and low inflation
is unprecedented in our history. A significant portion of this success
is attributed the fact that our markets are open.
As we consider this vote today, let us keep one thing in mind.
Tariffs are really taxes on consumers. When we reduce barriers to
trade, consumers win. In fact, American families save thousands of
dollars a year because of trade, freeing up money that can be spent on
a home, or education or health care.
As we vote today, I urge my colleagues to consider all the ways the
American people benefit from trade.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in appreciation of the deliberations that have
occurred on this very important vote. I also rise to say that this
morning I saw the story of a young Chinese woman coming off the bus in
China from a village with her 5-year-old child loaded down with her
bags, looking for a better qualify of life. As I watched her seeking a
greater place in the sun for that little boy, I knew that this vote
today had to be more than efforts on behalf of trade between the United
States of America and China. It had to be a vote with backbone.
This vote to support PNTR has to be a vote to trade with China and
exchange democracy, to trade and exchange the products of the United
States made by American workers and made in America; to create
opportunities for intellectual and academic change; to create the
opportunity to export technology to China and to close the digital
divide in places like the 18th Congressional District; and by greater
trade in opportunities for American businessmen. I hope to see an
increase in the opportunities for capital investment in rural and urban
America.
Trade is, of course, the engine of the 21st century. The PNTR is not
closing the door; it is opening the door of democracy to China.
I rise to support this legislation, and I would ask that we do it
with a backbone on behalf of the American people of the United States
of America, so that our exports include both our goods and commodities
as well as our values of democracy, peace, and a better quality of
life.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of granting Permanent Normal
Trade Relations for China. I have come to this conclusion after
intensely listening to arguments for some period of time from many
supporters and opponents of the PNTR, and weighing the pros and cons of
this extremely important trade bill.
I want to thank Chairman Archer and Ranking Member Rangel for their
important work on this legislation. They should be commended for their
hard work.
It is my hope that every one's views on this bill will be respected
on this vote, and that we will find a constructive way to unify after
this vote for the good of all Americans. This is truly a vote of
conscience that each and every member has wrestled with.
For several years, I have recognized that trade with China has value
for Americans and the people of China, yet I have reservations. My
record on trade measures since coming to Congress demonstrates my
willingness to evaluate each vote on its own merits. Each year that I
have voted for most-favored-nation status for China, I have likewise
raised my voice against the ``undemocratic'' ways of that nation.
It is imperative that we recognize that American companies must
reinvest in rural and urban America as a result of PNTR. Unlike during
the Cold War, we have unparalled opportunities to bring the people of
China and America much closer together. America has a responsibility to
invest and to establish a rapid response for companies that are
affected as a result of job loss.
I have been working very closely with the Administration to secure a
commitment to designate the Department of Labor to study job losses and
to provide added relief to American workers adversely affected by the
PNTR agreement.
I have also worked to establish a Task Force on small businesses from
a range of agencies within the United States government to facilitate
and negotiate doing business in China. This Task Force would be
responsible for specifically encouraging trade between United States
small businesses and these newly established small business in China.
We are not here to discuss whether China will gain access to the WTO.
We recognize it will do so and that the unconditional most-favored
nation (MFN) principle requires that trade concessions be granted
``immediately and unconditionally'' to all 135 WTO Members. More
importantly, the World Trade Organization is not nor should it be a
human rights policy toward China. Nothing about this vote should
reflect our Nation's views about current or past human rights practices
in China. This is about how to bring about change over the long-term.
The World Trade Organization would strengthen against surges in
imports from China and open Chinese markets to more U.S. exports. The
November 1999 Agreement between the United States and China contains a
product-specific safeguard, which will be included in China's protocol
of accession to the WTO. A provision was recently added to this
legislation that spells out procedures for effectively invoking that
safeguard.
H.R. 4444 presently before the House enables the United States to
grant PNTR to

[[Page 9097]]

China once it has completed its accession, provided that it is on terms
at least as good as those in our 1999 bilateral agreement. By granting
permanent trade relations to China, it will open its markets to an
unprecedented degree, while in return the United States simply
maintains its current market access policies. The enhanced trade and
services for American and Chinese companies could be dramatic for
Texans and Americans as a whole.
Texas alone has export sales to China of more than $580 million in
1998--nearly 50 percent above its sales in 1993. Shipments through the
Port of Houston with China including Hong Kong totaled $444 million in
1998. In 1999, air cargo trade between Houston and China, including
Hong Kong totaled $1.5 million kilograms and was valued at $56 million.
In short, China has come a long way since we established relations in
1971, and develop further relations through PNTR.
Through the PNTR deal, we gain even more significant concessions
regarding PNTR. U.S. companies would be able to take advantage of
several provisions of the U.S.-China Trade deal after China accedes to
the WTO, but only if Congress permanently normalizes China's trade
status. For example, tarrifs on industrial products on coming into
China would fall to an average of 9.4 percent by 2005 from 24 percent.
Agricultural tariffs will fall to 17.5 percent from 31 percent.
In addition, the technology industry in my district would benefit
from PNTR. For example, foreign companies would be able to own up to
49% of Chinese telecommunications ventures upon China's entry into the
WTO, and up to 50% in the second year. And China will import some 40
foreign films in the first year of the agreement, up from 10, and allow
foreign films and musical companies to share in distribution revenues
on 20 of these firms. The benefits are clearly advantageous to our
industries as we support democratization in China.
PNTR is more than a matter of economics for so many of us--including
those that have worked on the promotion of democracy and the rule of
law around the world. I happen to have been one who with great
trepidation voted for the MFN status, based upon the many strong
arguments that have been made that if you continue to expose a nation
to opportunity, to democracy, to the respect of human rights, would see
gradually those parts of the world. I am hoping and would hope most of
us would like to believe that we have that kind of trend moving forward
in China.
I have had discussions with Former President Jimmy Carter, who
strongly voiced his support for granting PNTR to China. Clearly,
religious oppression is a continuous concern as a general matter in
China. Nevertheless, President Carter eloquently emphasized that
villages outside large cities in China are having free elections and
that the freedom to practice one's religion has been growing. This is a
very positive development. The Chinese people must be counted on to
relish these rights and to fight for opportunities at the table of
democracy.
Former President Jimmy Carter has worked relentlessly since leaving
the oval office to press for open, free, and fair elections all over
the world. He has been advocating a powerful human rights agenda within
our foreign policy and I salute him for his efforts.
PNTR could help many of these villagers find ways to improve their
economic and social well being. For example, some companies are simply
showing the Chinese how to improve fertilizers to improve agricultural
growth. The people of China certainly should be empowered with the
ability to feed their people. That should be a basic right.
At the same time, Americans should understand that granting PNTR
should not remove the responsibility from Congress, this
Administration, or any future Administration in assessing and
responding to any drastic negative impact on Americans as a result of
this legislation. For this reason, I expect to develop specific
proposals with the Administration that will help small businesses under
the PNTR. This is vital to small businesses, especially minority and
women-owned entities.
In the 18th Congressional District in Houston Texas, which has a per
capita income of $11,091, many of my constituents have not prospered as
much as others throughout the Nation. PNTR will spur capital
investments, and investment opportunities that would come from
international trade.
There will be more appropriate opportunities for expressing
dissatisfaction with China's human rights record. I strongly share the
view that we must keep pressure on China. A congressional-executive
commission within this legislation would help monitor human rights and
labor rights while placing safeguards against import surges could play
a pivotal role regarding our concerns in China. By addressing human
rights matters when they arise, the United States can continue to play
a crucial role in demanding that the Chinese leadership live up to WTO
commitments.
We must also recognize that the United States has held a vote on
renewal of PNTR status for China every year since 1990, never once
actually withdrawing NTR status. Unfortunately, the annual NTR vote has
been less than effective in promoting the protection of human rights
standards in China.
Some argue that granting PNTR means the United States loses leverage
over China by surrendering annual reviews. I have considered the
gravity of this question for some time. In my work in Congress on
numerous rights matters, whether domestic or internationally oriented,
I have focused much of my attention as a Representative of the 18th
Congressional District on the promotion of economic, civil, and
political rights. I have never hesitated to expressly address basic
human rights violations wherever they may occur and specifically in the
context of the annual review process for normal trade relations (NTR)
with China.
Under the proposed legislation, U.S. industries or workers claiming
injury due to import surges from China would have legal recourse to the
International Trade Commission and in other venues. This would protect
our workers or U.S. industries that suffer job losses from as a result
of the agreement with China.
The vote on PNTR provides a unique opportunity to support the
democratization of China. We should be honest that it will not happen
overnight. It will only happen over time.
Mr. Speaker, a ``no'' vote would damage our Sino-American relations--
both economic and strategic--for years to come. By denying permanent
normal trade relations status, we would irreparably damage our
relationship with China, a country of 1.2 billion. I do not think we
can afford to follow such a perilous course.
As I review our options today, I am simply unconvinced that
constraining China in our trade relations within the WTO will help
advance human rights in China. To the contrary, I have become
increasingly convinced that changes resulting from the deal, including
greater foreign investment and trade, will benefit ordinary Chinese
workers and businessmen with the outside world.
Finally, I have deliberated very carefully about the magnitude of
this decision. I recognize that trade with China and trade generally is
good for our economy and the American people. At the same time, I look
forward to opportunities through the WTO to enhance the protection of
human rights as I and other lawmakers have advocated.
Mr. Speaker, a vote for PNTR should not leave any American workers
behind. We must export democracy to China and not ignore this momentous
opportunity. For these reasons, I will vote to give opportunities to
the American worker, I will vote to give opportunities to American
businesses, and I will vote to give opportunities to the people of
China.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who recognizes that women in China are only
allowed to have one child if they are married, and unmarried women are
forced to have abortions.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, one of the more compelling arguments for
PNTR is that it will improve the life of Chinese workers and that U.S.
companies will export higher wages and better working conditions, but
this factual and shocking report says exactly the opposite, that, in
fact, U.S. companies are instead taking advantage of the nearest slave
labor conditions and wages, that persist in Chinese factories. But we
should not be surprised that companies like Wal-Mart, half of whose
U.S. workers qualify for food stamps, have workers in China, nearly
half of which owe the factory money after working for a month, 12 to 14
hours a day, making Kathie Lee handbags. Opponents of this proposal
dismiss as isolationists and antiprogress, but we favor establishing
rules that protect workers and establish our ideals.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose
this measure of permanent normal trade relations for the People's
Republic of China. It does not represent a fair trade agreement for our
Nation's textile workers. For the tens of thousands of textile
employees in North Carolina's 8th Congressional District, this
agreement continues down the road of trading away their jobs to cheap
products. The end result of NAFTA, Africa/

[[Page 9098]]

CBI, and now PNTR has been the continued erosion of one of our Nation's
oldest industries.
I believe in opening new markets for our products and I am supportive
of encouraging a fair trade agreement with China. However, we cannot
continue to benefit foreign industries at the expense of our textile
workers. I am fully aware of the potential benefits of trade with
China. However, it is wrong to ask the workers of the 8th District of
North Carolina and across the country to make sacrifices for those
abroad when so many are struggling to make ends meet right here at
home. I invite my colleagues who believe PNTR is great for America to
come to my district and see the real effects of so-called free trade.
Mr. Speaker, oppose this measure.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Portman).
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Crane) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of PNTR. I have to say I have
listened to a lot of the debate and many of the arguments that are made
against PNTR I think simply are not focused on what we are voting on
today. They are not relevant to the vote today.
What we are voting on today is whether the United States is going to
be able to take advantage of a one-sided trade agreement that only
benefits us with the Chinese by normalizing trade relations with China.
Yes, putting China in the same category as emerging countries in
Eastern Europe like Romania, countries in Africa like Kenya or Egypt,
rather than putting China in the category of enemy countries like Libya
or Iraq or Cuba, that is all this is about.
Why can we not take advantage of this one-sided trade agreement that
only benefits us unless we do this today? Because then they will not
have the ability in WTO to give us the benefits they have just
negotiated with us.
This is about jobs. It is about exports from my district and other
districts. The most important export is going to be the export of U.S.
ideas and U.S. values, to bring China into the mainstream.
With all due respect, so many of the arguments being made about human
rights, about the environments, about national security, they are not
relevant to the vote we are making today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of continued Normal Trade
Relations between the United States and China.
Trade with China has been a significant factor in the economic
expansion we've been able to enjoy during the 1990s. In my own
district, Greater Cincinnati companies exports to China have almost
doubled in this decade alone. That means more jobs for my constituents,
more prosperity for the families and businesses in Southwest Ohio, and
a healthier economy for the area I represent, for the state of Ohio as
a whole and, indeed, for the entire nation.
For those of my colleagues who are undecided on this subject, I'd
urge you to take a close look at this PNTR agreement, because it makes
so much sense. This is a totally one-sided agreement. Because we
already have an essentially open market, we've given away nothing to
get this deal, but we've received unprecedented concessions from the
Chinese.
Mr. Speaker, China has a long way to go on improving labor standards,
human rights and environmental protection. That's why I believe our
most important export to China won't be out products and services. Our
most important export is our ideas and our beliefs about freedom and
democracy.
As the United States and China develop closer ties--as individuals
from both countries begin to interact more often with each other--it's
going to be impossible for the Chinese government to prevent our values
and ideas from spreading. You can already see it happening with the
spread of the internet in China, despite the best efforts of their
government to slow it down.
Mr. Speaker, we can choose to get rid of normal trade relations with
China, and stand on the sidelines when our European and Asian
competitors take our place. Or we can build a strong bilateral
relationship through engagement--opening their country to our products
and ideas.
I urge my colleagues to support the rational approach--and to support
normal trade relations with China.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of PNTR. I would like to begin by
thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui); and,
of course, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Archer) for their leadership in this particular
measure.
I would also like to thank the Committee on Rules for putting forward
the Levin-Bereuter parallel language that will ensure that we have
mechanisms to monitor China and to try to get us closer to freer and
fairer trade.
I do not disagree with those who say that human rights is a problem,
that worker conditions are a problem, environmental conditions are a
problem in China. They are. One cannot pick up a newspaper without
reading about the persecution of the Falun Gong. Worker rights, they
still do not exist in China, and certainly we know that China has not
been the best in enforcing the agreements it has signed.
The question is not so much that China has not done the best it
could. The question is, how do we get it to perform better? Is it
better to try to engage it and bring it along so it can join the
community of nations? Or is it better to shove it off to the corner,
put on a dunce cap and say they cannot come out of the corner until
they act better?
Isolation has been proven over the centuries to not work. Engagement,
while it may work slowly, works. I would rather tell China, join us and
do it the right way than tell them sit in that corner until we think
they are doing the right thing.
It is time for us to understand that we cannot close our eyes to
China. China has problems. It will have problems for a long time; but
it is up to us, as the leader in this world, to bring China, as we have
done with other countries, forward so it can act among the community of
nations the way we would like to see it act.
I have the very basic concerns that many of my colleagues who are
going to vote no have as well, but I cannot close my eyes to the fact
that China is big, it is here, and it is not going away.
Let us learn from our experiences. Let us move forward, and let us
use the power of the greatest democracy in the world to show the rest
of the world that China, too, can join us as neighbor and partner and
be part of that community of nations that will make us proud to trade
with them freely and fairly.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when I suggested to the gentleman that I heard William
Clay Ford, Jr., say that the Ford Motor Company delivers excellent
products and strives to make the world a better place, this gentleman
recognized that Ford was going to have to change that and say they
would deliver excellent products and strive to make the world a better
place for polluters, slavery, intolerance, and repression.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on human rights, China has
failed with over 1,000 executions of dissenters since 1998. On
religious rights, China has created an atmosphere of dread and torture
and arrest which are commonplace, and on military aggression China's
policies are still of great concern.
This weekend we celebrate Memorial Day and are reminded that freedom
is not free. Our veterans laid down their lives fighting such
dictatorships such as China. What is our generation going to do, lay
down and let them make the deal just because we have a buck to save? Do
we not care about what this country was founded on? Do we not care
about human rights? This is a travesty. This Congress passed sanctions
against South Africa when Nelson Mandela was tortured and jailed in

[[Page 9099]]

South Africa. What would we do today if this was an apartheid? I guess
what we would do is do even more deals with P.W. Botha, because that is
just what this Congress is going to do when it does PNTR for China, is
lay down with dictators like P.W. Botha and China.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, it is now a great pleasure for me to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a true leader
in human rights in this Congress.

{time} 1430

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood) very much for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, in the 1992 presidential campaign, Mr. Clinton accused
his opponent of coddling the dictator of China and promised that, if he
was elected, he would deny MFN to China ``as long as they keep locking
people up.'' Today China is locking people up and torturing them big
time.
Faced, in the spring of 1993, with a vote that was likely to strip
China of MFN, President Clinton preempted congressional action with the
issuance of an Executive Order that gave the PRC one more year to
reform. For MFN to continue, significant progress in human rights was
established. The President said in May 28, 1993, ``Starting today, the
U.S. will speak with one voice on China policy.''
We are here today because the American people continue to harbor
profound concerns about a range of practices by China's Communist
leaders. The President went on. He said that ``the core of the policy
will be a resolute insistence upon significant progress on human rights
in China.''
``Whether I extend MFN next year'', the President went on, ``will
depend on whether China makes significant progress in improving its
human rights record.''
I had nothing but praise for the President, Mr. Speaker. I did not
realize at the time that we had been had.
As the probationary year progressed, profound doubt concerning the
President's commitment to his own policy emerged. So midway through
that probationary period in January of 1994, I led a human rights
mission to China and was shocked and dismayed to be told by high
Chinese officials with whom I met that the Clinton administration would
continue MFN without conditions, and that his human rights linkage was
pure fiction meaningless and political. It turns out the President was
bluffing. The fix was in, and the Chinese dictatorship knew it. A
terrible setback for human rights, democracy, the environment, and
security issues.
Let me just point out, Mr. Speaker, once that delinking took place,
the hard-liners knew for sure that as long as the Clinton
administration was in place, there would never be a change. This
administration and some in Congress will fight hard to protect
intellectual property rights and copyright infringement.
Sanctions for the protection of CDs are wise public policy but are
deemed impermissible to employ in the effort to protect Chinese men,
women and children from government abuse.
Torture, forced abortion, all kinds of human rights abuses, all of
them taken together warrants no sanctions whatsoever. Steal some of our
CDs, and we will bring the full brunt of those sanctions against you.
Sometimes I think we got our priorities wrong.
Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom testified before the Committee on
International Relations and made it very clear that there has been a
marked deterioration in religious freedom in China and admonished
Congress not to confer PNTR on the PRC. I ask Members to read the 77-
page State Department Woman Rights report replete with human rights
abuses.
Mr. Speaker, to date there has yet to be any serious credible linkage
of trade and human rights. Yet today we are being asked to forgo any
possibility of linkage in the future.
Deny China PNTR today--require them to make progress in the direction
of reform and protection of human rights.
Mr. Speaker, in the 1992 Presidential Campaign, Mr. Clinton accused
his opponent of coddling the dictators of China and promised that he,
if elected, would deny MFN to China ``as long as they keep locking
people up.'' Today Clinton is locking people up--and torturing them--
big time.
Faced in the spring of 1993 with a vote that was likely to strip
China of MFN, President Clinton pre-empted Congressional action with
the issuance of an executive order that gave the PRC one more year of
MFN. For MFN to continue, ``Significant Progress'' in human rights was
established as the new standard. The president said in a speech on May
28, 1993:

Starting today, the United States will speak with one voice
on China policy. We no longer have an Executive Branch policy
and a Congressional policy. We have an American policy.
We are here today because the American people continue to
harbor profound concerns about a range of practices by
China's communist leaders. We are concerned that many
activists and pro-democracy leaders, including some from
Tiananmen Square, continue to languish behind prison bars in
China for no crime other than exercising their consciences.
We are concerned by the Dalai Lama's reports of Chinese
abuses against the people and culture of Tibet . . .
The core of this policy will be a resolute insistence upon
significant progress on human rights in China. To implement
this policy, I am signing today an Executive Order that will
have the effect of extending Most Favored Nation status for
China for 12 months. Whether I extend MFN next year, however,
will depend upon whether China makes significant progress in
improving its human rights record.

I had nothing but praise for the president. I didn't realize at the
time that we had been had. As the ``probationary year'' progressed,
profound doubt concerning the President's commitment to his own policy
emerged.
So, midway through the ``probationary period,'' in Jan. of 1994, I
led a human rights mission to China and was shocked and dismayed to be
told by high Chinese government officials with whom I met, that
President Clinton would continue MFN without conditions and that his
brand of human rights linkage was pure fiction, meaningless and
political.
Turns out the President was indeed bluffing, the fix was in, and the
Chinese dictatorship knew it. A terrible setback for human rights,
democracy, the environment and security issues.
In a breathtaking capitulation, the Administration officially de-
linked human rights and trade in the Spring of 1994--and the Chinese
hardliners then knew for absolute certain that for this Administration
profits trump respect for human life and that sanctions were to be
reserved exclusively for commercial concerns, such as intellectual
property rights, copyright infringement, and the pirating of CDs and
video cassettes. Then, and only then, would this Administration mount
up on its hind legs to fight and employ the credible threat of
sanctions to ameliorate Beijing's behavior.
In an article in the Washington Post in June 9, 1998, we get this
insight, ``A few months after President Clinton de-linked MFN from
progress on human rights, there was a meeting at the White House to
assess the effects of the Administration's new China policy. At the
meeting, president Clinton announced, ``I hate our China policy. I wish
I was running against our China policy. I mean, we give them MFN and
change our commercial policy and what has changed?'' So reports the
Washington Post.
As Chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights
Subcommittee, I have chaired 18 hearings and markups on human rights
abuses in China. Not only has nothing changed for the better with our
defacto de-linking policy, human rights abuses have changed for the
worse. The delinkage policy experiment which will be made permanent
today if this legislation passes--will worsen the situation.
Human rights abuses have gotten progressively worse in virtually
every category. At a hearing this morning with the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom, Rabbi Saperstein and two commissioners
testified that there was a ``. . . sharp deterioration in freedom of
religion in China during the last year. The Commission believes that an
unconditional grant of PNTR at this moment may be taken as a signal of
American indifference to religious freedom. The government of China
attaches great symbolic importance to steps such as the grant of PNTR,
and presents them to the Chinese people as proof of international
acceptance and approval.'' Rabbi Saperstein admonished Congress to vote
``No'' on PNTR.
I urge members to read the 77 page State Department report, which
details pervasive torture, forced abortion, and new, frightening
crackdowns on dissidents and religious believers. The U.S. State
Department Report states:

Abuses included instances of extra judicial killings,
torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions,
arbitrary arrest

[[Page 9100]]

and detention, lengthy incommunicado detention, and denial of
due process. Prison conditions at most facilities remained
harsh. In many cases, particularly in sensitive political
cases, the judicial system denies criminal defendants basic
legal safeguards and due process because authorities attach
higher priority to maintaining public order and suppressing
political opposition that to enforcing legal norms. The
Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights. The
Government tightened restrictions on freedom of speech and of
the press, and increased controls on the Internet; self-
censorship by journalists also increased. The Government
severely restricted freedom of assembly, and continued to
restrict freedom of association. The government continued to
restrict freedom of religion, and intensified controls on
some unregistered churches. The Government continued to
restrict freedom of movement. The Government does not permit
independent domestic nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to
monitor publicly human rights conditions. Violence against
women, including coercive family planning practices--which
sometimes include forced abortions and forced sterilization;
prostitution; discrimination against women; trafficking in
women and children; abuse of children; and discrimination
against the disabled and minorities are all problems. The
Government continued to restrict tightly worker rights, and
forced labor in prison facilities remains a serious problem.
Child labor persists. Particularly serious human rights
abuses persisted in some minority areas, especially in Tibet
and Xinjiang, where restrictions on religion and other
fundamental freedoms intensified . . .
. . . Police and other elements of the security apparatus
employed torture and degrading treatment in dealing with
detainees and prisoners. Former detainees and the press
reported credibly that officials used electric shocks,
prolonged periods of solitary confinement, incommunicado
detention, beatings, shackles, and other forms of abuse
against detained men and women . . .

The Chinese dictators--our business partners--excel in the torture
chamber business and even the internet in China is used against its
users. The State Department points out that:

The Government increased monitoring of the Internet during
the year, and placed restrictions on information available on
the Internet. The Government has special Internet police
units to monitor and increase control of Internet content and
access . . . Web pages run by Falun Gong followers were
targeted specifically by the government as part of its
crackdown against the group that began in July.

The repression of human rights in general and the barbaric forced
abortion policy is having a devastating impact on women's lives. The
State Department Human Rights Report says that 500 Chinese women commit
suicide each and every day.
Mr. Speaker to date there has yet to be any serious, credible linkage
of trade and human rights, yet we are being asked today to forgo any
possible linkage in the future. This is a real vote--the dictatorship
will actually lose something they want. Deny China's PNTR today--
require them to move in the direction of reform and the protection of
human rights.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, people are split on both sides of this,
but I would like to relay a story. Hall Rogers and some of my Democrat
colleagues went to Hanoi. We spoke to the Communist Chinese Prime
Minister. I asked him, Mr. Prime Minister, why do you not get involved
in trade?
In perfect English, he said, Congressman, we are Communists. He said,
If we get involved in trade, people out there will have, in his term,
things, private property and property, and we as, Communists, will be
out of business. At that point, I said, Trade is good.
If we take a look at where China was 20 years ago, I was there, and
where they are now, no, they will lie, cheat, steal. They are a
national security risk. But I think the question is where do we want
China to be 20 years from now. I think we have an ability to open those
markets and move them to the right instead of going back to the left. I
think it is in the best interest for national security and human rights
to let them move in that direction.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
favor of this language of this treaty. I truly believe that the failure
to enact PNTR will deprive the United States of meaningful market
access. China has access to our markets. We need access to their
markets.
This agreement will provide a landmark set of rules in protecting
patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual
property protection. This system protects Americans' research,
innovation, and creates incentives for further investment of
technological services.
We need this treaty today. There is no way that we can be the leader
of the world. Our chair at the table of the world is empty. No
agreement ever before has contained stronger language to strengthen the
guarantees of fair trade and to address practices that distort trade
and investment.
It will help American workers by eliminating practices that can cost
American jobs and force unfair transfer of technology to China. For the
first time, Americans will have the means to combat many of these
practices.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with
China (H.R. 4444).
The potential of Permanent Normal Trade Relations is far from being
realized by many Americans, in fact, it is far from being realized by
many of my colleagues. I am here to express the reason I support this
measure. What we are doing should not be looked at as a favor for
China, but as an act that is in the best interest of America and
Americans. And certainly, my district, my state, our country, our
American workers. Without PNTR, American workers, American farmers, and
American business will be left behind.
While groups, such as Asian, Latin American, Canadian and European
competitors reap the benefits of PNTR, American workers, American
farmers, and American businesses will miss out on opportunities that
may possibly raise their economic standards. To compete effectively,
American workers, American farmers, and American businesses, need the
access provided by granting PNTR--the ability to export and distribute
goods in China. This access will allow our businesses to export to
China from here at home and to have their own distribution networks in
China. This is more convenient than being forced to set up factories in
China to sell products through Chinese partners. This will provide the
opportunity for our firms to attain the access they need to China's
fastgrowing services market in sectors like telecommunications. This
agreement truly strengthens our ability to ensure fair trade and
protect U.S. agricultural and manufacturing bases from unwanted import
surges, unfair pricing, and unwarranted abusive investment practices.
I truly believe that failure to enact PNTR will deprive the United
States of meaningful market access for goods--key elements that are
necessary to safeguard American workers from unfair import surges from
China. This agreement will also provide a landmark set of rules for
protecting patents, copyrights, trademarks and other forms of
intellectual property. This system protects Americans' research and
innovation and creates incentives for further investment and
technological progress worldwide.
Our firms also need access to China's fastgrowing services market in
sectors like telecommunications. Just think, this access will allow,
for the first time, our companies the ability to sell and distribute
products in China made by workers here at home without being forced to
transfer our technology to China. This ability to work at home also
sets the stage for increased trade, which will play a part in raising
the living standards here in America.
The U.S., the world's largest exporter, will gain the most from a
strong, open, multilateral trading system. This trading system will
help raise living standards for American working families that depend
on export-related jobs. It is a fact that jobs supported by goods
exports pay 13-16% more than the national average. Denying China PNTR
will cost American exports and the jobs they support as well as higher
paying jobs. We must not allow our competitors in Europe, Asia, and
elsewhere to capture Chinese markets.
Simply stated, if Congress enacts PNTR there will be more exports to
China of products made in the United States by American workers and
products grown by our farmers. If Congress does not grant PNTR, our
competitors will enjoy the full market access and enforcement rights in
China that we will be denied. No agreement ever on WTO accession has
ever contained stronger measures to strengthen guarantees of fair trade
and to address practices that distort trade and investment. Mainly, it
will help American workers by eliminating practices that can cost
American jobs and force the unfair transfer of U.S. technology to
China. For the first time, Americans will have the means to combat
measures such

[[Page 9101]]

as forced technology transfer, frequent mandated offsets, frivolous
local content requirements, and other unfair practices that drain jobs
and technology away from the U.S. Passage of PNTR will open China to
American values and practices also. U.S. companies are more committed
than their Asian competitors to progressive labor management practices
and protecting the safety of their workers. It is clear, our decision
could fundamentally change not only our relationship with China, but
China itself.
Since I am a representative of Dallas, Texas, let me expound on how
PNTR will help Texas and my district. The U.S.-China Bilateral
Agreement on China's accession to the WTO opens an important market to
Texas' exports, by benefiting key industries, busily creating export,
and blossoming employment opportunities. Texas' exports to China are
broadly diversified with almost every major product category
registering exports to the Chinese market in 1998. Texas' merchandise
exports sales to China totaled over $583 million in 1998--a 46%
increase from the $399 million sold to China in 1993. Included in
Texas' exports to China are sales from key metropolitan areas. For
example, my district, Dallas, grossed $92 million in sales. The
agreement will open the market for a wide range of services, including
telecommunications, banking, insurance, financial services,
professional, hotel, restaurant, tourism, motion pictures, video
distribution, software, business, computer, environmental, and
distribution and related services. This will occur not only in Texas,
but also throughout America.
It's simple, granting PNTR will not erase the horrific acts of the
Chinese Government, but it will enable self-protection and allow
opportunities for American workers. Opportunities that we should not
allow to pass us by due to past actions of the Chinese Government.
Let me end by acknowledging the work that all of my colleagues have
and continue to do in order to ensure America's leadership position in
the world. As Members of Congress and leaders, we must realize that now
is the time to encourage China to evolve. We can advance America's
economic system without diluting the goals we stand for and the goals
that allow democracy to prevail.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that so many observers have gotten it
wrong. The China trade vote is not about protectionism versus free
trade; it's not about business versus labor; it's not even about China
haters versus China apologists. No, it is about a vision of world trade
worthy of America in the 21st Century. It is about whether 21st century
globalism will have any guiding principle or whether it will be an
aimless trading frenzy.
Proponents of Permanent Normal Trade Relations say that the deal
reached with China will give China unprecedented access to American
business, that American traders have given up nothing in the deal to
gain concessions for China, that China will enter the World Trade
Organization regardless of Congress' decision on PNTR, and that
American industry must not let other countries gain advantages in a
market of 1.3 billion potential customers. Proponents concede that
China does have a poor record of abiding by trade agreements as well as
a poor record with respect to worker's rights, human rights, and
environmental protection, and then they say the situation can be
rectified through the rule-based trade agreement and constructive
engagement derived from that trade. They argue that trade has a
liberalizing influence on society. The most frequent argument is that
the internet will irrevocably open China. Engagement, they say, is
preferable to isolationism. There are a few grains of truth in their
arguments, but this agreement falls far short of what we need and so,
this is not the right thing to do.
I too am for engagement, real engagement. Proponents of PNTR say that
the presence of thousands of American traders carrying checkbooks and
adhering to American factory standards will unleash the altruistic
intentions of a billion Chinese. Of course, that has not happened
anywhere else in the world. Business in America did not by itself
produce the social progress we extol. It did not happen in American
factories; it did not happen in civil rights; it did not happen in
environmental protection. In every case we had to re-enforce economic
activity with rules of social behavior--in insuring collective
bargaining, in opening public accommodations through civil rights
legislation, and in outlawing pollution. Unfettered business did not do
these things. We needed a system of rules. Even trade requires a system
of rules. This whole debate is about whether to bring China into a
rule-based trade regime. The great irony of all this is that proponents
of PNTR insist on the need for rule-based trade agreements, backed up
with sanctions, trade actions intended to induce good behavior on all
sides. So, why do we need rule-based agreements in trade, but not in
any other area we think is important?
Real engagement extends beyond just trade, and it extends beyond
China. Of course, trade is good, We in the United States are a more
prosperous country because goods, services, and people can move freely
among Oregon, Texas, New Jersey and the other states. Each state does
not try to be self-sufficient. But such free trade works because it is
fair trade. Although there is some competition between states, everyone
can be confident that each state plays by nearly equal rules with
regard to environment, workers' conditions, and product safety. Open
trade requires expectations of fair standards of behavior. Trade in the
21st century will be, and must be, about more than how many widgets
enter and leave a port.
We do not want to insult an independent and proud sovereign nation.
In order to accomplish the goals of our negotiations we should not
alienate the other parties. But we must not give up on values. Some say
workers rights are irrelevant, or human rights, or religious rights, or
environmental protection. They are not irrelevant. The citizens in my
district tell me these concerns are not irrelevant. To them the
proponents say, these may be important, but trade will take care of
them. This trickle-down is specious. It has not worked that way in the
past. It has not worked that way elsewhere in the world.
I cannot support this legislation to grant permanent normal trade
relations because it fails to consider anything but trade. This is not
ready for a vote. The administration should first put in place
mechanisms to deal with these other things--in the trade agreement, in
the WTO, in the ILO, in the World Bank. Worker's rights, environmental
protection, and human rights are not irrelevant concerns. I do not
expect full, immediate accomplishment of our goals in these difficult
areas, but silence on these issues will not lead to progress.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill before us today. I also
emphasize to them and to the administration that after today's vote,
whatever the outcome, we have much work to do to make sure we address
these concerns.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
This is not a vote to trade or not to trade--the issue is yearly
oversight or no oversight. Given China's record of violating virtually
every international agreement it enters into, the leverage of oversight
is critical.
Trade and Oversight are not mutually exclusive. We can have both.
Even U.S. Trade Representatives Charlene Barshefsky, during recent
testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, acknowledged that
the U.S. could obtain all of the tariff cuts China would be required to
make upon entry into the WTO even if Congress did not grant PNTR.
The same arguments for PNTR were put forth by proponents of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The result of NAFTA has been
500,000 lost jobs for American workers and a ballooning trade deficit
with Mexico of $22 billion.
Why will no one talk about the impact of this agreement on our trade
deficit? There is considerable foreign capital in our stock market
which will leave the US if a better deal arises. Our overall trade
deficit has already surpassed $331 billion, a figure that is beginning
to sound alarms for many financial analysts concerned about the long-
term stability of the U.S. dollar. The Secretary of the Treasury told
me Monday and this problem must be addressed.
Moreover, the $2 billion in goods the U.S. exports to China are not
purchased by the Chinese. They are merely supplies for the U.S. plants
that are operating there. Compare that to the fact that the Chinese
sell $80 billion in goods to the US annually. If the Chinese continue
their practice of not buying US goods, this will not be a home run for
American
China continues to threaten Taiwan, a country our nation has pledged
to protect. Granting PNTR would send the wrong signal to Bejing that
military action against Taiwan would be tolerated.
Finally, large companies have lobbied hard for Congress to pass PNTR
for China. Corporations must be concerned about their bottom line. But
the 570,000 persons I represent have other issues. There has been no
ground swell for this trade deal from our community. I have even
received some letters from workers who say they've been asked to write
in

[[Page 9102]]

favor of PNTR but they fear if it passes, it will mean the loss of
their jobs. Chinese laborers earn only one twentieth what American
workers do.
Trade will go on. Wouldn't it be nice if it were fair trade.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article from yesterday's New
York Times, as follows:

[From the New York Times, May 23, 2000]

Joining the Club: Like Others, China Will Try to Protect Its Own
Industries

(By Craig S. Smith)

Shanghai, May 22--Sun Guomin, a poor farmer in a village
west of here, represents an example of why American business
executives and government officials may be disappointed once
China enters the World Trade Organization.
While American businesses have been dreaming of the vast
potential markets for their goods and services in China, the
government is unlikely to allow the West the kind of access
those dreams are made of. For if Beijing immediately did
everything the trade organization requires, Mr. Sun and
millions like him could be driven out of business.
And with droves of laid-off workers already mounting
sporadic protests across the country, giving foreign
competition a hand in wiping out whole industries could
amount to political suicide for China's governing Communist
Party.
Agriculture is one of the most vulnerable areas.
Mr. Sun, 68, is struggling to get by on his six and a half
acres of land in the village of Nansong, west of Shanghai,
where he lives in a mud house on a dirt path with his wife,
Chen Baonan.
He has already stopped growing barely, once a major crop in
this part of the flat Yangtze River delta, because it does
not pay. He and his neighbors still grow rapeseeed, the
source of canola oil, and the plant's brilliant yellow
flowers carpet the delta with color each spring.
But the price the government pays for rapeseed has fallen
so low, Mr. Sun says, that he is better off pressing the
seeds himself and using the cooking oil at home. He would
gladly lease his field to a factory, but the government will
not let him, citing a need to preserve farmland. He and his
wife have opened a small store in the front of their house,
where they make about five cents a day selling cigarettes and
beer.
Joining the W.T.O. threatens to make China's agricultural
economics even worse.
Last year China imported record quantities of rapeseed and
soybeans, because foreign oilseed production is cheaper and
the quality often higher than that of domestically grown
crops. But to enter the trade group, China has agreed to lift
quotas that it now uses to restrict the import of edible
oils. A surge in imports would further dampen demand for
seeds from people like Mr. Sun.
The problem exists pretty much across the board.
The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a top government
research institute in Beijing, recently estimated that prices
for Chinese grain and other agricultural products would
continue to exceed those of the global market for the next 20
years.
Thanks to huge mechanized farms, the American cost of
production is often lower than that in China, where farming
employs as many as 600 million people, fields are fragmented
and transportation is slow.
And many other labor-intensive industries are in the same
boat.
Many of the country's 100-plus automobile assembly plants
face extinction if imports surge as tariffs fall, and
chemical plants could be crippled by foreign competition. The
Chinese government wants to reform the economy, but it favors
a cautious, go-slow approach rather than risk widespread
unrest that could undermine its rule.
``It's important to think about stability,'' said Zhou
Hanming, a lawyer who advises the government about the W.T.O.
Mr. Zhou says that the two to five years in which the
organization requires members to put most of its mandated
measures into effect is too short a time, and that China will
do what it must to shelter industries until they are ready to
face global competition.
``We're working very hard on a large number of new laws and
regulations that will offer protection of national
industries, vulnerable industries, infant industries,'' he
said.
Mr. Zhou, one of dozens of experts Beijing has enlisted to
prepare the country to defend its industries, is studying
ways to use anti-dumping rules. Under China's trade deal with
the United States, Washington insisted that it be allowed to
levy punitive duties against imports that it deems to be sold
below cost. Washington wanted the clause to protect the
American textile industry from cheap Chinese imports, but
China has seized on the provision to protect its own
threatened industries.
``We're going to learn how to use the same weapon,'' Mr.
Zhou said.
The country will also use other means to give threatened
industries an edge, including preferential bank loans and tax
breaks. And Beijing may end longstanding tax breaks for
foreign companies that were intended to encourage investment.
But China does hope to use its membership in the trade
group as a lever to move moribund state industries toward
real reform.
Take the pharmaceutical industry, which still relies
largely on copies, often illegal, of Western compounds. China
will come under pressure from the group to enforce the
intellectual property rights of foreign drug makers. To
survive, Chinese pharmaceutical firms will have to invest in
research and development and begin producing original drugs.
``The pressure will help force us to depend on ourselves,''
said Wang Li, general manager of the Shanghai Joy Biopharm
Company, a state-owned drug laboratory started five years ago
to develop commercially viable pharmaceuticals for the
domestic industry.
And China hopes that membership in the group will spur
foreign investment, which fell last year for the first time
since investors withdrew after the crackdown on pro-democracy
protesters at Tianamen Square in June 1989.
Multinational corporations have already begun signaling
their willingness to pump more money into China after it
joins. Nonetheless, protection is high on Beijing's agenda.
China is not known for its strict adherence to trade
agreements. In 1995, Trade Minister Wu Yi signed a deal with
the United States trade representative, Charlene Barshefsky,
that promised to protect American intellectual property
rights. But counterfeiting of computer software and movies on
compact disks is now more common than ever. Street hawkers
sell the latest Hollywood blockbusters in most Chinese
cities, and the police ignore the activity.
Nor has China proven a progressive member of another trade
club. As a member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
forum, it has resisted moves to speed the liberalization of
financial services.

* * * * *

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
this permanent status and in support of annual status.
``Dear Representative Farr/Sam, . . . [it is] the very strong
sentiment of the Labor Council delegates that the agreement negotiated
with China . . . is a bad deal for working people in this country. . .
. It should not be ratified by Congress. We urge you to vote against
it.''--Amy Newell, Business Agent, Santa Cruz Central Labor Committee,
AFL-CIO, in a letter dated March 20, 2000.
``Dear Congressman Farr/Sam, I am writing to you today to let you
know how important Congressional approval of the Permanent Normal Trade
Relations for China (PNTR) is for Monterey County growers! . . . Both
California and Monterey County stand to gain jobs and business growth
from your approval of PNTR. . . . I urge you to look carefully at the
PNTR China issue and lend your immediate support to this extremely
important matter!''--Sharan Lanini, Executive Director, Monterey County
Farm Bureau, in a letter dated March 24, 2000.
How could two views on the same issue coming out of roughly the same
regional community be so incredibly disparate? Yet, this is the issue I
am faced with as a U.S. Congressman as the vote on China and WTO
approaches.
The issue at hand is whether the United States will grant China
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR). The U.S. already provides
China with NTR--Normal Trade Relations--status, a trade arrangement
that is currently renewed or denied on an annual basis. China has been
granted NTR (previously referred to as ``MFN''--Most Favored Nation
status) for 19 years in a row. I have supported annual NTR for China in
the past.
The difference this year is not just whether to make permanent the
annual NTR debate for China. The difference this year is that American
approval of PNTR will provide the United States the same access to
Chinese markets as other World Trade Organization (WTO) members.
Without PNTR, the U.S. will continue to trade with China on a bilateral
basis and under conditions separate and different from the rest of the
world. PNTR would establish new rules between the two countries equal
to the rest of the world and new grounds for settling trade disputes.
Most people know that I am a strong believer in trade. My votes on
NAFTA, GATT and WTO are no secret. I regularly defend the Market Access
Program (MAP) which provides federal funds to advertise American
products overseas as a way to increase demand in foreign markets for
U.S.-made items. The fastest growing market for products coming out of
the Central Coast--particularly agriculture--is in Asia. In fact, Asian
markets accounted for over 285 million pounds of export products

[[Page 9103]]

from Monterey County alone in 1998. This figure could easily grow
exponentially if full and fair access to the China market were made
available to our growers. According to statistics the Department of
Commerce released last month, the Santa Cruz-Watsonville area saw an
839 percent increase in exports to China over 1993-98. Salinas saw a
743 percent increase in its exports to China over the same period.
I want to see that kind of economic opportunity available to all
California communities and all communities across the country. I want
to see China open up to Central Coast agriculture. I want to see
America finally get a break at marketing its goods to the potential
billion Chinese patrons. Ultimately, that means more business for local
growers, more jobs for local workers, increased shipping operations for
local truckers, and better economic conditions all around.
But in negotiating a trade deal with China (or any entity on any
issue) we should look for the best deal that advances all of the United
States' interests. Economics is not the only issue at stake here; there
are others, including the non-tangible issues of human rights and
personal freedoms. There is wide disagreement on whether PNTR helps or
hinders these causes within China.
If human rights and environmental stewardship are important interests
to the United States, then it is right of us to try to find ways to
advance these issues world wide. If China is a concern of ours, then we
ought to try to sway Chinese leadership to move toward accommodation in
these areas. The best way to do that is to require that China return to
Congress each year to make its case that it deserves special trade
status because it has made efforts to correct environmental and human
rights deficiencies. PNTR eliminates that tool and robs us of the
chance to hold China accountable.
So, I will vote ``no'' on PNTR for China. I do so fully supportive of
open and fair trade, but also mindful of using American influence to
keep China on track to being a better citizen of the world.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposition.

a difficult decision

Mr. Speaker, over the last three months, I have conducted a thorough
analysis of extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status to
China, thereby putting U.S. trade relations with China on the same
plane as our relations with virtually every other country in the World
Trade Organization. During this time, I have remained undecided on this
issue. I have listened to every possible argument in this debate and
comprehensively examined the legislation's potential effects so that I
could learn more about the quality of jobs that expanded trade can
bring and the potential effects of trade on human rights. I also wanted
to study the impact of trade on not only our workers, but also the
international labor standards for other workers around the world. First
and foremost among my considerations during my deliberations, however,
was determining the consequences of this legislation for the people
working, the families living, and the businesses operating in
Northeastern and Central Pennsylvania.
This has been an extremely difficult decision for me. In the long
term, I believe that international trade benefits the United States
when conducted fairly. Our nation cannot repeat the mistakes of 1930
when Congress enacted the Smoot-Hawley bill, which helped to
precipitate the Great Depression. Freer trade among nations increases
wealth for all and improves relations with our allies, similar to the
1960s when we reduced a number of trade barriers.

nafta and pntr

But international trade has not always helped everyone. In the short
term, absent the creation of an effective economic safety net,
increased international trade will produce winners and losers in our
economy. In 1993, I voted against the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), primarily because there were insufficient
protections in place to preserve the economic security of average,
working Americans and lower-income workers in labor-intensive
industries. Over time, my doubts were proven correct. After NAFTA, some
sectors of our economy grew, while others did not. Additionally,
workers in some regions of our country have flourished under NAFTA,
while workers in other regions have experienced wage stagnation or lost
their jobs outright.
Six-and-a-half years after the NAFTA vote, our country has another
opportunity to consider the issue of increased global trade. The debate
on PNTR, however, differs significantly from our deliberations over
NAFTA. Under NAFTA, we created the world's largest free trade area with
two other countries, Mexico and Canada. NAFTA not only eliminated
tariffs between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, but it also
required us to enter into an expansive range of commitments and
agreements to integrate the economies of the three nations.
Through PNTR we are only seeking to place U.S. trade relations with
China on the same footing as our relations with virtually every other
country in the world, including nations like Argentina, Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Greece, and Switzerland. In other words, the economic
integration required by PNTR is significantly less than that required
by NAFTA. Under PNTR, we will not eliminate or even lower our tariffs
for the goods we import from China. Thus, a product produced in the
United States, Mexico, and Canada, which is not subject to a tariff,
will often still remain cheaper than the same item manufactured in
China, which will still be subject to the tariffs that we apply not
only to China, but also to Germany, France, Brazil, Japan, and Great
Britain. Moreover, as a result of this agreement China will
significantly lower trade barriers for U.S. products to enter the
Chinese marketplace.

competing viewpoints

In order to educate myself more fully about the reasons to support
and oppose PNTR status for China, I have met with hundreds of
individuals in recent weeks and months and have heard from thousands
more. On one side of this debate, the business community maintains that
the United States stands to gain tens of thousands of high-tech jobs as
a result of PNTR. In the short term, however, our economy will likely
face job losses in low-tech, labor-intensive industries. Additionally,
I fear that in the short term only selected communities in our
country--like those within the Silicon Valley of California, in the
high-tech corridor of Northern Virginia, and along Wall Street in New
York--will benefit from extending PNTR.
Supporters of the agreement further contend that denial of PNTR would
hurt American families who would pay more for consumer goods. They
estimate these higher prices could cost more than $10 billion each
year. Additionally, supporters of PNTR insist that the best way to
improve China's record on human rights, religious freedom, and free
speech is to engage and not isolate the Chinese people in the world
economy. Finally, PNTR's supporters note that because the Europeans
have recently entered into an agreement with the Chinese government,
China is all the more likely to join the World Trade Organization this
year. Consequently, we need PNTR so that U.S. workers, farmers, and
businesses can remain competitive with our trading partners in Europe,
the Americas, and Asia.
On the other side of this debate, I have heard many reasons to oppose
PNTR. Some interest groups have estimated that our nation will lose
tens of thousands of jobs as a result of PNTR. Just as I doubt the
number of projected jobs that supporters believe will be created by
this decision, I also am skeptical of the anticipated jobs that
opponents believe will be lost because of this legislation. In reality,
the net change in jobs probably lies between these two estimates.
Others opposed to this legislation feel that by granting PNTR to
China we will condone that nation's record of human rights abuses. But
using trade as leverage against the Chinese government is not only
unenforceable, I believe it is also likely to bring change to the most
oppressed Chinese people. There is a great danger in the arguments that
some have put forth in attempting to demonize the Chinese government.
If we care about improving our relations with China and improving the
qualify of life for the Chinese people, we must remain engaged. As Dai
Qing, perhaps China's most prominent environmentalist and independent
political thinker, states, ``All of the fights--for a better
environment, labor rights, and human rights--these fights we will fight
in China tomorrow. But first we must break the monopoly of the state.
To do that, we need a freer market and the competition mandated by the
World Trade Organization.''

a third way

During this debate over Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China, I
fear that we may have unfortunately again neglected to address an issue
that we should have considered during our deliberations over NAFTA. In
this country, a paradox arises because the two diverging viewpoints on
extending trade to other nations fail to join together to advance the
real interests of all Americans. If we defeat PNTR today, our low-tech,
labor-intensive jobs will still continue to be lost by trade that
already exists with China and our other leading trading partners around
the world under current trade agreements. Additionally, the U.S. stands
to lose our opportunity to create new, high-tech

[[Page 9104]]

jobs for workers in our Nation because we will have failed to open the
Chinese market.
It is also a false hope that the defeat of PNTR will provide job
security for those jobs already lost or about to be lost to global
trade. According to the Congressional Research Service, which provides
Congress with non-partisan analysis, Pennsylvania has already lost
18,663 jobs to Canada and Mexico since passage of NAFTA. This trend
will likely continue in the future, even if we do not pass PNTR today.
With or without PNTR, our economy will certainly change in positive
and negative ways because of increased worldwide competition in the
years ahead. I have, therefore, asked myself what can be done now in
the United States to help those regions of the country and those
sectors of our economy that need assistance in order to ensure that all
American workers and businesses can benefit tomorrow from increased
global trade. By providing short-term support for these communities,
businesses, and workers, we can ultimately ensure that everyone in our
economy profits from international trade.
We are fortunate that our economy continues to grow and prosper.
President Clinton has led the Nation to the strongest economy the world
has ever seen. He has created the most economic opportunities for
working families in the last 30 years, and I know that he shares my
concerns for those Americans who have not fully participated in the
economic expansion of the last eight years. His leadership in reducing
the budget deficit, lowering taxes for lower- and middle-income
Americans, and supporting workers' rights has strengthened our economic
outlook for the 21st century.
Of primary importance to me in this debate is how we will overcome
the negative consequences of increased trade, especially for those
older workers who may lose their jobs. From my perspective, workers and
families displaced by greater global competition must ultimately retain
at least the same quality of life as they would have obtained under
their old jobs. Our government can accomplish this objective through a
number of mechanisms. We could, for example, enact legislation to:
Promote investment in economically distressed areas. Through
President Clinton's New Markets initiative, we can increase investments
in the untapped potential of our Nation's underserved markets and
create long-term partnerships that will lead to lasting economic change
in distressed communities. One component of the New Markets Initiative
is the America's Private Investment Companies (APIC) bill, and I have
been an ardent supporter of this legislation. APICs would make large-
scale investments in businesses operating in distressed urban centers,
mid-sized cities, small towns, and rural areas, to stimulate job growth
and economic development. Because we recently reached a bipartisan
agreement between President Clinton and Speaker Hastert on this
economic development package, I am hopeful that will pass this
legislation later this year. I do, however, regret that this package is
not before us today.
Enhance job training and trade adjustment programs. We must
additionally give workers the tools they need to succeed in the global
economy through reforms of our nation's trade adjustment and economic
development assistance programs. We can accomplish this goal by
extending trade adjustment assistance eligibility to those who lose
their jobs due to shifts in production and strengthening the linkage
between income support and early enrollment in retraining. We should
also create an Office of Community Economic Adjustment within the
Economic Development Administration in order to ensure that
economically distressed regions of our country receive access to all
available federal resources in times of need. Again, we are
unfortunately not voting on such legislation today.
Safety net tools, like promoting investments in distressed areas and
enhancing job training and trade adjustment programs, will not only
mitigate the negative effects flowing from increased trade, but also
lift up displaced workers and communities traditionally hurt by greater
global trade. The business community and labor organizations should
recognize the benefits of taking these proactive steps to help all
Americans participate in the prosperity of trade. In the future when we
consider other trade measures in Congress, I hope that we will expand
the debate to include these quality of life protections.

oppose the legislation

Mr. Speaker, in the past the American public has demonstrated good
judgment in determining how we should conduct trade with other nations.
In reaching my final decision to oppose this legislation, I have asked
myself the same four basic questions used by many Americans when
debating trade issues. Those questions are:
Who benefits from the PNTR package in the United States?
What are the advantages of the PNTR package for American workers?
What regions of the country will benefit or lose under the PNTR
package?
Who benefits in China from the PNTR package?
As I noted earlier, while PNTR's supporters state that thousands of
jobs will be created as the result of the agreement, I worry that many
workers and businesses in Northeastern and Central Pennsylvania will
not reap those benefits in the short term and possibly not even the
long term. Moreover, the PNTR agreement fails to mitigate the potential
damages caused by increased competition in the global marketplace for
our communities at home. Workers that lose their jobs because of
increased trade will further lose from a poorly constructed economic
safety net. This outcome will lead to a further widening in the gap
between the income of wealthy individuals and average, hard-working
Americans in this country, a far more worrisome problem because of its
potential future effects on our society.
Admittedly, some workers in some sectors of our economy will
undoubtedly win under this PNTR package. We cannot, however, overlook
the fact that some workers will not only lose their economic security,
but they could also potentially experience changes in the structure of
their families and their respect for their government as a result of
this legislation. I cannot support this legislation, because it fails
to mitigate these and other losses that workers, families, and
businesses may face from increased trade.
Finally, during this PNTR debate I have often heard from my
constituents that China ``cannot be trusted.'' In reality, they are
saying that the Chinese government cannot be trusted. Efforts to
include provisions in this PNTR package that establish a commission to
monitor human rights, labor standards, and religious freedom in China
are a step in the right direction, as is requiring the Administration
to report annually to Congress on China's compliance with international
standards. I commend my colleagues Congressmen Sandy Levin and Doug
Bereuter for their bipartisan and hard work on this issue. Although it
may be the best we can ask from the Chinese government at this time, we
need to really know whether we can trust the Chinese government in the
future before moving ahead.
Mr. Speaker, an agreement such as this one is a contract. As I recall
from my days as an attorney, people generally enter into contracts only
if all parties to the agreement believe that they will win under the
arrangement. China may feel they have a winning deal with the United
States on this PNTR package. From the perspective of the United States,
however, this PNTR agreement fails to strengthen the short- and long-
term economic security for all regions of our country and all American
workers. Rejecting this legislation is not rejecting trade with China.
It merely means that we will continue to have the opportunity to review
on an annual basis our current trade policy with China and examine
changes in that nation's trade record and human rights performance.
Regretfully, I must oppose this bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 30
seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) who understands
that the Dalai Lama never said he supports PNTR and understands that
there is a difference between China acceding to WTO and Congress
passing PNTR.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, has the Chinese Government earned
our trust? No. China has violated the term of four previous agreements
we signed with them.
Has the WTO earned our trust? No. The WTO repeatedly rules in favor
of the multinational companies, and ignores the workers, their human
rights and the environment.
Look at the banana issue. When the WTO ruled in favor of one company,
Chiquita International; they ignored all Caribbean nations whose main
exports are bananas. Now thousands of farmers are without work. We
cannot trust the WTO to look out for the people. We cannot trust China
to look out for the people. Who can we trust?
I urge my colleagues to consider their responsibility and vote ``no''
on this bill.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4444. I absolutely do not believe
that it is in our country's best interest to grant Permanent Normal
Trade Relations to China. I have listened carefully to both sides of
the debate and I know that each side has valid concerns. But in the
end, I think there is too much at stake for Congress to give up
oversight on this issue.
Taking away our ability to impose unilateral trade sanctions against
a country like China is

[[Page 9105]]

simply not acceptable. Without this option, the U.S. will lose its
leverage to influence China towards improving environmental standards,
as well as human rights and labor rights violations. Under the WTO
rules, we would lose our ability to unilaterally punish a nation or a
company for these types of violations. China has simply not been a
trustworthy trading partner, and has violated the terms of all four
bilateral trade agreements it has previously signed with the U.S.
In addition, I am more than concerned about China's human rights
record. Along with the poor treatment of the work force, the Chinese
Communist party's human rights record only seems to be getting worse,
not better, even in the midst of economic opening. Government
restrictions on free speech and the press, as well as forced
imprisonment for expressing one's political or religious beliefs, have
deterred political opening.
On the economic front, the U.S. balance of payments last year shows
that our trade deficit with China is growing rapidly. In the end, I
believe that extending PNRT will result in a net loss of jobs for
Americans, not gains.
Finally, I am very concerned about the discovery last year of Chinese
espionage. I do not believe that a country that steals our military
secrets should be granted trade benefits!
When I weigh the gravity of these factors, I believe it is in our
best interests to oppose Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China, and
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4444.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair announces that the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 21\1/2\ minutes remaining. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The Chair intends at the conclusion, as we wrap up, to begin with the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), then the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark) to follow, then the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) to follow, and to finish with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Crane).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of normalizing trade in
China.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood) and all the Members that are fighting so diligently to bring
the side of the American workers to the floor here of the House.
Let me just re-stress, and I made these statements last night, this
is from the Ohio Department of Commerce, Director Gary Suhadolnik, and
this documents where baby chickens were fed arsenic in the water. They
were killed. They contained 18 percent arsenic in their systems, and
they were put into the Easter baskets of American children. Luckily, we
caught 350 of the baskets before the rest could come over the market.
There are other examples in here of hideous examples of dangers to
American children because these products come in. China does have
respect for our American children. They do not have respect for what
comes over from China. If this agreement passes, we are going to have
more of this. We are going to have our markets flooded.
On the other end, we have been so comfortable. We wear engagement
here like a coat. It gets a little bit hot, one takes it off, the word
engagement.
We talk about the farmers, once again the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Nethercutt) has a bill that unleashes all the sanctions around the
world. But all of a sudden, we cannot talk about engagement when we
talk about the Nethercutt bill, which if my colleagues really want to
help the farmers, they would pass it.
If my colleagues want to pass this bill to help the farmers like my
colleagues say, that 9 percent tariff reduction is going to vanish. It
is going to vanish instantly when they manipulate their currency in
China like it happened in Mexico, and my colleagues know it.
We have got to stand up for American workers. Despite all the
lucrative predictions that the China WTO deal will open up new
opportunities for American farmers and businesses, I remain convinced
that this trade deal represents a bad deal for the United States.
The International Trade Commission analyzed a similar trade deal that
was on the table in April and concluded that it would lead to an
increase in the U.S. trade deficit.
Then people say, well, this is not permanent. You bet your life if my
colleagues vote for this, the undecided Members of Congress, Mr.
Speaker, if they hear this message, if they vote for this, it is going
to be permanent. It will not be undone.
Stand up for American workers for a change.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, a bill to grant
permanent normal trade relations status to China. The central tenet of
America's trade policy should be threefold: opening markets for goods
produced by American workers, improving our nations economy, and
promoting American values and ideals abroad. In this sense, I believe
that our trade policy should encourage reform, while demanding a level
playing field for international commerce. This has already yielded many
benefits for America in rural and urban areas alike. Indeed, within my
congressional district in southwest Virginia, approximately one in
every four jobs is tied to exports. The expansion in free trade in
recent years has allowed Lynchburg and Roanoke to become two of the 25
fastest growing export regions in the U.S.
However, we have yet to include one of the world's largest emerging
markets in this process. China, a nation of over 1 billion people, has
been hamstrung over the years with outmoded laws and trading practices
put in place by the Communist regime. Even with these barriers in
place, China is becoming a thriving market for U.S. products and
services, and is already our 5th largest trading partner. If we can
bring China into a rules-based trading system and dismantle the
barriers put in place by it's failed economic philosophy, we can open
up a massive new market to American goods and services.
Some have argued that opening the U.S. market to Chinese-made goods
will have a detrimental effect on U.S. workers. Nothing could be
further from the truth. The United States already has an open market
for most goods originating in China and the rest of the world. It is
China whose market is closed to the products designed by U.S.
engineers, manufactured by U.S. workers and exported by U.S. companies.
If we open this market to U.S. goods and services, American workers
stand to gain a tremendous benefit from the additional demand generated
by China's huge population.
At the same time, I do share the concerns many have raised regarding
our national security and China. Specifically, I am concerned with the
findings of the Cox Commission that indicates that China is engaged in
a concerted campaign to steal militarily sensitive equipment. These
efforts by the Chinese government combined with the provocative stance
towards the democratic republic of Taiwan, are a cause for serious
concern.
I am also deeply concerned with the pattern of human rights abuses by
the Chinese government. Human rights in China is imperative and the
United States must continue to press China in that direction. As a
nation dedicated to freedom and the rights of the individual, we have a
responsibility to speak out when those rights are violated, whether at
home or abroad.
The most effective way to influence change in China is to engage the
Chinese government in ways that emphasize open trade and democratic
reform. If we attempt to isolate China, the reality is that we will
lose jobs to other nations that will not cut off trade, but rather take
advantage of the situation. With PNTR the United States can use the WTO
to eliminate unfair Chinese trade barriers that exclude American
products. Failing to pass PNTR simply gives the lion's share of trade
benefits away to other nations, while doing nothing to help U.S.
workers and consumers.
It is critical that we adopt the approach of opening China up through
increased westernization of the Chinese people. Trade and contact is
building greater desire for western ways, including democracy. The
Chinese people have a long history and change will be slow. The way to
fight for progressive reform in China is not by abandoning the playing
field, but through continued exposure to democratic ideas such as free
markets and free speech.

[[Page 9106]]

The Internet revolution has eliminated economic and political
barriers throughout the world. Free markets and free speech go hand in
hand. With 8.9 million Internet users and over 15,000 web sites already
based within China, the Internet has the potential to offer a dramatic
improvement in the quality of life for millions of Chinese citizens as
well.
By offering China the opportunity to enter the community of rule-
abiding nations, we have a chance to create real and lasting change in
China. At the same time, we must continue to work aggressively to
ensure that China follows the rules of the international trading
community.
Trade and commerce will lead directly to progress and freedom. We
must continue fighting for a level playing field for trade--one on
which our nation, our American workers and American consumers alike can
win.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
Mr. SALMON. (The gentleman from Arizona delivered the following
speech in Chinese.)
In the world today the single most important bilateral relationship
is the relationship between the U.S. and China. Passage of PNTR not
only benefits the economies of both countries, but it also advances the
cause of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I just spoke to the Chinese people in their native
tongue.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Salmon) that those remarks may not be a part of the official
Record unless the gentleman supplies a translation.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, it will probably be hard to translate.
Mr. Speaker, I just spoke to the Chinese people in their native
tongue about the benefits of PNTR to both our countries and how it will
advance the cause of freedom.
Unfortunately, to the majority of the Americans, this debate has been
framed as a stark choice between free trade and human rights. In truth,
increased trade with China is both.
Many Americans understand the economic benefit of PNTR to the United
States. First is the dramatic reduction of trade barriers imposed on
U.S. exports of goods and services. Whether it is a car battery or a
semiconductor, U.S. companies will enjoy the lowest tariffs on their
products in the history of U.S. trade with China.
But free trade will also improve the human rights situation. Even His
Holiness the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader who has
suffered oppression at the hands of the Chinese Government, understands
the importance of engaging China. In a recent interview, he said, I
have always stressed that China should not be isolated. China must be
brought into the mainstream of the world community.
By saying no to isolationism and embracing engagement, we can spread
the gospel of free trade, democracy, human rights, and religious
freedom one worker, one village, one city, and one province at a time.
Let us all know and take note the most important export that we have
is our American values and democracy. Let us not be afraid. Let us have
conviction in our ideals and know that they will move China.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I
do so with no illusions about China's records on human rights, worker
rights, and environmental protection. I will not pretend that China is
where it should be on any of these fronts.
In terms of economics, this is a one-way deal. We get significant
reductions in barriers that stand in the way of the sale of American
products in China. We give no greater access to America's markets for
Chinese products than were provided for years and years.
Economic benefits for the United States are not the only reality that
confronts us today. Another reality is that isolating China will do not
a thing to bring about a more just economic or political order there.
The answer is not turning our back on China. The answer is pushing
our democratic values upon China through commerce and communication
with its citizens. This engagement will steer forces of individual
inspiration and aspiration and initiative in China that will, in the
long run, no authoritarian government can ever contain.
There is a claim here that we have to choose between American
prosperity and Chinese human rights. I say choose both. Vote ``yes.''

{time} 1445

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose this bill. It
is a difficult bill. There is merit on both sides, but I want to tell
my colleagues that I oppose passing this trade agreement before we get
our fundamental values in place.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most difficult votes I will take, but
I must rise in opposition to permanent normal trade relations for
China. There are strong arguments on both sides of this issue. For
some, PNTR will be a benefit. But, for many, too many, PNTR will be a
burden. Clearly, certain sectors of the service industry will win by
having access to China's 1.3 billion consumers. And, though not
certain, I hope agriculture will win by selling our commodities. We
have made some progress on the Blue Mold issue affecting North Carolina
tobacco, but more progress needs to be made. In my congressional
district, however, there will be too many losers.
Indeed, the results of the administration's own analysis have led
some to project losses of more than 800,000 U.S. jobs with the granting
of PNTR. Notwithstanding this vote, the United States and China will
continue to be trading partners. But, there can be no free trade
without freedom. More importantly, there can be no free trade without
fair trade.
Before establishing a permanent arrangement with China, one that is
not subject to annual review, we must insist on some fundamental
conditions. We must end our trade imbalance; urge the Chinese to end
its labor, human rights and religious abuses; force China to respect
the environment and ensure that those at the bottom of America's
economy benefit from the agreement comparable to those at the top. Vote
against this bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who realizes that we cannot negotiate with
people who randomly kill prisoners to harvest human organs for sale.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I support a trade regime that advances the
living standards of Americans and that creates hope for the Chinese
people; and that is why I oppose permanent normal trade relations with
China. Because it says one more time that we are pushing ahead with
trade agreements without any regard for environmental and labor
standards, and without any regard for religious and political freedoms.
We never proceed on a trade agreement without protection for
intellectual property. All would concede the consequences for companies
here and the rule of law there. I want to see trade bring new openness
to China, new economic opportunities and the rise of freedom. But what
has the experience of the past decade taught us? Look at their record.
China has engaged in unfair trade practices, pirated intellectual
property, participated in weapons proliferation, suppressed democracy,
and acted with belligerence towards Taiwan; all this while Congress has
provided most favored nation status.
Do we truly believe that by granting China permanent MFN and
foregoing the yearly review that these abuses will somehow improve? Let
us vote against this effort. Let us impose on China the opportunity for
freedom, and if they cannot do that, they should forfeit the benefits
that other nations enjoy.
Without granting permanent MFN to China, and without their membership
in the World Trade Organization, our trade deficit with China has
soared from $2.8 billion in 1987 to $68.7 billion in 1999. This is what
happens when we are completely indifferent to standards abroad. This
imbalance costs jobs in Connecticut and across the country. It hurts
employers. I have listened to arguments that trade with China will
bring change--that once China is open to American goods, they will also
be open to American ideals of freedom. I want to see trade bring a new
openess to China, new economic opportunities, and a rise of freedom.
That's why I supported MFN for

[[Page 9107]]

China during my first years in Congress. I believed that argument. But
what has the experience of the past decade taught us. Let's look at
China's record.
But, China has engaged in unfair trade practices, pirated
intellectual property, participated in weapons proliferation,
suppressed democracy, and acted with belligerence toward Taiwan. There
is no evidence that China is responding and that it deserves a new
trade regime with the United States. And all the while, this Congress
has granted China Most Favored Nation Trading Status. Do we truly
believe that by granting China permanent MFN, and forgoing a yearly
review, that this record or abuses will somehow improve?
Right now, on labor standards and Democratic rights, China is
surrounded by a Great Wall. It is holding back its people's hopes for
democratic freedoms. It threatens to bring down economic standards
here. This Congress should say to China clearly and unequivocally that
China must break down this wall, truly open its markets, raise labor
standards, and freedom, or China should forfeit their rights to the
benefits that all nations enjoy.
Only by voting ``no'' will this great body ever again debate what
standards should matter in our trade relations with China. Oppose
permanent most favored nation status for China.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ney).
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, if we want to send a message to the Chinese
people, we might as well try to mail it in a letter because they will
not hear it in the sweatshops and the prisons. And the text of this
bill does not do anything for them.
So if we want to send a message to the Chinese people, we should vote
``no,'' and then we can really try to help them out.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of granting
permanent normal trade relations, H.R. 4444, for the People's Republic
of China.
I have long subscribed to Ronald Reagan's philosophy on dealing with
adversaries: contain them militarily, engage them diplomatically and
flood them with western goods and influences. I believe a similar
combination will work on China.
Many Americans are rightly concerned about human rights; and
religious and political freedom in China. However, rejecting normal
trading practices with China will not improve freedom in China. In
fact, it will plunge China further into isolation and reduce freedom.
Pat Robertson, with the Christian Broadcasting Network, and Rev.
Richard Cizik, with the National Association of Evangelicals agree that
engagement with China has and will continue to improve human rights in
China.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to help our American economy improve human rights in
China. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4444.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of extending permanent
normal trade relations status to China.
I have heard two arguments recently against granting China this trade
status which I think deserve examination.
1. Critics say we should not grant PNTR status to China because we
will lose leverage on all future trade agreements. This allegation
represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the vast benefits this
agreement offers America. PNTR status will allow the United States to
establish reciprocal access to Chinese markets, for the first time.
Passage of this bill will allow the United States to take advantage of
the enormously favorable bilateral trade agreement negotiated with
China for entry into the World Trade Organization. It should be noted
that this is a one-way arrangement--China will dramatically reduce
industrial and agricultural tariffs on American products while we
change nothing about our trade laws. China will enter the World Trade
Organization with or without Congressional approval of PNTR--but if we
don't pass this legislation the consequences for American exporters
will be devastating. 134 other countries will have access to the
Chinese market on the very favorable terms that the United States
negotiated, while we will be locked out. This is not a position of
leverage--this is a position of extreme weakness. Opposing PNTR
effectively isolates the United States from this market.
2. Critics say this represents a benefit from shadowy special
interests, but is not in overall American interests. Opponents who
believe that we should turn our backs on one of the world's largest
export markets do a disservice to export dependent jobs across the
nation. International trade, considering all imports and exports, now
constitutes 29 percent of the gross domestic product, up from 7 percent
in 1950. In Washington State, our economy is even more dependent on
trade, with foreign exports alone accounting for nearly 25 percent of
the gross state product. Export-related jobs represented 31 percent of
the total increase in jobs in the state over the last 30 years and
these jobs pay 46 percent more than the overall state average. Who are
these supposed shadowy special interests then? How about the
semiconductor, computer and telecommunications industries, the backbone
of the New American economy--their tariff rates will fall to zero--the
workers in these sectors represent a valuable special interest. Pacific
Northwest wheat farmers have not been able to sell to China for more
than 20 years--the bilateral agreement will open this vast market for
the first time. Tariffs on Washington apples will fall from 30 percent
to 10 percent, making their products much more competitive--these
farmers are a valuable special interest.
This is a good agreement, and is in the interests of all Americans
and all trade interests.
Aside from its importance to the agricultural community of eastern
Washington, this measure is critically important to the enormous number
of aerospace workers throughout our state. Over the last few months, I
have been in contact with the presidents of union locals who asked my
support for PNTR because it would help U.S. aerospace workers. Last
week, I was visited by a delegation of union presidents who represent a
national coalition of unions who are supporting this measure. They are
committed to human rights and environmental protection but they are
also committed to expanding the rank and file membership in their
unions through expanded trade with China.
I believe Members should recognize this diversity of opinion within
the labor movement. While some AFL-CIO unions are offering serious
opposition to PNTR, the largest locals in my State have endorsed PNTR.
The International Association of Machinists, and the Society of
Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, both AFL-CIO
affiliates, have endorsed this legislation. I would hope that Members
of this body would hear the pleas of local unions that are trying to
preserve their jobs and not lose access to future markets.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins).
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, 13 years ago I delivered the commencement
address at my alma mater, Oklahoma State University. I entitled that
speech ``International Trade: Opportunity or Destruction. Which Way
America?''
As I stand before my colleagues today, we are going to answer that
question. We build economic opportunities for our children and
grandchildren; and provide opportunities to export American values for
freedom of religion, speech, and human rights to China. I want to
emphasize five facts: One, we are in a global competitive world, and we
are not going back. Two, 134 countries of the WTO have already approved
permanent trading relationships with China. We are the only country
that is lingering behind. Three, China can already enter the United
States markets. That is why we have an $80 billion trade imbalance.
Four, this agreement will allow us--the USA--to enter China's market of
1.3 billion people and will let us have the opportunity also to market
the values that we believe in: freedom of religion, freedom of
assembly, freedom of speech, and, yes, human rights. Fact five: I am a
grandfather. I could step back and say, ``Why should I care? This is
not going to affect me.'' But, my colleagues, are we going to give our
children and our grandchildren the tools of opportunity to compete in
this global economy or place them in an unfair position to maintain
America's leadership in the world. I stand in support of this
legislation. We must give our children and grandchildren the tools to
compete in this world.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention some of
the points today about which I think there is not nearly as much
disagreement as we have had on others.
The first is I think it is perfectly clear that we have to engage
China in commerce. These are the ties that bind. This is a country with
a population in excess of 1.2 billion people and growing.

[[Page 9108]]

I think it is terribly important to point out that the Taiwanese, who
have been under as much risk as anyone in the world with China's
behavior, strongly support the adoption of this bill and view it as a
very important step towards achieving a more peaceful resolution of
their differences over the next decade.
I think it is fair to say that there is no question that the
concessions the United States has extracted to further access to China
are very, very strong. In Florida, my home State, there will be
significant reductions in tariffs on orange juice, grapefruit
concentrate, and fertilizer. And the fertilizer industry will begin to
privatize over time in China.
Who will benefit under this agreement? In 1997, 82 percent of the
exporters to China were small and medium-sized businesses. In my State,
Florida, in 1997, 52 percent of the exporters to China were small
businesses, businesses with 100 employees or less.
We are bringing China into the rule of law. One of the things that
separates those that oppose this bill from those that support it is how
quickly can we do that. It will take time to change attitudes, to
change systems. And make no mistake about it, we will have to fight
like the dickens to enforce these rules.
Finally, in closing, we need to respect and address the concerns that
have been raised in opposition to this bill, and I believe the
Bereuter-Levin proposal will do that and would strongly urge its
adoption.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to granting
of a permanent normal trade relationship with China.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the story of two workers: one in Liaoyang
in Northeast China and one in the 7th District in Chicago, Illinois.
They have never met. They probably never will meet.
But their fates are tied together as if they were family members . .
. and their fates meet here, today on the floor of the House.
The workers at the Liaoyang Ferro-alloy Factory, the fourth largest
in the city, employing 5,000 workers began huge demonstrations on May
18.
Even though the workers only earn what would be considered here
starvation wages, they had not been paid in two years. The union had
done nothing for them.
Because the world was watching and this vote was pending local
officials could not crush the demonstrations as they did with 20,000
Yanjiazhan mine workers in a nearby city earlier this year.
As a result the factory agreed to pay back wages.
In the 7th District of Illinois on Chicago's Westside there is a mini
renaissance of manufacturing. Some of it is the result of the Chicago
Manufacturing Center which has offices in the same building as my
district office. They are struggling to bring manufacturing back to the
inner city . . . such as a plant to make awnings.
These struggling new small businesses, the engine of job creation
today, and their workers are about to be thrown into unfair competition
with factories in China like the one I just spoke of.
According to the U.S. Trade Representative's own model, over the next
ten years, this bill wll create 276,221 jobs, but it will result in the
loss of 1,148,313 jobs.
A net loss of 872,091 desperately needed U.S. jobs.
Those job losses will occur in every state and in every sector of the
economy including agriculture. That's with, the job losses will occur
in my state and they will occur in every state of this great union.
If all you care about is making our economy grow then you must vote
against PNTR for China. Don't throw these working families into the
unemployment line.
Despite the ``dot Com'' hype, it is the consumer spending of working
families which is sustaining our economy.
If you care at all about real people, if the quality of life of our
people, and the people of China matter at all to you. Then you must
also vote against PNTR for China.
More than 2000 years ago the ancient Greeks taught us the fate of
those who were seduced by the alluring voices and false promises of the
Sirens.
Mr. Speaker, let us not be seduced by the Sirens of the 21st century,
who sing of globalism as an end in itself, and who abandon our people
for sweet promises.
Let us steer for our North Star, our goal of a fair economy, a level
playing field . . . that's the road to global prosperity. Vote ``no''
on Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel), who understands that granting PNTR would allow China
to continue to regularly threaten the Democratic Nation of Taiwan and
the U.S. with military attack.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, this vote defines what kind of a Nation we
want to be. There is no doubt that business will make a lot of money if
this bill passes; but are we only for the almighty dollar, or are we
for morality and doing what is right? The almighty dollar or human
rights? The almighty dollar or American jobs? The almighty dollar or
environmental concerns?
Why can we not continue our annual review of China instead of giving
them a permanent blank check? It is the only leverage we have. Is it
only the almighty dollar that counts? Shame on us if it is true. Vote
``no.''
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, over the past several years,
I have supported Most Favored Nation status for China. I have expressed
my concerns about human rights in trips to China, in speeches before
the National Defense University of the PLA, and at Fudan University in
Shanghai. I have talked about my concerns about Taiwan. But I do
believe that engagement is more productive than isolation.
This year I have been undecided up until this very moment. I have
been undecided, Mr. Speaker, because of our national security, and I
want to talk to that issue for a few moments.
I was a member of the Cox committee. For 7 months, I sat behind
closed doors and looked at the evidence that the FBI and the CIA had
relative to the acquiring of technology from America, some of our most
sensitive technology. The fact that China acquired over 500 HPCs, high
performance computers, when in 1995 they had none and in 3 years they
had over 500. I have looked at the transfer of missile technology,
which has not just helped the Chinese but also been transferred to
North Korea. I looked at the fact that China was able to use our
weapons design for our nuclear warheads, which has now benefited their
nuclear warhead program. The access to telecommunications technology,
satellite launching technology which can also be used from Irving
nuclear missiles. And I looked at China acquiring encryption.
But, Mr. Speaker, through it all, when all was said and done, I
looked at the fact that China was a willing buyer, but up until 5 years
ago we were not a willing seller. It was not China stealing America's
technology; it was a wholesale auctioning of our most sensitive
technology by this White House. In every single case, the evidence
points to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where this President
and this Vice President auctioned off America's national security. And
we cannot use this debate to blame the Chinese people. We should not
use this debate to say China stole our technology.
In spite of President Clinton, I will vote for MFN, and hope that a
new administration will take a different tact in terms of America's
national security.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dooley), who worked so hard on this piece of
legislation.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
passage of PNTR and also rise to commend President Clinton and the
administration for their terrific effort to negotiate an agreement that
is good for U.S. workers, that is good for U.S. businesses, and that is
good for U.S. farmers.
It is such a wonderful deal because this is one of the few agreements
that we have ever had the chance to vote on where the United States
gave up nothing. We did not reduce a tariff, we did not reduce a quota,
and in return we got significant across-the-board reductions in tariffs
and increased market

[[Page 9109]]

access, which is going to increase the influence that the United States
has on the internal affairs of China.
That is important, because many of us are very concerned about the
progress on human rights and religious freedoms in China. But it is
inconceivable that we are going to have more influence in seeing
progress in those areas by adopting a policy which further isolates the
United States from the affairs in China. We are going to do more to
empower the Chinese citizens to make progress in their efforts to
advance democracy, in their efforts to advance greater personal
freedoms by extending the hand of economic cooperation.
This policy of economic engagement is one which is going to ensure
that China becomes a part of the body of nations that do comply with
the rules of law. It is going to also be an instrument that is going to
ensure that with additional U.S. investment and additional U.S. trade
that we will see an accelerated enhancement of the per capita GDP and
the standard of living in China that will also result in greater
benefits and progress on human rights as well as labor and
environmental conditions.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who understands that ADM may have to change its
slogan to ``Supermarket to a More Polluted World'' if in fact this
awful resolution passes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to permanent
trade privileges for China.
Trade does not bring freedom. Only enforceable laws in democratic
republics bring freedom. Trade does not bring peace. Before World War
II, the largest trading relationship in the world was not Nazi
Germany's with England. Did that stop totalitarianism's rise? Trade
does not build a middle class. Only laws governing workers' rights to
organize undergird the rise of a strong middle class with good wages
and benefits.
This is not a fight about expanding America's export markets. This is
a fight about China becoming a vast export platform 12 times the size
of Mexico's, taking our markets in Asia's rim and sending a glut of
sweatshop and agricultural commodities back here to our shores.
This is a heroic fight for democratic values in the harsh countryside
and in the industrial sweatshops in China, in places most Americans,
including this Congress, will never visit. Will we side with the
chauffeured limousine class, advertisers, retailers, and global
companies that soothingly tell us ``everything will be all right,'' or
will we stand with the freedom fighters in China and throughout the
world?
For those fighting permanent privileges for China on the basis of
democratic values. I say, hurray.

{time} 1500

For those courageous people in Taiwan standing tall for sovereignty
and self-determination, indeed for nationhood, I say, keep the flame of
liberty burning. For those fighting permanent privileges for China on
the basis of religious freedom, I say, God bless you. For those
fighting for one-half billion working women and girls in China be
afforded dignity and respect, I say, if not with this vote, then when?
For those fighting permanent trade privileges for China on the basis
of freedom of assembly, whether it is for the Falun Gong or for the
murdered freedom fighters in Tiananmen Square, I say, keep standing
tall in liberty's cause. Happy Memorial Day. Vote ``no'' on permanent
trade relations with China.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this most important
trade agreement. Failure by this Congress to extend PNTR would squander
a decade and a half of negotiations, invite the unraveling of China's
extensive WTO commitments, and punish American businesses and farmers
by shutting them out of the world's biggest emerging market for the
foreseeable future.
The best way to encourage the type of behavior we desire is through
policies that promote the rule of law, free trade, economic reform, and
democratization. For these are the seeds from which democracy can grow.
Therefore, I believe we should continue to pursue our historic and
longstanding policy of engagement rather than containment. Vote for
this legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would actually like to take my time here to have a
colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
I think that one of the things that strengthens this proposal over
any of the other trade agreements that we have really has come through
the work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). And so I would like to enter into a
colloquy for the purposes of showing the American people and our
friends in labor that there are some real strengths in this that are
necessary for this debate to move on.
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to ask the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) is what tools will the Commission have at its disposal to
press for better enforcement of human rights and worker rights in
China?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for asking about this
commission that is now part of this legislation.
This is a unique commission, high level, executive, and
congressional. There will be 18 Members of Congress. There will be five
members, high level from the executive. So it will be monitoring human
rights, the rule of law, full-time staff, every day, every month, not
just one time a year. It is going to be required to report to us every
year.
This commission will be empowered to make recommendations to this
Congress, recommendations for action by the Congress or by the
President. Its recommendations could include actions by the United
States Representative to IMF or to the World Bank or legislation and
recommendations regarding legislation that controls the sensitive
exports.
Let me also say this commission is modeled after the Helsinki
Commission. It was successful. A number of us worked with it when it
was impacting rights in the Soviet Union. It was a constant pressure
point, as this commission will be. It will add external pressure to the
internal pressures.
There have been reports in recent days in the paper of dissidents in
China, and here is what they say: A broad array of dissidents,
environmentalists, and labor activists in China appear united in their
support of Congressional passage of the permanent normal trade
relations act with this commission and that this combines external
pressure with internal.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I say to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) quickly because I would also like the
gentleman to talk a little bit about the antisurge provision because I
think this is, too, stemming from the NAFTA. I would also like the
gentleman to talk a little bit about the staff in China.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield,
quickly, the permanent staff can be stationed here. It can be stationed
in China.
Let me say a word about the surge provision, the toughest antisurge
provision in American law. If there is an inflow of products from China
that would hurt American workers and producers, workers and producers
can file a complaint, swift action with the standard of causation,
which will allow us to act if there is this surge.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter)
understands that the average Chinese worker earns 108 bucks a year,
hardly enough

[[Page 9110]]

if they spent every nickel they earned every year in the United States
to make a dent in our $80 billion trade deficit with China.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, even as we talk on the floor, the Chinese
are planning not to comply with any of this. They say already that they
have a cautious, go-slow approach, otherwise they will risk widespread
unrest that could undermine their rule. They are not going to comply
with WTO's 5-year rule. They say they will do everything they can to
shelter their industries, and that is no surprise to us.
Yesterday, on the floor, a colleague told me about a General Motors
plant closing down in his district in Flint, and the last act that
those workers had to do was to undo that piece of machinery and crate
it up to be shipped over to its new homes and its new workers; and then
General Motors had the effrontery to classify that as an export.
Do we want to see that happen to all the jobs in this country? We
want to trade with China, and we will trade with China. But would it
not be wonderful if, for one chance in our life, that this would be
absolutely fair trade?
We are not going to be selling any goods over there. Everything is
going to be manufactured there, as other colleagues have said before,
and brought right back here at one-twentieth of the cost manufactured
here, but it will be sold here at the maximum they could get.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that Members understand that
there is a profound difference between the Helsinki Commission, which I
chair, which was formed back in 1976 to implement the Helsinki Final
Act to which the USSR and the Warsaw Pact nations and others were a
party to. They signed on the dotted line.
The commission that is contemplated in this legislation is a watchdog
commission. It is like any other commission that might be formed, but
there is no participation by China or any of the other countries in
Asia, so there is a major difference. So I would hope we would no
longer somehow compare it to the Helsinki Commission. There is no real
comparison between the two.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think at this time it might help to share
with us the remaining time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood) has 9\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Crane) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Engel) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Stark) has 21 minutes remaining.
Let me just repeat that we intend in the closing part of the debate
to begin with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), then to go to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), then to go to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel), and then finish up with the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane).
Mr. RANGEL. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that that order will
be after a quorum call?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. RANGEL. So that it could very well be that we will have to have
some speakers that have large amounts of time before that quorum call
to call on several of their speakers?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Correct.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to recognize the
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel),
and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), for their leadership on this matter.
I rise in support of permanent normal trade relations with China. If
Congress does not grant permanent normal trade relations to China, it
will be the worst economic mistake this country has made since the
Great Depression.
Without a doubt, this agreement is good from an economic standpoint,
from a human rights standpoint, from a national security standpoint.
Nearly every industry in the United States will see a direct benefit
from tariff reductions on American goods going into China.
Agriculture, financial services, insurance, telecommunications,
information and technology, and a host of other industries will
directly benefit from this agreement. Jobs will also be created to meet
the growing demand for products in China.
American agriculture will benefit as much as anyone. More rice,
wheat, cotton, soybeans, poultry, pork, beef and a host of other
products will be sent to China directly from Arkansas and other States.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), who
lives next to the area where a civil action was written, understands
that passage of PNTR will lead the U.S. corporations doing business in
China simply to be able to continue to avoid stringent environmental
regulations.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, a vote for permanent normal trade relations
with China gives up favorable United States Trade Agreement enforcement
rights, it relinquishes forever any ability to use as leverage our
existing periodic review process to, at least, try to effect
universally acknowledged violations of human rights, including worker
rights, religious intolerance, the spreading of technological and other
information for dangerous weaponry, environmental degradation, and a
long history of noncompliance with virtually every bilateral agreement
negotiated between the United States and China in recent generations.
It does so despite the fact that it will have an adverse effect on
the jobs of many who are the least prepared to deal with such a loss,
and that is mostly because we have failed in advance of expanding ever-
open market initiatives, to put in place effective transition
assistance and worker training and re-training and health care for
those who are unable to afford it through the unexpected job loss. And
all of this is done unnecessarily.
Contrary to those who misinform us with claims that granting PNTR to
China benefits the United States, that is inaccurate. And it is not
accurate, as inferred and misstated, that in failing to give PNTR to
China, we would give a benefit to the European Union that we would not
get in the United States. Legal analysis shows otherwise
In fact, if China, in acceding to the WTO, grants market-opening
concessions to WTO members other than the United States, then existing
bilateral trade agreements between China and the United States require
that China grant those same concessions to the United States, even if
Congress does not grant PNTR to China.
Sound legal analysis of the controlling bilateral trade documents
since 1979 show this to be true. Further, the bilateral agreements
between China and the United States have far superior mechanisms for
enforcing trade agreement violations than has the so far grossly slow
and relatively ineffectual WTO Claims process. The need to retain our
advantage of enforcement and to forego being constrained only to the
WTO process is extremely important given China's history of
noncompliance. In fact, it was the United States' ability to use the
so-called 301 Sanctions, as allowed in the bilateral agreements between
the countries that finally forced China's compliance with the 1992
Trade Agreements on Intellectual Property.
There is reason to be concerned that Chinese officials are already
backing away from the 1999 U.S.-China Bilateral Agreement, which is the
basis for the request for PNTR. Consider just two of several statements
by Chinese negotiators and/or authoritative sources:

[[Page 9111]]

On wheat, where the Administration Summary of the United States-China
WTO Agreement, February 15, 2000, says ``China will import all types of
U.S. wheat from all regions of the United States to all ports in China
. . .,'' China's chief WTO negotiator was quoted in the South China
Morning Post on January 7, 2000, as saying: ``It is a complete
misunderstanding to expect this grain to enter the country . . .
Beijing only conceded a theoretical opportunity for the export of
grain.''
The USTR fact sheet states: ``China will allow 49% foreign investment
in all services, it will allow 50% foreign ownership for value-added in
two years and paging services in three years. In contradiction, AFX-
ASIA, November 22, 1999, asserts: ``. . . foreign companies will be
allowed to acquire the 25% stakes in operators of local commerce, long
distance and international calls, and the maximum permitted foreign
stake in telecom operators will be raised to 49% six years after WTO
entry, the official in the ministry's [China's Ministry of Information
Industry] policy and regulation department said.''
The list goes on and on, but it should be noted that the United
States Trade Representative has publicly stated that major differences
remain on the ``commitments on a wide range of WTO rules including
subsidies, technical standards, a mechanism to review implementation
and many other issues.''
This is not an argument over trade or no trade. Despite attempts by
some to paint those who would vote ``no'' on PNTR as isolationists, I--
and most other objecting parties--support trade, and support trade with
China. We have $80 billion of trade with China now as well as a trade
imbalance (in China's favor and not in our interests) of $70 billion
per year. No one proposes ending trade with China. What is opposed is
the expansion of trade privileges to China without retaining the
ability to enforce effective compliance with those trade agreements.
Furthermore, there is opposition to surrendering what appears to be a
final opportunity to inject into multi-lateral trade agreements
protection for workers, for the environment, for human rights and
against religious intolerance. It is a chance to retain some leverage
against China's long standing conduct of making weapons of mass
destruction or related technology and/or information available to
nations such as Pakistan and Iran, all very much against our national
security.
That other countries in the WTO have poor records in some of these
areas also, is not sufficient reason to forego the annual opportunity
to raise these issues with China. The WTO is itself flawed by the
absence of mechanisms to review individual members' compliance with
reasonable international standards in these areas. While no one
contends that every country must meet the exact standards set by the
United States or any other nation, there certainly are recognizable
thresholds of conduct (child labor, the right to associate, the right
to believe in one's religion) that should and could be negotiated and
incorporated in trade agreements.
We would be remiss to add a country as large as China, with such an
atrocious record, without first seeking to correct deficiencies in the
WTO. At the very least, if such a country is to be allowed to join WTO,
some review of its conduct in complying with international norms or
evidence of improvement in these areas over time, should be required.
My colleagues David Obey and Barney Frank have made several good
points in recent presentations on the issue. ``As trade between highly
developed, high wage countries, and under developed low wage countries
has become a larger and larger share of the mix, negative side effects
have appeared in high wage countries like ours. A downward pressure on
wages because of that expanded trade between very unlike economies has
reinforced other economic trends and policy actions, producing an ever
widening income gap between those that invest and those that work. A
rising tide no longer lifts all boats. In fact, the ability of those
with large amounts of capital to pay any price necessary for what they
want has, in the global economy and local neighborhood alike, driven
some costs far above what can be afforded by those whose boats are
anchored to low wages. That has happened with the price of housing. It
has happened with the price of education--especially at private
institutions. It has happened with the price of medical care.''
``Downward pressure on wages in economies like our own have been
accompanied by greater incentives to minimize environmental costs that
go into any product because we are told these products are in
competition with products produced in countries with much less concern
for either well-paid workers or well-protected environments. This has
made it more difficult to protect gains that industrial countries have
made in raising workers' living standards or cleaning up the
environments in which they live.
There is no question that in macro economic terms, totally open trade
can produce more goods at lower costs worldwide. And normally that
would be a blessing.
But when that becomes the only goal, or at times the only result, it
carries a high price for those who do not possess large amounts of
capital because their wages cease to rise. And the communities they
live in come under pressure to allow corporations to do less and less
to clean up pollution, all in the name of remaining globally
competitive in a world where there are almost no restraints on the
movement of the power of capital and ever increasing restraints in the
power of everything and everyone else--governments, consumers, and
labor.''
No one expects equal income for all people. The need for society to
have risk takers who can amass wealth for investment to produce
economic growth for everyone is bound to produce inequality. ``But as
Pope John Paul once observed, there are certain ``norms of decency''
that must be respected in order to produce economic justice and the
social cohesion that is necessary for any economic system to
function.'' The last decades have produced just the opposite--the
widest gap between the wealthiest one percent of our people and the
least wealthy twenty percent--at any time since the birth of the
twentieth century.
Since new globalized trading realities have helped produce the
problem, they must also be part of the effort to fix it. Trade
agreements are an appropriate place to address such issues. While Alan
Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, asserts that we must
not allow our ``inability'' to help workers who are being injured to
reduce our support for open trade, I believe Barney Frank has it more
accurate when he says, ``The problem we face is not inability, but
unwillingness to do so.''
It is appropriate to set new trading rules, new sets of power
relationships, and wider representation of interest at the negotiating
table. Congress should have a commitment, as should society, to greater
educational opportunity and training opportunities for workers and
children in working class families. It should have a greater commitment
to health care for every person regardless of financial circumstances,
especially those of families of workers whose corporate employers are
being squeezed by the pressures of globalization to shrink the safety
net businesses used to provide.
In essence, this vote is about doing all the right things before and
not after we give away our leverage to obtain them.
The real shame of this debate is that few people understand that we
can, in effect, retain our leverage to enforce the values in which we
believe and continue to trade. A more honest debate with less
demagoging and less misinformation--as well as a willingness by those
who stand to gain a tremendous amount economically to acknowledge and
not dismiss the concerns of others--could have resulted in
Congressional action that would have protected all Americans.
The American public will not be pleased when analysis shows that
Congress has unnecessarily voted to surrender the U.S. capacity to best
enforce its interests. It will be all the more unhappy when it hears
that Congress did so while also giving away our only leverage to
protect fundamental individual rights of autonomy and association, and
to safe guard distributive justice and social well being of a sort that
cannot be measured by maximization of corporate shareholders returns or
aggregate monetary wealth.
I ask for a vote against this, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of the time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there may be a
motion to recommit that involves what would happen if there was armed
conflict between China and Taiwan.
In my judgment, if this motion were approved, language would be
attached to the bill requiring the United States to withdraw PNTR from
China in the event of a Chinese attack on or blockade of Taiwan. This
language is in direct violation of GATT Article I which requires that
all WTO members grant each other ``any advantage, favor, privilege, or
immunity'' provided to other countries ``immediately and
unconditionally.'' And this would, in fact, be a condition.

[[Page 9112]]

A condition like the one included in the motion to recommit is
discriminatory and disadvantageous, violating this fundamental WTO
principle. If it is adopted, we will lose the full benefits to
America's farmers and workers of the strong rules-based and enforceable
market opening agreement we negotiated in November.
Let me assure my colleagues that even without the approval of the
motion to recommit, the United States and the Congress retain the
authority to take whatever actions we deem appropriate to address our
national security concerns in the event of a blockade or attack on
Taiwan.
Article 21 of the GATT agreement states that nothing in the agreement
``shall be construed . . . to prevent any contracting party from taking
any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its
essential security interests . . . taken in time of war or other
emergency in international relations.''
This provision has enabled the United States to conduct embargoes
against Czechoslovakia in 1949, Nicaragua in 1985, and the embargo we
have maintained against Cuba since 1962. All of these nations were WTO
members at the time, and in each case the United States's position was
upheld.
Though this motion seeks to protect Taiwan, I would argue that it
will do just the opposite. Approving this motion will send a dire
message to the Chinese that no longer is the United States interested
in working with China openly, no longer do we seek to change China by
bringing it into the greater community of nations and exposing it to
the rule of law. Rather, we will be starting down the road of isolating
China from the world and encouraging mistrust and conflict. If this
latter course of action is taken, I firmly believe that Taiwan will be
put at risk.
Indeed, the Taiwanese Government is the first to point out these
points in its support of Chinese accession to the WTO and its support
of our extension of PNTR for China.
If my colleagues are truly concerned about the welfare of Taiwan, I
urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and to vote for the
bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

{time} 1515

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as one who has consistently
voted against normal trading relations for the People's Republic of
China. Today, however, I will vote for PNTR because I believe the facts
have dramatically changed. Our deep disagreement today is not on the
ends that American policy seeks to achieve, adherence to human rights
and worker rights by all nations. Our difference is on the means to
achieve those ends.
Contrary to what critics say, PNTR provides no blank check for China.
In fact, China has agreed to make historic trade concessions that it
has never agreed to before, opening its markets, slashing its tariffs,
and agreeing to abide by the global trading system based on the rule of
law. If they renege, so can we. In contrast, our annual votes never
required China to make any concessions whatsoever. Still, China has
received NTR status year after year after year. At best, our annual
votes on NTR had a minimal effect in mitigating repression and human
rights in China. As the current ranking member and for a decade
chairman of the Helsinki Commission which monitors and advocates human
rights, I believe that the Levin-Bereuter proposal is an important
contribution to this bill. The bipartisan proposal would establish a
congressional executive commission on China. As our experience with the
Helsinki Commission indicates, a China commission will be a more
effective mechanism for maintaining pressure on China on human rights,
worker rights, and rule of law issues than our brief annual reviews.
Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by noting that this vote also is
critical, in my opinion, for our core national security interests,
which include the stability of China and Asia in general, and the
peaceful resolution of differences between the PRC and Taiwan. That is
why our allies in the region support PNTR and China's accession to the
WTO. Engaging China through trade and the WTO enhances, in my opinion,
the possibility for dialogue on other security interests from the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to global climate change.
Mr. Speaker, as the most powerful Nation on Earth, we have a
responsibility to engage China, the most populous nation on Earth and
move it, if we can, toward democratic reform, market economics, the
rule of law, and respect for basic human rights. As President Kennedy
stated in 1962, ``Economic isolation and political leadership are
wholly incompatible. The United States has encouraged sweeping changes
in free world economic patterns in order to strengthen the forces of
freedom.'' These words still ring true today. Let us seize this
opportunity for a more stable and safer 21st century.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the permanent normal
trade relations with China. Today's Detroit News quotes a business
executive's position on China, and I quote: ``We're not interested in
China per se but free trade.'' This executive said it all. Proponents
are not interested in fair trade but free trade, where the United
States once again freely negotiates away our markets, our jobs, our
values, our ideals and our beliefs.
In 1993, I raised the issue that these free trade agreements would
jeopardize the natural resources of our country and of our Great Lakes
water. I was ridiculed. But now we know that I was correct. Under these
free trade agreements, despite assurances and side agreements, our
sovereignty over our own natural resources are at risk. The Nova
Group's proposal to ship Lake Superior water demonstrates the economic
feasibility to ship Great Lakes water to China. This is the first drop
in a flood of attacks that will come on our Nation's natural resources
and our own sovereignty, all in the name of free trade.
As a country, as elected representatives, as Americans, we stand for
principles, values and beliefs that are not free but fair. Do not
freely give away our natural resources, our sovereignty and our
American beliefs and ideals. Vote no on permanent normal trade
relations with China.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Permanent Normal Trade Relations
with China.
Today's Detroit News quotes a business executive's position on China,
and I quote: ``We're not interested in China per se, but free trade.''
This executive said it all! Proponents are not interested in fair
trade, but free trade, where the United States once again freely
negotiates away our markets, our jobs, our values, our ideals, and our
beliefs.
A year ago, over 200 Members of this House joined to stop the illegal
steel dumping by China and others in our market. China freely dumped
steel while negotiating this deal. Miners in my district and
steelworkers all across this nation were laid off because of illegal
dumping of steel by China.
In the 90's, the U.S. negotiated four major trade agreements with
China, from beef to auto parts, each violated with impunity--no remedy
and no sanctions. More ``free'' trade.
Is it no wonder our trade deficit continues to soar each month? China
is now the second largest contributor to our trade deficit which now
stands at $70 billion per year. This year China will surpass Japan as
our largest trade deficit partner. More ``free'' give away trade!
In 1993, I raised the issue that these ``free'' trade agreements
would jeopardize our natural resources such as Great Lakes water. I was
ridiculed, but now we know I was correct. Under these ``free'' trade
agreements, despite assurances and side agreements, our sovereignty
over our own natural resources are at risk. The Nova Group's proposal
to ship Lake Superior water demonstrates the economic feasibility to
ship Great Lakes water to China, and this is the first drop in a flood
of attacks that will come at our nation's natural resources and our own
sovereignty, all in the name of free trade. As the business executive
said, ``We're not interested in China per se--but free trade.''
We, as Members of this House, must be interested in China, its
people, our people, our constituents, our American ideas, and our
American values and we should only freely export ideals, principles,
and our American values such as: families should be allowed to

[[Page 9113]]

freely have children--not forced abortions and sterilizations; products
and goods produced should be produced with pride and ingenuity--not by
prisoner and child labor; freedom to assemble, organize and question
your government--not crushing ideals of freedom, hope, justice, and
religious freedom with tanks in Tiananmen Square.
As a country, as elected representatives, as Americans, we stand for
principles, values, and beliefs that are not free but fair. Do not
freely give away our natural resources, our sovereignty, our American
beliefs and ideals. Vote ``no'' on Permanent Normal Relations with
China.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the African Growth and
Opportunity Act and CBI because those regions of the world had never
had an opportunity to have a trade agreement with our country. But
today I rise in opposition to permanent normalization of trade with
China. I have said that PNTR should stand for perpetrating a notion of
trade reform. Perpetrating a notion that China will change,
perpetrating a notion that environmental conditions will improve,
perpetrating a notion that we will be more secure, and perpetrating a
notion that human rights will improve.
Let us trade with China, but let us not fool ourselves. Let us not
reward China for noncompliance. I tell my son Mervyn, who is 17, You do
right, I will help you. You do wrong, you will get nothing from me.
That is what we should tell China: You do right, we will trade with
you. You do not, we will not.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the average American in 1998 made a nickel less in real
terms for 1 hour's worth of labor than they made 18 years before that
in 1980. What we are engaged in today is a race to the bottom, a race
to pay the lowest wage, a race to give the least benefits, a race to
not have a safe workplace, a race to not have to worry about the
environment. The Chinese Government said that we will reform. My
position in opposition to this bill is they should reform, and then we
should revisit the issue. We owe this generation and the next
generation of American workers hope in their economic future. We do not
give that to them today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise first to express my strong opposition to granting
China Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Until China reforms its worker
rights and establishes environmental standards, approval of their
status is simply another stop in the race to the bottom of the economic
barrel. Secondly, as I listen to my colleagues rise in support of this
bill or, conversely, to voice their opposition, I cannot help but think
that we must focus our attention on the broader trade policy goals of
the United States.
This week's vote on PNTR deals with only one of the two pillars that
the world trading system is built upon--open markets. While this is a
very important objective, we must place equal value on the second
pillar--rules against unfair trade. We all know what happens if we
continue to strengthen just one half of any foundation, while ignoring
the other half. Eventually the entire structure will come crashing to
the ground. The international trading system is no different. As we
talk this week about opening up the world's largest market, let us not
forget about the importance of enforcing the rules of fair trade.
The United States and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are not
committed to free trade. However, free trade must also be fair trade.
That is why there are internationally established rules, and U.S. laws
consistent with these rules, which serve to protect domestic industries
from being wiped out by unfair foreign trade practices. Unfortunately,
these rules against unfair trade are only as good as the bodies that
enforce them, and our own International Trade Commission (USITC), in
particular, has decidedly chosen to ignore its mandate to uphold the
laws.
In recent cases, the USITC has denied relief to American industries
injured by unfairly traded goods. In fact, the current USITC
Commissioners individually have voted in favor of U.S. industries less
than half the time in investigations and contested sunset reviews, even
after the U.S. Department of Commerce has found that U.S. industries
have been victimized by massive foreign dumping.
Understanding that these industries that are losing before the USITC
are not merely crying wolf. Because of the enormous industry-wide
commitment that is required to bring an antidumping or countervailing
duty case, only the most dire cases ever come before the ITC. These are
industries that have been bloodied and battered by lengthy assaults
from foreign industries, and have turned to the U.S. government and its
supposed policy of zero tolerance for unfair trade as their last
resort. Until the USITC reverses its record, or its responsibilities
are assumed by another agency, I believe its policy toward American
trade laws should be made known.
Although the American steel industry is not the only industry that
has been victimized by decisions handed down by the ITC, it is one that
I can speak of personally because it is such a vital industry to the
people of my district. At the height of the recent steel crisis, the
American steel industry and its workers filed several cold-rolled steel
cases. The facts were simple: thousands of workers lost their jobs;
five steel companies went bankrupt; operating profits turned to
operating losses; and the U.S. Department of Commerce eventually found
that twelve countries were dumping at substantial margins. Yet somehow
the USITC determined that the domestic industry was not injured by this
illegal dumping. Perhaps, it is time for the USITC to reevaluate its
understanding of the world ``injury,'' because there are thousands of
American steelworkers who have an entirely different understanding.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to make an economic
decision, but we are also making a moral decision. I believe that being
an American means something. The thousands of men and women who have
sacrificed their lives for this country did so out of reverence for its
values, individual liberty, personal dignity, self-determination. When
we encourage unrestricted trade with a nation like China, which
disregards these values, we dishonor America's heroes. China uses child
labor, slave labor, and allows abhorrent working conditions to
flourish. It persecutes Christians, Buddhists and other religious
people, threatening them with fines, imprisonment and even death. I
believe our national honor depends on us standing with the persecuted
in China, our own workers and against this trade deal for multinational
corporations.
Mr. Speaker, granting China permanent normal trade relations is a
mistake for our workers, our businesses and our democratic values.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, as I tried to make my case earlier that this
trade agreement is just not in fundamental American interests, I would
like to restate that argument very briefly. If we both, America and
China, dropped our trade quotas, dropped our tariffs to zero, we would
lose control over imports and China would not. China has a
nonconvertible currency. They have a second level of control, because
you cannot get the foreign currency to buy goods and bring it here.
We have heard many, many arguments today also about the salutary
effect of business. When I was young, I believed in the Tooth Fairy, I
believed in Santa Claus, and I believed that all these good things just
came sort of naturally. Later on I figured out that my parents made
deep, deep sacrifices and worked hard to put things on the table so
that we could have things in our family. The problem here is that we
would like to believe that trade will automatically change everything,
that it has this wonderful transformative effect.
But the truth is that generations before us made deep, deep
sacrifices. They knew that it was more than about business, that the
business of America must be more than business alone. They made broad
sacrifices. They did not see their business as business alone. They saw
the business of America as pressing hard on a broad set of human
values, of human rights, of civil liberties, of the rule of law. We
must stand in that tradition today.
About 2,500 years ago, in a space not much larger than this, 300
Spartans stood tall against 100,000 Persians. With typical candor, our
Republican friends have said that this vote would

[[Page 9114]]

not be called a moment before there were 218 votes. We do not need 300
Spartans today to keep the forces of darkness back. We only need 217
others to stand in this space.
History is focused upon this Chamber. As Abraham Lincoln said in
sending the Emancipation Proclamation forth, ``Let our actions be
judged by beneficent history and a just God.'' And if each and every
one of you can say that you are willing to be judged by history and by
God based on your actions today, then I will be comfortable with your
actions. Do what is right. Do what is right today in this Chamber.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard today from many of our colleagues who say
they recognize that human rights in China are deplorable. They
recognize that the environment is damaged by China wantonly without
regard to what it will do to future generations. We recognize that
political prisoners are imprisoned every day and that human rights and
religion are trod upon. Everybody says that that is going on in China.
There is no disagreement. Some people have said, Let's have a
commission. Well, if you have been like me and served on a children's
commission and a Medicare commission and a Social Security commission,
you know that in this town to create a commission is to prevent
anything from happening. I dismiss the idea of the Levin-Bereuter
commission as a fig leaf which will do nothing to change China's
behavior.
But I would also like to suggest that the harm done to America may
not be very great if the people who want most favored nation prevail;
it is just who you are going to hurt and who you are going to help.
Arguably those people pushing for most favored nation are trying to
help General Electric and the huge corporations that are already the
richest in history. And so if this passes, those corporations will all
make two bits, 50 cents a share more in earnings. And that will help
millions of Americans a few bucks here and a few bucks there, and it
will probably help the CEOs of those corporations get another million
or two in stock options.
Who is it going to hurt? I will tell you who it is going to hurt. It
is going to hurt probably a couple of hundred thousand Americans real
bad. It is going to hurt those people who are going to lose their jobs
overnight. They are going to get hurt 30 or 40,000 bucks because they
are going to be out of work. They may lose their homes; they may lose a
chance for their children to go to college. But I do not suppose
anybody cares about them because the truth is those people may lose
their jobs in 10 years, anyway, through the growth of technology
because they do not have the training to keep up.

{time} 1530

They are the people who still work with their hands in factories,
they still have minimum skills, they do heavy lifting in warehouses.
They are the people that we are running higgeldy-piggeldy to eliminate
from the workforce because they belong to unions and cost us a lot in
benefits.
So when you think about how you are going to vote, you can think
about those families who may be looking for Hamburger Helper on the
dinner table because Dad lost his job as a result of this, or you can
think about the people who are already making millions of dollars in
stock options and the people whose pensions are a little higher. If you
are a Federal employee and in the C fund, your retirement is going to
do a little better.
That is it. It is as simple as all that. The big corporations get
helped big time, and a few of our middle-class Americans have their
lives destroyed if you vote for this terrible, terrible giveaway of our
leverage to make China do the right thing.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to my
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, in March of 1941 our former colleague, Carl Anderson, a
Representative from Minnesota, warned us about the danger of arming
potential adversaries. He said then that the chances of war with Japan
were 50-50, and, that if our fleet had to meet the Japanese fleet, we
would meet a fleet which was built with American steel and fueled with
American petroleum.
A few months later at Pearl Harbor, 21 American ships were destroyed,
300 planes were destroyed, and 5,000 Americans were killed and wounded
by a Japanese fleet that was built with American steel and fueled with
American petroleum.
Well, whichever side of this debate one is on, everyone here has to
concede American dollars are arming Communist China today. Let us look
at what they have done with the $350 billion that they have amassed in
trade surplus over the last 8 years. The Sovrenny class missile
destroyers, straight from the Russians, designed for one purpose, to
kill American aircraft carriers, were purchased with American trade
dollars. The SU-27 fighter aircraft, high performance aircraft, capable
of effective warfare against America's top line fighters, were
purchased with American trade dollars. On top of that, kilo class
submarines, AWACS aircraft, air-to-air refueling capability,
sophisticated communications equipment, all purchased with American
trade dollars, and compounding the danger, China's own sales to nations
like Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea of components for weapons
of mass destruction.
Mr. Speaker, we have just left the bloodiest century in the history
of the world. In a way it is a century of triumph for America. The
story of the 20th century is the story of a great Democrat President,
FDR, who stood with Winston Churchill against Germany's Hitler. It is
the story of a great Republican President, Ronald Reagan, who faced
down the Soviet empire and disassembled Soviet Union.
But it is also a story of tragedy, because 617,000 Americans lie in
cemeteries across this country and in the oceans of the world and the
battlefields of the world as people who were killed in action saving
the world for freedom in this last century.
Many of them fought in wars for which we were unprepared; that is a
tragedy of the 20th century. But the greater tragedy, which could be
the tragedy of the 21st century, could happen if this country, having
fought and bled and sacrificed to dissolve the Soviet empire, through a
massive infusion of cash produces, by our own hand, another military
superpower, and if the cemeteries of this country one day hold the
bodies of Americans in uniform killed with weapons purchased by
American trade dollars. That will be the greatest tragedy of this new
21st century.
Mr. Speaker, let us avoid that tragedy. Vote no on PNTR.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation.
We have hammered out an agreement that safeguards the legitimate
interests and concerns of Alabama's coke industry and assures the long
term viability of that industry. This is not only a victory for the
coke industry and its employees, but also for Alabama's coal industry
which supplies the basic raw materials for the production of coke.
I was skeptical of this agreement at first because of my concerns
about our national security and China's human rights violations.
However, I am now persuaded by the support for this agreement by the
Taiwanese government, dissidents within China, and reformers within
their government that it is not only in our best interests, but will
also encourage the likelihood of positive reform of their poor record
on human rights and religious persecution.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who has played so vitally
important a role in this effort.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 decades we have observed
incredible changes, the cause of freedom, both economic and political
freedom, sweep across our globe. I recall very well 10 years ago this
last October as the Berlin Wall was getting ready to

[[Page 9115]]

come down, we heard a speech from the first elected leader of South
Korea, one of those countries which we maintained an economic tie with
and brought about economic reform and political reform in. He said in
his speech here, ``The forces of freedom and liberty are eroding the
foundations of closed societies. The efficiency of the market economy
and the benefits of an open society have become undeniable. Now these
universal ideals, symbolized by the United States of America, have
begun to undermine the fortresses of repression.''
I was struck with that speech that he gave a decade ago right here in
this Chamber; and, Mr. Speaker, if we stand with the likes of Colin
Powell, the Dalai Lama, Billy Graham, the former Presidents, and a wide
range of leaders in China and dissidents who understand the power of
opening this up, we will one day see the first elected leader from the
People's Republic of China stand right here in this Chamber delivering
a familiar, similar speech.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on what
many have described as the most important vote of our careers.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways
and Means and a gentleman that has contributed so much to this debate.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my brother, for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle and especially, if I might, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter).
I want to comment briefly on some of the arguments here, for example,
the job loss, the reference to 800,000, based, it is said, on an ITC
report. But here is what the ITC says, that that briefing paper in
several ways misrepresents the work and the findings of the ITC.
But China will become increasingly a competitor, and that is why we
have an anti-surge provision, the strongest in American law.
It is also said China never has abided by a trade agreement. That is
not true. They have abided in part in some. But it is going to be a
special challenge to implement compliance by China, and that is why we
have in our proposal additional resources and a provision for an annual
review within the WTO sought by the U.S.
Human rights, the annual review has not been an effective mechanism.
It was not used after Tianenman, and there is no strategy for its
effective use in the future. We can do better. We can do better. The
Helsinki Commission-type will help us. It will be up to us to make sure
it will do better than that. That commission worked despite, not
because of, the Soviet Union.
We should not isolate China, nor should we in the U.S. isolate
ourselves from pressing China to move in the right direction.
Passing PNTR will allow us to actively engage China and
constructively confront it. Rejecting PNTR would likely lead to chaos
in our relationship with China, making both active engagement and
constructive confrontation far more difficult.
This debate is about difficult judgments about a huge country far
away, and about immense pressures much closer to home. Democracy is
about resolving competing and conflicting pressures. Taking these
pressures fully into account, there are important occasions when we
must rise above them. With leadership, a democracy can be more than the
sum of particular pressures. Today the challenge before us in this
House is to exercise such leadership. Today the challenge is before us.
Let us meet that challenge.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman for his
work on the commission.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Owens).
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, greed has rolled in like a bulldozer over all
of the numerous logical reasons supporting the denial of a permanent
trade agreement with China. The mega-profits to be realized by the
corporate elite are so overwhelming that this juggernaut cannot be
halted. What an irony it is that the larger part of the evil empire is
now going to be a recipient of large-scale investments from the leader
of capitalism in the free world.
This act will have tornado-like devastation on the employment of
hundreds of thousands of ordinary men and women in this Nation. Workers
on both sides of the world will be the victims of this agreement.
Chinese laborers paid 25 cents per hour or less will fill the bank
accounts of multinational corporations. American workers will be forced
to struggle harder and work more hours as industrial and manufacturing
jobs are moved to China. Only lower-paying service jobs or high-tech
positions requiring a college education will be left on our shores.
Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible to consider trade legislation like
this without considering the consequences. We need to right now begin
to prepare for all those workers that are going to be thrown out of
work. I urge a no vote on this legislation.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to yield 5 minutes to
the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who has
been a leader for human rights, for dignity, and for fair trade with
China for many years.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time so
generously.
Mr. Speaker, today Congress is poised to take a vote which will
define us as a Nation. We will decide whether we will uphold the
principles upon which our great country was founded. We will decide if
we will support the pillars of our foreign policy, promoting democratic
values, stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
growing our economy by promoting our exports abroad, or if we will
squander our leverage to please some in the business community who do
not share our responsibility to the public interest.
In the public interest, I am pleased to join in opposition to this
PNTR resolution. I am pleased to join the American Legion, the Veterans
of Foreign Wars, the National Catholic Conference of Bishops, the
International Campaign for Tibet, the China Democratic Party, the
Sierra Club, and many other organizations committed to promoting human
rights, fair trade, and protecting our environment.
In the course of the debate preceding today's vote, some have said
that the annual review of China's trade status has not been useful.
They failed to mention that conditioning MFN on improvements in China's
trade, human rights and proliferation behavior has never become law. It
is the Bush-Clinton policy which has prevailed every year and produced
record deficits. This year it will be over $85 billion in trade deficit
with China, more people in prison for their political and religious
beliefs than at any time since the cultural revolution, and an
expansion in China's proliferation activities, from Pakistan, making
South Asia a more dangerous place, to Iran, making the Persian Gulf a
more dangerous place, to Libya, threatening stability in the Middle
East, as well as threatening the security of Taiwan.

{time} 1545

Most recently, this Libyan sale was in March of the year 2000; this
is current and ongoing. And despite the failure of this policy of
turning back or conditioning MFN, now called NTR, on improvement in
these areas, despite the Bush/Clinton failure, they are asking us to
make it permanent. On top of all of that, there is little reason to
believe that the Chinese will comply with this trade agreement.
They have violated every bilateral agreement with the U.S. that they
have signed on trade. We must not let the Beijing regime dictate the
terms of surrender of our annual review of the U.S./China relationship.
Mr. Speaker, China's trade surplus of $85 billion for this year
enables the Chinese Government to buy products, to buy political
support and to buy silence from countries throughout the world. But we
must not be silent, we must speak out for freedom, because it is in our
national security interests to do so.

[[Page 9116]]

Democratic countries do not invade their neighbors. Democratic
countries respect the rule of law, facilitating, for one thing, trade.
We must speak out for freedom, because it is the right thing to do and
honors the sacrifice of our country's founders.
Before I close, I want to say, I think that this has been a very
constructive debate. The Members have been very courteous to listen and
to exchange ideas in a very, shall we say, spirited way. And I want to
thank all of my colleagues for listening and to those who have
listened, as we ponder our vote today, I want my colleagues to think of
two questions. First of all, what credibility do we have as a country
that is the leader of the free world to speak about freedom?
Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to ponder two questions; what
credibility do we have as the leader of the free world to speak out
against human rights abuses anywhere in the world if we will put deals
ahead of ideals in China?
Finally, what does it profit a country if it gains the whole world
and suffers the loss of its soul? I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair announces that the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 7 minutes remaining, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to commend
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are supportive of this
effort that we are initiating here with Mainland China, one-fifth of
the world's population. And I want to congratulate them for the support
they gave us just 2 weeks ago, when 309 Members on a bipartisan basis
supported my Africa bill and the Caribbean Basin bill, and we made an
outreach to underdeveloped portions of the world in sub-Saharan Africa.
And it is because of our belief that, based upon experience with the 48
countries there and the 700 million population, that kind of an
outreach has a positive effect and it does raise the standards, the
human rights issues are addressed when we have this kind of contact.
While we have more ways to go with some of the other sub-Saharan
African countries, and we do with China, too, this is a positive
initiative working in the right direction, and I think everyone who
supports it should be commended.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

____________________

CALL OF THE HOUSE

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members
responded to their names:

[Roll No. 226]

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
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
Lofgren
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
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
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
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
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
Wynn
Young (FL)

{time} 1614

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). On this rollcall, four hundred
nineteen Members have recorded their presence by electronic device, a
quorum.
Under the rule, further proceedings under the call are dispensed
with.

AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAL TRADE
RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane) will yield 2 minutes to the Majority Leader, and
then we will have closing statements from each of the managers
beginning with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), who will have
4\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who will
have 4 minutes; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who will have
4\1/2\ minutes; and

[[Page 9117]]

the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), who will have 4 minutes.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Armey), our distinguished majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I support permanent normal trade relations with China
because I profoundly believe that it will advance the cause of human
rights for the Chinese people. Mr. Speaker, I believe free and open
trade is not only the best way to make China a free and open nation,
but it may be the only way.
A vote to open the China market and the world experience to the
Chinese people is a vote to open markets. What is a market, Mr.
Speaker? Market is simply an arena in which there is a sharing of
information about market transactions, informations about desires,
wants, hopes and dreams, and economic conditions.
But, Mr. Speaker, one cannot share that information about economics
without also sharing information about culture, politics, religion, and
values. Information, Mr. Speaker, is the life blood of a market. It is
also poison to dictators, because dictators know that it is the truth
that will set one free. They also know that, in a modern technology
age, information is the basis by which one acquires truth.
When we open the China market, citizens from all over China will be
carrying devices like this, a simple little pocket PC. With that PC,
they can connect to the Internet every bit of information about
culture, religion, markets, economics, and freedom and dignity
available on this Earth. They cannot be stopped.
It is said, Mr. Speaker, that the pen is mightier than the sword. I
would argue that the PC is mightier than the shackles of tyranny.
When the people of China are free to transact in world markets, and
when they share this information about freedom, they will learn the
lessons of liberty, they will see liberty working out in the lives of
the other citizens in the world, and they will demand it of their
nation, and they will change their government.
The Communist hard-liners know this, Mr. Speaker, and that is why
they do mischief to our efforts today. That is why they disrupt it,
because they fear the freedom that comes from commerce and is
contagious throughout all of human spirit.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what life will be for the Chinese people
5 or 10 or 15 years from now when we vote for freedom and commerce
today. I cannot guarantee my colleagues that their life will be better.
But I can tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, if we vote ``no'' today, if
we deny them the chance, we will condemn them to a continued life of
despair.
I for one choose to vote, instead, for my fondest hope, for the hope
of freedom, dignity, commerce, and prosperity, for the beautiful people
of China so that their children, like our children, in this wide open
world can come home and say in that magical voice, Mom, dad, I got the
job.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues vote ``no'' today, we have normal
trading relations with China.
Jobs, American jobs, bombs, Bibles, in a nutshell, those are the
three concerns that we have been talking about for the last 5 hours.
Every year, every year I have been here, we are asked to approve
normal trade for China based on existing and potential progress with
these three concerns in mind: jobs, bombs, and Bibles. We are told
every year that, if we will just extend normal trade for one more year,
that jobs in this country will not be adversely affected.
My district has lost manufacturing jobs to cheap Chinese labor every
year I have been in Congress. There are others of my colleagues who fit
in that category. This is not just cheap labor, Mr. Speaker, this is
also slave labor.
We are told, if we just will extend normal trade for one more year,
we will not have to worry so much about Red China dropping nuclear
bombs on us because they are going to be much friendlier, our
relationship is going to be greatly improved.
Yet, every single year that I have been in Congress, China has
increased its nuclear arsenal with technology stolen from us and
increased its threats to use them against American cities if we dare
oppose their invasion of our allies.
We are told that, if we extend normal trade relations for just one
more year, the human rights in China will surely get better, that
Christians will not be jailed for having Bibles, and Muslims will not
be jailed for having the Koran, the Tibetans will not be jailed for
simply following their traditional religion.
Yet, every year that I have been in Congress, persecution of anyone
in China who believes in a higher authority has gotten much worse. All
of these things, all of them are worse after 5 years of what we have
described as normal trade relations with China.
So what is our response we are considering to these violations? To
grant them normal trade relations forever with no qualifications.
Here is what we must decide today. Do we allow China to profit from
stealing our nuclear weapons secrets? Does China profit from violating
our existing trade agreements and throwing hard-working Americans out
of their manufacturing jobs? Does China profit from threatening an
invasion of our friend and ally Taiwan? Does China profit from
threatening nuclear attack on our cities?
Does China profit from forcing young Chinese mothers to endure forced
abortions and sterilization and watch government doctors kill their
child as it is being born? Does China profit from throwing Christians
in jail for just having a Bible or crushing the people of Tibet when
they wanted to worship as they saw fit?
There are many who support PNTR because they honestly believe that an
all-out global trade, with no restrictions and no oversight, has a
chance of simply overwhelming China's corrupt political and economic
system. I disagree, but I respect their position and do not doubt at
all their honest motives.
But there is a seamier side of the China lobby that has successfully
spread false information to America's business leaders, and many of our
colleagues and have basically taken advantage of those honest emotions.
We have a choice in this House today, a big choice. Our collective
voice, Mr. Speaker, will be heard by billions of people around the
world. People yearning and struggling for freedom, hoping, fighting and
praying for democracy and human rights and peace.
Our choice will determine whether our citizens and those masses of
humanity locked in darkness continue to believe in America as the great
beacon of human decency and divine providence, a Nation by whose light
all mankind can see that liberty still shines brighter than gold.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to recite Horatio at the Bridge
for my colleagues, but I thought I might get more votes if I took this
opportunity to recognize the distinguished minority whip to tell us why
American workers should suffer ill no more.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Bonior)
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Norwood) on a magnificent statement.
Mr. Speaker, it is almost sunrise in Gwong Dong Province in China.
Soon 1,000 workers at the Chin She factory will be getting ready to go
to work. Most of them are young people, some as young as 16 years of
age. They work 14-hour shifts, 7 days a week. They are housed in
cramped dormitories that resemble prisons. Their average pay is 3 cents
an hour. They make handbags for export here to America.

{time} 1630

We are told we need this trade deal to open up the vast markets for
American goods, but these Chinese workers cannot even afford to buy the
products they make themselves. How are they going to buy our cars, our
cell phones, our computers?

[[Page 9118]]

We can have free markets without free people, but it does not often
come to a good end; Chile's Pinochet, Indonesia's Suharto.
We should have learned the lessons of NAFTA, jobs lost in food
processing, in consumer products, in high-tech; 100,000 good auto
worker jobs lost forever since NAFTA. And where are those men and women
today? Oh, they are working. They are working in nursing homes, at gas
stations, at convenience stores, and making a fraction of what they
once earned. And the jobs they used to have are now performed by
workers making pennies on the dollar in Mexico's economic free-fire
zone called the maquiladora.
But harsh as life can be in Mexico, China is far worse. It is a
police state. And I say to the majority leader that their information
is censored, including the Internet; a nation where injustice is law
and brutality is order.
Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote that if people are to become or
remain civilized, ``the act of associating together must grow and
improve in the same ratio in which equality of condition is
increased.''
That is what enabled America to become the most prosperous Nation in
the world. It was not the forces of world commerce that enabled coal
miners and steelworkers and auto workers and textile workers to take
their place among America's middle class. No, it was leaders like
Walter Reuther, and it was other Americans exercising their rights to
form unions, to create political parties, to build women's
organizations, to organize churches, civic organizations and groups.
That is what the progressive movement at the turn of the century was
all about.
Mr. Speaker, democracy is something that grows from the ground up.
Theodore Roosevelt understood that a long time ago before any of us. It
was not the global trade that created our national parks or the laws
that protect our air and our water; it was the environmental movement.
It was not free trade that won women the right to vote or beat Jim
Crow; it was the commitment and the sacrifice of the suffragettes and
civil rights leaders. It was the Elizabeth Cady Stantons and the A.
Philip Randolphs, the Martin Luther Kings, and, yes, our own colleague,
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
The advocates of this trade deal tell us that prosperity is a
precondition for democracy, and with all due respect, they are wrong.
They have to grow together. While trade may make a handful of investors
wealthy, it is democracy, democracy, that makes nations prosperous.
Americans value trade, but we are not willing to trade in our values.
We understand this approach to trade is really the past masquerading as
the future. It is turning back the clock on 100 years of progress.
Some oppose this trade deal because of its impact on the environment,
still others out of concern for our national security, and still others
out of a deep commitment to religious liberty and human rights. But
while we sometimes speak with different voices, we each share that same
vision, and it is de Tocqueville's vision of a civilized society, and
it is a vision of a new kind of a global economy, an economy where
people matter as much as profits.
Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting to my colleagues that it is
almost sunrise in Gwong Dong Province, and soon the workers at the Chin
She Handbag factory will begin another day. Today, we can send them a
message of hope, a message that the global economy we want is not one
where working families in China and Mexico and America compete in a
hopeless race to the bottom.
We have a better vision than that. It is a vision of the global
economy where all have a seat at the table. It is a vision of a new
global economy where none of us are on the outside looking in. At the
beginning of the last century, the progressive movement began a
struggle that made the promise of democracy and prosperity real for
millions of Americans. Now, from this House of Representatives, we
carry that struggle for human dignity into a new century. For families
here in America and throughout the world, we have just begun.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman is recognized for
4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this has been, I think, one of my better
days in this House; to be able to listen to the eloquent exchanges on
such an important issue to our country and, indeed, the world; to be
able to disagree and not be disagreeable; and for people from within
and without to know that this will still be the House of
Representatives and the true representatives of the people no matter
how the vote turns out.
Let me say this. Some 50 years ago, November 30, 1950, to be exact, I
found myself a member of the Second Infantry Division, having fought
from Pusan, entering in July, straight through up to North Korea
sitting on the Yalu River. I was 20 years old at the time, waiting to
go home, because we thought the war was over. We had beaten back the
North Koreans. While we were there and General McArthur was having his
fight with President Truman, hordes of Chinese, not the lovely Chinese
that the distinguished Majority Leader was talking about, but hordes of
Communist Chinese destroyed the entire Eighth Army, and we suffered 90
percent casualties. I do not take communism lightly.
But that was 50 years ago, and now the guy that was shot and was a
high school dropout became a Member of this distinguished body, and now
this United States is the most powerful country in the world,
militarily and economically. And how did we get this way? It is because
we do things better. We are better educated, we are better at
producing. But in order for us to continue to prosper, we have to have
economic growth. We have to find new marketplaces.
Yet, all of a sudden, to my shock and surprise, with the exception of
Cuba, communism is not the barrier. Instead we are involved in
exchange, engagement, and find those marketplaces. How can we afford to
ignore over a billion people, knowing that if we ignore them that the
Asians and the Europeans will not?
We come to the well here with an agreement where we are breaking down
the barriers in China. Not in the United States. They have been down.
This gives us an opportunity to go into those markets. And I have been
throughout the United States. No one challenges me that farmers are
begging to get into those markets. Silicon Valley in California,
Silicon Alley in New York, farmers, businesses, pharmacists,
manufacturers, the banking industry, the insurance industry are all
asking us to allow them to get there and show how good Americans can
really be.
We say we would like to do that, but we have deep-seated concerns
about the way China treats its people. Well, we do not want to ignore
those concerns. That is why we have the proposal of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a
commission and oversight that if this fails, we will not have.
I ask those people that have this compassion and concern for their
new-found Communist friends in China, what if these Chinese do
everything that we hate for them to do, what do we do when it comes up
next year if it is not permanent? Do my colleagues not understand that
we would be the bad guys for putting in place an impediment to their
getting into the World Trade Organization, but they will get in anyway?
We will have no way, except barking at the Moon, to complain about the
behavior that we dislike.
But I tell my colleagues this. We cannot forget as Americans that we
have blemishes on this human rights issue. We have descendants of
slaves that sit in this body. We have people here as Members of
Congress that 50 years ago could not eat in certain restaurants. We
have people living in the United States without educations, without
hope, without running water.
Mr. Speaker, I have not leaned on one Member in asking them to vote
for this bill. I would not think that I am more of an American than
they are, but I want to share with my colleagues

[[Page 9119]]

that when people in certain districts go to sleep dreaming about human
rights, they are not thinking about Shanghai; they are thinking about
an opportunity in this great country.
We are blessed. Let us break down these barriers. Let us be able to
go there to China. Let us maintain an annual report, yes; but daily we
will monitor the conduct and let us give America an opportunity to be
all that she can be. We will show them.
Cutting off communication did not work with that Communist, Castro.
He has outlived close to 10 Presidents. Do not let it happen in China.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), our distinguished Speaker of the
House.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, here we are, finally, on the floor of this
great House closing the debate on permanent normal trade relations with
China.
Before we move into the finality of this, I want to thank those who
helped make this legislation possible. I have to thank the gentleman
from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
And I must say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), we have
been talking a lot lately. They will be talking about us.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and my partners, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). I
thank them all for their diligence in making this happen.
But while there is one bill being debated here today, there are
actually two debates going on; two questions that have to be answered.
One, is granting this status to China in the best interest of the
United States and the American people? And, two, is granting this
status good for the people of China?

{time} 1645

I believe the answer to both is ``yes.''
Among other things, this debate is about American economic security.
American negotiators have reached a tough, but fair, agreement for
China's entry into the World Trade Organization. It is in fact a one-
sided agreement. China gets nothing from us they do not already have,
and we get lower tariffs and easier access for our exports going to
China. And who makes those exports? American workers do.
Regardless of whether we grant normal trade status to China, the
Chinese market is opening. Someone is going to have the opportunity to
sell to this vast new market. The question is who will be there when
the door opens? Will it be the United States, or will it be Europe and
Japan?
There will be new and larger markets for farm commodities and
manufactured goods in China. Who will produce those products? American
farmers and American workers or European farmers and European workers?
This vote today is about whether American firms set the ground rules
and standards for business in China.
The potential for American economic growth is huge. If we pass this
legislation, U.S. agricultural exports to China would increase by $2
billion every year. That means American farmers will be selling more
corn and more wheat and more citrus and more soybeans.
Last year, the wireless telephone market in China was $20 billion. By
2003, that market will be up to $45 billion. Our high-tech firms would
thrive in the Chinese marketplace.
It is clear that passing this legislation is in the best interest of
American economic security. That is why Alan Greenspan supports it, and
that is one reason why we should vote ``yes.''
But there is another reason. Gradual democratic reform is taking root
in the hearts and the minds of the Chinese people. But for it to
continue, we must clear the way for more Americans to work with the
Chinese.
More trade will expose the Chinese people to powerful new ideas.
Thanks to the American business presence in China, thousands of Chinese
employees already have access to foreign newspapers and the Internet
and to worldwide e-mail.
Today this House is doing a good thing. We are showing the people and
the leaders of China what real democracy looks like.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and I share a common goal,
to help American workers and to encourage American reforms and human
rights in China. But we differ on how to achieve that goal.
I believe my approach is better, and that is why I urge Members to
support this bill. But I am proud that I live in a country where the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr Bonior) can be here on this floor today
passionately putting forth his point of view, because that is what true
democracy is all about. And, ladies and gentlemen, that is what this
great House of Representatives is all about.
In addition to the privilege of serving as the Speaker of this House,
I am honored to be the representative of the people of the 14th
District of Illinois. Like every State in this great Nation, Illinois
has a lot to offer the people of China.
So, in closing, I say to the people of China that we want to send you
our corn and our farm machinery and our telecommunications equipment.
But as we do, we are going to send along something more, free of
charge. We are going to send you a glimpse of freedom and the ideals of
Illinois' favorite son, Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator. Because
we want for you the prosperity and the blessings of the liberty that we
enjoy.
This is a historic vote and a proud day for this body. I believe the
vote we are casting today will help ensure our continued prosperity.
Vote for the future. Vote ``aye.''
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I support
Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. I believe in free trade and
I believe this agreement will bring economic growth to the United
States and China, but I am highly concerned about the skewed priorities
of U.S. trade negotiations and the framework of the World Trade
Organization.
I voted against the NAFTA because I thought we could make Mexico
negotiate a better deal with more safeguards for the environment and
worker rights.
I voted against the GATT, which created the World Trade Organization,
because I disapproved of establishing a world trading system that ceded
our sovereignty in a number of areas, and particularly our ability to
uphold laws for public health and the environment.
I would have voted against Fast Track, if it had come to the floor,
because of my concern that U.S. trade negotiators were not permitted to
put worker protection issues as well as environment matters on the
agenda.
But according to the WTO rules that Congress ratified, and I voted
against, China will be able to become part of the WTO regardless of our
vote today. All we can decide here is whether the U.S. will benefit
from the terms of China's accession.
Although the symbolic message of rejecting PNTR would be potent, the
substantive impact could be harmful for our economic and national
security interests. On the economic side, there are some who believe
that we can get every benefit by virtue of the bilateral agreement
signed in 1979. I think that interpretation is incorrect. To press that
issue, we could end up in a destructive trade war and at the same time
lose major economic opportunities to America's global competitors.
In the national security arena, I fear that in rejecting PNTR we
would treat China as an adversary and that it would in reaction to our
vote certainly become one. Rejecting PNTR would embolden the hardline
militarists and make China even less cooperative in arms control and
regional affairs. On the other hand, supporting the entry of both China
and Taiwan into the WTO is an unprecedented opportunity to work with
both countries on equal footing within a major multilateral
organization.
Furthermore, I think our current mechanism of annual review is not
working and as a threat is not credible. I have voted against extending
Normal Trade Relations status to China every year to protest their
denial of human rights to their own citizens, but the possibility of
cutting off trade relations has become an empty threat. That is why I
strongly support my colleague Sandy Levin's proposal to establish a
Congressional-Executive Commission to provide a continuous examination
of human rights in China. It will create a strong network for Congress
to communicate with NGO activists in China and maintain a

[[Page 9120]]

constant focus on local Chinese elections, grass-roots environmental
activities, and the situation in Tibet.
I hope that passing PNTR will also bring greater transparency to
China, and promote the rule of law. The influx of American interest,
telecommunications, and media companies will democratize the flow of
information beyond government control and give us new tools to
scrutinize China's record on human rights and religious freedom.
Although I'm supporting this bill, I continue to have serious
concerns. For one thing, I am very troubled that Chinese tariffs on
cigarettes will fall from 65% to 25% over the next four years. Lung
cancer and other smoking-related diseases are already the most common
cause of death in China, accounting for more than 700,000 deaths
annually. This tariff reduction could open the door for tobacco
companies to launch their aggressive marketing tactics against a highly
vulnerable population where less than 4% know the dangers of smoking.
Smoking patterns could eventually cause more than 3 millions deaths a
year in China, and smoking rates could sky-rocket among women and
children. We have a responsibility to make sure we don't spread the
tobacco public health crisis to China.
I also believe that the existing need for WTO reform will become even
more apparent once China is a WTO member. I think there is a good
change that China will try to get out of living up to its obligations
under this accord and that even WTO judgments against China will be
difficult to enforce. I also suspect that China may make efforts to use
the WTO rules to challenge our own laws as trade barriers, When that
happens, and maybe before, we in this country will have to face the
dangers that the WTO represents and why it must be reformed.
The WTO's dispute settlement mechanism must be open to input by non-
governmental entities that have an interest in the deliberation. The
evaluating panels cannot be shrouded in secrecy if dispute settlement
is going to evolve as a credible and effective tool to enforce
transparency and compliance.
The U.S. should be leading the change to make trade rules include
standards for human rights, labor rights, and the environment. We must
work for a world economy that lives up to our standards instead of
sinking to lower ones. Perhaps most importantly, we must make U.S.
companies the ambassadors of these values when they operate abroad. I
hope the advantages and consequences that unfold from PNTR will hasten
our attention to moving forward on this agenda.
My support for PNTR was not an easy decision. The debate has
convinced me that we must redouble our efforts to press for domestic
change in China, a change in U.S. trade priorities and more progressive
would trading norms. But it has also brought me to the realization that
isolating China would not cause new problems without without solving
old ones and bring about great dangers that we must work to prevent.
Today's vote could determine the course of U.S.-China relations for
the next century. On voting for PNTR, I hope we will help make our most
dynamic industries lead the way as they expand into China and the rest
of the world. I also hope that it will allow us to working to bring
down national barriers and promote the well-being lf all our peoples.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4444 which would
extend to the People's Republic of China permanent normal trade
relations. More importantly, however, passage of this bill serves to
ratify the bi-lateral trade agreement reached between the U.S. and
China last fall as a condition for China's accession into the World
Trade Organization. This will be the only vote Congress has on this
momentous agreement.
On the one hand, China is a potential boom market for our industries,
particularly agriculture which is critically important to my district.
Bringing China into the WTO has the potential of making the Port of
Hueneme, in my district, an even more important portal for Pacific Rim
trade. With 20 percent of the world's population, China is an appealing
market. It behooves us to work diligently and intelligently to open
that market to U.S. sellers.
The other hand carries many pitfalls. China's track record in meeting
its obligations under international agreements is not good. China is
the only remaining Communist superpower. China has stolen our nuclear
secrets and threatens stability in Asia with her belligerence towards
Taiwan and others. We ignore that reality at our own peril.
Last year, I voted against a one-year extension of China's Most
Favored Nation status based on two criteria: The United States
maintains a multibillion-dollar trade deficit with China and has for
years, and China has repeatedly demonstrated an aggressive military
stance that includes stealing our most important nuclear secrets. At
the beginning of this debate, I was not automatically against China's
entry into the World Trade Organization, but I did have some very
serious concerns. WTO membership carries more protection for the United
States than does Most Favored Nation status. MFN has been a one-way
street. It was a unilateral decision on our part to allow China access
to our markets with no reciprocal opening on China's behalf. WTO is
more of a two-way street. China must meet and maintain certain open-
door criteria to remain in the WTO.
Our trade with China historically has been a one-way street. In 1990,
our trade deficit with China stood at $10.4 billion. By 1998, that
deficit had climbed to $56.9 billion. It is estimated our trade deficit
with China in 1999 will be $66.4 billion. China's entry into WTO and
the ratification of the U.S.-China trade agreement can ease that
deficit, but only if the agreement has teeth. I believe the WTO process
has those teeth.
In 1992, China and the U.S. signed a bilateral memorandum of
understanding on trade access. China has violated it many times. In
1992, we also struck a deal with China to protect intellectual
property, including copyrights on U.S. products. Today, U.S. copyrights
for motion pictures and software in China are still being stolen by
Chinese companies, a situation that results in the loss of billions of
dollars and many thousands of American jobs. Chinese noncompliance has
forced us to threaten trade sanctions several times.
On the national security front, China was continuing a systematic
raid on the designs of our most sophisticated thermonuclear weapons at
the same time that it was modernizing and pretending to normalize
relations with the U.S. Among the stolen designs was information on the
neutron bomb, which to date no nation has opted to deploy and hopefully
no one will. Even though China has been caught red-handed, it continues
to deny its espionage. Meanwhile, it continues to showcase its
belligerency by transferring sensitive missile technology to North
Korea and by repeatedly threatening to attack Taiwan.
The U.S.-China agreement can have positive consequences for the U.S.,
China and, indeed, the entire world. The agreement will force China to
open its markets to U.S. goods and services, which will result in a
lowering of the trade deficit. It could wean China from its passion for
subsidies and government interference in its industries. It could
educate the Chinese on the rule of law, as opposed to its current
system of rule by the whim of its leaders. It could also hasten the
spread of democracy within her borders. Each time a country has opened
its economic markets, an open market of ideas has followed.
But we must step carefully. We must not let our desire to access
China's markets to blind us to China's distaste for democracy, her
threat to our national security and her history of violating
international laws and agreements. For the WTO agreement to work, it
must level the playing field for U.S. exporters and be fully
enforceable. Anything less will not open China's markets or advance the
historical trend toward truly free trade and the rule of law.
Since the U.S. signed a bilateral trade agreement with China last
year, I have said repeatedly that my vote for or against permanent
trade relations with China would rely on specific factors: It must
protect American jobs, ensure Chinese markets are open to American
goods and services, protect America's strategic interests and--be
enforceable.
I have made it clear that without those provisions, I would vote
against Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Some of those protections
were not in the bill until last night.
Those protections are in the bill only because I and other Members of
Congress withheld our support until every `i' was dotted. By working
behind the scenes, we were able to force concessions that make this
agreement a better deal for American businesses, American workers and
for those who support greater human rights for the Chinese people. Last
night, a bipartisan provision was incorporated into the bill that makes
it easier for us to monitor China's trade compliance, and act if need
be. That provision builds on provisions in the World Trade Organization
agreement that allows us to continue to treat China as a communist
economy. That's important because our safeguards and anti-dumping
countermeasures are more stringent for communist economies than it is
for capitalist countries.
In addition, the revised bill continues Congress' all-important right
to debate and vote on China's human rights practices and international
behavior each year.
The European Union signed its WTO agreement with China on Friday,
followed by an agreement with Australia on Monday. Both were negotiated
with China's history of duplicity in mind. In particular, the EU
agreement

[[Page 9121]]

improves the deal signed by the U.S. by making China significantly more
open to foreign investment and trade. Under WTO rules, those provisions
are open to the U.S. as well.
We have given China Permanent Normal Trade Relations. But this is not
the end, only the beginning. China has, at best, a mixed record of
living up to international agreements, and I still have concerns about
China's adherence to this one. But I am satisfied we have the
mechanisms in place to force compliance, or take remedial action, if
necessary. American businesses will not have a level playing field
unless we continually insist on it, but now we have the tools to do
that.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this debate I have
expressed my belief that any trade deal with China involves two
questions. The first, which we are debating today, is whether the
Chinese have negotiated an agreement that is fair for American workers
and businesses. However, before we can address this question we must be
able to answer the second question, whether the agreement that has been
negotiated includes the necessary enforcement mechanisms to ensure
compliance by China and fair treatment for American companies and
workers. We have not yet answered this question, and consequently I
cannot support this or any deal with China lacking the enforcement
mechanisms necessary to guarantee fair trade.
Today's robust debate has highlighted the concerns of many of my
colleagues, thousands of interest groups and millions of citizens. All
the subjects being debated today--national security, human rights,
religious freedom, democracy, labor at home and abroad, the environment
and the development of our and the world's economy--are of considerable
importance.
China is the most populous nation in the world. As such, its
potential as a market for American goods and services is second to
none. The concept of increased trade with China based on a good,
enforceable agreement is sound and deserving of support. Trade is and
will be extremely important to both American companies and workers. As
a blueprint, the agreement negotiated by the Clinton Administration
with China is good for America in many respects.
When it comes down to it, any agreement, like any contract, is only
as good as its enforcement provisions. What we have from China, so far,
is its promise, if you will, to allow U.S. and foreign firms to compete
fairly and openly in the Chinese market. But negotiations must still be
held to reach agreement on how those promises China has made are going
to be enforced. It has been more than two years since the World Trade
Organization (WTO) working party and Chinese negotiators first met to
conduct serious negotiations on the enforcement provisions to be
included in the protocol.
Mr. Speaker, members should know in detail what the WTO will do to
ensure full and fair implementation of China's commitments contained in
the accession agreement before, not after, we vote on an issue as
important as the issue on the floor today. Why is the protocol and
working party report so important, some may ask. The simple answer is
that the protocol and working party report identify what the WTO will
do to make sure that China fully implements the commitments it has made
in the agreements that have been reached with the United States and
other WTO partners. Until the Congress sees not only the commitments
China has made but also the WTO's enforcement commitments, there is, in
reality, no agreement for Congress to consider and determine worthy of
granting PNTR to China.
Once China enters the WTO, American firms and American workers must
turn to the WTO for enforcement of their rights, and enforcement at the
WTO is an area of considerable disappointment and concern. The WTO's
``binding dispute resolution'' system has proven to be a system rife
with bias, incompetency, as well as totally unfamiliar with basic
principles of due process and openness.
There are no judges, only ad hoc panelists, most of whom are not
experienced or qualified in applying proper standards of review. These
panelists are assisted, if not controlled, by WTO bureaucrats who have
inherent biases based on their programmatic interests in the subjects
under review. Proceedings are kept secret from the public and from the
parties in interest.There is no ability to engage in meaningful fact-
finding. Panel decisions have also created obligations for WTO members
that they did not agree to in the process of negotiations. And even if
a panel decides in your favor, as in the case brought by the United
States against the European Union (EU) on beef hormones and bananas,
there is no assurance at all that anything will change. Years have gone
by since the U.S. ``won'' these cases, and U.S. firms still have no
greater access to the EU market.
Mr. Chairman, PNTR is an extremely valuable trade benefit with China
does not have but earnestly wants. It constitutes the only real
leverage the U.S. has to bring about the kind of economic and trade
reforms within China that will open that market to the products and
services American firms and American workers produce. Before we grant
PNTR to China, we must make sure that China not only makes sufficient
market opening commitments, but also that those commitments are
enforceable.
I am not pleased to vote no today. It is unquestionably in our
national interest to have a cooperative relationship with China, and I
am well aware that rejecting this trade package could further strain
U.S.-Chinese relations and diminish our influence in China with regard
to democracy, human rights, labor, environmental protection and Taiwan.
But ultimately, my vote is about fairness and timing. Without
enforcement mechanisms there can be no assurance of fairness for
American business, American industry, and American jobs. By voting on a
trade deal of such great importance before all the deals have been cut,
especially on the enforcement mechanisms which will decide if this
agreement is worth the paper it is written on, we needlessly jeopardize
American jobs and business prospects in China. I guarantee you rules
that can't be enforced will be broken. This vote should be postponed
until accession agreements are concluded. Only then can we fully and
responsibility assess the commitments China makes and determine whether
the agreement ensures that China's commitment will be fully implemented
and effectively enforced.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444,
extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status to China. In
my career, I cannot recall a vote on which a final decision was more
difficult to reach. Until today, I have been genuinely and sincerely
undecided. In these past weeks and months, I have been listening
intently to the forceful arguments for and against the legislation,
especially those made by my constituents--who are as divided on this
issue as I have been. I have great respect for the beliefs of those on
both sides of this debate and for the passion of their convictions. In
the final analysis, I believe that ``aye'' is the correct vote for a
variety of reasons, including advancing the causes of human rights and
democratization, for our national security, and for our economic self-
interest.
Improving respect for human rights and fostering democracy clearly
must be top policy priorities in our relationship with China. No one
here today condones the political and religious repression in that
nation. The disagreement is over which U.S. policy is more likely to
contribute to an improvement in conditions in China. I stress the word
``contribute,'' because we need to be cognizant that nothing we do will
dramatically change China in the short term.
Both sides of this debate have prominent human rights activists and
former political prisoners supporting their position. We are presented
with no easy formula that instructs us whether China plus or minus PNTR
results in improved human rights. I have come to the conclusion that
the increased outside contact, prosperity, and economic liberalization
that comes with a strong U.S.-Sino trade relationship within the World
Trade Organization (WTO) will be a greater force for change than the
annual consideration and routine extension of NTR has offered. I am
also comforted by the recent expressions of support for China's entry
into the WTO by the Dalai Lama--perhaps the most prominent symbol of
the repressive nature of the Chinese regime.
We have heard much debate about the job losses which could result
from passage of PNTR. While I am extremely sensitive to labor's
concerns, on balance I believe that the economic interests of business
and labor are enhanced by this normalization of trade with China. The
U.S.-China Bilateral WTO Agreement provides for broad tariff reductions
by China, for enhanced market access for American goods, and contains
import surge protections for the U.S. The agreement requires no
reduction in U.S. tariffs or any enhanced market access for Chinese
products. As we have never revoked Most Favored Nation/Normal Trade
Relations through the annual review process, China currently has
defactor PNTR. I fail to see how reduced Chinese tariffs and other
concessions in return for ending the formality of the annual review
leads to increased job loss.
I believe that passing PNTR will not create any significant job loss
that was not already occurring in certain sectors of the economy. While
various estimates of the employment effects of PNTR have been
proffered, they must be viewed in the context of an economy that is
dynamic and in constant flux. The shape of the American economy is
changing and will

[[Page 9122]]

change whether or not we pass PNTR. In fact, I believe that Chinese WTO
accession and passage of PNTR will be a net creator of good jobs in
California and in my congressional district.
It is my fervent hope that over the long term, China's accession to
the WTO will improve the human rights situation and encourage
democratization in China. The inclusion in H.R. 4444 of a strong
legislative package authored by Representatives Sander Levin (D-MI) and
Doug Bereuter (R-NE) has addressed my doubts about the effects of this
bill on human rights in China, as well as the American jobs. The human
rights monitoring commission created by the legislation is a good idea
in its own right. I believe the merit of close scrutiny of China's
human rights situation speaks for itself and I would support the
proposal independent of this PNTR bill.
The import surge protections negotiated by the Clinton Administration
and codified in this bill go a long way to addressing my concern about
job losses resulting from this bill. This mechanism allows the
President to utilize tariff increases, import restrictions, or other
relief for domestic industries whose markets are disrupted by a surge
in Chinese made goods. These powerful tools come in additional to the
trade remedies already available under U.S. law and under the WTO.
Ultimately, passing PNTR is in our economic self interest. China will
join the WTO whether or not we pass this legislation today. The rest of
the world will enjoy significant tariff reduction on their exports to
China regardless of the outcome of this vote. We are voting on our
nation's ability to sell the products made by our workers and our
companies on a competitive basis. We must continue to vigilantly
monitor our relationship with China. We must continue to pursue
improvements in respect for human rights in all appropriate venues,
including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We will have
to maintain our steadfast support for Taiwan. We will have to closely
monitor Chinese compliance with its obligations under the WTO and make
full use of that organization's mechanisms to enforce those
obligations. With the knowledge in mind, Mr. Speaker, I am left with
the belief that passage of this legislation is in the interests of both
the American and the Chinese people.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today we are plotting a bold course that is
in keeping with our history, our potential, and our ultimate goal of
liberating the Chinese people.
In the international arena, America doesn't shrink from a challenge.
We seize opportunity. We are fighters, visionaries, and pioneers. It's
in our nature as Americans, to look past a challenge to victory.
Standing as we do, at the head of the world, in a position of
unprecedented strength and prosperity, why would we now choose the
timid path? We should not, and we will not. That's why we will pass
Permanent Normal Trade Relations status with the People's Republic of
China.
While PNTR will help our American economy, this is only one step
toward our larger goal; ending communist rule in China by exposing the
Chinese people to American values. Freedom is a contagious virtue.
Defeating a foe is a poor substitute for liberating a country from
the weight of a repressive ideology. We should today ensure the triumph
of liberty by planting the seeds of freedom in China. We should not
accept a retrenchment driven by fear and insecurity.
There are serious issues we must address. Confronting these issues
requires real American leadership and courage,
We should not for a moment imagine that PNTR will solve or even the
address the many troubling questions concerning the future of the
communist government in Beijing. Without a doubt, expanded trade must
be matched with a revitalization of America's military and a
strengthening of our friendships with our allies in Asia. Simply
expanding trade without supplying these critical elements will not
create a free China.
But we shouldn't let the strong steps we must take to resist
aggression prevent us from communicating with the Chinese people.
The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy has always been to make the
case for freedom and democracy. We have never been afraid to place our
values and our form of government up against any competitor. Give us
half a chance, and we will win.
Expanding trade with China is just this sort of opportunity.
Fundamental change in China will not happen simply through State
Department dictates. It will only happen after we inspire the Chinese
people to demand freedom.
We want to appeal to the Chinese people. To do that we have to be
there, on the ground, spreading our values and the sure knowledge that
there is a far better, nobler form of government than communism.
Ignorance is the ally of repressive governments.
Expanded trade, because it spreads American values, is an essential
tool in changing a closed society. And in the battle for China's
future, one Chinese entrepreneur is worth a million government
bureaucrats.
Over the last century, communist countries have run from this
competition. They hid their people behind walls and fortified borders,
because they knew that if their citizens were exposed to our values,
then the battle would be lost. As a great power built on a foundation
of timeless virtues, we fear no competing political systems because we
trust the strength of our ideas.
We should ask ourselves: Why do so many of the hardliners, the old
communist guard in China, resist opening their country to increased
trade and interaction with America?
It's because they understand the power of democratic values. We need
to support Chinese reformers by giving them more, not less, access to
American ideals. This will raise the call for human rights and lead
China to the rule of law.
We can't for a single minute ignore abuses by the Chinese government.
Beijing's record on human rights, religious persecution, coercive
abortion, and arms shipments to hostile states is shameful. The Chinese
government does wicked things to its people.
The way to stop these evil deeds is to end communist rule and that
means transforming China into a free-market democracy. This is much
more likely to happen if American ideals eat away at the infrastructure
of tyranny from the inside out.
We must also reject any notion that our support of expanded trade in
China signals in any small way a slackening of our solemn commitment to
defend Taiwan from aggression. We are sworn to defend Taiwan and we say
again today that the United States will not allow any resolution of
Taiwan's status that involves force or threats. We will not stand for
it. Further, we must insist that Taiwan be admitted to the WTO as well.
Granting PNTR to China is a critical component of a strategy driven
by our one, clear objective: destroying communism. So, I urge my fellow
Members, to support PNTR and commit the United States to this contest
between freedom and repression.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, extending permanent normal trade relations to
China and supporting its accession to the World Trade Organization
greatly benefits the United States. By encouraging participation in
international organizations that facilitate the rule of law, I believe
that this agreement is also in the best interest of the Chinese people.
By approving PNTR, we will be enabling the United States to take
advantage of the across-the-board reductions in tariff barriers that we
negotiated as terms for our approval of China's accession to the World
Trade Organization. Agricultural tariffs will be substantially reduced
on several priority products, including a 66 percent cut on the tariff
for apples, that will obviously have a large impact on my State of
Washington and other apple producing areas of our country. China also
agreed to lift its longstanding ban on the import of wheat and to
increase the quota by more than 400 percent. China agreed to
participate in the Information Technology Agreement and to eliminate
tariffs on products such as software, computers, and semiconductors.
Also China agreed to slash tariffs on industrial goods by an average of
62 percent, enabling America's manufacturers to compete much more
evenly in the Chinese marketplace. The WTO accession agreement also
contains provisions that will help other industries in which the U.S.
is a world leader--telecommunications, insurance and banking just to
name a few.
The approval last week of a market access agreement between China and
the European Union further adds to the benefits we will enjoy with
China's accession to the WTO, as the best terms of each agreement
negotiated by the Chinese must be extended to all members of the WTO.
More agricultural tariffs will be cut, including those on wheat gluten
and Washington wines. Several more tariffs on industrial goods will
also be reduced, liberalization of the telecommunications industry will
be accelerated, and United States law firms will be authorized to offer
legal services in China.
In return, we do not have to change anything--not one tariff, nor one
regulation currently enforced by the United States. All we must do,
according to WTO rules, is to extend permanent normal trade relations
to China. Those of my colleagues that argue that our record trade
deficit with China is a reason to oppose this bill must consider this
point. There is nothing about this bill that will lead to an increase
in the amount of goods we import from China; rather, this is all about
slashing Chinese tariffs against United States goods which will lead to
a substantial increase in United States exports to China. If you are
truly concerned about addressing the United States trade deficit, you
should vote for this bill.

[[Page 9123]]

Some are opposing this bill, claiming that China has rarely adhered
to prior trade agreements in the past. In my judgment, opponents
claiming this point should be eager to support this agreement. By
entering the WTO, China will finally be participating in an
organization whose sole purpose to enforce trade agreements. A few
years ago, we had to beg, cajole, and plead with China in order to
persuade them to provide any enforcement of the intellectual property
agreement established between our two countries. With accession to the
WTO, we will have an impartial adjudicator to hear the case and
determine what redress is warranted. No longer will we have to rely on
the honesty and effectivness of the Chinese Government to ensure that
they abide by trade agreements.
My good friends in the labor community have expressed grave concerns
over the effects this bill will have on American and Chinese workers. I
deeply repect their concerns, but I believe that they are best
addressed by voting for this bill.
Currently, United States manufacturers and service providers struggle
to enter the Chinese market becaue of high tariffs and often
insurmountable red tape. By agreeing to cut their tariffs and reduce
burdensome rules, China will be creating an incredible opportunity for
American-made goods to finally penetrate their market. I firmly believe
that this will be a real job creator in the United States, and
ultimately of great benefit to U.S. workers. For this reason, the
27,000 member International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers Local 751 western Washington endorsed this legislaiton.
I cannot claim that the benefit to the Chinese worker will be as
quick or as quantifiable as are the gains to American workers, but I do
believe that accession to the WTO is in the best, long-term interest of
the Chinese worker. This agreement will contribute to what we are
already seeing in many parts of China--the growth of economic freedom
and a vibrant middle class.
I also respect the convictions of those who consistently oppose any
engagement with China because of China's disappointing record on human
rights and religious freedoms. However, I side with many who, like the
Dalai Lama and dissidents Bao tong and Dai Qing, recognize that
engaging the Chinese and bringing them into international organizations
that support the rule of law will be more effective in promoting
freedom in China than will isolating China from the world community.
In my justment, the most important reason to support this bill and
Chinese accession into the WTO is for our own national security. By
voting against this bill, we would be encouraging the isolation of
China from the international community and hostility toward the United
States. History shows that isolating a nation in this fashion often
leads to mistrust, military buildup, and conflict. A belligerent China,
possessing nuclear weapons and the largest land army in the world would
be a grave prospect.
Conversely, I believe that maintaining our trade link with China will
continue to provide us with a stable foundation
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444,
Extending Nondiscriminatory Treatment to the People's Republic of
China. We stand here today at a cross roads in our relations with the
Chinese. We can choose to engage China in a one sided agreement in
which their tariffs on United States exports to China drop from the
current average of 24.6 percent in 1997 to 9.4 percent in 2005. In
return we will not have to lower our tariffs at all. Or we can choose
to reject this agreement, allowing China to keep its tariffs high for
United States goods and services while they reduce them for other
countries. We must remember that in both of these choices, China joins
the WTO.
The choice is clear. The policy of engagement is the better course
and the path we must choose. However, engagement does not equal
endorsement. There are three areas we must continue to push China on to
improve their record: the environment, human rights, and transparency
in their international dealings. The legislation before us moves us
forward on each one.
As our efforts to address global climate change continue, China must
be part of the solution. If we do not engage China in solutions to
improve the global environment there is no way our solutions to clean
up our planet can truly be effective. China is the world's largest
energy consumer and emitter of greenhouse gases that contribute to
global climate change. China is also the world's largest developing
country chemical exporter and the world's largest producer of ozone-
depleting substances. If China is left out of the fight for a cleaner
environment, our efforts could be neutralized.
China's record on human rights has been abysmal. However, it is
important to remember that the most repressive periods in recent
Chinese history have occurred in times of isolation. Let us continue to
encourage China to give their people greater freedoms. Under this
policy of engagement, China has signed the U.N. Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights. Both await ratification in the National People's
Congress. It is our hope the Congress will move quickly to ratify.
These are steps in the right direction which we should continue to
encourage. The Dalai Lama has endorsed this agreement because he agrees
that engagement is the fastest road to the realization of giving all
Chinese democratic rights.
We need to recognize that China's growing regional integration has
increased their willingness to settle long-standing disputes with its
neighbors. Our allies in Asia support granting China permanent normal
trading status, precisely because it would support regional security
and cooperative efforts. This is especially true for Taiwan. That is
why Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bain has endorsed this agreement and
China's accession into the WTO.
However, we cannot solely rely on the benefits of trade to protect
our interests. In February of this year we passed the Taiwan Security
Act with the overwhelming support of the House. This legislation will
ensure that Taiwan has the tools necessary to defend itself from a
potentially aggressive China. Congress needs to pass legislation and
ensure the President signs it into law this year.
Most importantly, this agreement is good for U.S. jobs and especially
for jobs in New York's Hudson Valley. The agreement gives American
workers unprecedented access to China's markets. For every additional
billion in exports to China there are estimated to be created 20,000
new jobs in the United States. Last year New York exported nearly $600
million in goods and services to China--this figure is expected to
rapidly multiply under this agreement.
No one believes trade alone will bring freedom to China or peace to
the world. When change does come it will be slow and will need our
encouragement. This is the choice before us today. We can take a step
move China in the right direction, and gain the benefits; or we can
push China in the wrong direction, and pay the price. I believe this
choice is clear. I encourage members on both sides of the aisle to make
the right choice and join me in voting to approve permanent normal
trade relations with China.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I do not represent companies. I do not
represent unions. I represent people. As with any legislation, I ask
what does this vote on Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for
China mean to the people I represent back home?
Workers and farmers throughout northern Illinois stand to benefit
from the United States-China World Trade Organization (WTO) Accession
Agreement because they will be making more product that eventually is
exported to China, either directly or indirectly as suppliers.
If you work for Daimler Chrysler in Belvidere, this vote simply means
the opportunity to build and sell more Neons and auto parts to China.
As recently as 1995, Chrysler exported 600 Neons and purchased parts
from six different suppliers in northern Illinois for their Jeep
Cherokee plant in Beijing, China. The amount of Chrysler-related
exports to China totaled $7.8 million.
However, in 1999, no Neons and only $30,000 in auto parts from two
northern Illinois suppliers were sold to China. Why? China's
protectionist auto policy now makes it virtually impossible to sell
American cars and auto parts in China. This agreement forces China to
cut tariffs by 75 percent on American cars and drop local content
requirements on American-made auto parts. This will allow more Neons
and American auto parts made by companies like Modine Manufacturing of
McHenry and Camcar of Rockford to be exported to China.
The workers at Honeywell's Microswitch plant in Freeport will benefit
from PNTR for China because the company expects its exports to China to
double by 2002. There are $15,000 worth of Microswitch parts on each
Boeing aircraft. China has plans to buy 1,600 new aircraft over the
next 20 years.
The workers at Hamilton-Sundstrand in Rockford will benefit from this
agreement because $400,000 worth of parts are made in Rockford for each
Boeing aircraft. This translates into hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of work for the employees at Hamilton-Sundstrand.
The workers at Motorola in Harvard and Rockford will benefit because
the agreement eliminates all tariffs on cell phones and pagers. Also,
for the first time, Motorola will be permitted to sell its full range
of products directly to the Chinese people.

[[Page 9124]]

The workers at Goodyear's Kely Springfield Tire plant in Freeport;
the workers at Cherry Valley Tool & Machine of Belvidere; the workers
at Kysor/Westram Corporation of Byron; and the workers at the Rockford
Spring Company will all benefit from PNTR for China as suppliers to the
agricultural equipment manufacturer, Case. As Case is able to sell more
combines and tractors to China because the agreement lowers numerous
tariff and non-tariff barriers to American agricultural equipment, the
workers in their supplier chain will benefit, too.
Over half of Caterpillar's 1999 U.S. production was exported. These
exports supported about 32,000 U.S. supplier jobs at small and medium-
sized enterprises like the 400 employees at Bergstrom Manufacturing of
Rockford, which makes the Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
units. The tariff cuts on construction equipment and the distribution
rights in the agreement will help Caterpillar and thus Bergstrom
Manufacturing become more competitive in China.
The workers at Seward Screw Products of Seward make 80 different
parts for Harley-Davidson's large motorcycle factory in Milwaukee, WI.
Today, Harley is prevented from selling any motorcycles in China
because of import license restrictions, import quotas, excessive
tariffs, and other significant trade barriers. This agreement
substantially eliminates or reduces these trade barriers. In addition,
granting PNTR to China will help Taiwan enter the WTO. The U.S.-Taiwan
WTO Accession Agreement eliminates Taiwan's import ban on large
motorcycle engines. Because both China and Taiwan represents the
greatest long range market potential for motorcycles, the workers at
Seward Screw Products will benefit by making more products for Harley.
But this agreement is not just for large companies. Few people know
that 82 percent of all direct United States exporters to China are
small-and medium-sized companies. These exporters generated 35 percent
of the dollar volume of all United States exports to China in 1997.
This figure is higher than the small business exporter dollar volume
share of overall U.S. exports, which was 30.6 percent.
China is the third largest growth market for small business
exporters. In fact, the number of small businesses exporting to China
grew by a remarkable 141 percent between 1992 and 1997. Plus, the value
of small business exports to China more than doubled between 1992 and
1997.
Who are these exporters? I held a hearing on this topic last week
before my Small Business Exports Subcommittee to find out. They are 135
employees who work for Aqua-Aerobic Systems in Rockford, IL. The
agreement removes a variety of trade barriers against equipment used in
sewage treatment plants because China needs the equipment to modernize
its infrastructure.
Small companies like the 75 employee Coffee Masters of Spring Grove
will benefit from this trade agreement. They have tried for years to
break into the China market but with no success. They believe this
agreement will knock down the numerous trade barriers to their
specialized roasted coffee product.
E.D. Entyre of Oregon just announced earlier this month that they
received a $53,000 order for road construction equipment for a highway
project in Hubei province in China. They believe the agreement will
help their 350 employees deal directly with customers in China rather
than going through various ``middlemen.''
Clinton Electronics of Loves Park exports high resolution display
monitors for medical applications. The cuts in tariffs by over 50
percent on medical equipment, along with the elimination of quotas,
will help further boost their 250 employee firm's exports to China.
And, we cannot forget the farmer. Illinois soybean, grain, and corn
farmers like Bob Phelps of Rockton want to look to export markets like
China--not the U.S. government--for their income security. Overall,
American farmers will be able to sell about $2 billion more of their
products to China each year because the agreement will cut Chinese
tariffs in half for farm products.
Soybean growers will see about a 20 percent increase in exports to
China, according to the National Oilseed Processors Association. Hog
farmers will receive about $5 more per head, an Iowa State University
study projects. That will mean an extra $2.5 million for hog farmers in
northern Illinois.
Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this agreement is totally one-sided in favor
of the people I represent who make products that are either directly or
indirectly exported to China. We do not change any of our trade laws to
make it easier for the Chinese to export to us. It is China that has
granted concession after concession to the benefit of our workers and
farmers! I urge my colleagues to support Permanent Normal Trade
Relations for China.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I support the opening of the mainland
Chinese market to American exports. It is in the best interests of the
American people and the Chinese people.
I feel strongly that the Communist government on mainland China is
tyrannical, aggressive, and undesirable. I would like to see it go the
way of its Marxist comrade, the Soviet Union. I am alarmed by its
threatening statements toward the United States and its belligerence
toward our friends on Taiwan. I am disgusted by Communist China's
record on human rights, on religious freedom, and its brutal one-child
policy that forces women to abort their unborn babies.
If this were a vote on approval of the Communist regime in Beijing, I
would strongly oppose it as would the vast majority of my colleagues.
This is not such a vote.
My record has been highly critical of Communist China. On national
security, I strongly supported Representative Cox's investigation into
Communist Chinese theft of American technologies. I cosponsored
legislation to look into suspicious Chinese activity in the Panama
Canal. On the question of Taiwan, I cosponsored the Taiwan Security
Enhancement Act to strengthen the free nation's defense capability in
case of attack from the mainland.
On forced abortion, I enthusiastically voted in favor of cutting off
money to the U.N.'s population control agency so long as it cooperated
with China's brutal one-child policy. On religious freedom, I recently
wrote a letter to President Jiang Zemin urging release of Pastor Xu
Guoxing.
My vote in favor of PNTR is not a departure. I remain solidly against
anti-Communist China, which is why I support this agreement.
I want to end the despicable behavior of the Chinese Government
against the United States, against Taiwan, and against the people it
rules. The question is, how do we get there from here?
I think it is by exporting to China--not only American goods, but
more importantly American ideas.
While this agreement is ostensibly about exporting American goods to
mainland China, its ultimate virtue is the export of American ideas to
mainland China. How else are things going to change in China? Our ideas
have triumphed time and again in the past. We Americans have every
reason to be confident that they will again. Since we are inspired by
our ideas, is there any reason to think the Chinese, who themselves are
oppressed by their government, will not be inspired by American ideas
of liberty?
This agreement is part of the struggle against communism in China. It
is war by other means.
Look at who supports this agreement and who opposes it. Taiwan, who
has refused to bow to the bullying tactics of the much-larger mainland,
supports the agreement. The spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama,
who was forced into exile by the Communist Chinese Government supports
the agreement.
Within China's Communist establishment, the hard-liners are opposed
to the PNTR agreement negotiated by the reformers. America's adoption
of PNTR would be a victory for the reformers, and disapproval would be
a victory for the hard-liners eager for confrontation with the United
States. The Soviet Union was vanquished peacefully in a struggle
between reformers and hardliners.
Adopting this agreement strengthens the reformers within the Chinese
Government not only in the internal power struggle, but throughout
society. Increased contacts with Americans will expose the average
Chinese citizen to our universally appealing ideas on liberty.
Increased prosperity and access to communications technologies will
increase the appetite of Chinese for American ways of life. And the
expansion of a Chinese middle class that owes nothing to the communists
is crucial. We are helping build the constituency for Chinese liberty.
While it may be emotionally satisfying to proclaim that one would
never cooperate with the murderous regime in Beijing, it ultimately
achieves little else. Not a single citizen of China is more free or
better fed. Our own security is no more enhanced, nor is that of our
friends. It is more important to be effective than to obtain simple
self-satisfaction in one's hardened stance. I too, am revolted by
communism, including the version practiced in China. I want to defeat
it, and this is the way to do it.
The monstrosity of the crimes committed by Communist China have been
so great that slaying the monster is more important than just calling
it a monster.
Mainland China will gain membership into the WTO with or without
American support. So why not gain benefits for our American companies
in exchange? China is expanding trade with the rest of the world.
Agreeing to this pact would allow American companies to compete on an
equal footing with everyone else doing

[[Page 9125]]

business on the mainland. By rejecting the agreement, we would punish
our own companies unnecessarily.
Americans dominate the world in the agriculture and high-tech
sectors. Lowering Chinese barriers to American goods will benefit
Americans. High-tech pay the highest salaries, and increasing markets
will produce more great jobs for Americans.
I have voted against the annual renewal of NTR for mainland China in
the past. This year, the vote is different. In the past, NTR was about
Chinese goods flowing into the United States. This time, it is about
access to the mainland Chinese market for American goods. Free
Americans will continue to buy Chinese-made goods whichever way
Congress votes on this agreement. But passage will allow mainland
Chinese to buy goods from Americans at lower prices--made lower by the
reduction in tarrifs.
Granting permanent NTR leaves many other levers at our disposal to
deal with mainland China. We must continue to protect ourselves and to
speak out against the tyrannical Chinese Government. But we cannot be
content with just words; we must back that up with action.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4444, a
bill to provide permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to China. By
passing this legislation, Congress will create substantial new export
opportunities for American farmers and businesses, advance the cause of
personal freedom for the Chinese people, and promote United States
strategic interests in East Asia.
It is important to be clear about what the House is voting on. This
is not a vote on whether China joins the World Trade Organization
(WTO)--the WTO will admit China later this year. The question before us
is whether to give China the same trade status that all WTO members are
required to give each other--permanent normal trade relations. If we
do, U.S. farmers and businesspeople will enjoy dramatically increased
access to the world's most populous market. If we do not, the United
States will be largely shut out of the China market while our trade
competitors will capitalize on China's market opening measures.
The United States routinely approves NTR on an annual basis. Even in
the wake of Tiananmen Square, we did not revoke NTR because to do so
would not only spark a trade war but would also risk even graver
conflict between the United States and China. As a result, the annual
NTR debate has never provided effective leverage to change the behavior
of the Chinese Government because revoking NTR has never been a
credible threat.
For American agriculture, opening the China market is a clear win,
which is why nearly every farm and commodity organization in the
country supports this bill. The USDA has conservatively estimated that
China's market opening measures will increase American agriculture
exports by $2 billion annually. Under the terms of its agreement to
join the WTO, Chinese tariffs on wheat will drop from 20 percent to
just 1 percent; tariffs on beef will fall from 45 percent to 12
percent; poultry from 20 percent to 10 percent; and pork tariffs will
decline from 20 percent to 12 percent. In addition, China has agreed to
eliminate all export subsides on agriculture commodities.
Opponents of PNTR have raised many valid concerns, including China's
poor record on human rights, lack of religious and political freedom,
threats against Taiwan, and a growing trade surplus with the United
States. I share each of these concerns but disagree about the best way
to address them. In my view, building commercial relationships with the
Chinese people will lessen the control of the central government in
Beijing; giving China a stake in the international economy will make it
less likely to be aggressive toward its neighbors; and reducing China's
trade barriers will help increase United States exports and reduce our
trade deficit.
With respect to human rights, many of the most prominent Chinese
political dissidents have urged Congress to approve PNTR. Wang Dan, the
leader of the Tiananmen Square demonstration, has said that PNTR ``will
be beneficial for the long-term future of China.'' Martin Lee, the
democratic leader of Hong Kong, Dai Qing, Bao Tong, and many other
influential activists have all expressed their support for PNTR. Their
shared opinion is that engagement with the United States advances the
cause of personal freedom in China. In addition, no less authority that
the Dalai Lama has said that Chinese participation in the international
economy is good for religious freedom in China.
Approving PNTR for China also serves our national security interests.
Secretary of Defense William Cohen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Colin Powell, and many other military experts have said that
bringing China into the WTO and approving this legislation will enhance
our security interests in East Asia. The recently and democratically
elected President of Taiwan, Chen Shui-bian, also supports the normal
trade relations between the United States and China.
In sum, Mr. Speaker, approving PNTR and opening the China market
helps American framers, workers, and small businesspeople, supports the
cause of political and religious freedom in China, and strengthens
United States security interests in Asia. I urge my colleagues to vote
yes.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, as we enter a new century and a new millennium,
relations among the nations of the Pacific Rim and Africa are becoming
more significant. Trade with China represents a substantial component
of our country's international commerce. As Congress has debated United
States trading policies toward China and Africa during the past couple
of weeks, I have carefully considered many fundamental issues.
I am a firm believer of self-determination for China. China is a
Communist country, whether we agree with that system of government or
not. Nevertheless, whatever political or economic system is in place,
it is wrong to round up, to intimidate, to arrest people, and place
them in slave labor camps with no due process. It is reprehensible for
the United States to endorse this behavior by rewarding it with a
favorable trade regime.
The time is now to send a strong message--an unyielding message that
the United States will not condone mass suffering and oppression.
Trade must be open, it must be fair. Standards for human rights must
be included in all trade agreements, environmental protections must be
in place, women's rights should be advanced, workers' rights must be
protected, religious freedom should be protected and American jobs
should not become a casualty of trade policy.
Many argue that the best way to ensure China's respect for all these
issues, is to admit China to the World Trade Organization and to grant
it Permanent Normal Trading Relations status (PNTR). I disagree, and
believe an annual review provides for this.
China's persistent gross violations against free exercise of
religion, against women and reproductive freedom, and against political
expression should prohibit the U.S. from relaxing its policies toward
China and should cause us to ask why we want to relax our trade
policies toward China and reward China for this repression.
Annual review, at least presents an effective mechanism for China's
compliance with international worker, environmental, and human rights
standards. Annual review, moreover, is the most viable insurance for
the American worker.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, over 870,000 jobs will be
lost over the decade. What will happen with these workers?
If this bill passes, the U.S. trade deficit will continue to
escalate, leading to job losses in virtually every sector of the
economy.
In my state of California 87,294 jobs will be lost. This is very
scary.
I support free trade. But our trade policies should also include a
fair ideal with American workers. Our trade policies should put an end
to slave labor in China, rather than reward it.
We are not talking about cutting off our relationship with China. We
want to make sure that our trade relations are such that people of
China and the United States can benefit from a fair and free trade
policy.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
Very seldom do we have these defining moments; this vote defines who
we are as a people and as a nation.
As an African-American whose ancestors were brought here in chains
and forced to help build this great country as slaves I must oppose any
measure that allows for the exploitation of people whether here in
America, in Africa, China or anywhere in the world.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning the legislation which would
have implemented ``permanent normal trade relations'' with the People's
Republic of China was three pages in length. Today, it is 66 pages in
length. Close examination of this bill ``gone bad'' is demonstrative of
how this Congress misdefines ``free trade'' and how, like most
everything else is in Washington, this ``free trade'' bill is a
misnomer of significant proportions.
For the past several years I have favored normal trade relations with
the People's Republic of China. Because of certain misconceptions, I
believe it is useful to begin with some detail as to what ``normal
trade relations'' status is and what it is not. Previous ``normal trade
relations'' votes meant only that U.S. tariffs imposed on Chinese goods
will be

[[Page 9126]]

no different than tariffs imposed on other countries for similar
products--period. NTR status did not mean more U.S. taxpayers dollars
sent to China. It did not signify more international family planning
dollars sent overseas. NTR status does not mean automatic access to the
World Bank, the World Trade Organization, OPIC, or any member of other
``foreign aid'' vehicles by which the U.S. Congress sends foreign aid
to a large number of countries. Rather, NTR status was the lowering of
a United States citizen's taxes paid on voluntary exchanges entered
into by citizens who happen to reside in different countries.
Of course, many of the critics of NTR status for China do not address
the free trade and the necessarily negative economic consequences of
their position. No one should question that individual rights are vital
to liberty and that the communist government of China has an abysmal
record in that department. At the same time, basic human rights must
necessarily include the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with
others. To burden the U.S. citizens who enter into voluntary exchanges
with exorbitant taxes (tariffs) in the name of ``protecting'' the human
rights of citizens of other countries would be internally inconsistent.
Trade barriers when lowered, after all, benefit consumers who can
purchase goods more cheaply than previously available. Those
individuals choosing not to trade with citizens of particular foreign
jurisdictions are not threatened by lowering barriers for those who do.
Oftentimes, these critics focus instead on human rights deprivation by
government leaders in China and see trade barriers as a means to
``reform'' these sometimes tyrannical leaders. However, according to
Father Robert Sirco, a Paulist priest who discussed this topic in the
Wall Street Journal, American missionaries in China favor NTR status
and see this as the policy most likely to bring about positive change
in China.
But all of this said, this new 66 page ``free trade'' bill is not
about free trade at all. It is about empowering and enriching
international trade regulators and quasi-governmental entities on the
backs of the U.S. taxpayer. Like NAFTA before us, this bill contains
provisions which continue our country down the ugly path of
internationally-engineered, ``managed trade'' rather than that of free
trade. As explained by Ph.D. economist Murray N. Rothbard: ``[G]enuine
free trade doesn't require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a `trade
agreement'; NAFTA was called an agreement so it can avoid the
constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If
the establishment truly wants free trade, all its has to do is to
repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and
other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or
foreign maneuvering is necessary.''
In truth, the bipartisan establishment's fanfare of ``free trade''
fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine
free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer
(each individual), the merchantilist examines trade from the
perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of
the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders
consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that
goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the
mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the
expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign. This new PNTR
bill, rather than lowering government imposed barriers to trade, has
become a legislative vehicle under which the United States can more
quickly integrate and cartelize government in order to entrench the
interventionist mixed economy.
No Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, don't be fooled into thinking this
bill is anything about free trade. In fact, those supporting it should
be disgraced to learn that, among other misgivings, this bill, further
undermines U.S. sovereignty by empowering the World Trade Organization
on the backs of American taxpayers, sends federal employees to Beijing
to become lobbyists to members of their communist government to become
more WTO-friendly, funds the imposition of the questionable Universal
Declaration of Human Rights upon foreign governments, and authorizes
the spending of nearly $100 million to expand the reach of Radio Free
Asia.
Mr. Speaker, I say no to this taxpayer-financed fanfare of ``free
trade'' which fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange and
urge by colleagues to do the same.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
4444, which would permanently extend normal trade relations (PNTR)
status to the People's Republic of China. If we enact this legislation
today, we forever surrender our ability to review our trade relations
with China on an annual basis.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States states
that ``the Congress shall have power . . . to regulate commerce with
foreign nations.'' Our founding fathers intentionally granted the
``People's body'' a separate, distinct voice on trade matters. This
constitutional obligation makes our democracy unique: European
parliamentary democracies grant no such powers to their legislatures.
Under our Constitution, Congress does not simply rubberstamp the
decisions of the Executive Branch. Congress is a separate, coequal
partner in our system of checks and balances.
Every year in the House, we have exercised our Constitutional duty by
reviewing our trade relationship with China. On an annual basis, the
President has notified Congress that he will grant most-favored-nation
(MFN) trading status to China, and we have had the opportunity to
approve or reject MFN status by a vote on the floor of the House. This
vote has been preceded by a full debate on whether China deserves to be
treated as an equal trading partner. Members vote on the issue, and
their constituents hold them accountable for their vote.
I have consistently voted against MFN for China because I believe it
does not deserve to be treated as an equal trading partner. The Chinese
dictatorship has one of the most deplorable human rights records on
Earth, and, according to the State Department, things are only getting
worse. The Chinese government uses executions and torture to maintain
order, persecutes religious minorities and imprisons dissidents who
dare to speak out for democracy. At a bare minimum, China's human
rights record must improve if we are to treat it as an equal partner.
Equal trading partners extend the benefits of trade to those who
produce its goods and services. In China, where workers make between 13
and 35 cents an hour, this relationship does not exist. The basic
rights that we enjoy in the U.S.--the right to organize, the right to
strike, decent wages and benefits, safe workplaces--simply do not exist
in China.
Equally deplorable is the manner in which China has treated its
neighbors. It continues its belligerence toward the free-market
democracy of Taiwan. In fact, shortly after the ink was dry on the
World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement, China threatened to use force
against Taiwan. China continues to threaten our interests elsewhere by
selling weapons of mass destruction to rogue terrorist nations and by
trying to steal our nuclear weapons designs.
The WTO agreement is not the first trade deal we have reached with
China. But trade agreements only work when countries abide by them.
Regrettably, China has violated every trade deal with the U.S., and top
Chinese officials have already indicated that they have no intention to
abide by the WTO deal.
Despite China's worsening record on human rights, international
trade, relations with its neighbors, and weapons proliferation, we are
on the brink of throwing out our annual review forever. Like it or not,
the annual MFN review process is the only means by which the U.S. can
influence the Chinese government's behavior toward its own people and
other nations. If Congress approves PNTR, we forever relinquish any
leverage we have to improve Chinese behavior.
Mr. Speaker, many have argued that if we fail to approve PNTR we will
lose precious business opportunities in China. I concede that point.
Certainly, European and Japanese companies will be doing a great deal
of business in China.
But I believe that America stands for something more than the
almighty dollar. As the world's sole superpower and strongest
democracy, we have a moral responsibility to stand up for those who
struggle against tyranny. We are the only nation capable and willing to
bring about democratic change in China. And we can use our economic
power to exert that leverage.
During the Cold War, we put principles before dollars. We refused to
grant MFN status to authoritarian communist regimes because of their
deplorable records toward their citizens and their neighbors. When Lech
Walesa and the other leaders of the Solidarity movement were imprisoned
in Poland, the U.S. Congress stood with the Polish people and imposed
sanctions on the communist government. Now, we enjoy a vibrant trading
relationship with Poland and other former communist Central European
nations, but those trade benefits were extended after these countries
opened their societies and embraced free markets and democracy. In
fact, we are now doing business with the same dissidents who were
imprisoned by their former communist regimes. These new leaders
remember with gratitude that America stood with them--and not their
oppressors--in the dark days of the countries.
Today's ``Lech Walesas'' are sitting in prisons in China because they
dared to speak out

[[Page 9127]]

for freedom and democracy. They, in my opinion, will become the future
leaders of China. And when we seek to form a trading relationship with
the future leaders of China, they will remember how we voted today.
Defeating PNTR would certainly send shockwaves throughout America's
corporate boardrooms. But it would send a more powerful, purposeful
message to the people of China that we stand with them in their quest
to create a free-market, democratic society that cherishes a peaceful
relationship with her neighbors and the United States. However, if
Congress approves PNTR, we lose any leverage we have in helping the
Chinese people realize their vision for a better society.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that today, this Congress is
taking a vote on giving China permanent normal trade relations. I am
amazed that this vote is about to take place because all of the
evidence shows that China has done nothing to deserve America granting
China permanent access to the U.S. market. In fact, the national
security evidence and the human rights evidence shows that the Chinese
government is a brutal regime that sees America not as a strategic
partner, but as a global threat and competitor, economically and
militarily.
There is much debate in this Congress and in America about China's
future. Proponents of giving China PNTR claim that giving China
permanent access to the U.S. market will change China's leadership,
that giving China PNTR will promote democracy, promote religious
freedom, promote peace, promote human rights.
While it is my fervent hope that these changes will occur in China, I
have to ask the question, ``what evidence is there to believe that
China will change?'' ``What evidence is there that China has changed?''
After receiving several national security briefings from the CIA on
China, having visited Tibet and China, and after looking at all of the
continued and worsening human rights abuses committed by the Chinese
government, I have to conclude that reality says, that giving China
PNTR right now is dangerous to America's national security and that
giving China PNTR will only strengthen the Chinese communists hold on
power--allowing China to continue with its already horrible human
rights record.
Let's look at the evidence.
China continues to destabilize Asia. In the past 50 years, China has
clashed with nearly all of its neighbors. They invaded the Soviet
Union, they invaded parts of India, they invaded Vietnam, they fought
and killed thousands of U.S. troops in the Korean War. Thousands of
American GI's who were captured or killed by the Chinese during the
Korean War are still unaccounted for. We have never found out what
happened to these GI's at Chinese hands.
China continues to threaten to use force against Taiwan. China has
done this repeatedly and forcefully while we in Congress have been
debating whether or not to give China PNTR. China is right now
reportedly conducting war games mimicking an invasion of Taiwan that
includes battle against U.S. troops. China has threatened Taiwan with a
``blood soaked battle.''
In 1999, China's Defense Minister declared that war with the U.S.
``is inevitable.'' It is estimated that China has over a dozen nuclear
ballistic missiles aimed at major U.S. cities and is reportedly
building three new types of long-range missiles capable of striking the
U.S.
Less than one year ago the Cox Committee found that China has
``stolen'' classified information regarding the most advanced U.S.
thermonuclear weapons, giving them design information ``on par with our
own.'' The information included classified information on every
currently deployed warhead in the U.S. ballistic missile arsenal.
China's official military newspaper threatened the U.S. saying if the
U.S. were to defend Taiwan, China would resort to ``long range''
missiles to inflict damage on America.
China has exported weapons of mass destruction and missiles in
violation of treaty commitments. The director of the CIA has said that
China remains a ``key supplier'' of these weapons to Pakistan, Iran,
and North Korea. Other reports indicate China has passed on similar
weapons and technology to Libya and Syria. If one of these countries is
involved in a conflict, it is very possible that our men and women in
uniform could be called into harm's way. These weapons of mass
destruction could then be targeted against American troops.
China is forging an alliance with Russia against the U.S. and China
is purchasing as many weapons from Russia as it can. Reports indicate
that China has purchased advanced naval vessels and top of the line
anti-ship missiles from the Russians that specifically are meant to be
used against U.S. aircraft carriers.
Reports indicate that China is seeking to disrupt or end U.S.
alliances in the Pacific. Reports indicate that China is seeking to be
the primary power in Asia and to nudge the U.S. out of Asia.
China has increased its military budget by close to 13 percent this
year.
We hear the argument that PNTR will lead to economic and political
growth in China, but who in China will benefit the most from increased
foreign investment? Since the Clinton administration reduced technology
trade restrictions in 1993, incidences of technology transfers from the
U.S. to China have been numerous. Much of the capital and revenue the
Chinese would gain from PNTR will go to help increase China's military
build-up and to help stabilize a repressive, authoritarian regime.
I'd suggest the money is going to go toward building more jails and
more prison labor camps, toward more weapons purchases and toward
funding more intelligence operations against the U.S.
For all of these reasons and more, all of the major American veterans
organizations, including the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, AMVETS, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart all oppose
giving China PNTR. This Congress needs to heed the voices of our
veterans. These are the people who have fought, who have been wounded,
and who have put their lives on the line to preserve and protect
freedom. These veterans know a national security threat when they see
one. They unanimously oppose giving China PNTR because they know that
it is very likely that American troops will be in harm's way because of
China's military threats against the U.S. and because of China's
military threats in the Asia region. Letters from these groups are
included for the record.
Three former Commandants of the Marine Corps, seven retired four star
generals, a former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Army in Europe, and
numerous other national security experts signed a letter opposing
giving China PNTR because of national security concerns. These national
security leaders argue that if the U.S. gives China PNTR:

The nation ignores at its peril threatening Chinese
rhetoric and behavior. * * * Beijing is using some of the
hard currency it is garnering from trade and financial
dealings with the United States to acquire ominous weaponry *
* * specifically designed to attack American carrier battle
groups * * *. We believe that the annual debate on our China
policy mandated by current law should not be eliminated at
present.

A recent report issued by the CIA and the FBI stated that China has
stepped up military spying against the United States while using
political influence programs to manipulate U.S. policy. This FBI/CIA
report says that the U.S. military and U.S. private corporations are
the primary targets of Chinese intelligence. This report also says that
Chinese companies play a significant role in China's pursuit and
acquisition of secret U.S. technology.
I am concerned that Members of Congress and the American public do
not know enough about the national security threat China poses to the
U.S. I have been urging our colleagues to obtain a briefing by the CIA
on China and just over 40 Members have had this briefing. I have
written President Clinton urging him to declassify information that
shows the national security threat China poses to the U.S. before this
vote takes place and he has done nothing.
Members and the American public need to know the answers to questions
about the national security concerns regarding China and PNTR before
this vote takes place.
Right smack in the middle of this debate on PNTR, the Chinese
government has stepped up its already heinous human rights violations.
That's not just me saying that. The 1999 State Department Human
Rights report on China is 68 pages long on descriptions of China's
human rights abuses--abuses ranging from its policy of forced abortion
and forced sterilization, to imprisonment and eradication of any
democratic dissent, to imprisonment of people for having religious
beliefs, to forced labor in China's vast prison labor system. The
report says, ``The Government's poor human rights record deteriorated
markedly throughout the year, as the Government intensified efforts to
suppress dissent.''
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bi-partisan
commission established by Congress whose members were appointed by
Congress and the Administration, opposes giving China PNTR because of
China's continued religious persecution, saying: ``* * * Congress
should not approve PNTR for China until China makes substantial
improvements in respect for religious freedom.''
We know that 8 Catholic bishops are in prison--and I think there are
probably more--and

[[Page 9128]]

some have been in custody for over 30 years. In the past week, more
Protestant House church leaders have been arrested. Muslims in
northwest China are in prison because of their faith.
China continues to pillage and occupy Tibet. Tibet is a peace-loving
country that is not a threat to China. Yet, the Chinese government has
brutally occupied Tibet for decades and has no plans to leave Tibet. I
visited Tibet and met with Buddhist monks and nuns. Each temple has a
Chinese communist official that controls and monitors everything that
is done in the temple. The Chinese have cameras strewn throughout the
capital of Lhasa, so they can watch and monitor the people. Hundreds of
Tibetan monks and nuns are in prison because of their faith.
The Chinese military is responsible for trafficking in human organs.
A blood type match is made between a prospective organ recipient and a
Chinese prisoner. Once the match is made, prisoners are taken to a
remote location, where the necessary medical personnel have been
assembled, and summarily executed. Their organs are then removed and
sold.
The State Department Human Rights report says that over 500 women in
China of child bearing age commit suicide each day. Could it be that
China's policy of forced abortion and forced sterilization are a
significant cause of these suicides? Could it be that the fines for
violating the government's birth quotas, that are three times a
couple's annual salary, are causing these suicides?
A country that abuses its own citizens on a massive scale cannot be
trusted in its dealings with the U.S. Do Members actually think that
the same Chinese government that flattens its own citizens with tanks--
that kills frail 80-year-old Catholic bishops--can be trusted?
The decision on whether to give China PNTR must be based on facts and
truth, not on wishful thinking or ill-placed hopes. Our challenge as a
country and as lawmakers is to examine the facts, to seek the truth and
to make informed and wise decisions based on the facts and truth. All
of what I have said about China's worsening human rights record and the
national security concerns are incontestably true. Yet, a large number
of Members here are seriously considering giving away to China the only
leverage the U.S. has--aside from military coercion--our annual review
of whether to extend to China normal trading privileges.
I am concerned that we in the U.S. have become so enamored with
China's prospective market, that we are on the verge of ignoring facts
and truth. We may be ignoring history, ignoring China's abysmal human
rights record, and ignoring the threats China poses to U.S. national
security and to our men and women in uniform.
Today, in the year 2000, America is at a similar crossroads as Europe
and America were leading up to World War II. Europe and America in the
1930's were tired of conflict, having just fought a bloody World War I,
and chose to ignore the threat emanating from Germany and Japan.
Neville Chamberlain forced through the sale to Germany of the Merlin
high-performance engine--the same engine that was used by the British
during the Battle of Britain in the famous Spitfire fighter plane.
France was so caught up in enjoying the peace that it depleted its
artillery stock through artillery sales to Romania, Yugoslavia and
Turkey. France sold so many of its artillery pieces that when Germany
invaded France, France only had 90 artillery pieces on its line with
Germany. America was selling oil to Japan during Japan's invasion of
Chinese Manchuria and kept selling oil to Japan within a year or so of
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
We are at a similar crossroads today. Many in America feel victorious
as the Cold War with the former Soviet Union no longer exists. Some see
the recent facts and developments regarding China in a positive and
hopeful light because they are tired of standing down a potential
adversary and they are tired of facing a global rival. Events that many
did not expect to happen in their lifetimes have occurred. The Berlin
Wall has fallen, Germany is reunited, the Soviet Union has dissolved,
Western Europe no longer faces a phalanx of hostile tanks, soldiers and
missiles to its east. The battle against the former Soviet Union
continued for 40 years and many simply want to wish away a future rival
and a future conflict.
Those of us in Congress and in America who are very concerned with
the national security threat that China poses to the U.S. are
frequently criticized as having a Cold War mentality toward China and
of being China bashers. We are accused of being overly critical of
China and of China's human rights abuses, that we are looking for a
rival simply to replace the enemy that once was the Soviet Union.
Because of our concerns with China and opposition to giving China PNTR,
we are accused of not giving China a chance to change and grow into a
democracy and into a reliable and trusted ally.
Yet, in reality, China is still an authoritarian, communist country
of over a billion people.
Yet, in reality, China wants the U.S. out of Asia and seeks to be the
unrivaled power in Asia.
The massive human rights abuses and massive religious persecution in
China are undisputed facts.
It is fact that China plundered Tibet.
It is fact that communist China has engaged militarily virtually
every country on its border as well as the U.S. in the past 50 years.
It is fact that this present Chinese leadership rolled over its own
people with tanks in Tiananmen Square.
It is fact that China commits untold atrocities against its own
people.
It is fact that China has been publicly threatening to shoot nuclear
missiles at the U.S.
Fits of wishful thinking and outright ignoring these and countless
other facts do not change the reality of the regime in China or the
plausible threat that China poses to the U.S.
We need to learn what history teaches us about leadership.
The lessons from our past are clear. Leadership is not about seeing
what we wish to see. Leadership is not about closing our eyes to the
threats before us. Leadership is about clearly, lucidly, and forcefully
addressing facts and truth and taking appropriate action.
The American way of life, our freedom can only be preserved by
vigilance. Vigilance requires us to look at the situation in China
today and conclude that the Chinese regime should not receive permanent
trade relations with the U.S. until the questions of national security
have been adequately addressed and until there is a significant
improvement in China's human rights record.
We must have a way to continue our annual review of trade with China.
If we sign off on permanent trade, we hand over any influence we could
have in promoting a China that respects its citizens and that is a non-
threatening, peaceful member of the community of nations.
Annual review of China's trade status is an appropriate foreign
policy tool, it is an opportunity for Congress to influence the
behavior of China on matters of national security and human rights, and
it is the right thing to do in maintaining our vigilance in preserving
freedom.

[From the American Legion]

China Trade Opposed by the American Legion

Indianapolis (Wednesday, May 20, 2000).--Taking into
account nuclear espionage charges, human rights abuses, saber
rattling against Taiwan, and influence-peddling indictments,
the 2.8-million member American Legion today demanded the
U.S. government withhold Permanent Normalized Trade Relations
with the People's Republic of China and oppose its entry into
the World Trade Organization.
The American Legion's board of directors, during its annual
spring meeting here, recommended Congress and the Clinton
administration force China to meet four preconditions both
for entry into the WTO and for ending the annual
congressional review of its trade status: Recognition of the
Taiwan's right to self-determination; full cooperation on the
accounting of American servicemen missing from the Korean War
and the Cold War; abandonment of policies aimed at military
dominance in Asia; and encouragement and promotion of human
rights and religious freedom among the Chinese people.
``China should embrace democratic values before it benefits
from unfettered American investment,'' American Legion
National Commander Al Lance said. ``The American Legion sets
forth the prerequisites for peace and stability, without
which Communist China will become economically and militarily
more formidable even as it embarks on policies pursuant to
regional instability. A something-for-nothing trade
arrangement with China--one that severs trade from national
security and human rights--threatens stability, rewards
antagonism, and strengthens a potential foe of American sons
and daughters in the U.S. armed forces.''
Founded in 1919, The American Legion is the nation's
largest veterans organization.
____

Veterans of Foreign Wars

of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 17, 2000.
To: All Members of the United States House of
Representatives, 106th U.S. Congress.
From: John W. Smart, Commander-in-Chief, Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States oppose
Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. China's policies
and actions over the past several years have not demonstrated
that it is ready to become a permanent-trading partner of the
United States.

[[Page 9129]]

Passage of the China Trade Bill would end annual
congressional review of China's access to U.S. markets and
give it permanent trade relations with the United States.
While this bill might provide certain economic benefits and
advantages to some American companies, it could hurt other
American industries and may cost many Americans their jobs.
Permanent Normal Trade relations with the United States
should be earned by China, not given away. Essentially this
bill rewards China for mistreating its citizens, violating
its current trade agreements, threatening its neighbors and
the United States with military action, proliferating weapons
of mass destruction, stealing nuclear, military and
industrial secrets from the United States, increasing
espionage against the U.S., and practicing religious
oppression. We believe this bill sends the wrong message to
China and the rest of the world.
Now is not the proper time to grant China Permanent Normal
Trade Relations. The United States should maintain its
current annual congressional review of China's trade status
until such time as China changes it's policy and demonstrates
that it is ready to treat its people according to the basic
human rights standards of other modern industrial nations.
A vote against Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China
will send a clear message that the United States does not
tolerate China's persistent human rights violations, and will
not agree with it's proliferation of missile technology and
weapons of mass destruction, it's military threats against
the United States and other countries in the Pacific region
including repeated threats made against Taiwan.
Respectfully,
John W. Smart,
Commander-in-Chief.
____

AMVETS,

Lanham, MD, May 16, 2000.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Wolf: AMVETS, the nation's fourth
largest veterans organization, represents more than 200,000
veterans who honorably served in the Armed Forces of the
United States, and opposes Permanent Normal Trade Relations
(PNTR) for China.
While the U.S. relationship with China is important, AMVETS
believes that national security issues take precedence over
the trade relations with foreign countries. We concur in your
belief that our nation can not afford to give leverage to the
Republic of China--which exports weapons of mass destruction
and missiles, maintains spy presence in the U.S. and
continues to threaten Taiwan with military force.
When Congress votes in the House during the week of May 22,
let it be known that AMVETS says ``no'' to the Permanent
Normal Trade Relations for China.
Sincerely,
Charles L. Taylor,
National Commander, 1999-2000.
____

Military Order of the

Purple Heart,

May 15, 2000.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: The Military Order of the Purple
Heart (MOPH), representing the patriotic interests of its
30,000 members and the 600,000 living recipients of the
Purple Heart, is seriously concerned with the
Administration's proposal to grant Permanent Normal Trade
Relations (PNTR) status to the Peoples Republic of China.
The MOPH is familiar with the current series of U.S.
Government reports concerning China to include: the Cox
Committee Report, the Rumsfield Commission Report, the 1999
Intelligence Community Report on Arms Proliferation, and
Chairman Spence's May 2000 HASC National Security Report on
China. These and other similar security assessments clearly
indicate that China, as an international actor, continues to
behave in a manner that is threatening to international
stability and U.S. national security interests.
Given the broad consensus that has formed about this issue,
to include the recent Harris Poll indicating 79% of all
Americans are against granting PNTR status to China, the MOPH
believes it both prudent and reasonable to delay the granting
of PNTR status to China at this time. Speaking as patriots
and combat wounded veterans, we believe that granting PNTR
status to China would relieve them from the current pressure
caused by annual Congressional review of their trade status.
Clearly, Congressional review has caused China to improve its
dismal human rights record and to modify to some extent its
proliferation of dangerous arms on the world market. Yet
these modifications must been seen as the beginning not the
end.
Today, China represents the most dangerous of the emerging
threats to U.S. national security. Her designs on Western
Pacific dominance, her extreme belligerence towards Taiwan,
and her persistent espionage and theft of U.S. advanced
technologies are behaviors that must be checked before any
reasonable consideration of PNTR status can be undertaken.
Many of the America's combat wounded veterans sacrificed
life and blood to repel Chinese aggression during the Korean
Conflict. Fifty years after that war China remains an
unabashedly communistic regime. It is time for China to
change if she wishes to be a truly welcomed participant on
the world's stage. It is also time for Congress and the
Administration to reflect upon the sacrifices of its combat
wounded veterans and ensure that China will not once again
become our enemy. In the view of the MOPH this objective must
be reached before PNTR status should be granted to China.
Yours in Patriotism,
Frank G. Wickersham III,
National Legislative Director.
____

Fleet Reserve Association,

Alexandria, VA, April 21, 2000.
Hon. Christopher H. Smith,
M.C., House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Smith: Please be advised that the Fleet
Reserve Association (FRA), representing its 151,000 members,
all career and retired Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen
of the United States Armed Forces, joins you and your
colleagues in opposing Permanent Normal Trade Relations
(PNTR) for China.
FRA shares your concern that weapons of mass destruction
exported by that country can be used against U.S. military
personnel, and also our Nation's citizens. Further, China
already has obtained considerable knowledge of our Nation's
weapons technology without normal trade relations. Should the
United States open its door to normal trade relations, it is
worrisome that China will discover even more of that
sensitive information.
One of the most important goals of this Association is to
protect its members as well as every active duty and reserve
uniformed member of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
To fulfill that commitment, FRA must do all that it can to
oppose any move that could possibly send those brave men and
women into harms way without ``rhyme or reason.'' With the
possibility that the future will hang dark shadows over open
trading with a yet unproven China, FRA is sensitive to the
harm that country may inflict upon our Nation.
Loyalty, Protection, and Service,
Charles L. Calkins,
National Executive Secretary.
____

Naval Reserve Association,

Alexandria, VA, May 9, 2000.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Wolf: The Naval Reserve Association and
the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association work together as
affiliates to represent 37,000 officers and enlisted members
from the Naval Reserve services. They are representative of
the 89,000 Selected Reservists, the 4,500 non-pay Drilling
Reservists (VTU), and the 91,000 Individual Ready Reservists
(IRR), as well as the Retired Reserve community.
As a resource to the U.S. Military, our membership is
concerned with our relationship with China. Decisions made
today will be affecting the political-military balance in the
Pacific for the next 50 years. The Peoples Republic of China
may well be a rival.
Building its economy on the backs of its people, China is
also willing to risk world stability. To generate hard
currency, the PRC is selling weapons systems to Third World
nations, including many considered rogue states in nature.
China is aggressively building its military. The PRC's
ambitions include reunification by force with Taiwan, and
territorial claim over the energy resources in the
international waters of the South China Sea.
The process of reviewing trade relations with China each
year is an opportunity for Congress to influence the behavior
of China on matters of national security and human rights.
China is the largest of four surviving Communist
governments in the world today. Human rights of its citizens
continue to be violated. Evidence exists of Chinese espionage
within the U.S. Government and industry. The PCR has effected
political influence to manipulate U.S. policy. An annual
trade review provides an element of counter balance.
Trade between nations helps maintain diplomatic dialogue
and exposes a country's citizenry to outside ideas as well as
products. Commerce with China is growing in importance for a
number of U.S. Corporations. As a nation, we should continue
to expand the marketplace, but not carte blanche. Now is not
the time to offer Permanent Normal Trade Relationships (PNTR)
for China.
Marshall Hanson,
Director of Legislation, Naval Reserve Association.
Dennis F. Pierman,
Executive Director, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association.

[[Page 9130]]

____
Warrant Officers Association,

Herndon, VA, May 9, 2000.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington DC.
Dear Representative Wolf: On behalf of the members of this
Association I write to express support and appreciation of
your actions and that of several of your colleagues, in
opposing Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
The USAWOA represents nearly 20,000 warrant officers of the
Active Army, the Army Guard, and the Army Reserve. These
highly-skilled men and women serve as helicopter pilots,
special forces team leaders, intelligence analysts, command
and control computer and communications managers, armament
and equipment repair technicians, and in other technical
fields critical to success of the modern battlefield. Daily,
many of them are in harm's way.
From our perspective, it appears that China has done little
to deserve such consideration. Of more concern is the fact
that China shows few of the peaceful, democratic traits
evidenced by our Nation's other major trading partners.
Indeed, China appears to striving to achieve not only
economic dominance of the Pacific Rim but also a significant
military advantage over her neighbors, and quite possible,
the United States.
In this instance, trade and economic considerations cannot
take precedence over the safety of our Nation and that of our
allies and friends. Until fundamental, lasting changes take
place in China, normalization of trade relations should not
take place.
Respectfully,
Raymond A. Bell,
Executive Director.
____

Reserve Officers Association

of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 27, 2000.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: The Reserve Officers Association
(``ROA''), representing 80,000 officers in all seven
Uniformed Services, is concerned about the proposal to grant
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (``PNTR'') to China.
ROA acknowledges the importance of our relationship with
China, including our growing economic ties to China.
Nevertheless, ROA believes that it would be a mistake to
grant PNTR to China at this time. The annual process of
reviewing trade relations with China provides Congress with
leverage over Chinese behavior on national security and human
rights matters. Granting PNTR would deprive Congress of the
opportunity to influence China to improve its human rights
record and behave as a more responsible actor on the national
security stage.
Just within the past few weeks, China has made military
threats against Taiwan and threatened military action against
the United States if we defend Taiwan. Just four years ago,
China fired several live missiles in the Taiwan Strait,
necessitating a deployment of two American carrier battle
groups to the area.
A report issued last month by the CIA and FBI indicates
that Beijing has increased its military spying against the
United States. Less than a year ago, the Cox Committee
reported that China stole classified information regarding
advanced American thermonuclear weapons.
Additionally, Beijing has exported weapons of mass
destruction to Iran and North Korea, in violation of treaty
commitments. Finally, China's record of human rights abuses
is well documented.
A recent Harris Poll revealed that fully 79% of the
American people oppose giving China permanent access to U.S.
markets until China meets human rights and labor standards.
On this issue, Congress should respect the wisdom of the
American people. Now is not the time to grant Permanent
Normal Trade Relations to China.
Sincerely,
Jayson L. Spiegel,
Executive Director.
____

An Open Letter to the Congress

Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Hastert and Senator Lott: In recent days,
proponents of granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations
(PNTR) status have asserted that the failure by Congress to
do so would harm U.S. national security. As individuals who
have devoted much of our professional lives to providing for
and safeguarding America's security and vital interests, we
believe this assertion to be incorrect--possibly dangerously
so.
In our judgment, the Nation ignores at its peril
threatening Chinese rhetoric and behavior. For example, PRC
leaders and official publications routinely refer to the
United States as ``the main enemy.'' They have threatened
``long-distance missile strikes'' against American cities if
the U.S. interferes with China's coercion of Taiwan. Beijing
is using some of the hard currency it is garnering from trade
and financial dealings with the United States to acquire
ominous weaponry, such as Russian-built Sovremenny-class
destroyers--ships whose nuclear-capable SS-N-22 ``Sunburn''
missiles were specifically designed to attack American
carrier battle groups.
In December, China's Defense Minister General Chi Haotian
told a meeting of senior officers of the People's Liberation
Army that China needs to prepare for an ``inevitable'' war of
several years duration to break American ``hegemony'' in East
Asia. A few months earlier, the Central Military Commission
of the Communist Party circulated to all PLA bases and
garrisons a document in which it declared, ``The strategic
superiority which can be claimed by the U.S. is close to
zero. It does not even enjoy a sure advantage in terms of the
foreseeable scale of war and the high-tech content which can
be applied to combat . . . After the first strategic strike,
the U.S. forces will be faced with weaponry and logistic
problems, providing us with opportunities for major
offensives and to win large battles.''
Such statements and actions suggest that the Chinese today,
like the Japanese sixty years ago, put great faith in the
ability of a materially weaker challenger to defeat a major
power which looks stronger, but which they believe has become
decadent and irresolute in the use of power. If Beijing is
poised to make the same mistake that Tokyo made in 1941, it
would cost this country dearly to prove them wrong should it
come to a war the Chinese apparently expect and for which
they are preparing. A firm American stand now would likely
avoid miscalculation later, boost deterrence and, therefore,
promote peace in the Western Pacific and East Asia.
Toward that end, we believe that the annual debate on our
China policy mandated by current law should not be eliminated
at present. It should, instead, be expanded to place
international economic ties in the larger context of American
national security policy and interests in Asia.
The PRC clearly does not want this yearly debate to occur,
which is why granting PNTR at this time, in the face of
myriad threats from China, is likely to be interpreted by
Beijing as an act of appeasement. If so, far from enhancing
U.S. security, a vote for PNTR under present circumstances
would only intensify the threat Communist China will pose.
We believe that, under present and foreseeable
circumstances, China's trade status and behavior should
continue to be subjected to a formal annual review. In
addition, the United States must retain the ability to take
whatever measures are deemed necessary to prevent the
transfer of technology, capital and other resources to
Beijing that could ultimately help threaten U.S. security and
American lives. We strongly urge Congress to reject any China
NTR or WTO-related legislation that does not contain such
safeguards.

General Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Ret.), former Commandant,
U.S. Marine Corps.
General J.B. Davis, USAF (Ret.), former Chief of Staff,
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe.
Diana Denman, former Co-Chair, U.S. Peace Corps Advisory
Council.
Adm. Leon A. `Bud' Edney, USN (Ret.), former Supreme Allied
Commander, Atlantic.
Major Gen. Vincent E. Falter, USA (Ret.), former Deputy to
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President, Center for Security
Policy and former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense.
Hon. William R. Graham, former Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy and Science Advisor to
President Reagan.
James T. Hackett, former Acting Director of the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency.
Adm. Kinnaird McKee, USN (Ret.), former Director, Naval
Nuclear Propulsion.
Lieutenant General Thomas H. Miller, USMC (Ret.), former
Deputy Chief of Staff for Aviation, Headquarters U.S. Marine
Corps.
Gen. Carl Mundy, USMC (Ret.), former Commandant, U.S.
Marine Corps.
Major Gen. J. Milnor Roberts, USA (Ret.), former Chief of
Army Reserve.
General Glenn K. Otis, USA (Ret.), former Commander-in-
Chief, U.S. Army, Europe.
General John L. Piotrowski, USAF (Ret.), former Commander,
U.S. Space Command and Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force.
Hon. Roger W. Robinson, Jr., former Senior Director,
International Economic Policy, National Security Council.
Major Gen. John K. Singlaub, USA (Ret.), former Chief of
Staff, U.S. Forces Korea.
Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon, former Member of the U.S. House
of Representatives.
Gen. Donn A. Starry, USA (Ret.), former Commander, U.S.
Army Readiness Command.
Hon. James H. Webb, Jr., former Secretary of the Navy.
General Joseph J. Went, USMC (Ret.), former Assistant
Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps.
General Louis H. Wilson, USMC (Ret.), former Commandant,
U.S. Marine Corps.

[[Page 9131]]

____
[From the Center for Security Policy]

Twenty-one National Security Leaders Urge Rejection of PNTR

Washington, D.C.--On the eve the House of Representatives
vote on granting the People's Republic of China Permanent
Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status the Center for Security
Policy released an Open Letter to Senate Majority Leader
Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (see the
attached). This letter, which was signed by over twenty of
the Nation's most eminent security policy practitioners and
retired military officers, argues forcefully that the
granting China PNTR would harm U.S. national security.
This letter comes on the heels of numerous appeals by the
Nation's largest veterans and military service organizations
who have expressed their opposition to rewarding China's
threatening rhetoric and behavior by removing the yearly
review of China's trading status. These groups, including the
American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Reserve
Officers Association of the United States, the Warrant
Officers Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the
Military Order of the Purple Heart, AMVETS, the Naval Reserve
Association and the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association and
the signatories of today's letter should be commended for
their defense of America's security and principles.
The Open Letter's signatories include: three former
Commandants of the U.S. Marine Corps (General Robert H.
Barrow, General Carl Mundy and General Louis H. Wilson);
seven retired four-staff general officers (former Chief of
Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, General
J.B. Davis, USAF; former Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic,
Admiral Leon `Bud' Edney, USN; former Director, Naval Nuclear
Propulsion, Admiral Kinnaird McKee, USN (Ret.); former
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Army, Europe, General Glenn K. Otis,
USA (Ret.); former Commander, U.S. Space Command and Vice
Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force, General John L. Piotrowski
USAF (Ret.); former Commander, U.S. Army Readiness Command,
General Donn A. Starry, USA (Ret.); and former Assistant
Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps, General Joseph J. Went, USMC
(Ret.)); former Secretary of the Navy, James H. Webb, Jr.;
former Science Advisor to President Reagan, William R.
Graham; and former Chairman of the House Rules Committee,
Gerald B.H. Solomon.
The Open Letter reads in part:
``[T]he Chinese today, like the Japanese sixty years ago,
put great faith in the ability of a materially weaker
challenger to defeat a major power which looks stronger, but
which they believe has become decadent and irresolute in the
use of power. If Beijing is poised to make the same mistake
that Tokyo made in 1941, it would cost this country dearly to
prove them wrong should it come to a war the Chinese
apparently expect and for which they are preparing. A firm
American stand now would likely avoid miscalculation later,
boost deterrence and, therefore, promote peace in the Western
Pacific and East Asia. Toward that end, we believe that the
annual debate on our China policy mandated by current law
should not be eliminated at present. It should, instead, be
expanded to place international economic ties in the larger
context of American national security policy and interests in
Asia.''
The Center urges Congress to weigh carefully the arguments
of these highly respected and accomplished authorities and,
in so doing, to discount dubious appeals for granting China
PNTR on national security grounds.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of granting permanent
normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China. I do not
presume that my comments will change any of my colleagues minds but
please allow me to tell you why I am in support of this measure.
During the 19th Century, European powers, more or less, forced their
own way into China by militarily demanding exclusive trade concessions.
More often than not, these trade concessions benefitted the European
merchants almost unilaterally. In this age of imperialism, little
concern was given to the ``economic benefit'' received by the Chinese
people in general. To be sure, there were many Chinese feudal lords and
merchants who grew very wealthy from trading with the Europeans, but as
a matter of course, widespread economic prosperity would not reach the
average Chinese peasant or urban laborer until well into the late 20th
Century.
The United States during this age of imperialism was steadfast in
promoting the ``Open Door Policy'' whereby no nation was excluded from
trade with China. Of course, this privilege was limited to only but a
few great maritime powers. Nevertheless the concept of free trade and
open access to markets was there.
The point of recalling this history is to understand China's present
frame of political reference. China was, in many ways, abused by the
Western foreign powers for much of the 19th and early 20th Centuries.
In the turmoil that followed the Second World War, the Chinese
Communists seized power in a revolution of the peasantry. In
establishing a paranoid one-party authoritarian state, the west's
colonial legacy has remained a rather contemporary influence in the
body politic of China's leaders. In the years since the Cultural
Revolution, China has made tremendous in roads to opening up and
embracing many market concepts. True, they still are ruled by an
intolerant regime that has an abhorrent human rights, labor rights,
women's rights, civil liberties, and environmental record. True, they
are also modernizing their military and repeatedly engage in political
``saber rattling.''
Yet anyone who has bothered to study Chinese history will instantly
recognize that it is China who fears the western world's economic,
political, and military power. It is China who fears being isolated and
contained. Beijing recognizes that as a developing nation they need to
be a part of the global economy in order to survive and become more
prosperous. Since China increasingly depends on the connections to the
global economy, they indeed have more to loose if they are cut out.
Part of the motivation behind the trade accord, as brokered by
President Clinton, is to ``normalize'' the trade and economic links of
China with the global economy and thereby cement China's dependence
upon this community, which is subject to the rule of law.
So, let us now turn briefly to the agreement as drafted in this bill.
To address some of the rhetoric let us turn to the facts. All this
agreement does is remove the annual Congressional review process, as
required by the 1974 Trade Act, before granting normal trade relations
to China for the year. In granting this ``permanent'' status, China
will then be able to work towards joining the World Trade Organization
(WTO). In this agreement, the granting of PNTR by the United States
only goes into effect upon China's admittance to the WTO. This process
could take years. In the meantime this body loses nothing; the annual
NTR review would still apply. In addition, there are many legal and
market oriented hoops that the Chinese government must comply with in
order to become a member of the WTO. Once China is a member of the WTO,
the United States still can impose sanctions on China but they have to
be ``WTO consistent.'' This means that if for national security reasons
or other qualifying reasons, the President feels it is necessary to
impose economic sanctions, it would be within our rights to do so.
One concern is that in passing this bill, Congress abdicates its
ability to have economic leverage over China. There are many other
processes to affect this ``leverage'' over China. For example, the U.S.
could use the power of the Export-Import Bank, TDA and OPIC to apply
pressure on China. Finally, the Levin-Bereuter language that
establishes a Congressional Executive Commission on Human Rights and
Labor Abuses in China, will annually grant this body the opportunity to
investigate and criticize China's abuse in these areas. This language
preserves our commitment and ability to annually address Human Rights
and Labor Abuses in China.
Mr. Speaker the strengths of granting PNTR clearly outweigh the
weaknesses. It will undoubtedly benefit American businesses and open
China's markets in U.S. goods. Plain and simple, this agreement is
about trade. My colleagues, China has along way to go towards reforming
its civil society but you cannot genuinely compare the current regime
in China to the government of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Unlike the
Nazi's, China is not bent on world domination. The Chinese have no
military plans to occupy parts of California or New York.
Mr. Speaker, trade inevitably liberalizes a society. Look at South
Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Spain, Portugal, Chile and Argentina. The
former authoritarian regimes in these nations were undoubtedly weakened
by the permeating influence of open markets and the free flow of goods,
capital, and ideas. As we stand here on the precipice of change, we
have an opportunity to take a first step towards exposing China towards
the benefits and responsibilities of trade and the rule of law.
Granting PNTR and China's membership in the WTO is not a panacea. It
may change China in profound ways that were not anticipated by most
Americans. But in the end, the long road ahead for our national
security and economic security begins with this first step. We should
grant PNTR and continue to engage China.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, the decision on whether or not we should
grant normal trade status to China is always a difficult one. In 1995
and 1996, I supported renewing trade with China because there were
indications that the Chinese were moving in the right direction toward
a more open free society. However, abiding concerns about human rights,
religious persecution, proliferation of advanced missile technology,
and saber rattling toward Taiwan

[[Page 9132]]

and China's other neighbors led me to vote against granting normal
trade status to China during the last three years.
This year, however, the debate over granting normal trade relations
with China is different. We face a momentous decision about the future
of jobs in the United States and specifically greater employment
prospects for men and women living in Georgia's Eighth Congressional
district. The administration negotiated a one way agreement with China
that mandates significant reductions in tariffs as a part of China's
entry into the World Trade Organization as well as includes import
safeguards for sensitive industries like textiles. In 1998, Georgia
exported over $338 million worth of goods and services to China. China
has an estimated $750 billion in infrastructure needs over the next ten
years. Companies and industries located here in middle and south
Georgia are well positioned to take advantage of this auspicious
opportunity. Thousands of Georgia's workers at companies such as Brown
& Williamson Tobacco Corporation in Macon, Rayonier in Baxley,
Barnesville, and Lumber City, Hudson Pecan Company in Ocilla,
International Paper in Folkston, BP Amoco in Hazlehurst and Nashville,
Blue Bird Body Corporation in Fort Valley, and CSX Corporation in
Waycross all support increased trade with China.
I continue to be concerned with a number of issues related to China.
But today we must decide whether or not we will close the door to
expanded markets for products made in Georgia, alienate the most
populous nation in the world, and lose a genuine opportunity to build a
dialogue with China and spread American values of freedom, democracy,
and market economics consequently improving the lives of 1.6 billion
people. We should condemn China's brutal repression against its
citizens and continue to vigilantly monitor human rights abuses. We
will ensure that our military and intelligence capabilities are strong
and robust enough to meet the challenges of any Chinese aggression. We
must pry open the Chinese market and tear down pernicious trade
barriers that block American goods and services and restrain
prosperity.
We cannot change Chinese civilization overnight. But turning our back
on China now and limiting our opportunities for improving our
relationship with the Chinese is not the answer either. Rejecting trade
with China only frustrates efforts by American businesses to expand
their worldwide sales and create jobs here at home.
We must continue to be concerned about human rights and labor issues
in China. We will now have a forum like we have never had to dialogue
on these issues.
For the agricultural community, the benefits of trade with China are
enormous. Chinese tariffs on pecans will be reduced 35 percent, tobacco
40 percent, and textiles 13.7 percent. For the manufacturing community,
the job security and job creation potential are great. Tariffs on wood
products will be slashed 64 percent, agriculture equipment 50 percent,
and aluminum 33 percent. In fact, most every agricultural and
manufacturing group or company in the state of Georgia supports
expanding trade relations with China.
Granting China normal trade relations will be beneficial to our
district and the state. But more importantly, building better
friendships with the Chinese people, teaching them about the value of
open, democratic, and free societies, and bringing China into the
legal, cultural, and economic community of nations will create a better
world for the next generation.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this bill.
Deciding how to vote on this has not been easy, and I want to explain
how I've arrived at my decision.
I began by reviewing the developments that led to the decision we are
asked to make today.
In November 1999, after nearly 14 years of negotiations, the U.S. and
China reached a bilateral agreement covering market access issues with
China, taking the first step to China's admission to the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
For the U.S. to benefit from China's accession to the WTO, Congress
must first grant unconditional and permanent NTR to China. This means
we would no longer have the annual opportunity to review China's record
on human and worker rights, which Congress has done since the passage
of the Trade Act in 1974. The Trade Act includes an amendment that
denies NTR for China, which congress has voted to waive since 1980. I
think this has been an important exercise that has enabled Congress to
regularly review China's progress in human and worker rights. Some
argue that this ``sword of Damocles'' that we hang annually over the
heads of the Chinese isn't putting a stop to human rights violations.
But we should ask what might have happened if we hadn't exercised this
leverage. Human rights organizations and dissidents tell me that as the
vote approaches every year in Congress, the situation in China becomes
a little less grim. To me, that indicates that the annual review of
Congress continues to be important.
The agreement negotiated last November would require China to open
its markets widely and deeply, and would provide new trade and
investment opportunities for U.S. businesses. But there remain
unanswered questions about the economic consequences of the agreement
and whether the immediate benefits to U.S. producers will be as great
as some have claimed. For instance, it is unclear whether the agreement
will improve our increasing trade imbalance with China, a deficit
valued annually at $69 billion. It is unclear whether most of the
benefits of the agreement will be realized by U.S. companies that
invest directly in China and use China primarily as an export platform,
or whether there will be an increase in imports of U.S.-made goods to
China. It also remains unclear on what terms the U.S. and China would
trade in the absence of the WTO agreement--some analysts maintain that
the 1979 U.S.-bilateral treaty would allow the U.S. to benefit from
some, if not all, of the provisions in the WTO agreement, even if the
agreement itself doesn't go into effect.
So, I have questions about the details and effects of the trade
agreement.
But my misgivings about granting permanent NTR status to China don't
revolve around questions of the benefits of trade as much as about the
question of who will benefit. We hear from free trade advocates that
permanent NTR will be good for the people of China. There's an
underlying assumption here that free trade invariably leads to
development and democracy. Markets do produce change, but not
necessarily ``development'' in a positive sense. Markets without law
produce the kind of capitalism we see in Russia, and markets without
democracy produce an Indonesian-style economic disaster. I agree that
open markets and more porous borders have helped lift up the lives of
people in many countries of the world. But I am also alarmed about the
growing economic inequality within and between countries. Unless free
trade is also fair trade, we risk lifting up the few to the detriment
of the many. Economic openness accompanied by tighter restrictions on
basic freedoms. Even now, China claims its action in arresting and
imprisoning pro-democracy activists and Falun Gong followers are done
in the name of the ``rule of law.''
Fortunately, the vote on permanent NTR is not a vote on whether to
isolate China from the rest of the world. The forces of globalization
have already changed China and connected it to the world in ways even
China's leadership can't control. Even now, China receives far more
foreign direct investment than any other developing country. Trade,
investment, and reform will continue whether or not the U.S. grants
China permanent NTR. And this doesn't mean that the U.S. would
necessarily be left out of the mix. Despite threats to impose stiff
tariffs on U.S. firms doing business in China if permanent NTR does not
pass, China's paramount concern right now is its economy and finding
ways to bring it into the 21st century. If China is determined to find
this path, it is doubtful that it would choose to neglect the very
country that consumes 40 percent of its exports.
After careful consideration, I have decided I cannot support
permanent NTR for China at this time. There are five main reasons why.
First, if there is any constant in China's behavior, it is that China
does not do what it says it will do, especially as regards trade. In my
view, a WTO agreement can advance economic reform in China only if it
is enforced. The WTO was founded on the assumption that its members
respect international laws. But China has violated all four bilateral
trade agreements that it has entered with the U.S. since 1992. Already,
some of China's ministries have moved to protect themselves against the
effect of WTO membership. It seems to me that if we can expect massive
violations from China based on its record of noncompliance with
existing trade agreements, we should be concerned that the WTO
multilateral dispute mechanisms--already cumbersome--are not
constructed to handle this kind of load.
Second is the concern I touched on earlier about the importance of
the leverage provided by the annual NTR review. China's record of
violating its citizens' fundamental human rights of freedom of speech,
religion and association will be harder, not easier, to challenge if
Congress grants PNTR.
Third, I have many concerns about labor the environmental standards
that the November 1999 agreement does not take into account. If we
don't insist now--before we grant permanent NTR--that China commit to
making progress in these areas, what could be our

[[Page 9133]]

best chance for these reforms will be closed off.
Fourth, there is important symbolism to consider. Granting China
permanent NTR would send a powerful message to Asia's genuine fledgling
democracies--Thailand, the Philippines, Korea, and Indonesia, where
workers have the right to organize--that they no longer have to abide
by internationally recognized human and labor rights. Granting China
permanent NTR would also send a troubling message that although we hold
other countries accountable through sanctions for arms sales, threats
to neighboring democracies, or human rights abuses, we are not willing
to do the same for China. While I am not advocating sanctions for
China, neither do I believe we should turn a blind eye to China's human
rights abuses by granting permanent NTR.
This leads me to my fifth reason, which to me is the most important.
China has racked up a dismal human rights record year after year,
despite signing two UN covenants on human rights prior to President
Clinton's trip to Beijing in 1998. In fact, according to recent reports
by the State Department, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations,
the situation has deteriorated markedly since late 1998. Even now at
the current meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, China
is fighting a U.S. effort to censure Beijing for its worsening human
rights record. In the name of ``social stability,'' China has
effectively banned opposition political parties, further constrained
free association and religious expression, sped up the pace of arrests
and executions of activists, and interfered with the free flow of
information through restrictions on the Internet. This is all in
addition to extrajudicial killings, torture and mistreatment of
prisoners, forced confessions, arbitrary arrest and detention, and
denial of due process. Just recently, a constituent of mine in
Westminster asked for help in getting his Chinese parents released from
a jail in Hubei Province, where they are being detained for their Falun
Gong practice. We've done what we can, but as far as I know, they're
still there.
Before we grant PNTR, we should insist that China ratify and live up
to the two UN human rights treaties it has already signed. We should
ask that it take steps to begin dismantling its ``reeducation through
labor'' system, which allows officials to sentence citizens to labor
camps for up to three years without judicial review. We should insist
that China change its repressive policies regarding the Tibetan people
and open Tibet to regular access by UN human rights and humanitarian
agencies and foreign journalists. If we don't insist now--before we
grant permanent NTR--that China live up to agreements it has signed and
that it adhere to international standards of human rights, China will
have no incentive to move in this direction.
Some have suggested that the ``brave'' position to take is to vote to
grant normal trade relations to China. I disagree. For me it is far
more difficult to cast a vote that some might say would close the door
on a developing country and its billion citizens, all of whom deserve
the benefits that truly free trade can bring. On the contrary, I'll be
the first to welcome China if--as it opens it markets--it also will
open its prisons; lift restrictions on speech, association, and
religious expression; protect the rights of its workers; and respect
its environment.
I don't believe we can or should ignore China. To do so would risk
ignoring important economic opportunities and strategic and security
considerations. I believe we should encourage China's economic
modernization, but we should also encourage China to take the leap into
the 21st century in more than just economic ways.
The question is not whether to engage China, it is how and on whose
terms. I was encouraged by the efforts of Representative Levin and
Representative Bereuter to seek a way in which to maintain pressure on
China to improve its record on human rights, compliance with core labor
standards, and development of the rule of law. That is why I voted for
the rule, which added the Levin-Bereuter provisions to the bill. These
provisions still don't go far enough--given that they have no power of
enforcement--to allow me to change my position. But I believe they
reflect the right spirit, a spirit that is about trying actively to
shape globalization, not passively closing our doors. Although I cannot
support permanent NTR today, I remain committed to this activist
course.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, granting China Permanent Normal Trade
Relations status is unwise, unprincipled, and counterproductive.
American multi-national corporations are realistic enough to
understand that most of them will never sell anything in China. They
will create production platforms taking advantage of cheap labor and
non-existent health, safety, and environmental regulations to replace
American men and women who work for a living wage in the United States.
In our economic relations with China, it is we who have the leverage,
not the Chinese. They have a $70 billion trade surplus with the United
States--and this surplus is vital for their military armament plans and
their economic progress. We have all the cards but pretend to be
impotent.
Mr. Speaker, fig leaves have a noble function in Greek sculpture--
they conceal valuable and at times indispensable parts. The
``Commission'' proposed in this legislation gives a bad name to fig
leaves. We have governmental and private studies overflowing our desks,
all proving the outrageous human rights abuses, violations of religious
freedom, and the denial of political discourse that permeate China. No
one in his or her right mind believes for a moment that yet another
commission will have any impact on the dictatorial regime in Beijing.
China's victory in this struggle today, however, will be carefully
studied and imitated by the new KGB-trained President of Russia. Our
ability to advocate pluralism, religious freedom, and political
liberties in Russia will be profoundly crippled by the hypocrisy of
this debate today. President Putin will have no trouble learning the
lesson that what we really care about is stability and investment
opportunities. All the rhetoric about liberty, freedom of the press,
and religious freedom is just that--sheer rhetoric with no substance.
Mr. Speaker, China already has Normal Trade Relations with the United
States. This measure on which we are voting today merely protects this
repulsive regime from an annual debate in the Congress, which over the
past decade has pointed out China's serious shortcomings. Now the
government in Beijing will have a free ride.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, after considering the arguments for and
against PNTR, I have concluded that rejecting it would be a serious
mistake and passing it would benefit Georgia's and our area's economy.
China will soon enter the World Trade Organization (WTO), which
oversees the rules of international commerce. The United States is
already a member. WTO rules say that members must grant one another
``unconditional'' low-tariff access to their markets. The current
process of annual votes by Congress on China trade amounts to a
``condition.'' Hence, the U.S. would be out of compliance with WTO
rules if PNTR was not passed.
To gain entry into the WTO, China has agreed to open markets that
have long been closed, such as agriculture, services, technology,
telecommunications, and manufactured goods, and will drop or greatly
reduce tariffs. The U.S. has already opened our markets. U.S. exports
to China have tripled over the past decade. But China's exports to the
U.S. are seven times greater. That deficit should drop with an
expansion of U.S. goods and services under PNTR and WTO.
Unfortunately, China will only give these market-opening benefits to
countries that give Chinese products ``unconditional'' access. So, if
we fail to give China PNTR, they will shut U.S. companies out of huge
business opportunities in a fast-growing economy of 1.2 billion people.
That would impact jobs in our area greatly, according to Governor Roy
Barnes, Agriculture Commissioner Tommy Irvin, the 342,000-members of
the Georgia Farm Bureau, Proctor and Gamble, Merck Pharmaceutical,
Miller Brewing, Phillip Morris, Kraft Foods, Georgia Pacific,
Weyerhaeuer, Ayres Aircraft, Carter Manufacturing, Griffin Chemical,
Coca-Cola, Bell South, Georgia Power, AT&T, Cargill, Tyson Foods, Gold
Kist, American Cotton Shippers, Synovus Financial, AFLAC, UPS, Tobacco
Association of the United States, Brown and Williamson, and countless
others.
Too many people associated with these area businesses would lose. We
just can't afford NOT to grant PNTR.
Some, including myself, have expressed deeply-felt and well-reasoned
concerns about PNTR. Some, including veterans groups, have questioned
whether it might compromise our national security. Some farmers and
business entrepreneurs feel China's proclivity for cheating might put
the U.S. at an export disadvantage. Others express concern about
rewarding a country like China with a horrible record of political
suppression, religious persecution, and unfair and inhumane labor
practices. I share all of these concerns.
Upon close analysis, however, I believe that failure to pass PNTR
would have even worse consequences. Our national security would be
endangered because rejection of PNTR would send a clear message that we
view China as an adversary. The Chinese are modernizing a military that
has more manpower than any country on earth, and only because of our
current engagement policy have they agreed to

[[Page 9134]]

stop transferring anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran and other rogue
nations for cash. If they view us as an adversary, rather than a
trading partner, they will continue to transfer weapons of mass
destruction and endanger our national security.
Moreover, if we are seen as an adversary to China, our bilateral
relations with other Asian countries such as Singapore, Thailand,
Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, and even Japan would be affected. These
countries would have to align themselves with China, their strong
neighbor, or the U.S. on the other side of the world. Taiwan President-
elect Chen shui-Bian supports PNTR because he says it would promote
greater cooperation between mainland China and the free world as well
as contribute to peace and stability.
As for human rights, labor and environmental issues, it is clear the
U.S. cannot exert influence if it is disengaged. Although the
effectiveness of the oversight measures in the PNTR package is
disputed, the measures do, in fact, make workable mechanisms available
to the U.S. to take retaliatory action against any breakdown in our
expectations of China. With the passage of PNTR, China will have the
opportunity to prove to the world its ability to greatly improve its
record. In turn, the U.S. and other WTO nations, will have the
opportunity to hold China more accountable.
My vote for PNTR is a vote to open markets in China's in order to
promote jobs in Georgia, and for a safer world.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, China has a continuing legacy of human
rights violations and oppression which cannot be ignored. Year after
year we have been told, ``Give most-favored-nation status to China and
their government will be forced to reform.'' We heard that during the
Bush years. We hear it during the Clinton years.
Let us look at the score card a little bit.
We gave most-favored-nation status and they continue their policy of
population planning with forced abortion.
We gave most-favored-nation status and they continue not to tolerate
any dissent of any kind; the imprisonments, the torture, and the
killings go on.
It was reported in the beginning of May that Chinese police cut off a
villager's tongue after he was detained for writing anti-corruption
slogans on a communist party office building.
We gave most-favored-nation status and they continue to try to stamp
out any religion that is not state-supported religion.
``In February, the family of 60-year-old Chen Zixiu, a Falun Gong
follower, were asked to collect her body from a police station in
Shandong province where she had been detained for four days. Her body
was covered with bruises, her teeth were broken and there was blood
coming out of her ears. She was arrested on suspicion of planning to go
to Beijing to petition the authorities against the banning of the Falun
Gong.''
We gave most-favored-nation status and their policy of cultural
genocide in Tibet continues.
``The International Campaign for Tibet reports that more than 1,000
monks and nuns were expelled from their monasteries and nunneries in
1999, bringing to more than 11,000 the number of monks and nuns turned
out of their monasteries since the beginning of the `Strike Hard'
campaign in 1996.''
We gave most-favored-nation status and they sell nuclear and missile
technology to some of our worst enemies.
``In addition, Beijing is aggressively developing strategic ties with
Burma, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan.''
We gave most-favored-nation status and they make plans to invade
Taiwan.
``An internal document prepared by China's Central Military
Commission and published in the Western press states that the United
States will `pay a high price' if it intervenes in any China-Taiwan
military conflict.''
We gave most-favored-nation status to them, and they have the biggest
buildup of nuclear missile development of any country on the face of
the earth.
PNTR supporters say access to China's huge market will increase U.S.
businesses exports and create extra jobs in America. As it is, we have
a 70 billion dollar trade deficit with China and most proponents of the
agreement admit our deficit will continue to grow.
``In all likelihood there will be no great improvement in the trade
balance. . . . And there will be no net extra jobs.''--National
Journal.
The United States should not sell out for the promise of an extra
buck. . . . a promise that will not be kept even if PNTR is passed.
If you have a rabid dog in your backyard, you don't welcome him into
your home.
Vote ``no'' on PNTR with China.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of normal trading
relations with China.
Trying to determine what course will be the best for the United
States and for the people of China in the long run is not easy. No one
has a crystal ball. However, I believe that is in the best interests of
the United States and of the people of China to have more contact with
and interaction rather than less.
First of all, trade with China directly affects hard-working
Americans in my district. For example, more than one-third of our
agricultural production is exported, and China is the largest potential
overseas market for our cotton, beef, and other products.
Secondly, we cannot afford to forget that China has more people than
any other country in the world; it has the world's largest economy
after ours; and it has a strong military with missiles and nuclear
warheads which can reach the United States. While Chinese leaders have
done a number of things with which we do not agree, we should not
ignore or cut off contact with a country that will inevitably play an
increasingly important role in world affairs.
Finally, I believe that continuing trade with China is in the best
interests of the people of China. They have more freedom today, than
they ever had since the Communists took control in 1949. The areas
where people have the greatest freedom are those areas with the most
contact with the outside world. We should not hesitate to speak out
strongly for the values we hold dear, such as freedom of religion. But
we will not help the people of China to obtain that freedom by cutting
back on our trade, contacts, and influence there.
For these reasons I will vote for normal trade relations with China
and continue to work for the national security interests and values of
the United States.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, Congress takes an historic step today in
considering legislation to grant normal trade relations to China. We do
this to position our workers, firms, and farmers to take maximum
advantage of the vast opportunities offered as a result of China's
decision to join the WTO.
Just as importantly, we do this to reinforce the reformers in China
who look in our direction and at our success, as they attempt to move
the Chinese economy out from under the iron grip of Communism and
stranglehold of state control. China's decision to adopt the WTO system
of fair trade rules is a choice to impose the discipline of market-
based principles throughout a vast country of 1.2 billion people. In my
estimation, the revolutionary change WTO rules will bring to the
Chinese economy dwarfs any other avenue of influence available to the
U.S.
The trade agreement with China and this vote to normalize trade
relations between our two countries have been hard fought and long
awaited. For fourteen years, through Democrat and Republican
Administrations, this body insisted that we would not take an empty
trade deal with China. At last we have succeeded in obtaining a great
win for Americans. In addition to the commercial benefits, this bill
turns our relationship with China in a positive direction. By
reinforcing the efforts of Chinese citizens fighting for change, we
magnify our chances of maintaining peace, stability and security in
Asia.
In bringing China into the WTO, we will obtain access to the WTO
dispute settlement mechanism to systematically tear down barriers, if
China chooses to be recalcitrant in any area. With a WTO finding on our
side, and the collective judgment of 135 countries against China, we
multiply ten-fold our leverage to bring China into compliance with the
rules of fair trade. In the event China chooses to flaunt a WTO finding
against it, we would have the ready option of imposing WTO-legal trade
sanctions.
I expect this new approach to solving trade disputes with China to be
many times more effective than our current method of threatening
unilateral trade sanctions under Section 301.
Over the past 21 years, China has sought to reform its economy,
encouraging the growth of the private sector. Since 1979, China's
government policy toward the private sector has evolved from
prohibition, to toleration, to active encouragement. The number of
private sector employees (i.e. those working for a privately owned
Chinese company or self-employed) rose from 4.5 million in 1985 to an
estimated 81.3 million in 1999. Accounting for over half of China's
economic output, the private sector in China has become a major force
in the country's economic development.
China's membership in the WTO will require it to privatize a
substantial portion of its economy, not only to conform to the WTO, but
also to be able to compete internationally. Reduced government control
over the economy will enhance living standards and economic freedom for
the average Chinese citizen.
The growth of the private sector in China, which WTO membership will
further encourage, has allowed many more Chinese citizens

[[Page 9135]]

to choose their employment, education, housing and recreation free from
state control. According to CRS, privatization ``has reduced the
pervasiveness of the work unit as a means of social control''.
We know that U.S. foreign investment exposes Chinese workers and
managers to such principles as merit-based pay and promotion,
individual rights and privacy, ethical business practices, transparency
of business and payroll transactions, and free access to more
information. Internet usages and the consequent flow of information
into China are surging. Motorola, my own corporate constituent,
provides wireless communications equipment that enables Chinese
citizens to gain access to, and utilize affordable communications
services.
Motorola directly promotes the exchange of ideas by sending hundreds
of Chinese employees to its U.S. facilities each year to attend
technology, engineering, and management seminars. In a country where
only 10-15% of the people have access to a college education, this is
precious training that allows for eye-opening exposure to the American
way of life.
In 1998, Motorola established the Center for Enterprise Excellence
(CEE) to provide training for management of China's ailing state-owned
enterprises. As of June 1999, 500 executives and engineers of 75 state-
owned enterprises from 15 provinces had received training. Motorola
also provides scholarships to 8 universities in China--with money
disbursed to approximately 1,000 students and 100 teachers every year.
Caterpillar has also worked with Illinois State University (ISU) to
establish a learning center in Beijing.
Motorola pioneered a company-subsidized Employee Home Ownership
Program in China. The program provides for an additional 20% of each
employee's salary to be paid into a special housing fund. The money can
be withdrawn and used to buy or rent a house or apartment, or to
renovate an existing home.
U.S. companies export U.S. concepts of volunteerism, charitable
giving, and community activism. For example, Motorola has contributed
approximately $1.5 million to China's Project Hope--which focuses on
providing funds and mobilizing non-governmental resources to support
elementary school education in the poorest rural districts in China.
Through these donations, Project Hope has built 24 primary schools and
financed education for more than 6,700 children.
In short, a vote for normal trade relations, which will allow these
types of exchanges to continue, is a vote for bringing American values
and ideals much closer to average Chinese citizens.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4444.

[From the Daily Herald, May 23, 2000]

The Case for China Trade

Like it or not, China is a growing economic and military
force with whom Washington must deal over time.
U.S. business interest are urging Congress to permanently
normalize trade relations with China in a vote this week.
That would drive China's tariffs down and further open the
vast Asian nation to a wide range of American products.
American labor, by contrast, is lobbying hard for Congress
to reject Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Unions argue that
jobs would flow away from Americans and to poorly paid and
highly exploited Chinese workers.
That many Chinese workers toil under miserable conditions
is beyond dispute. But the hard reality is that their lives
will not improve by Congress rejecting normalized trade with
China.
China is going to be admitted to the World Trade
Organization whether Congress OKs permanent normal trade
relations or not. European nations have already built their
own trade bridges while China. Congressional rejection of
permanent trade status for China would merely guarantee that
European and Pacific Rim nations would benefit from China's
reduced tariffs and do so without competition from U.S.
business. Illinois farmers and suburban companies such as
Motorola would miss an opportunity that would carry direct
and ripple benefits for thousands of workers here.
That's the economic side of the story. The political side
is that Congress, by turning down permanent trade status,
would introduce new tensions into U.S.-Chinese relations that
would serve no positive purpose for the United States or
China's citizens.
Like it or note, China is a growing economic and military
force with whom Washington must deal over time. Those
dealings are often frustrated, given China's oppression of
its citizens, aggressive stance toward Taiwan, ambitious
weapons acquisition and resistance to granting political
liberty even as it experiments with limited economic freedom.
But to nurture a long-term relationship with Cuba is
nonetheless in the best interests of the United States, and
such a relationship can be better built and sustained between
two countries that are cooperating--not battling--over
commerce.
China's leaders make it difficult for Washington to work
with Beijing even when doing so is in America's better
interests. That was true when Richard Nixon traveled to China
and when the U.S. agreed to China's admission to the United
Nations. It remains true today, when a vote for permanent
trade status is a tough vote but the correct vote noneless.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, we are making a critical decision today
on whether to grant permanent normal trade relations to China. This is
not an easy decision. Before casting my vote, I considered the advice
and counsel of my constituents and experts in the field. And, after
weighing the complexity of the PNTR issue and the long-term
implications of this vote, I have decided to vote against granting
permanent normal trade relations to China.
While this bill would have an important economic impact, it fails to
honor American values regarding human rights, labor protections and the
environment.
Free and fair trade makes sense for America. If given a level playing
field, American companies and workers can compete with any other in the
international marketplace. Indeed, to a great degree, globalization and
free trade have helped to sustain this country's record prosperity and
economic expansion over the past decade.
Yet, free trade alone, without consideration for human rights, basic
labor standards, and environmental protection will only encourage a
race to the bottom.
For over a decade, I have been troubled by the message our China
policy has sent to the Chinese people, to our citizens and to the rest
of the world. Despite egregious human rights violations, China's export
of weapons of mass destruction around the world, repeated crackdowns on
religious freedom and its continued occupation of Tibet, we have
refused to establish a bottom line in our relationship with China.
Regardless of the policies pursued by the Chinese regime, we continue
to send a message that economic interests override our concerns
regarding abuses of human rights, labor standards and the environment.
Just as our trade policy with Japan and Europe has evolved throughout
the years to give priority to issues such as market access and
intellectual property rights, we need to ensure that basic labor and
environmental standards and respect for human rights be given similar
weight at the negotiating table.
There are some who have argued that increased contact with China will
improve the country's dismal record on these issues, especially through
the use of information technology and the Internet.
While I agree that the Internet has promoted the spread of
information, our recent history with China has shown that increased
economic engagement will not necessarily lead the country down a path
to democratic reform.
Indeed, we have stood by and watched a systematic deterioration in
China's respect for labor, the environment and human rights, including
most recently, a series of violent crackdowns on members of the Falun
Gong movement.
It is cruicial that we continue to engage China out of concern for
our own national security interests as well as the interests of China's
democratic development. For that reason, I'm pleased that the
legislation before the House today contains a bill I introduced
authorizing commercial and labor rule of law assistance to China.
Mr. Speaker, this vote is not just about granting permanent normal
trade relations to the People's Republic of China--it's about sending a
message to the world that is consistent with the values that have made
our nation great. Until such an agreement is before us, I am left with
no choice but to vote no.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to granting permanent
normal trade relations to China and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Our nation continues to experience unprecedented economic growth. A
major factor in that growth is the expansion of international trade and
the increased global competitiveness of U.S. businesses.
Expanding export opportunities is especially important in the
Northeast where the economy is still transitioning into a high-tech
economy. The economic base of the manufacturing, jewelry, and textile
industries has been slow to adapt to the global economy. Increasing
export opportunities for these sectors is critical to foster our
continued economic growth.
It is possible to enter into trade agreements that will result in
higher wages, cleaner air, and greater consumer safeguards. However,
because we cannot look into a crystal ball to find out how a trade
agreement will turn out, we must address environmental and consumer
safeguards and worker rights at the outset.

[[Page 9136]]

Additionally, in today's high-tech world, agreements should also
contain provisions that protect intellectual property and allow
equitable market access for all trading partners. Unfortunately, there
are many countries that do not provide adequate market access, protect
intellectual property, take steps to preserve the environment, respect
internationally accepted worker rights, or have adequate measures in
place to ensure consumer safety.
In an effort to expand opportunities, I strongly support export
assistance programs such as the Export-Import Bank (EX-IM) and the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Together these two
institutions provide critical financial assistance to American
businesses seeking to expand their business into foreign countries. By
providing insurance, loans, and loan guarantees, EX-IM and OPIC ensure
that U.S. businesses are able to compete in markets that are often
unstable and where foreign companies are subsidized by governments.
Additionally, as a member of the House Banking and Financial Services
Committee, I am addressing the impact of trade on international
financial markets. In particular, we have had to consider several
financial crises in the last two years. Financial problems in Asia,
South America, and Russia have led to other trade problems, most
notably the dumping of foreign products into the U.S. marketplace. In
an effort to mitigate the impact of the financial crisis. I have
supported an increase in U.S. payments to the International Monetary
Fund (IMF). This funding helped to replenish the IMF's resources
depleted by the financial crises in Asia, Mexico and Russia and to
prevent the meltdown in the world economy from striking the United
States.
There continues to be substantial debate about the progress that
China has made on worker and human rights, market accesses, and
protecting intellectual property. In fact, the U.S. government
continues to express its concerns regarding these issues, as indicated
in the 1998 Annual Report on Human Rights and the 1999 Trade Policy
Agenda and 1998 Annual Report of the President of the United States on
the Trade Agreements Program.
Exports from the United States to China are far outweighed by goods
imported to consumers in our country by China. According to the Library
of Congress, our trade deficit with the Chinese was nearly $57 billion
in 1998 and, as our country's fourth largest trading partner, China is
poised to exceed our trade deficit with Japan within a few years. High
tariffs, in some cases in excess of 100%, restrictions on distribution,
restrictions on investment, and non-tariff barriers including quotas
remain substantial impediments to market access for U.S. companies. In
my opinion, this trade imbalance is troublesome and we must signal our
intention to China that the playing field for American businesses must
be leveled.
By opposing this bill we send a message to China that improvements
regarding human and worker rights, our growing trade deficit,
intellectual property protections, and child labor must be made before
permanent normal trade relations, and child labor must be made before
permanent normal trade relations is granted.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose PNTR for China.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to provide
for normal trade relations with China on a permanent basis, otherwise
known as PNTR. I will focus my remarks on the potential benefits of
this market opening agreement for U.S. farmers and ranchers. I believe
those benefits will be significant, and I am in good company in that
belief. Nine Secretaries of Agriculture who have served since John F.
Kennedy support PNTR for China. But like my colleagues, my decision is
much more broadly based. I believe that United States engagement with
China will help persuade the Chinese to play by the rules in
agricultural trade, and cause China to improve its record on human
rights, labor, and environmental issues. And I am in good company in
this belief as well--Billy Graham; former President Jimmy Carter;
Martin Lee (champion of Democracy in Hong Kong); Dai-Ching (Chinese
investigative journalist and environmentalist); all agree that the best
way to improve China's performance on human rights and the environment
is to engage China.

benefits for agriculture

china's need

I have heard the argument that China, with 21 percent of the world's
population and 7 percent of the world's arable land, doesn't need U.S.
agricultural products. Some have stated that between 1992-1998, China
exported about $4 billion more in agricultural products than it
imported in each of those years. But this does not reflect the
significant agricultural imports that enter China ``off the books''
through Hong Kong. If we look at agricultural trade for China and Hong
Kong for the 1992-1998 period, we get a clearer picture of the full
potential of the Chinese market. According to the U.N. Trade Database,
China and Hong Kong annually imported about $5.5 billion more in
agricultural products than they exported. If you include fish and
forestry, China and Hong Kong's net annual deficit in agricultural
imports was even larger--$6.9 billion. And these numbers do not reflect
the predicted growth of China's middle class, and its increased demand
for meat and other agricultural products. USDA's Economic Research
Service [ERS] and private United States agricultural commodity groups
believe that China will continue to be a major market for United States
agricultural products, and that China's accession to the WTO will
expand that market.

summary of china's wto agreement

With regard to the agricultural products that U.S. producer groups
identified as priority items, the average tariff will fall from 31
percent to 14 percent. This means that these United States agricultural
products will face less than half the tariff they currently face in the
Chinese market. China has agreed to end import bans and its
discriminatory licensing system for bulk commodities, including wheat,
corn, cotton, rice, and soybean oil. China has also agreed to establish
a WTO consistent tariff-rate quota [TRQ] system with in-quota tariffs
of 1-3 percent. Specific rules for the administration of these TRQs,
and a percentage of trade reserved for non-state trade, will help to
ensure the quotas get filled, and will increase demand for U.S.
agricultural products. All of this ensures an initial minimum level of
access for wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and soybean products--that will
increase as the agreement is fully implemented.
China's commitment on export subsidies means that United States
exports of corn, cotton, and rice will not compete with subsidies from
the Chinese government in third country markets, such as South Korea,
Malaysia, and Indonesia. China's commitment to cap and reduce domestic
subsidies will reduce incentives to overproduce. China's commitment to
provide greater transparency with regard to its domestic subsidies will
increase predictability with regard to China's agricultural production.
China has also agreed to abide by the WTO agreement on Sanitary and
Phyto-sanitary regulation, and has already implemented rule changes
that have allowed imports of United States citrus, wheat, and meat.
China has also agreed that the United States may continue to use its
anti-dumping methodology for 15 years, and has agreed to an additional
``product-specific'' 12-year safeguard provision. Together, these
provisions give U.S. producers a level of protection above and beyond
that provided for under normal WTO rules.
Finally, China has agreed to allow any entity to import most products
into any part of the country within 3 years of accession, and to
liberalize distribution services for agricultural products. This means
United States companies will be allowed to market their products in
China. Let's look at the potential of this agreement for some specific
commodities. For cotton, China committed to a tariff-rate quota of
743,000 tons for cotton in 2000, increasing to 894,000 in 2004. The
within-quota duty would be 4 percent and the over-quota duty would
decline from 69 percent in 2000 to 40 percent by 2004. Nonstate trade
companies get \2/3\ of the quota, which means we help avoid the problem
we have sometimes had in the past with quotas going unfilled. USDA's
Economic Research Service [ERS] projects that if China did not join the
WTO, it would import cotton worth $565 million in 2005.
If China does join, ERS projects that its cotton imports would
increase to $924 million by 2005. That's why National Cotton Council
President Ronald Rayner congratulated U.S. negotiators on the
agricultural agreement, stating that it will ``benefit the U.S. cotton
industry with greater access to the Chinese market and a promise of
less subsidization by the Chinese''. For corn, China committed to
establish a 4.5 million ton tariff rate quota in 2000, rising to 7.2
million by 2004. Within quota imports would be subject to a 1 percent
duty, and over-quota duties would be 77 percent in 2000, dropping to 65
percent by 2004. Nonstate trade companies get \1/4\ of the quota in
2000 rising to 40 percent by 2004. ERS projects that China's net
imports of corn in 2005 will increase by $587 million, if it joins the
WTO. United States exports to China have averaged about 47 million
bushels over the past 5 years. The National Corn Growers Association
states that ``we have an opportunity to triple that average if, when
China joins the WTO, the United States is prepared to grant China
permanent normal trade relations.'' The Corn Growers add: ``China's
impressive growth in national income is projected to lead to increased
consumption of food and fiber. At the same time, growing resource
constraints on agricultural production are making China increasingly
reliant on trade.''
For wheat, China committed to a tariff-rate quota of 7.3 million tons
in 2000, rising to 9.64

[[Page 9137]]

million in 2004. In quota duty would be 1 percent and out of quota duty
would be 77 percent in 2000, falling to 65 percent by 2004. Nonstate
trade companies get 10 percent. ERS projects that China's net imports
of wheat in 2005 will increase from $231 million to $773 million, if it
joins the WTO. What does the National Association of Wheat Growers
say?: ``The United States market is currently open to China; this
agreement serves to open the Chinese market to American products and
services. This agreement will give United States wheat producers a far
greater sales opportunity to a country with 1.2 billion consumers, with
a potential 10 percent increase in total annual United States wheat
exports.''.
For soybean products, China has agreed to a tariff rate quota of 1.72
million tons of soy oil in 2000, rising to 3.26 million in 2005. The
in-quota duty is 9 percent and over-quota duty is 74 percent in 2000,
falling to 9 percent in 2006. Nonstate traders get half the quota in
2000 and 90 percent by 2005.
ERS projects that China's net imports of soybean products in 2005
will increase by $180 million, if it joins the WTO. Here's what the
American Soybean Association has to say: ``ASA strongly supports WTO
membership for China, and urges Congress to extend permanent NTR status
to China.''

conclusion

Overall, the Economic Research Service concludes that China's
implementation of its WTO obligations between 2000 and 2004 will add $2
billion to the bottom line for United States farmers and ranchers in
2005. And ERS is not alone in its view. According to Worldwatch's
Lester Brown, China's water supplies in its grain-producing areas are
falling at a high rate. Brown sees massive grain imports and growing
dependence on U.S. grain. A report dated May 23, 2000 from Kyodo News
International confirms Brown's story, stating ``A severe drought in
northern and eastern China threatens millions of hectares of crops and
is causing widespread drinking water shortages.''. The total area
affected is about 31 million acres. The Farm Bureau also expects great
benefits from China's accession to the WTO: ``U.S. exports to the Asian
region as a whole are expected to increase in the next few years as a
result of China's accession into the WTO. This is likely to occur as
Chinese consumption levels increase, domestic production patterns skew
more to global prices, China ceases to employ export subsidies, and
there is a commensurate decline in Chinese agricultural exports to the
Asian region. While this agreement may be with China, it will have
impacts far beyond Chinese borders.'' To put ERS numbers on China into
context, I will mention another number, and that is the amount farmers
and ranchers lost in 1996 due to various U.S. economic sanctions placed
on countries around the world.
According to the ERS, we lost half a billion dollars in 1996 due to
those sanctions. But that is less than a fourth of the $2 billion ERS
says we will lose in 2005 if we do not grant China permanent normal
trade relations. All six of the countries currently under sanctions
(Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and North Korea) together import only
$7.7 billion in agricultural products each year. That's about half of
the $14 billion worth of agricultural products China imports annually.
Fortunately, we are moving in the right direction in our policy on
sanctions, and the administration's changes last year have allowed
sales of corn to Iran and wheat to Libya. Let's move forward on China
too, and stop giving away agricultural markets to our competitors. And
let's do so just because this is a good deal for farmers and ranchers.
Let's think about what the Billy Graham Center has to say about
permanent normal trade relations with China. And, by the way, they are
the ones who coordinate services for more than a hundred Christian
organizations involved in service in China. They say that denial of
PNTR will ``seriously hamper the efforts of Christians from outside
China who have spent years seeking to establish an effective Christian
witness among the Chinese people''. I urge your support for permanent
normal trade relations with China.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, today, we will make a crucial decision about
our place in the global economy. The question of voting for permanent
normal trade relations with China is easily answered in economic,
social and political terms. Formalizing a freer trading relationship
with China will help American employees and employers alike. For China,
PNTR will promote democracy, a better standard of living, and
ultimately improve human rights. The vote on PNTR is a necessary step
toward China's full membership into the World Trade Organization [WTO].
Members of the WTO agree to be governed by a set of rules allowing for
a relatively open trading relationship among them.
For China to complete its accession to the WTO, it will have to
change many of its laws, institutions and policies to make them conform
with international trade rules. China must complete negotiations with
the WTO, and separately with its various trading partners within the
WTO, including the United States. China is the world's third largest
economy after the United States and Japan, and the largest not a member
of the WTO. It has the world's 10th largest trade economy. If we fail
to pass PNTR, our economic competitors in Europe and Japan will have
greater access to this huge and still-growing Chinese market--while our
own access will still be blocked. American business can compete
anywhere in the world and win--if it is given a relatively level
playing field. The bilateral agreement signed in November 1999 forces
China to remove protectionist barriers to its markets, while protecting
import-sensitive American industry from a flood of new Chinese imports.
The United States has made no significant concessions to China,
because we already have few barriers to our market. The agreement gives
our business equal access to the Chinese market. The American export
sector--which already accounts for 11 million jobs--will be
strengthened further. According to most experts, China is on the verge
of huge infrastructure expenditures over the next few years as it
attempts to catch up with Europe, Japan, and the United States. Most of
these projects will be contracted to Western firms. This could be a
boon to southwestern Connecticut. In 1998, the Stamford-Norwalk area
alone exported $86 million worth of goods to China.
There are some in Congress and throughout our country who want to
deny PNTR to China to punish it for its terrible human rights record.
But closing off China will not bring any improvement in the way it
treats its citizens. An isolated China will continue to repress its
population and forestall the onset of democracy and freedom. A nation
cannot engage in free trade without educating its citizens. The more
educated a country's citizens become, the more they want and are
empowered to demand an open society and freedom. In truth, the most
subversive action we can take towards the oppressive Chinese regime is
to encourage free trade. Communist hardliners argue the defeat of PNTR
will make it easier for them to thwart the movement toward democracy
and capitalism. In the absence of interaction with the United States,
these hardliners will be able to restrict communication, stop foreign
travel, and pull the plug on the Internet. Reform will wither on the
vine.
Taking a look at recent history, Communist dictatorships that had
interaction with the West--the Soviet Union, Poland, Romania and
Hungary--are dead. Those shut off from the rest of the world--Fidel
Castro's Cuba and Kim Jong Il's North Korea--are still brutalizing
their citizenry. For me, the issue is clear. PNTR is essential to our
full participation in the emerging economy of the future. We win access
to Chinese markets. China becomes exposed to the type of information
and prosperity that builds democracy and freedom. Candles give way to
electric lights. The horse and carriage gave way to the automobile.
Typewriters gave way to word processors and ocmputers. We cannot repeal
the law of gravity. We are in a world economy, and China is a large and
vital part of that economy. Permanent normal trade relations with China
should be approved by Congress and welcome by all Americans.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, this is an historic day for the
workers, business leaders, and reformers in China and the United
States. Today Congress has the opportunity to push our relations
forward by breaking down the walls surrounding China and supporting its
entrance into the World Trade Organization. As we cast our votes today,
I ask my colleagues to carefully consider the incredible potential this
opportunity offers for the Chinese and American people. Passing PNTR
supports freedom in China.
As long as China's barriers to the United States remain, our
relationship with the Chinese people will be restricted. By breaking
down Chinese barriers to trade, while enhancing our own protections, we
are creating new opportunities for American and Chinese people to work
together and develop new ways to agree. Bringing China into the WTO
will increase the exchange of cultures and ideas, which will in turn
foster new areas of cooperation and progress. This is the most
effective way to provide support for the reform-minded Chinese people
who need our help the most. On their behalf, Congress should extend
PNTR to China. Passing PNTR also supports the United States.
Some Members may come to the floor today to claim the United States
workforce and economy will suffer from greater competition with China.
However, these Members are misinformed. To the contrary, the United
States Trade Representative should be congratulated for her effective
negotiations. This

[[Page 9138]]

is a one-way deal. The United States will continue our current tariff
levels on all Chinese imports, with new protections, and in return
China will drop its average tariff level by 62 per cent. By voting yes,
only China will have to change its laws.
This vote is about the power of economic freedom and prosperity, as
displayed in the United States. It is true that as China expands into
the world markets of goods and services, the United States will face
new competition. It is also true that for the first time, the domestic
Chinese economy will face direct competition from the United States.
The American economy is leading the world--primarily as a result of the
strength of the American workforce. I have faith in the productivity
and entrepreneurial spirit of the American economy to continue this
leadership and find new opportunities for success in China. Congress
should embrace trade with China, and the competition it brings, because
this will lead to a higher standard of living for the people of the
United States as well as the people of China. That is how we make
progress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the
incredible opportunity this vote offers. On behalf of American and
Chinese workers, businesses, and reformers, I urge my colleagues to
support progress with China and vote for PNTR.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, to
authorize extension of permanent normal trade relations [PNTR] to the
People's Republic of China [PRC]. I do so because, fundamentally, I
believe that extending PNTR to the PRC is in the United States' short-
term and long-term national interest. Our economic interests and our
democratic values necessitate extending PNTR to the PRC.
Extending PNTR to the PRC is in our national interest because
extending PNTR is a necessary precondition for United States companies
to enjoy the full advantages of China's entry into the World Trade
Organization [WTO] and the fruits of thirteen years of difficult
bilateral negotiations between the PRC and the United States. For my
State of Delaware, this bilateral agreement opens perhaps the most
important emerging market to our exports, benefitting key industries
and creating export and employment opportunities. Extending PNTR to the
PRC would significantly benefit Delaware's key export sectors,
including agriculture, poultry, insurance, financial, and chemical
products.
According to the United States Department of Commerce, Delaware's
merchandise export sales to China in 1998 totaled $69 million, up 17
percent from $59 million in 1993, and China ranked as Delaware's 16th
largest export destination in 1998. Delaware's exports to China are
becoming more diversified, with 1998 exports encompassing 17 different
product categories, up from 12 product sectors in 1993. In twelve of
these product sectors, exports from Delaware to China more than doubled
from 1993 to 1998.
I believe those who claim that the PRC will benefit more from
receiving PNTR with the United States are mistaken. The United States
will greatly benefit from PNTR with China, because currently the United
States market is already open to Chinese exports. To join the WTO and
receive PNTR, China must make all the concessions--opening its markets,
eliminating barriers, and implementing comprehensive trade and
investment reforms. As a result, the terms for Chinese WTO membership
represent an extraordinary breakthrough for Delaware workers, farmers,
and consumers. Delaware clearly will have expanded opportunities to
extend its exports to Chinese markets, and ensuring that China adhere
to global trade rules is in Delaware's strong interests.
Because China has received Normal Trade Relations under United States
law annually since 1980, United States tariffs would remain exactly the
same if PNTR is approved. In contrast, failure by Congress to extend
PNTR would squander 14 years of negotiations, invite the unraveling of
China's extensive WTO commitments and shut American companies and
farmers out of the world's biggest emergency market for years to come.
The stakes involved are high. Trade is much more than the sale of
U.S. goods and services. It is also an exchange of ideas, beliefs, and
values that changes and enriches all who participate. When we trade
with China and bring it into the integrated global trading arena, we
are in a strong sense exporting our American democratic values, beliefs
and practices. To be sure, there are real hurdles that China faces with
our relationship with it, but engaging and enveloping and integrating
China into ``the world of trade'' is tremendously important. We realize
that implementing the agreements associated with PNTR will be slow and
difficult, but Chinese government leaders and economists hope the
process of normalizing trade with the United States will help close
inefficient state enterprises that employ a great number of Chinese,
and help reduce government censorship.
Like most Americans, I continue to be concerned that despite the
positive influence trade with the United States has had on China's
development toward more open, liberalized trade policies, serious human
rights, trade, security, and weapons proliferation issues remain.
Though sometimes it seems difficult to see how these things have
improved, I would observe the following: the number of international
religious missions operating openly in China has grown rapidly in
recent years. Today, these groups provide educational, humanitarian,
medical, and development assistance in communities across China.
Despite continued, documented acts of government oppression, people in
China nonetheless can worship, participate in communities of faith, and
move about the country much more freely today than was even imaginable
twenty years ago. Today, people can communicate with each other and the
outside world much more easily and with much less government
interference through the tools of business and trade: telephones, cell
phones, faxes and e-mail. On balance, foreign investment has introduced
positive new labor practices into the Chinese workplace, stimulating
growing aspirations for labor and human rights among Chinese workers.
Nevertheless, we must continue to work to improve human rights and
expand freedom in China. I have voted for legislation which
overwhelmingly passed the House that voiced my strong disapproval of
China's actions and policies. We can and must continue to place
pressure on China without punishing American businesses and farmers. I
have voted to direct House committees to hold hearings and report
appropriate legislation to the House addressing U.S. concerns with
China's trade practices, human rights record, military policy, and
promotion of weapons proliferation. I do not believe that the annual
congressional debate, linking justifiable concern for human rights and
religious freedom in China to the threat of unilateral United States
trade sanctions has been productive. Some will say, the debate on the
problems we have with China will end if we extend PNTR to China. To
those I say, the debate will never end, and the pressure will never
cease until China demonstrates a commitment to a freer and democratic
nation. Indeed, by extending PNTR to China, the pressure on China to
address our concerns may prove to be even greater and more consistent.
Clearly, the Chinese Government has a long way to go, and the
positive developments we seek will no doubt come about gradually. The
issue now before the House of Representatives is how to best encourage
China to respect international norms of behavior in all areas, and what
can the United States government do that will best advance human rights
and religious freedom for the people of China. Are conditions more
likely to improve through isolation and containment, or through opening
trade, investment, and exchange between peoples? The answer is clear to
me.
I believe the best way to encourage the type of behavior we desire is
through policies that promote the rule of law, free trade, economic
reform, and democratization in China, for these are the seeds from
which democracy can grow. Therefore, I believe the U.S. should continue
to pursue our historic and longstanding policy of ``engagement,''
rather than containment, with China, based on the premise that the
United States will be best able to influence the growth of democracy
and market-oriented policies in China through enhanced diplomatic and
trade ties, which over time will hopefully bring improvements in human
rights and economic conditions. The Chinese government in much more
likely to develop the rule of law and observe international norms of
behavior if it is recognized by the U.S. government as an equal,
responsible partner within the globalized trading community of nations.
History has shown that when people are empowered economically, they
also become empowered politically. Economic freedom precipitates
political freedom. China's citizens will come to have greater choice
about their lifestyles and employment and to enjoy enhanced access to
communication and information from the United States.
The longer China's trade is governed by the rule of law and is
transparent, the quicker they will assimilate into the global system of
trade, and raise their standard of living. U.S. private enterprises
trading with Chinese private enterprises will help change the status
quo between our nations better than any diplomatic agreements we may
enter into. As noted earlier, although I am dissatisfied with some of
China's recent actions, I am convinced we still need to maintain
mechanisms for engagement, and a functioning, bilateral trade
relationship provides a framework for helping to

[[Page 9139]]

restore our long-term interests in China. Human rights must not be
violated, and the U.S. will not trade with people who do not provide
their own citizens basic human rights and decencies. However, I believe
that entering into PNTR is in our national interest, and that not going
forward with it would undermine any competitiveness we have with China,
while it itself enjoys all the advantages that PNTR provides with every
other of the 133 WTO member-nations. China must adopt free and fair
trade practices, and we should help facilitate that as much as we can,
without sacrificing our values.
This legislation includes important authority to allow the Congress
to monitor China's compliance with this agreement. This includes a
process which would begin with an annual report from the U.S. Trade
Representative, followed by hearings on Chinese trade practices.
Congressional panels could then instruct our trade representative to
investigate any trade violation and pursue a resolution through the
WTO, the 135-member body that sets the rules for international trade.
Also included in this legislation is the establishment of a
congressional-executive commission that would pressure China to improve
its record on human rights, labor, and rule of law, providing for
enhanced monitoring of China's conduct in areas from trade to human
rights, as well as efforts to make labor rights a higher priority in
U.S. trade policy.
China is at a turning point in its history. A yes vote on normal
trade can help propel it forward to greater liberalization and
engagement with the West. A no vote will encourage Chinese hard-liners
to resist change, and even be perceived in China as a vote for
confrontation. It will weaken those who work for change, and strengthen
those who oppose it at any cost. Our choice is clear. We can try to
push China in the right direction, and gain the benefits, or, we can
force them in the wrong direction, and pay a price. But standing for
freedom, democracy, human rights, security and peace, we must extend
Permanent Normal Trade Relations to the People's Republic of China
today.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
4444, legislation which would grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations
[PNTR] status to China.
To be honest, the idea of permanently altering our relationship with
China troubles me. We have been wooed into complacency with the trade
agreements hammered out last fall in the WTO accession negotiations.
But the million dollar question that no one seems to be asking is: If
China plans to abide by their promises, why are they--and why are we--
afraid of a yearly review? The fact is that China has repeatedly
violated trade agreements and has all but acknowledged that this time
will be no different. Why do we think that a permanent extension will
be the magic tool to make China suddenly change their ways? It defies
logic. In fact, PNTR commends the existing track record of violations
and noncompliance. A yearly review of our trade relationship with China
may not be the ideal way to promote change. It is, at best, a blunt
instrument. But it is one of the only mechanisms we have today to
highlight this regime's lack of compliance with internationally
accepted norms. The PNTR advocates have conjured up a crisis in which
only approval will save the day and U.S. face. This is a farce and a
mistake that will overshadow any prospect for real progress on key
human rights and economic justice issues that affect China/U.S.
relations.
Repeatedly, China's government has proven itself to be one of the
most oppressive in the entire world. Many of my colleagues are willing
to turn a blind eye toward these injustices--clamoring to capitalize on
a promise of economic gain, with indifference to the human indignities
upon which it may be built. But even this ``expanded market'' rationale
is flawed. If China were indeed a market for ``Made in the USA'' goods,
expanding trade could have the potential of boosting our economy and
helping working Chinese families. And conversely, if we were importing
goods from Chinese owned businesses, we might have a small opportunity
to promote free enterprise with China. However, neither one of these
scenarios reflect reality. American companies merely use China as a
production platform--a manufacturing site for goods, which are then
sold in the United States for inflated profit! Jobs that have
traditionally provided American workers with living wage employment
within the USA and a real chance to join the middle class are being--
and will continue to be--exported to China, where companies can exploit
the labor conditions and people. The notion that somehow this trade
policy will turn China around on a dime is wishful thinking; it is time
to face reality and get our heads out of the clouds.
Why would we lower the standards and protections that provide the
foundation of our economy and prosperity? Trade pacts have too often
been the Trojan Horse that undermines progress in emerging areas not
only in the host of human rights issues, but also environmental policy,
health, and safety standards.
Don't vote for the PNTR proposition that says; ``Heads we win, tails
you lose.'' This, simply put, is a false syllogism, a created crisis
that will lead to higher trade deficits with little prospect for a
sound economic or social order in U.S./China policy. Amendments and
study commissions aren't the answer. Congress doesn't have to reinvent
itself and set up special groups, in essence trying ourselves and our
deliberation process in knots to justify oversight and some phony
``monitoring'' scheme. If Members of Congress can't vote now on the
reality of the situation before us, what would lead the PNTR advocates
to believe we would be more willing once this policy is actually in
place?
I will not vote to relinquish ability to annually review China's
record, to advocate for my constituents' interests, and to promote the
core values that have sustained our nation as the world's most
successful economy and the promise for individual human rights around
the globe. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this
legislation.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4444, a
bill that will grant permanent normal trade relations to China. This
agreement is a tool U.S. farmers and ranchers can use to their great
benefit.
China represents an agriculture market that is vital to the long-term
success of American farmers and ranchers. Agriculture trade with China
can strengthen development of private enterprise in that country and
bring China more fully into world trade membership.
The economic benefits of this agreement for U.S. agriculture are
clear. China's participation in the WTO will result in a least $2
billion per year in additional U.S. agricultural exports by 2005.
More than 80 U.S. agricultural groups support extending permanent
normal trade relations to China. This is what a few of them have to say
about the benefits of the U.S.-China agreement.
The U.S. wheat growers say that PNTR with China represents a
potential 10% increase in U.S. wheat exports.
U.S. pork producers believe that China PNTR could pave the way for an
increase in the value of hogs by $5 per head.
Poultry producers say that because China is already the largest U.S.
export market for poultry ($350 million in 1999), under PNTR, it could
become a $1 billion market in a few years.
Cattle producers believe that a vote against China PNTR is a vote
against them. They expect to almost triple beef exports to China by
2005.
U.S. corn growers believe they have the opportunity to immediately
triple their 5-year average of corn exports to China with acceptance of
permanent normal trade relations.
Some who oppose normal trade relations with China will say that China
has an agricultural glut and will never buy U.S. agricultural products.
That is not true according to USDA's Economic Research Service. They
say that China's accession to the WTO means that U.S. farmers and
ranchers can sell an additional $1.6 billion worth of staple
commodities by 2005. On top of that, $400 million of U.S. fruits,
vegetables, and animal products can be sold by 2005 with China's entry
to the WTO. That's $2 billion more of agricultural exports by 2005.
Still others argue that China is self-sufficient in agricultural
production, that it produces enough to feed its own people and it does
not need U.S. commodities. The trade numbers do not reflect that at
all.
According to the United Nations statistics, during the 6-year period
ending in 1998, China was a net importer of agriculture products every
year. During this period, China's average trade deficit was $5.5
billion for agricultural products. If fish and forestry are included
with other agricultural products, the deficit goes up to $6.9 billion.
The Worldwatch Institute Chairman Lester Brown says that China's
water supplies in its grain-producing areas are falling at a high rate.
He sees massive grain imports and growing dependence on U.S. grain.
China imports large amounts of U.S. agriculture commodities right now,
some through Hong Kong ($2.5 billion in 1999 of agricultural, fish and
forestry products). As the diets of the Chinese improve, there will be
more demand for high quality agriculture products and valued added food
products. This is what U.S. farmers and the food industry can provide
to Chinese consumers.
China has access to the U.S. market right now. China will become a
member of the WTO and after its accession will still have access to the
U.S. market. The vote on normal

[[Page 9140]]

trade relations with China will decide whether U.S. agriculture will
have improved access to the Chinese market or will cede that market to
the competitors of U.S. agriculture.
Without approval of H.R. 4444, or agricultural competitors around the
world will gain the benefit of the agreement negotiated by the United
States with China and our farmers and ranchers will not. We cannot
allow that to happen.
Without approval of H.R. 4444, no enforcement mechanisms will be
available and the U.S. will not be able to use WTO dispute settlement
provisions, a critical weapon to ensure U.S. trading rights. The
ability to enforce tariff rate quotas will be undermined. The U.S.
could not challenge Chinese export or domestic subsidies that hurt U.S.
exports in other markets. We could not enforce the benefits of the
sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that was negotiated with the
Chinese and is important to U.S. citrus, wheat and meat producers.
Additionally, the special safeguard provisions, to protect against
import surges, negotiated by the U.S. would not be available.
The economic case for supporting permanent normal trade relations
with China has been made, especially for U.S. agriculture. It is
crystal clear; we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4444. A vote for this
bill is a vote of support for United States farmers and ranchers.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, as we enter into debate today on normalizing
trade with China, there are certain realities which must be
acknowledged. Reality one, the human rights abuses in Chinese today are
abominable. China continues to deny its citizens the most basic of
human rights: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of
worship. Reality two, China will enter into the World Trade
Organization whether Congress passes PNTR or not. Reality three,
isolating China from the United States and the rest of world, will not
improve human rights for the Chinese.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) for including an essential human rights provision in the
Levin-Bereuter package--increasing authorization funding for
international broadcasting operations in China and neighboring
countries.
A fundamental prerequisite to political and economic freedom is an
informed citizenry. One of the best and most cost-effective ways to
help enhance the respect for human rights abroad is to disseminate
reliable information that serves to foster the spirit of democracy in
closed societies. Arming citizens with reliable, accurate information
will eventually enable them the power to create change. By doing so,
not only is the U.S. interest served by helping to spread democracy,
but democratic activists are also empowered to challenge the status
quo.
Successful in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty provided this accurate information to help bring
down the Iron Curtain. Radio Free Asia as a surrogate for a free press
in the People's Republic of China, along with Voice of America, provide
an invaluable source of uncensored information to the Chinese people.
RFA currently broadcasts 24-hours a day in three languages in China
(plus Tibetan in Tibet), and VOA broadcasts 126 hours a week in three
languages with five hours a week of television.
Unfortunately, however, many of these signals do not reach the
intended audience because of the jamming practices of the Chinese
government. Stronger signals are needed to counteract this jamming.
Internet is a medium increasingly used by the Chinese, however the
government jams these sites as well.
The number of Chinese who risk their lives by listening to RFA and
VOA is staggering. More staggering is the number of Chinese who put
their lives in jeopardy by calling into RFA's ``call in'' shows. In the
first three months of this year alone, RFA reported an average of
27,200 calls per month. Unfortunately, due to the limited resources of
RFA less than 2% of these callers were able to speak with RFA
broadcasters. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world.
Surely, during this time of unparalleled economic boom we can find a
few more dollars in our budget to provide resources so these callers,
callers who risk their lives by simply picking up a telephone, may be
allowed to have their voices heard.
As China struggles with democracy, human rights and freedom, the
importance of independent media sources cannot be underestimated. The
Chinese government will be less likely to commit abuses (if RFA and VOA
are shining light on their injustices while promoting democracy and an
understanding of our country. If we hope to bring stability and
democracy to Asia, we must not isolate the largest country in the
world. We must not turn our backs on the those fighting for freedom and
the rule of law. I support extending permanent normal trade relations
with China and do not oppose China's entry in the World Trade
Organization. I strongly believe that membership in the WTO can be used
as a catalyst for reform in China. Through greater involvement in the
world community and economic liberalization, China will become a more
responsible nation, with one day a reality of respecting human rights
and the rule of law.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my support for H.R.
4444, legislation to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to grant normal trade
relations to China. I support H.R. 4444 because I believe this
legislation will not only open Chinese markets to United States
products, but will also serves as the next best step we can take in our
relationship with China.
I believe I join all of my colleagues in saying that I have serious
concerns about the Chinese government, most specifically the current
trade deficit, national security concerns, and human rights violations.
In 1980, we first granted China annual Most Favored Nation (MFN)
status, now known more accurately as Normal Trade Relations (NTR). The
nature of the annual review was supposed to give the U.S. leverage in
negotiations with China. However, since then, annual renewal has become
just another exercise, and I believe H.R. 4444 will put us back on the
path towards results. We need to be engaged with China, and to be an
influence in China in order to have an effect on how that nation
governs.
China is going to join the World Trade Organization regardless of
what this Congress does today. The question is whether the United
States is going to take advantage of China being a member of the WTO
and allow our farmers and manufacturers access to this market. We know
other countries will.
One critical aspect of China's ascension to the WTO is that it will
change the leverage. The U.S. doesn't have to stand alone anymore in
our disputes with China, but rather, we will stand along with the
entire 169 nations of the WTO. Everyone in this room knows that the WTO
is not a perfect organization with perfect policies, but every meeting
of WTO member countries brings new ideas and suggestions for improving
the organization. The U.S. will sit at the table while the WTO evolves
its policies and lives up to the name World Trade Organization. The
only alternative, two nations battling it out, is much less effective,
as history has also demonstrated.
History has taught us some valuable lessons about dealing with
foreign nations. We have learned from experience that isolation does
not work. We don't even have to travel one hundred miles from Florida
to see a perfect example of trade sanctions gone awry. The 1970s
embargo against the then Soviet Union is another prime example of
failed isolationism. The Soviets laughed at the U.S., while our farmers
suffered. History has taught us that engagement is the key to results.
Engagement allows us to address our concerns about a foreign nation's
policies, all while expanding opportunities to our own farmers and
manufacturers.
World trade is critically important for agriculture, and 23 percent
of Iowa's entire workforce is in some way tied to agriculture.
Everything is connected--almost 40 percent of our entire economy relies
on trade with other countries. Today's vote has been described in terms
of ``granting'' something to China, but it really means jobs for Iowans
and new customers for Iowa businesses.
To me, the most important aspect of China's ascension is that it will
even the decks on trade tariffs. For too long, the tariffs on U.S.
goods going into China have proven insurmountable for farmers and
manufacturers in my district who wish to export to China. The deal
struck by Ambassador Barshefky will open doors that have been closed
for too long.
Opponents of this deal like to claim that it opens the U.S. to China.
Apparently, they haven't looked at the trade agreement, and I would
also guess that they haven't been out shopping since 1980. Everytime I
walk in a store, I pick up products with a ``Made in China'' label on
them. The agreement we are voting on today is one-way; our way. It
opens the doors for America, not the doors of America.
A farmer from my district, Dave Kronlage of Delaware County, traveled
out to Washington on February 16, 2000, to testify before the Ways and
Means Committee about China. Dave has done everything he can to profit
from his business, including minimizing his risks and by joining with
area farmers to create their own meat company, Delaware County Meats.
Dave and other farmers, however, are running out of options for
increasing their profitability. He told the Committee that China's
ascension to the WTO will provide an estimated 7.7 percent increase to
his income. In

[[Page 9141]]

Dave's view, the next move belongs to Congress, and the next move will
be made today.
In 1996, we made farmers three promises, to reduce taxation, to
reduce regulations, and improve access to foreign markets. We can stand
here and argue about how successful Congress has been at the first two,
but I don't think there is anyone in this body that will claim that
Congress or the President has helped open new markets to farmers. Now
is our chance to rectify this shortfall.
My state is the nation's largest pork, corn, and soybean-producing
state. Last year, China's increase in pork consumption was roughly
equal to the pork produced in Iowa. Yet, we sold not one pork chop to
China last year. While pork producers like Dave Kronlage saw their
equity evaporate through $8 per hundredweight prices last year, trade
with China was not an option.
Normal trade relations with China will put Iowa pork chops, Iowa
corn, and Iowa manufactured goods on the shopping lists of 1.3 billion
Chinese people. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman estimates
agriculture exports will triple, putting another $5 per head in the
pockets of Iowa pork producers, and increasing demand for Iowa corn by
360 million bushels. That's the total annual corn production by every
one of the 21 counties in Iowa's Second District.
The U.S. produces far more food and manufactured goods than Americans
can possibly consume. That means we have to find customers outside the
boundaries of the United States. We cannot ignore 1.3 billion customers
in China, watch them shop elsewhere, and expect this country to
continue as a leader in the world economy.
With one vote, we can hand a market of 1.3 billion people to our
farmers, and simply say ``Better late than never.'' Now is the time.
This is the best move to make for farmers and manufacturers in the U.S.
This is the best move to make for advancing relations with China that
could lead to meaningful changes in China's style of governing. And
this is the best move for this Congress to make for the future of our
economy. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4444.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I, like many of my colleagues, have spent a
great deal of time talking and listening to my constituents on the
issue of granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China.
I have heard from a wide range of voices. These voices represent
America's broadly based interests, reflecting our democratic values,
like free speech, freedom of religion, the right to privacy, and the
right to organize. I have heard from workers in my district who fear
they would lose their jobs to China. I have heard from environmental
activities who are angry that China has made no attempt to adhere to
environmental standards.
And I have heard from many constituencies who are deeply troubled by
the religious, political, and human rights oppression China has
continued to engage in. Veterans have approached me with their concerns
about the well-documented violations of human rights. Religious groups
and individuals have called and written about China's lack of true
religious freedom. Women activists are outraged by the forced abortions
that continue in China. Students at the University of Wisconsin oppose
the forced labor and inhumane working conditions that continue to
plague Chinese workers.
After listening to the broad range of my constituents's concerns, I
cannot in good conscience vote to grant China Permanent Normal Trade
Relations and put profit over labor, environmental and human rights.
China has violated every trade agreement over the past twenty years
and Chinese officials are already backing away from commitments they
made only months ago. I believe we must broaden our policy of
engagement with China and restore the link between human rights and
trade.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, the House gathers today to consider an issue
of seminal importance for the national interests of the United States:
the case for Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China and
China's prospective membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO).
There can be little doubt that this is the most consequential foreign
policy legislation upon which this Congress has been asked to address
in the new millennium. Impressively, the vast majority of Members
appear united on the principle that it is in the interests of the
United States to develop a credible strategy for integrating China into
the world economy as a responsible power that accepts international
political and trading norms. What is at issue is means, not ends; that
is, whether granting PNTR advances U.S. interests and values in modern
China.
In my judgment, approving PNTR for China is in the enlightened self-
interest of the people of the United States and of China. It promotes
our economic well-being by opening Chinese markets to American goods
and services. It advances our interest in a rules-based international
trading system by helping to ``lock-in'' Chinese reforms, economic
restructuring, and a commitment to orderly globalization. China's
accession to the WTO, in turn, also paves the way for a long-overdue
entry by a democratic Taiwan into the global trading body.
China's entry into the WTO, coupled with permanent normal trade
relations, opens up substantial commercial advantages to the United
States. With market-opening commitments in agriculture, banking and
financial services, telecommunications and a panoply of other
industries, Americans and other exporters will have much greater access
to a market that reflects fully one-fifth of the world's population.
Credible estimates suggest that the market-opening concessions that
would accompany PNTR would boost U.S. exports to China by around $3
billion or close to a 15% increase in current U.S. exports to China.
Indeed, the math is on our side. While we frequently have 3 to 5
percent tariffs on Chinese goods coming into our country, they just as
frequently have 30 to 50 percent tariffs on American goods shipped to
China. This agreement negligibly effects America's tariff structure,
but dramatically reduces Chinese levies, down in must instances to the
single digit level.
The Committee on Banking and Financial Services has jurisdiction over
certain macro-economic issues as well as the financial services
industry in particular. With regard to commercial products, China
maintains unfairly high tariffs, which this PNTR approach is designed
to reduce. With regard to financial services, China maintains arbitrary
non-tariff barriers, which this PNTR approach is designed to dismantle.
Reduction in Chinese tariffs and non-tariff barriers is self-apparently
in the U.S. national interest. Not insignificantly, commerce follows
finance. If we fail to pass PNTR, China will simply import fewer
manufactured goods and farm products from the United States. It will be
German, French and Japanese banks which will enter China and, by so
doing, facilitate exports from the companies they serve in their own
countries. America will remain an import haven, but opportunities for
building export jobs here at home will be denied to American workers.
Here, I would emphasize a fatal flaw of failing to approve PNTR--it
would leave the U.S. unable to apply WTO rules and obligations on the
Chinese government, including standards of openness and reciprocity as
well as mechanisms for dispute resolution. In other words, American
farmers, workers and consumers would be denied the market-opening and
rules-based trade benefits that China would otherwise be obligated to
embrace, and our European and Japanese competitors would be given
extraordinary market advantages in China.
In this regard, it must be stressed that although our economic ties
to China have grown rapidly in recent years, so too has the size of our
trade deficit. It is time American leaders make the fundamental point
that normal trade relations are all about reciprocity. A billion dollar
a week trade deficit is politically and economically unsustainable,
particularly if China's market is closed to American products or biased
in favor of products and services from other countries.
The best way for countries to have good sustainable political
relations is to have reciprocal open markets, and the best way to
achieve reciprocity in trade is to get politics out of economics and
competition into the market.
Balanced and mutually beneficial trade is a cornerstone of good Sino-
American relations. Likewise, unbalanced trade contains the smoldering
prospect of social rupture. Hence, little is more in the U.S. interest
than to promote reform and liberalization of China's economic, trade,
and investment regimes and to bind China to the rules of international
commerce.
For some, the PNTR issue has come to symbolize concerns about
globalization and the increased integration of the world economy
through trade flows, capital flows, and high-speed information
technology. While angst exists in some segments of the American public,
as in all publics, about competition and globalization, the historical
record affirms that market systems based on free trade and the rule of
law lead to higher standards of living than systems based on political
isolation or economic autarky.
Protectionism is particularly harmful in the credit, securities, and
savings industries because the general economy is dependent on each. In
the U.S. today approximately one-fourth of banking assets and one-third
of commercial loans are made by foreign entities.

[[Page 9142]]

While some may be startled by these statistics, in general, Americans
consider foreign financial competition good for the nation's economy
and believe it would be even more so in developing countries such as
China, which need to build a financial system that can allocate capital
on a market basis. Hence, one of the most beneficial and far-reaching
aspects of our bilateral WTO accession agreement is China's commitment
to undertake the progressive dismantling of barriers to foreign
investment in its financial services industry.
More broadly, Beijing's commitment to the rules and obligations of a
WTO-based framework should help support China's transition to a modern
market economy based on the rule of law. As the world's most populous
nation, China's successful management of economic and social reform is
very much in the interest of the U.S. and the broader global economy.
Joining the WTO binds China to a set of rules, which limits the ability
of government officials to capriciously change market rules to advance
personal or vested interests. This will help Chinese reformers lay the
basis for a rule-based economy that is the best hope for controlling
pervasive official corruption. In this context, it deserves stressing
that government centered, managed trade provides fertile ground for
corrupt practices. On the other hand, free trade under the rule of law
is an economic framework where social corruption has a more difficult
time flourishing.
Many Americans, including Members of Congress, are vexed by the human
rights record of China and are concerned by the pace of economic and
political change in China. On the other hand, experience teaches that
the political system that best fits economic free enterprise is
reflected in democratic political institutions of, by, and for the
people. Advancing freely associated economic ties with the West under
the rubric of internationally accepted trade rules has one principal
political side effect: it builds bridges to democracy. Quixotic
attempts to isolate China economically run the great risk of
exacerbating human rights abuses, stunting prospects of establishing
democratic institutions, and causing intemperate international actions.
Chinese society is changing far more rapidly than most Americans
realize. The late Deng Xiaoping underscored the new Chinese pragmatism
with his cat and mice metaphor, and by promoting ``socialism with
Chinese characteristics.'' Twenty years of ad hoc, pragmatic economic
reforms have moved China from the chaos of the Cultural Revolution to
unprecedented economic development and largely peaceful social change,
quadrupling the standard of living and laying the foundation for
systemic reforms. Indeed, despite indefensible examples of continued
political repression, against groups like the Falun Gong and liberal
intellectuals, China may be changing as rapidly as any other country in
the world. While a communist style political apparatus remains
ensconced at the top of Chinese society, at local government levels,
experiments with democratic elections are occurring and at the
individual and family levels, free speech has become increasingly the
norm. In sharp contrast with the period of Mao's Cultural Revolution
there is little question that China has become a far more open society
than it was just a generation ago when Deng inaugurated his period of
``opening and reform.''
Nonetheless, China's economic and social system cannot develop to its
fullest unless the rule of law and its associated rights-including
freedom of speech and of the press, due process for disputes over
contractual obligations, and a judiciary that efficiently and fairly
adjudicates disputes--are made central tenets of Chinese life. As the
development of a modern market economy impacts on politics, Beijing's
leaders can be expected to recognize the incompatibility of free
enterprise and an authoritarian political system. Instability is simply
too easily unleashed in society when governments fail to provide
safeguards for individual rights and fail to erect political
institutions adaptable to change and accountable to the people.
Lastly, establishing permanent normal trade will help foster a
stable, mutually beneficial Sino-American relationship, a bilateral
relationship that is of profound importance to the future of peace and
prosperity not just in Asia, but for the world. Here, a note about
Taiwan is important. It is no accident that people in Taiwan as well as
Hong Kong strongly favor America normalizing trade relations with
Beijing. The opposite--nonnormal trade--presents too many opportunities
for friction in an area desperate for normalcy and stability.
From a historical perspective free trade is a natural extension of
the open door policy that hallmarked American involvement in China at
the end of the 19th century. Rejecting PNTR would effectively drive a
stake through the heart of our economic ties with China and place in
grave jeopardy the future of our relationship with one-fifth of the
world's population.
Whether the 21st century is peaceful and whether it is prosperous
will most of all depend on whether the world's most populous country
can live with itself and become open to the world in a fair and
respectful manner. How the United States, its allies, and the
international system responds to the complexities and challenges of
modern China is also one of the central foreign policy challenges of
our time.
Failure to approve PNTR would not be responsive to that challenge. It
would not effectively address our legitimate concerns on human rights,
nonproliferation, relations across the Taiwan straits, or trade. On the
contrary, rejection of PNTR would go back on our open door tradition
and suggest that China and the United States can not maintain
cooperative relations. It would be a vote with destabilizing
consequences for the region and beyond.
Ironically, in this seminal foreign policy vote, the president's
political opposition is willing to share the obligations of governance
despite electoral advantage that would accrue in refusing to adopt a
bipartisan approach. Republicans are generally prepared to be
supportive of the president's initiative because the majority consider
PNTR to be key to peace, stability, and prosperity in the 21st century.
It would be tragic, and I might say unprecedented in the post World War
II era in any Western democracy, if the majority of the
administration's own party fails to support its President on what is
almost certainly the Executive Branch's most important foreign policy
initiative.
The irony that should not go unnoticed is that after all the discord
between the Executive and Legislative branches over the past several
years the President's own party may produce a vote of no-confidence in
the President while the Republicans in this instance support his
foreign policy judgment.
In the strongest possible terms, I urge my colleagues to cast a vote
with majority support in both parties in favor of this crucial economic
and foreign policy measure. Absent a Democratic as well as Republican
stamp of approval, foreign economic policy will be seen at home and
abroad as subject to capricious change in Congress if there is a shift
in party control.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4444,
which grants the president authority to extend permanent normal trade
relations (PNTR) with the People's Republic of China, and I urge our
colleagues to adopt the measure.
Mr. Speaker, as we all recognize, the decision before us is of
historic dimension and is one of the most important actions taken by
this Congress. The arguments for and against granting PNTR to China are
exceedingly broad and complex. The stakes, too, are tremendous, as it
involves the destiny of the most populous nation with one-quarter of
planet's inhabitants, the future of America's economic strength and
vitality, and perhaps the very stability of the world.
I commend my colleagues and deeply respect their commitment
regardless of their position on the issue before us, for there are
valid and compelling arguments to be made on both sides.
On this matter, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few observations. After
examining the November 1999 trade agreement negotiated by the United
States with China, it is abundantly clear that granting PNTR to China
to facilitate its entry into the World Trading Organization (WTO) will
bring innumerable trade benefits to America.
Under the trade agreement, China must dramatically reduce tariffs,
phase out quotas, and open up closed market sectors, while the U.S.
simply maintains the status quo with no further trade concessions to
China. It is truly a one-way deal in our favor. Ensuring that China and
the U.S. trade on a level playing field, with WTO enforcement, should
go a long way toward rectifying our present trade imbalance.
On the other hand, if we fail to grant PNTR to China, Mr. Speaker,
China will still enter the WTO but will not be obligated to extend WTO
trade benefits to the U.S. This will significantly reduce U.S. trade
and investment with China. I believe our economic competitors in
Europe, Japan and Asia will welcome our absence in China, Mr. Speaker,
and through the WTO take advantage of China's market-openings to our
detriment.
Although the trade incentives for extending China PNTR are obvious
and apparent, Mr. Speaker, the most important consideration for me
concerns what will best promote democratization and continued
political, social and human rights progress in China.
On that point, Mr. Speaker, I find most persuasive and enlightening
the voices of those Chinese who have been persecuted and are among
China's most ardent and vocal critics--

[[Page 9143]]

individuals who would be expected to take a hard line stance against
the Beijing government.
For example, look at prominent dissident Bao Tong, who has urged the
U.S. Congress to pass PNTR as it would hasten China's entry into the
WTO, forcing adherence to international standards of conduct and
respect for the rule of law. Bao has noted that the annual
Congressional trade reviews have not been effective to improve human
rights in China and other tools must be sought.
Xie Wanjun, an exiled leader of Tiananmen Square democracy protests
and organizer of the China Democracy Party, supports PNTR and the China
trade deal. Xie states, ``The closer and economic relationships between
the United States and China, the more chances for the United States to
monitor human rights in China and the more effective for the United
States to push China to launch political reforms.''
Longtime dissident, Ren Wanding, who has been jailed for 11 out of
the last 21 years, states, ``If you really want China to change, then
you should approve PNTR. If you want to isolate China and see it get
worse, then it will get worse and worse.''
Mr. Speaker, these Chinese democracy activists, along with Wang Dan,
Dai Qing, Zhou Litai and other prominent dissidents, urge that the U.S.
extend PNTR to China. Joining their voices are other Chinese leaders
who have opposed Beijing's communist control, including Hong Kong's
Democratic Party Chairman Martin Lee and Taiwan's new President Chen
Shui-bian. Both Lee and Chen have called for normalization of trade
relations between the U.S. and China and WTO accession by China.
Mr. Speaker, we should listen to the wisdom of these courageous
Chinese, whose credentials are impeccable and who clearly have the
interests of all of the Chinese people at heart. They know that it is
absolutely crucial and vital for continued political, social and human
rights progress in China that the U.S. maintain and expand its presence
there through trade.
The Chinese people thirst for U.S. engagement because America, and
everything it represents, is the only nation with the power, the
conscience, and the fortitude to push for true reforms and democracy in
China.
Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to hear the pleas of the Chinese
people for a brighter future. It is in their best interests, as well as
ours, that we extend permanent trade relations to China by adoption of
the legislation before us.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of establishing
Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
Mr. Speaker, China is a rogue nation. Totalitarians and Communists
rule it. These leaders oppress their people and deny the basic freedoms
and religious liberties that we hold so dear here in America. China
regularly fails to abide by standards of good citizenship in the
community of nations. China's officials have been tied with attempts to
influence the 1996 elections in the United States through contributions
to the Democratic National Committee. This nation's spies have stolen
our nuclear technology. It sells missile technology to Iran and North
Korea and regularly threatens war against Taiwan.
It is in this environment that Congress must decide whether we should
continue our annual renewal of normal trade relations (NTR) for China,
and forego the benefits of lower tariffs and increased access to
China's markets, or grant permanent normal trade relations, (PNTR) for
China. I believe firmly that this vote affects the advancement of
America's national interests, including national security, human
rights, religious liberty, and commerce and American jobs.
With very few measures have I so deeply struggled with determining
the best course of action, and with identifying what is right or wrong
for America. After carefully considering all the facts, and reviewing
the notes and letters and calls from my constituents, I believe that
our best hope for advancing American national interests in China is
fulfilled by granting PNTR to China. Moreover, failing to do so today
would damage America's interests, in national security, human rights
and religious freedoms, and American commerce and jobs.
Let me first address the matter of American national security. I can
assure you that since nearly losing my life fighting communism in
Vietnam, the matter of what action best represents America's national
security interests is a matter which I take very seriously. Beijing has
exhibited poor citizenship in the world. It tested missiles in the
Taiwan Straits on the eve of free elections in Taiwan. It has sold
missiles and weapons materials to rogue terrorist nations. It smuggled
AK-47 rifles into the United States, bound for Los Angeles street
gangs. It increased its defense budget 40 percent over the past several
years.
However, in light of this current and emerging national security
concern, I believe it is only through American engagement, through the
extension of PNTR to China, that provides the best hope to advance
America's national security interests in China and East Asia. I am
under no illusion that by extending PNTR to China will work miracles in
the advancement of our national security. It will not. Yet, the penalty
for sacrificing our engagement in China by not granting PNTR is much
worse. Denying PNTR to China will not keep China out of the WTO.
Denying PNTR to China will not protect Taiwan, which is why the
government leaders of Taiwan support granting PNTR to China. Rather,
denying PNTR to China would bring instability to this critically
important area of the world. Denying PNTR to China would force the
Beijing regime away from the United States, undermine advocates for
democracy in China, and drive China away from the community of law-
abiding countries, into the arms of the world's terrorist nations.
Thus, I conclude that it is in America's national security interest
to encourage American engagement in China and support PNTR for China.
Secondarily, Mr. Speaker, let me address the issue of religious
liberty and freedom for the people of China. Again, Beijing's record in
this field is repugnant to the cause of freedom. Its list of crimes
against freedom goes on and on. Beijing oppresses the Buddhist people
of Tibet, and the Muslims of Xinjiang. It strictly limits the rights of
Christians from meeting or owning religious materials. It practices a
population policy that includes forced abortion and sterilization. It
has detained, jailed, and killed its dissidents. It severely restricts
the activities of people of faith, and imprisons priests and ministers,
and closes house churches that attempt to teach religion free from the
reach of the Beijing regime.
Given this challenge, what action advances America's national
interest in this area? I conclude that our national interest for
religious liberty and freedom is best advanced by extending PNTR to
China. Through American engagement we advance American values, through
the export of commerce and culture, directly into the lives of Chinese
citizens. While I respect the views of my friends at the Family
Research Council and other family organizations who strongly oppose
extending PNTR to China, it is also true that several U.S.-based
organizations that support Christian missionaries in China support PNTR
for China. The case for greater commerce with China can, therefore, be
cast favorably not just in commercial terms, but in moral terms, as an
engine of liberty and freedom in an oppressed nation. This is why many
of our nation's most respected religious leaders, from Billy Graham to
Pat Robertson, have called for keeping the door to China open.
I agree that PNTR for China will not work miracles for the people of
China. It will not directly free a single person wrongly imprisoned by
the communist government of China. However, Wang Juntao, the leader of
the protests at Tiananmen Square several years back, has said this: ``I
prefer to choose `yes' . . . Both fundamental change in the human
rights situation and democratization in China will come from efforts by
Chinese within China. The more the relationship between the two
countries expands, the more space there will be for independent forces
to grow in China. Such independent forces will eventually push China
toward democracy.''
American commerce with China will give the Chinese people a taste of
economic freedom, and economic freedom will pave a path toward more
political and religious freedom.
Lastly, I would like to address the matter of commerce and American
jobs with the world's most populous nation. Companies in San Diego
engage in significant exports in China. Among these are Solar Turbines,
Cubic, Qualcomm, Jet Products, and several other firms large and small,
which engage in manufacturing, telecommunications, television,
computers, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and many other industries,
employing thousands of San Diegans in good high tech, high skill, high
wage jobs. Furthermore, many Americans jobs are dependent on imports
from China. These include high-tech jobs in the computer hardware and
electronic device industries, and hundreds of thousands of lower-tech
jobs, including retailers with shops all across America. In addition,
American consumers rely on the ability to purchase goods made in China.
The vote before us today is about granting American companies access
to China. This vote and WTO membership for China only lowers China's
tariffs and China's barriers to trade. This action will allow American
companies to increase distribution in China, allowing more goods to be
made in America and exported. This bill will allow American financial
service companies and insurance companies unprecedented access to
China's markets.

[[Page 9144]]

Our action today will benefit all Americans through greater exports,
investment, and opportunity in China.
I want to remind my colleagues that this vote is not a goal line.
This is not the end of our duty to the American people on this issue,
nor is this the last time that we must face the burden of addressing
the shortcomings of China. To use a football analogy, this is another
first down in our relationship with China. Since President Nixon
returned to China, our relationship has been growing and China has
changed. Since I was there 20 years ago, China is a better place.
If we are to continue moving China in the right direction during the
next 10-20 years, we must assure that certain conditions are in place
to foster that development.
We need a President who will not sell secrets to China for campaign
contributions;
A Vice-President that will show leadership and distinguish right from
wrong;
A State Department and Commerce Department that will fight for
America's interests and not devalue national security concerns for
business expediency;
A Department of Defense that has a strong leadership and the support
and funding necessary to defend America and protect our servicemen and
women;
And intelligence organizations with the assets and direction to
protect our strategic and economic interests here and abroad.
Right now we have none of these things. And because of the repeated
failures of the Clinton-Gore administration on China policy, Congress
must exercise leadership in the United States-China relationship. Here
in the People's House, we must remember that America is the world's
leader in human rights, religious freedoms and peace and prosperity.
I want to close by sharing a recent experience I had in Vietnam.
Several years ago, my good friend Rep. Hal Rogers asked me to accompany
him to Vietnam to raise the flag and reopen our embassy there. My first
response to him was no. I did not want to return to Vietnam. I had lost
too many friends and had too many memories of my time there to return.
Then Pete Peterson, now our Ambassador to Vietnam, who was then our
colleague, called me. Pete said, ``Duke, I was a POW. It is tough for
me to return to Vietnam, I need you to help me return there and raise
America's flag.'' To Pete I said ``yes.'' So I returned to Vietnam.
While I was there I toured old target sites and met with people who
had led the Vietnamese Army we fought against. One of those was the
head of the Vietnamese security forces. He is now the Mayor of Hanoi.
He shared with us many of his thoughts and views on the United States
relationship with Vietnam and his views on Communism.
When our conversation turned to questions, I asked him why Vietnam
was not moving to open trade with the United States. And I will always
remember what he said.
He said, ``Congressman, we are communists. If we allow trade with
America, our people will have things. They will have property and be
able to own things without our control. That, Congressman, will hurt us
and weaken our control over the people.''
When he finished, I thought to myself--``trade is good.''
Mr. Speaker, expanding trade with China advances America's national
interests. Expanded trade will help us weaken the hold of the dictators
in Beijing, bring economic prosperity and greater stability to the
entire Far East region, and carry American values of freedom and
liberty into China.
Mr. Speaker, trade is good.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4444. Establishing
permanent trade relations with the largest market on the face of the
planet is the right thing for the American people and it is the right
direction to support the United States economy.
I have traveled in China and several other Pacific Rim countries. I
understand the wealth of opportunity that is available to the countries
who take the step of moving aggressively into the markets of Asia
without barriers, beginning in the largest market in the world, China.
Establishing normal trade relations with this market so our businesses
have a level playing field has enormous positive economic consequences
for this country that will last throughout the course of this century.
Not so long ago, China was a poor country. Now their coastal cities are
the new, churning economies of the Pacific Rim. The enormous changes
that are occurring on the coast are spreading rapidly to the interior
of China, and touching the lives of people there.
The economic advantages of supporting trade with China may well be
enough reason to support this resolution, but that is only the
beginning. Possibly the most important reason the U.S. needs a
permanent trading relationship with china is the national security
implications it provides to us. I have seen first hand the relationship
China has with the other nations of the Pacific Rim. These nations have
hundreds of centuries of history between themselves and China. When
China stands closer to the United States, it is possible for the other
countries of the Pacific Rim to work with the United States on trade
and make the world safer and more democratic.
While we have an utterly different philosophy of government than does
China, during the course of our history it has been the inherent
responsibility of the American people, especially entrepreneurs, to
spread the spirit of democracy and freedom throughout the world. This
may be our most unique opportunity to reach the largest number of
people yet with the message that the principles of work and
responsibility are the foundation of freedom and self-determination.
There is no better way to spread the message of democracy than to
engage the world's largest nation in a trade agreement that will
benefit the United States and China for decades and probably centuries
to come. When we engage a country of 1.3 billion people, we take a
positive step in demonstrating how freedom works.
This vote will soon take its place alongside the pivotal votes of the
past decade which have played a large role in redefining economic
success and budgetary policy: the 1993 Budget Deficit Reduction Act;
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). We have been enjoying tremendous
economic opportunities for the past few years and I hope it continues
for a very long time. Remember, we can best provide for people and
communities in the United States when our economy is strong, and PNTR
will go a long way towards keeping our economy strong.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important
decisions I have to make as a Member of Congress each year, is how to
vote on our nation's trading relationship with China. This year, many
of my constituents have been engaged in this debate as they have
called, written, or stopped by my office to urge me to vote in favor
of, or in opposition to, normalizing trade relations with China.
I have spent months and indeed years weighing the advantages and
disadvantages of approving Permanent Normal Trading Relations (PNTR)
with China. We have debated this measure ever since I began my service
in 1994. As I reviewed the arguments on whether or not to extend Normal
Trade Relations to China on a permanent basis, I have decided against
PNTR for China.
I plan to vote no for several reasons:
1. The worsening of labor and human rights situation in China;
2. The continued aggressive military statements and actions against a
Democratic Taiwan;
3. The transfer of sensitive military technology by China to rouge
nations; and
4. The failure of the current Administration to effectively monitor
and enforce the trade agreements they have already signed with China,
including launch quota agreements, which of course, are very important
for our district.
First, this is a vote of conscience. My staff and I have thoroughly
reviewed the 1999 U.S. State Department Report on Human Rights
Practices in China, which was released in February. The Report told the
story of egregious civil and human rights abuses by the Chinese
government against its own people.
The Administration's Report said, ``The security apparatus is made up
of the Ministries of State Security and Public Security, the People's
Armed Police, the People's Liberation Army, and the state judicial,
procuratorial, and penal systems. Security policy and personnel were
responsible for numerous human rights abuses.''
The Report goes on to say, ``The [Chinese] Government's poor human
rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year, as the
Government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, particularly
organized dissent . . . The Government tightened restrictions on
freedom of speech and of the press, and increased controls on the
Internet; self-censorship by journalists also increased . . . The
government continues to restrict freedom of religion, and intensified
controls on some unregistered churches.''
In addition, violence against Chinese women is on the rise as the
government continues to, as the Report states, ``induce coercive family
planning--which sometimes includes forced abortion and sterilization;
prostitution; discrimination against women; [Government] trafficking in
women and children; [Government] abuse of children; and discrimination
against the disabled and minorities are all problems.
I believe that by voting in favor of PNTR, I would be giving my
implicit support for these

[[Page 9145]]

violations of basic human rights. There are some of my colleagues who
believe that through engagement we can effect changes in China. There
may be some merit to that argument and I do not fault them for that
belief. I cannot, however, in good conscience, vote to extend this
privilege to China at this time. They have shown an unwillingness to
embrace basic freedoms.
I am also deeply troubled by Communist China's aggressive
militaristic threats toward a Democratic Taiwan. The Chinese government
has threatened the democratically elected Taiwanese government. The
Chinese have said in no uncertain terms that the recently elected
democratic leaders of Taiwan have no role as China usurps Taiwan's
independence under the Chinese umbrella of Communism and
totalitarianism.
Even before threatening Taiwan, China was engaged in a massive spying
effort on the United States. In fact, the Congressional ``Cox
Commission,'' produced a three-volume report outlining and detailing
the military and commercial abuses and concerns the United States has
with the Chinese government. Among the key findings of the bipartisan
Cox China Espionage Report were:
1. That Communist China stole billions of dollars worth of American
nuclear secrets that took our scientists decades of hard work to
develop;
2. The Peoples Republic of China has stolen classified information on
every warhead used for our ICBM and our submarine launched ballistic
missiles; and
3. According to the unanimous judgment of the Committee, The People's
Republic of China will exploit elements of stolen U.S. thermonuclear
weapons designs on its new ICBMs as 2002.
The Report goes on and on, like background for a Tom Clancy novel,
threatening the very fiber of our cultural heritage.
China has taken the technology they have stolen and shared it with
rogue nations. They have encouraged the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and missile technology by sharing these sensitive technologies
with rogue nations.
No longer are the American people safe from terrorists and the
aggressions of our enemies. As many of these rouge nations have access
to our top level military secrets. What is most disturbing is that the
Administration knew about these security breaches as early as 1995, but
failed to act because they were fearful of the repercussions and
potential the political fallout.
My first experience with our government's effectiveness or
unwillingness to challenge the Chinese in their failure to live up to
their agreements came in 1997, and was in relation to the launch
agreements, known as the Bilateral Space Launch Services Trade
Agreement. The Administration significantly expanded agreements with
the Chinese and Russians which permitted U.S. satellite manufacturers
to ship satellites to Russia and China for launch. These agreements
permitted larger numbers of U.S. satellites to be shipped to China and
Russia for launch in these countries. The Chinese signed an agreement
stating that they, a non-market economy (NME), would not sell launch
services at below market costs, in other words ``no market dumping.''
In probing this issue, I discovered that the Chinese were indeed
allowed to ``dump'' launch services on the international market at
below market costs. This was in violation of the agreement that they
signed and it also was taking launches away from U.S. launch facilities
at the Cape. Furthermore, our U.S. Trade Representative failed to
respond to my inquiries over whether or not they were addressing this
issue of dumping. It was not until I personally went down to their
offices and went through their files that I discovered the fact that
they were taking no steps whatsoever to curtail this problem.
Furthermore, they never took any action to even discuss this problem
with the Chinese.
This is a very disturbing trend which I cannot envision will improve
until we as a nation decide to look at China differently. We must
always keep our national security, our economic security, and the
security of basic human rights in mind in all our dealings with China.
Thus far, we have not.
Today I have outlined for you numerous abuses by the Chinese
government. And, I understand that at some point there may be the
tremendous economic potential to open our trading relations with the
people of China. However, today I cannot support the Chinese
government's repression of human and civil rights of the Chinese
people; I cannot support their continued threats against Taiwan; and I
cannot support their theft of American technology and military secrets.
Until China can demonstrate a better track record in these key areas; I
will not support Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong
support for H.R. 4444. Why is granting Permanent Normalized Trade
Relations (PNTR) to China so important? There are several answers to
this question. Granting PNTR to China transcends political, economic,
and social boundaries and should foster better relations between the
United States and China. Markets will be opened, diplomatic
communication will be enhanced, and democratic values will spread in a
Communist arena;.
There is no question that the South Bay and the state of California
will see the benefits. China's entry in the World Trade Organization
(WTO) would mean dramatically expanded access to one of the largest and
fastest growing markets in the world. China is currently our 12th
largest trading partner. According to some experts, with China's entry
into the WTO, that trade could double. Trade in and out of the Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach would dramatically rise.
To be admitted into the WTO, China will have to make significant
concessions to the other members. The U.S. reached an agreement with
China on bilateral trade terms last November. This agreement
dramatically cuts tariffs on American products, eliminates most
domestic ownership requirements and provides greater transparency
regarding Chinese business practices.
Let's take two industries important to my district to illustrate the
benefits of this agreement. Mattel currently makes toys in China. To
sell these toys in China, they must first be exported out of China and
then imported back into the country. On import, Mattel must pay a
tariff equal to 35%. After importation, Mattel must rely on Chinese
companies to distribute the product in the country. PNTR will eliminate
this requirement and effectively reduce the tariff rates to zero by
2005. The result? Increased sales and improved productivity for a U.S.
company.
The benefits are the same for cars and auto parts. Currently, for TRW
to sell auto parts in China, it must import the parts, which are
subject to tariffs that range between 23.4% and 70%. To sell cars in
China, Honda and Ford are subject to import tariffs as high as 100%.
These companies are also subject to limits on the number of vehicles
they can sell. The Chinese also require that cars sold in China must be
substantially composed of Chinese parts, further hampering TRW's
ability to sell American-made parts in China. With PNTR, tariffs are
substantially reduced and the Chinese component requirement is
eliminated. The result? Increased production and more jobs in the
United States.
Granting PNTR for China is not all about dollar signs. There are also
the social implications that increased trade promotes. There has been
much debate, often times heated and emotional, over whether to enter
into this agreement with China.
Many of the negative feelings associated with China stem from the
oppressive 1989 crackdown of the student protesters in Tiananamen
Square. Communist China reminds us of our Cold War opponents of
yesterday. However, our greatest opportunity to implement change is to
open the avenues of trade. Expanded trade relations means a greater
flow of democratic ideals to a population unfamiliar with the freedoms
we enjoy. The economic freedoms that China is pursuing will not work
without some levels of political and personal freedom as well.
Companies like Mattel also implement strict codes of conduct for
production facilities and contract manufacturers. This focus upon
working conditions and employee treatment means better treatment for
Chinese workers following adoption of PNTR.
Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, recently wrote,
``The addition of the Chinese economy to the global marketplace will
result in a more efficient worldwide allocation of resources and will
raise standards of living in China and it's trading partners. . .
Further development of China's trading relationships with the United
States and other industrial countries will work to strengthen the rule
of law within China and to firm its commitment to economic reform.''
Diplomatic ties will also be strengthened with improved trade
relations with China. The worst possible scenario occurs if Congress
denies granting China PNTR. In this case, diplomatic communication
between the United States and China will be severely limited. It would
be dangerous if we, as leaders of the free world, do not have open
lines of communication with the most populated country in the world. I
do not believe that this is a risk worth taking.
There is no doubt that California will make great gains through
increased trade. The 36th congressional district also stands to
benefit. But considering the big picture, increased trade and increased
communication with

[[Page 9146]]

China will allow an opportunity to lessen tensions between our two
countries. The fall of the Iron Curtain took the Berlin Wall with it.
Progress can be made with China. Support PNTR.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Permanent Normal
Trade Relations status for China. This measure is an important step in
promoting free and fair trade between the United States and the
People's Republic of China, and in promoting freedom within China.
I remain concerned about the behavior of the Chinese leadership in a
number of important areas, including weapons proliferation, human
rights, and relations with Taiwan. In the past, I have voted against
extending NTR for these reasons.
But the vote before us today is different. Extending Permanent NTR to
China and supporting its accession to the World Trade Organization is
the strongest catalyst for change in that country. It will promote the
free market there. It will promote the rule of law there. And I
strongly believe that it will ultimately promote the rise of democracy
there.
We have seen capitalism rip through the ``Iron Curtain,'' and now we
have a tremendous opportunity to see it tear through Communist China.
We cannot do this by allowing the remnants of an antiquated economic
system to remain isolated. Those in China who want to see this measure
fail are the hard-line Communists who seek to maintain control and
oppress the new generation that yearns for a better life. The greatest
threat to the future of these Communist tyrants is the passage of PNTR
and the freedom it unleashes.
Today we have an unprecedented opportunity to gain substantially
greater access to China's market of well over one billion people. If we
pass this measure, China will have to change its protectionist laws and
policies, and reduce tariff rates on U.S. products. But if we do not
extend PNTR, we will lose these benefits, while our trade competitors
gain them.
Mr. Speaker the best way to name the communist bear is not to poke it
in its eye, but to endear yourself to its cubs. The new generation of
Chinese knows America and has a strong desire to emulate our values and
culture. This is our country's chance to engage China and have a truly
profound effect on that nation's future.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4444,
legislation to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
The United States Trade Representative's agreement with China gives
us a unique and historic opportunity to challenge old assumptions and
establish new goals with respect to China. The Administration, in
November, laid its bet on improving economic relations with China as
the best way to ensure that this huge and growing power will become a
constructive member of the world community. Today, it is up to Congress
to affirm this deal to make these opportunities a reality.
Despite our disappointments with China's internal policies, this is
not a time to withdraw and abandon all dealings with China,
particularly those that are clearly in our own interest to pursue. The
deal the U.S. Trade Representative made with China represents a series
of major concessions by the Chinese to accomplish a goal--Chinese
membership in the WTO--that is also clearly in our national interests.
This deal is a classic ``win-win'' proposition for the United States.
While China will benefit from expanded trade and investment, this
deal is composed of a series of unilateral concessions by China that
reduce most of its tariffs, open the markets most attractive to U.S.
goods and services, and commit China to international rules of
commercial behavior and extensive monitoring of its compliance.
Granting China PNTR would result in an opening of markets for American
farmers, bankers, insurers, and manufacturers of microchips, chemicals,
cars, computers, and software, who will reap benefits from a whole new
level of access to what is potentially the world's largest consumer
market.
To fully realize the benefits of trade, however, requires more than
agreements to reduce barriers. Sustaining support for the trading
system also requires that the rules under which countries engage in
trade are credible and equitable. The rules should ensure that
governments play fair--that they not seek advantage for favored
interests by subsidizing their producers or passing regulations that
unnecessarily distort international trade. Fairness also requires that
the gains from trade are shared widely and do not come at the expense
of core labor and human rights standards.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before Congress today's bill will make these
larger goals possible. Beyond the market-opening provisions in H.R.
4444, this bill also contains thoughtful provisions developed by
Representatives Levin and Bereuter that will establish mechanisms to
monitor human rights in China, to report on labor market issues, and to
encourage the development of rule of law and democracy-building in
China. Granting China permanent PNTR would also mean the beginning of a
long-term transition from a state-controlled economy toward a free
market that will make these larger goals possible. Indeed, China is not
only agreeing to import more American products, they are agreeing to
import one of democracy's most cherished values--economic and social
freedom.
The only thing the United States would do in return is grant China
the same permanent ``normal trade relations'' status afforded to all
WTO members, which has been granted on an annual basis for the past 19
years. Granting PNTR to China is not a ``blessing'' of their past and
current behavior. Rather, it is a commitment by China to change its
behavior to become a responsible global citizen.
This deal would impose on China a clear set of rules for business
whereby the United States will benefit from China's verifiable and
enforceable commitment to play by the world's rules. This deal will
allow the United States to engage this emerging power in well-defined
and civilized manner, rather than isolating it and strengthening the
claims of its militarists that the America is an enemy. And this deal
will open Chinese markets to U.S. products and services, which I hope
will make the global economic pie bigger, so everyone gets a bigger
piece.
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, in order for farmers, ranchers,
and food processors to succeed in a global market, the US needs fair
trade and fair access to growing global markets. Nebraska is one of the
nation's leading producers and exporters of agricultural products.
Market access is absolutely crucial to the well being of our
producers--as it is to producers of all commodities nationwide.
Agriculture will benefit most from the pending trade agreement with
China. China's economy is already among the world's largest, and it has
expanded at annual rates of nearly 10 percent. By supporting PNTR, we
are giving our agricultural producers the access needed to compete in
the global market. Passing up the opportunity to increase trade with a
country that has nearly 26 percent of the world's population would be a
grave error.
Under it's World Trade Organization accession agreement, China will
lower its tariffs from 45 to 12 percent on frozen beef, and 45 to 25
percent on chilled beef by 2004. also, China will accept all beef from
the United States that is accompanied by a USDA certificate of
wholesomeness.
Nebraska's 1998 exports to China totaled $33 million, which
represents a 1,200 percent increase from 1993. China is Nebraska's 14th
largest export destination, up from 31st in 1993. By building on this
trend, the U.S. has taken a step in the right direction. Approval of
PNTR is simply the continuation of this process.
Opponents of PNTR legislation argue that China will no longer need to
respect our positions on human rights and other issues.
However, by joining the WTO, China is agreeing to a rules-based
trading system, and by working closely with China, the U.S. will be
able to influence positive change on human, religious, and political
rights.
Not only must we support PNTR for China for agriculture, but for the
continued growth of our nation as a whole. I urge my colleagues to vote
``yes'' on H.R. 4444.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in urging my
colleagues to vote No on granting PNTR for the People's Republic of
China.
Since relations between the U.S. and China were normalized, Congress
has had the opportunity, every year, whether or not to grant China the
same trading status we give to other ``friendly'' nations. Although the
China trade deal has won out every year, at least we had an annual
review in place. If this bill passes, I am sure the dictators in
Beijing will take our concerns even less seriously than they have in
the past.
It is well known that China has a terrible record on human and worker
rights, environmental protection, fair trade and weapons proliferation.
China has repeatedly violated almost all of their prior agreements. The
United States consumes 40 percent of China's exports, so common sense
dictates that we can influence China's actions by threatening to cut
off market access. By essentially granting China permanent guaranteed
access to our markets we would surrender our only political and
economic leverage.
Big business claims that granting China PNTR will allow for more
American products

[[Page 9147]]

to be sold to the 1.2 billion consumers in China. But even if China
opens their doors to our products, which I don't believe they intend on
doing, how many cars or designer jeans will American workers sell to
Chinese workers making 13 cents per hour.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this ``Blank Check for China.''
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of continued Normal
Trade Relations between the United States and China.
Trade with China has been a significant factor in the economic
expansion we've been able to enjoy during the 1990s. In my own
district, Greater Cincinnati companies exports to China have almost
doubled in this decade alone. That means more jobs for my constituents,
more prosperity for the families and businesses in Southwest Ohio, and
a healthier economy for the area I represent, for the state of Ohio as
a whole and, indeed, for the entire nation.
For those of my colleagues who are undecided on this subject, I'd
urge you to take a close look at this PNTR agreement, because it makes
so much sense. This is a totally one-sided agreement. Because we
already have an essentially open market, we've given away nothing to
get this deal, but we've received unprecedented concessions from the
Chinese.
Mr. Speaker, China has a long way to go on improving labor standards,
human rights and environmental protection. That's why I believe our
most important export to China won't be our products and services. Our
most important export is our ideas and our beliefs about freedom and
democracy.
As the United States and China develop closer ties--as individuals
from both countries begin to interact more often with each other--it's
going to be impossible for the Chinese government to prevent our values
and ideas from spreading. You can already see it happening with the
spread of the internet in China, despite the best efforts of their
government to slow it down.
Mr. Speaker, we can choose to get rid of normal trade relations with
China, and stand on the sidelines when our European and Asian
competitors take our place. Or we can build a strong bilateral
relationship through engagement--opening their country to our products
and ideas.
I urge my colleagues to support the rational approach--and to support
normal trade relations with China.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support permanent
normal trade relations for China. I will vote in favor of PNTR, not
only because of the benefits that American farmers and businesses stand
to gain in terms of increased trade, which are substantial, but also
because of the impact approval of PNTR will have for U.S. national
security and stability in Asia.
A solid trade relationship with China, with its huge potential
markets, is important to Missouri. In 1998, China was Missouri's sixth
most important export market and the United States' fourth largest
trading partner. From 1991 to 1998, U.S. exports to China more than
doubled. The agreement that the administration reached with China last
November concerning China's accession to the World Trade Organization
commits China to eliminate export subsidies and lower tariffs
dramatically, reduce its farm supports, and play by the same trade
rules as we do. Further concessions recently gained by the European
Union would increase the benefits, as the agreement would apply to all
parties to the WTO.
During the first 6 years of the agreement, USDA estimates U.S.
agriculture exports to China will increase a total of $7.5 billion. In
the first ten years of the agreement, USDA projects one-third of U.S.
export growth will be in U.S. agricultural products destined for China.
China is the last major untapped market for American agriculture. As
China moves from an agrarian economy to a modern economy, someone must
fill the gap. As the standard of living increases in China, the Chinese
people will be able to buy more U.S. products. To gain these
advantages, Congress must approve PNTR status for China. If Congress
does not do so, the only winners will be our international competitors
who would welcome the chance to gain market share that would otherwise
go to U.S. farmers and benefit the entire agriculture community.
Congressional approval of PNTR also have implications for U.S. national
security. Early this year, I led a small House Armed Services Committee
delegation on a trip to the Asia-Pacific region. Although we did not
visit China, we did find in our meetings will officials how much other
nations in Asia value America's presence and engagement in the region
to promote stability.
The state of U.S.-China relations is critical to the future
stability, prosperity, and peace of Asia. Encouraging China to
participate in global economic institutions is in our interest because
it will bring China under a system of global trade rules and draw it
into the world community. It is in our long term interest to develop a
relationship with China that is stable and predictable. China will
enter the WTO based upon the votes of all 135 WTO members. Denial of
PNTR by the U.S. will not affect China's entry into the WTO, but
rejecting PNTR after last year's negotiated agreement will diminish our
credibility and our ability to make a difference in China.
WTO memberships will bring China into the system of trading rules and
standards that apply to all other major trading partners in the world.
Congress should approve PNTR so that American farmers, workers,
businesses will be able to take advantage of opening markets in China
and so that our continued involvement in China can help in working
toward other reforms. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to
support PNTR.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of granting normal
trade relations to China. This measure is good policy for our Nation as
a whole, and good policy for the people of the 18th district of
Illinois. The choice we have before us today is whether we want to
trade with China with our hand open in friendship, or with our hand
closed in opposition. China is expected to join the WTO later this
year, and today's vote will set the stage on how we will trade with
China in the years to come.
By passing NTR today, we will establish a first in U.S. trade policy.
We will lock ourselves into a one-sided trade deal, which favors the
United States. Last year, Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky and our trade
representatives negotiated a bilateral agreement with China, which not
only significantly lowers many of China's tariffs, but also provides
for anti-surge guarantees to protect American manufacturers from
Chinese dumping of goods into our markets. Failure to pass NTR will not
prevent China from joining the WTO. It will, however, prevent us from
benefiting from the bilateral agreement we negotiated, while at the
same time concede the benefits of this agreement to our Asian,
European, and Latin American competitors.
As a member of the House Agriculture Committee, I recently joined
with my colleagues in a series of field hearings throughout the country
to get a sense of how agriculture is doing in America. The consensus is
that unlike the rest of the country, our agriculture community is in
trouble.
Granting NTR to China will not cure the ills that face our
agricultural economy, but it will help. The facts are that China has 20
percent of the world's population and approximately 7 percent of the
world's arable land. It is shifting from an agrarian economy to an
industrialized/manufacturing economy. China currently has a population
of over 1.3 billion, with a steady rate of population growth. These
facts indicate that over the long term, China represents a hug
potential market for American agriculture products. In the near term,
China is currently the sixth largest market for U.S. farm products. In
1999, the U.S. exported over $2 billion dollars worth of agricultural
commodities to Mainland China and Hong Kong, in spite of high tariff
rates and restrictive trade practices, designed to specifically
prohibit importation of American agricultural products.
Once China joins the WTO and accedes to the bilateral agreement, many
of these high tariff rates and restrictive trade practices will be
reduced, or phased out, by 2005. This agreement, as well as WTO rules,
also contain provisions which allow the United States to act
unilaterally if China violates the terms of the agreement. Granting NTR
is not only good for agriculture--it is good for American business as
well. As President Clinton stated in the State of the Union address,
``Our markets are already open to China. This agreement will open their
markets to us.'' The Commerce Department recently announced that our
trade deficit widened in March to an all time high of $30.2 billion.
Granting NTR to China will help reverse our trade gap by leveling the
playing field, and allowing American business to crack into this highly
protected market.
As I have indicated before, I believe that granting NTR is good for
the country and good for the people of Illinois. In 1998, direct
exports to China from the State of Illinois totaled over $505 million.
If we pass the NTR legislation, I would expect this figure to grow
significantly. In addition to the agricultural interests in my
district, I am also proud to represent America's manufacturing
industry. Caterpillar, Inc., one of nations' leading manufacturers of
earth moving and construction equipment, is based in my hometown of
Peoria, Illinois. Caterpillar employees over 67,000 workers worldwide,
many of whom live in my district, and in 1999, exported $5.2 billion
worth of equipment. For Caterpillar, and other heavy machinery
manufacturers, China has always been a

[[Page 9148]]

very difficult market in which to work. The bilateral agreement we
negotiated would ease market restrictions, lower tariffs on heavy
machinery, and, in general, make it easier for American companies to
operate in China.
Aside from the obvious economic benefits, I believe that granting NTR
to China will lead to positive societal changes within China. It is my
hope that improved economic conditions in China will result in a higher
quality of life for Chinese workers. I also hope that greater
interaction with Western culture, and its focus on human rights, will
pressure the Chinese Government to continue with the liberalization of
its economic and social structure. We need to approach China with an
open hand, not with a closed fist. I urge my colleagues to support
granting normal trade relations to China.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4444 to
grant permanent normal trade relations for China. The United States has
engaged in normal trade relations with China for the past two decades.
Since then, trade has grown and flourished between our two countries,
with an ever-increasing U.S. corporate presence in China. In 1999,
China was the 4th largest U.S. trading partner. Since I joined
Congress, I have voted three times in favor of normal trade relations
with China. Today, however, I will vote to reject H.R. 4444 for three
reasons.
First, before today, an annual review of China's performance in the
areas of human rights and nuclear non-proliferation has been concretely
tied to a vote in Congress on its trade status. This has provided the
U.S. with leverage to raise critical issues with China regarding human
rights, workers rights, freedom of religion and association, the
autonomy of Tibet, the transfer of nuclear technology, the security of
Taiwan, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. At least once a year,
China had to respond seriously to these concerns in order to gain the
two things it most desires: access to U.S. technology and access to the
U.S. consumer market. I don't mean to imply that China's performance
always improved in these areas, but the annual review, directly tied to
a vote on trade, ensured that the dialogue between our two nations was
a serious one.
The vote today strips the Congress, and I believe the Administration,
of any leverage on these issues. We can establish commissions and
release reports to monitor human rights in China, but we already do
that regularly anyway. More pieces of paper will have little impact on
China. What leverage we had was due to the fact that the review was
tied directly to a vote on trade.
Second, I am interested in not only who benefits from the U.S.-China
bilateral trade agreement, but also who suffers. I believe many of the
claims made on both sides of this debate will prove, over time, to be
exaggerated--especially in light of China's record of non-compliance
with other trade agreements. I believe many businesses in
Massachusetts, including in my own district, will benefit from
increased commerce with China, particularly in the areas of high-tech,
computers and financial services. I believe trade in these areas
between our two countries will increase even if permanent NTR is
rejected today.
I also know, however, that in negotiating this agreement the U.S.
Trade Representative conceded whole areas of trade and commerce to
China. Nowhere is this more true than in the textile and clothing
industry. Prior to the conclusion of negotiations on the bilateral
trade agreement, I wrote and phoned the USTR about this issue, pleading
for support. My letters and calls went unanswered. I would like to
point out to my colleagues that this is the very first trade agreement
opposed both by the textile manufacturers and the clothing and textile
workers. As this House knows, that was not the case with NAFTA, the
Caribbean Basin Initiative/CBI or the recently approved Africa trade
bill. This alone should give all my colleagues an idea about exactly
how bad this agreement is for clothing and textiles, and for
communities like those I represent in southeastern Massachusetts. By
opposing H.R. 4444, I stand with the families and towns whose lives and
livelihoods have been so callously disregarded by the USTR.
Third, I believe the very framework around which we currently pursue
trade agreements is flawed. Worse, I believe it runs counter to our
ability to achieve our goals in promoting freedom and democracy
worldwide. Let me be clear, I support normal trade relations with all
nations. I believe it is good for America, good for the exchange of
goods and services, and good for the exchange of ideas. I am not and
never will be an isolationist. I believe strongly, however, that
commerce and trade must not operate separate from, let alone contrary
to, other national priorities; to promote democracy, nuclear non-
proliferation, respect for human rights, and protection of the
environment. Internationally, the U.S. is a leader on these issues and
a party to international agreements, standards and law. Yet in the
areas of trade and commerce, we often negotiate agreements that
undermine these other standards and agreements. I believe we must
integrate these priorities, not separate them. We have a global economy
because the world is now, more than ever before, a global,
interdependent community.
The bilateral trade agreement negotiated between the U.S. and China,
which goes far beyond ``normal'' trade relations, and H.R. 4444 to
grant permanent NTR to China have aggressively sought to ``de-link''
trade from any other U.S. priority or consideration. I believe this
takes us down the wrong path. It says to all the other countries of the
world that human rights, arms control, and the environment are not
important to the U.S. if a buck is to be made. Last minute sugarcoating
to establish commissions to monitor human rights will not change this
basic message. And it's the wrong message.
For these reasons, and many others, I urge my colleagues to oppose
H.R. 4444.
I submit the following materials from the textile industry.
American Textile

Manufacturers Institute,

Washington, DC, May 10, 2000.

RE: China Permanent NTR--Textile and Appeal Markets.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Textile
Manufacturers Institute (ATMI), I would like to reiterate our
opposition to legislation granting permanent normal trade
relations to China (NTR) and to again urge you to vote
against this proposal. We have written you previously
outlining concerns, and this letter is to elaborate more
fully on the issue of market access. ATMI is the national
trade association for the domestic textile industry, with
member company facilities in more than 30 states.
Contrary to claims that the United States gave up nothing
in the agreement to support China's accession to the World
Trade Organization (WTO), we must emphatically point out that
the U.S. has actually given China greater access to our
textile and apparel market than that given any other WTO
member. Incredibly, the U.S. did this while at the same time
doing nothing to guarantee that we will receive reciprocal
access the China's markets.
While current WTO members are seeing U.S. textile and
apparel quotas phased out over a ten-year period, China will
be allowed to benefit from a phaseout period of five years or
less (depending on when they actually join the WTO). This is
the equivalent of, in a baseball game, allowing one team
(China) to start an inning with a runner leading off second
base while making every other team play by the normal rules
and start each inning in the batters' box. China is being
given an enormous headstart toward home plate, which in this
case is the elimination of all U.S. quotas and thus
unrestricted access to the U.S. market.
At the same time, the U.S. has received nothing but the
same old tired assurance from China that they will allow our
textile and apparel exports to enter their country. We have
heard this song and dance before. But as the following chart
shows. China has effectively used its elaborate system of
tariff and non-tariff barriers to keep its market closed to
our products.
Based on this poor track record, we sincerely doubt that
China's most recent assurance of access will pan out.
So as far as textile trade goes, this is a one-sided trade
deal that only benefits China, Accordingly, we urge you to
reject permanent NTR and allow Congress the chance to use
annual renewal of NTR as leverage to force China to honor the
promises it has already made to allow U.S. textile and
apparel exports access to the vast but heretofore virtually
closed Chinese market.
Sincerely,
Roger Chastain,
President.
____

American Textile

Manufacturers Institute,

Washington, DC, May 18, 2000.

Re: China Permanent NTR--Ineffective Textile and General Product
Safeguards.

Dear Representative: We understand that the House Ways and
Means Committee leadership has reached a deal under which the
product safeguard provisions of last November's China WTO
accession agreement will be incorporated into the permanent
normal trade relations (NTR) bill, H.R. 4444. On behalf of
the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI), I would
like to point out that this ``breakthrough'' will not do
anything to alleviate our concerns. We are still strongly
opposed to this legislation and urge your opposition as well.
Enclosed is a copy of our April 21 letter to Ambassador
Barshefsky, which points out serious flaws in the China WTO
accession agreement's textile product safeguard and 12-year
general product safeguard. As you will note from our letter
and accompanying questions, we believe the safeguard
provisions in the accession agreement will not be effective
in preventing serious harm to the U.S. textile industry as a
result of import

[[Page 9149]]

surges. Therefore, inclusion of these provisions in H.R. 444
or any parallel legislation does not address our concerns.
Also, as we stated in this letter (and as you probably know
from our previous letters, congressional testimony, news
releases and communications from our members and workers in
your district), China's entry into the WTO under the
accelerated quota phaseout schedule is projected to cost over
150,000 jobs in the U.S. textile and related industries.
Thus, we again dispute the claim by supporters of the bill
that the United States ``gave away nothing'' in this
agreement--in fact, the U.S. is proposing to give China
faster access to our market than any other WTO member, and at
the cost of 150,000 U.S. jobs.
Therefore, we urge you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 4444 when it
comes before the House.
Sincerely,
Roger W. Chastain,
President.
____

American Textile

Manufacturers Institute,

Washington, DC, April 21, 2000.
Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky,
United States Trade Representative,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ambassador Barshefsky: We would appreciate your review
of several important matters concerning the textile product
safeguard and the twelve-year general product specific
safeguard in the China WTO Accession agreement.
An effective safeguard is of paramount importance to the
livelihoods of more than 1.2 million textile and apparel
workers. The study by the International Trade Commission on
China's accession concluded that China's share of the U.S.
apparel market would triple as a result of the agreement.
Another study by Nathan Associates came up with the same
conclusion and examined the impact on U.S. textile and
apparel employment. The Nathan study determined that over
150,000 U.S. jobs in the textile and apparel sector would be
lost as a result of the agreement.
The information we have received thus far as to the details
regarding the use of either the textile specific or the
general product specific safeguard has created serious
concerns regarding the potential effectiveness of either
instrument.
We would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest
convenience about how these safeguard mechanisms will
operate.
Sincerely,
Carios Moore,
Executive Vice President.
____

ATMI Questions on the Textile Product Safeguard and the 12 Year Product
Specific Safeguard in the China WTO Accession Agreement

(1) Textile Product Safeguard
(a) Administration: Will the Committee for the
Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) will be the
administrator of the textile product safeguard in the China
WTO accession agreement?
(i) Will CITA be the final decision-making authority on the
imposition of this safeguard?
(ii) Will CITA have authority to direct U.S. Customs to
carry-out safeguard actions?
(b) Timing: Will textile products that have already been
integrated be subject to the textile product safeguard
immediately upon china's entry into the WTO and will those
products that will be integrated in 2002 be eligible for a
safeguard action, if appropriate, in 2002?
(c) Original finding of market disruption: China has by far
the world's largest textile and apparel complex and by far
the largest quota coverage (over 100 quotas) imposed on its
textile and apparel exports. These quotas were imposed
because of findings of market disruption over the past 15
years. Can the original finding of market disruption
automatically be re-applied when these quotas are removed?
(i) If not, if China's imports do surge across most, if not
all, product categories (as the ITC study appears to imply
they will), would separate market disruption findings be
needed on each category, or, if an overall condition of
disruption could be found, could this serve in place of
separate statements?
(d) New findings of market disruption: If the original
market disruption finding cannot be reapplied, the U.S. has
historically made a determination of market disruption in
textile and apparel cases where imports of a given textile
product were increasing from a particular country (as well as
from the world overall) while domestic U.S. production of
that same product was declining. Could the U.S. use these
same three criteria alone--increasing Chinese imports,
increasing world imports and decreasing U.S. production--to
make a similar finding under the textile product safeguard in
this agreement?
If not, what other or different criteria would be required
under a WTO-based system?
(ii) In other cases, the ITC study predicts that china will
take market share from other countries. Some of these
countries--Mexico and the Caribbean nations--are primary
export markets for U.S. textile products. Please confirm that
the U.S. could take action on the basis of increasing Chinese
imports and declining U.S. production with overall imports
remaining stable.
(e) Use of textile inputs to take an apparel safeguard
action: As mentioned above, a large percentage of U.S.
textile output is now exported to the CBI and Mexico for
assembly into garments for re-export back to the United
States. Displacement of these regional apparel imports into
the United States by Chinese imports would hurt the U.S.
textile industry in the same way that the loss of U.S.
apparel production does. In fact, for many products,
including knit shirts, underwear and woven trousers, a
substantial amount of the production originally sourced in
the United States has now shifted to the CBI and Mexico. It
is extremely important that ATMI be able to ensure that both
safeguards in the agreement can be used to protect its
workers if these re-export markets are threatened by Chinese
imports.
(i) Will the government consider declines in complementary
U.S. textile products as a basis for imposing safeguard
measures against increasing Chinese apparel imports?
(ii) How would the administration ensure that no WTO
difficulties would result from such a result. (see ``e''
below)?
(f) Definition of U.S. apparel production: The United
States currently defines a cut piece of fabric which is being
exported as a completed garment--as a result government
reports sometimes show that U.S. apparel production for a
given product is increasing when in fact it is exports of the
cut pieces of cloth that are increasing (note: these pieces
constitute the bulk of the trade between the U.S. and Mexico
and the CBI). If these cut pieces exports were removed,
actual U.S. apparel production would almost certainly be in
decline.
(i) When considering the use of either safeguard will the
government commit to removing exported cut pieces of U.S.
fabric from its U.S. apparel production calculations?
(ii) Are there any WTO rules or regulations which this
would violate?
(g) Lack of recent U.S. textile and apparel production
data: During the last five years, the Commerce Department has
stopped issuing quarterly textile and apparel production
figures and, as a result, U.S. apparel production figures are
often a year or more out of date. The government has also
sometimes delayed safeguard actions until more recent
production data was available. The imposition of a safeguard
measure requires immediate action if it is to be effective--
particularly when a dominant supplier such as China is
involved.
(i) Will the government agree that it will either re-
institute quarterly reporting or that it will use the most
recent available production data that it has available as a
basis for any safeguard measure and that it will not delay
imposition of a safeguard measure because of production
information?
(h) Definition of ``reapplication'': The textile safeguard
says that after a measure has been in place a year, the
safeguard must be ``reapplied'' in order to be extended. What
does ``reapplied'' mean?
(i) Does it mean that a new market disruption statement
would need to be created?
(1) If so, does this mean that the government would have to
wait until imports started increasing again in large numbers
before a new safeguard could be imposed?
(a) Would this mean that the industry could conceivably be
forced to wait up to a year--in order for a pattern of
increasing imports to be established--before a second
safeguard action could be applied?
(i) Concerns over potential number of cases and speed of
response: Under the category system, China currently has over
100 quotas applied to it. Under the WTO accession package,
almost all of these quotas will disappear on Jan. 1, 2005.
How can the U.S. government ensure that safeguard actions
will quickly be forthcoming if a large number of categories
qualify for action at the same time? ((see b) and I) above
for details).
(j) Can China appeal a safeguard action to the DSB?: If
China disagreed with the imposition of a safeguard by the
U.S., would it have recourse under the WTO to request dispute
settlement?
(i) If so, could a dispute settlement panel or some other
WTO entity overturn the imposition of a quota under this
safeguard or authorize Chinese retaliation?
(1) The creation of a textile safeguard action against a
WTO country in Agreement on Textiles and Clothing has
steadily become more complex, difficult and time-consuming--
at least 12 different areas have to be investigated
thoroughly and reported upon. Safeguard actions have come to
require enormous amount of work and even then outcomes, which
require consensus, are often unsatisfactory. As a result,
textile safeguard actions for WTO countries are now
exceedingly rate.
(a) If a U.S. safeguard action is appealable within the
WTO, how can the U.S. government ensure that safeguard
actions against China do not get bogged down in this
cumbersome process?
(k) Use of the category system in safeguard actions: Under
the MFA and ATC, the U.S. has used a category system in order
to impose specific quotas. Textile Monitoring body (TMB)
reports in the WTO have implied that they no longer consider
the category system a relevant vehicle for safeguard actions.
Would the U.S. use the category system or would it consider
using alternative systems for imposing a safeguard?

[[Page 9150]]

(l) WTO criteria: what are the WTO criteria for ``market
disruption'' and what would the U.S. have to do meet to
sustain a textile product specific safeguard action under WTO
review?
(2)The 12 Year Product Specific Safeguard
(a) CITA to administer? Who will be the administrator of
the overall product specific safeguard in textile cases? Will
CITA administer this safeguard as it has other safeguards
under the GATT and the WTO?
(b) Will a Presidential finding be required? Will a
judgment of material injury by the administrator require the
imposition of a safeguard or will presidential action be also
required? (In 301 cases, we note that Presidential action is
NOT required.) The ability of a Presidential to potentially
ignore a finding of material injury concerns us.
(c) Do textile inputs have standing in a case of increased
apparel imports? As stated in regards to the textile
safeguard (see 1d) a large percentage of U.S. textile output
is now exported to the CBI and Mexico for assembly into
garments for re-export back to the United States.
(i) Will declines in complementary U.S. textile products be
accepted as a basis for imposing safeguard measures against
increasing Chinese apparel imports.
(ii) Are there any WTO rulings or regulations which could
be used to prevent such a basis?
(d) A second safeguard action? Can a second safeguard
action be re-instituted after a three-year or two-year
safeguard has been imposed if a new investigation determines
that it is warranted?
(i) Would such a safeguard still be open to retaliation
(eg, China's suspension of concessions)?
(e) Section 406--how does it compare?
(i) Can the safeguard under section 406 be applied rather
than the general product specific safeguard in this
agreement?
(ii) Will section 406 remain in effect in the event that
China gets PNTR and the 406, as a part of Jackson Vanik, no
longer operable?
(iii) The administration claims that the injury threshold
for the product specific safeguard is lower than section 201,
stating that it will be easier for industries to get relief
under this provision from growing Chinese imports. However,
the injury standard for section 406 appears to be the same as
the product specific safeguard and the duration of relief is
actually longer under section 406. Yet, section 406 is almost
never used, while section 201 is more frequently employed.
(1) What is the basis for the administration's belief that
utilization of this product specific safeguard will be
greater and easier to use?
(2) In your opinion, why are section 406 actions so rarely
brought and why should product specific safeguard actions--
which appear to be virtually identical--be any easier?
(3) Dumping
(a) Textile dumping cases: Can language be inserted into
the agreement making it easier to bring dumping cases against
Chinese imports (right now, effective textile dumping cases
are difficult to bring because minor product specific changes
can result in the evasion of dumping margins.)
(4) Countervailing Duty Cases
(a) Are CVD cases now possible? The USTR Fact Sheet
published in Inside US Trade implies that countervailing duty
suits will be allowed against China. However, Commerce
maintains a prohibition on any CVD petitions against non-
market economies and the dumping provisions in the United
States/China agreement refer to China as a non-market
economy. China, therefore, appears to be immune from United
States CVD law.
(i) Will the Administration change the Commerce position?

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4444,
permanent normal trade relations for China. While I must first say that
I am essentially a ``free trader'' I am opposed to the extension of
permanent normal trade relations with China because of China's dismal
record on human rights and its dismal record on worker rights, labor
standards and environmental protections. The United States has formerly
criticized China's human rights record before the United Nations Human
Rights Commission for measures against political activists that have
created what officials called a ``sharply deteriorated [human] rights
situation . . .'' Pursuant to a May 1, 2000 Report on International
Religious Freedom, ``Chinese government violations of religious freedom
increased markedly during the past year.''
China has received normal trade relations (NTR) status annually since
1980. However, gross human rights abuses in China still prevail. Since
the Tiananmen Square tragedy of 1989, the annual process of renewal has
been a meaningful way to impact human rights considerations into the
U.S.-china trade debate. The annual debate in the Congress on normal
trade relations is the only substantive economic leverage the Congress
can choose to exert against China. If Congress grants China permanent
normal trade status, the United States will lose the best leverage it
has to meaningfully influence China to enact internationally recognized
rights and protections. While there is no doubt that the globalization
of the world's markets is inevitable, Congress should continue to have
an opportunity to review China's human rights performance on an annual
basis before granting China permanent normal trade relations.
Mr. Speaker, in the past, I have voted in support of most favored
nation [MFN] status for China. Last year, I opposed the year long MFN
for China. However, today, I oppose PNTR for China because of its
potential negative impact on the American worker.
While this bill might provide certain economic benefits and
advantages to some American companies, it could hurt other American
industries and may cost many Americans their jobs. Pursuant to a report
by the Economic Policy Institute, American workers in every state will
lose jobs if this bill is passed. Over the next decade, U.S. job losses
would total 872,091 with every industry suffering.
In the State of Florida alone, an estimated 22,277 jobs will be lost.
If we do not protect the interest of the American worker, then who
will? We must not allow ``big business'' to sell out the American
worker, nor can I allow small business in my district to be severely
impacted by this trade pact.
Most Americans recognize the importance of trade. Most Americans also
recognize the importance of decent wages and decent work standards. In
the United States, our manufacturing industry served as the lifeblood
of millions of Americans for generations. The manufacturing industry
and other similar industries served as a vehicle for millions of
Americans to lift themselves out of poverty and achieve the American
dream. However, in the last 20 years, millions of manufacturing jobs
have been lost to low-wage foreign nations producing cheap imports. We
can not continue to lose American jobs to cheap labor abroad without
substantive protections for the American worker.
Free trade without enforceable labor and environmental protections
will promote the growth of child labor, forced labor, poverty-level
wages and environmental abuses. Increasingly, American companies are
moving their operations abroad in order to take advantage of cheap
labor and near non-existent environmental standards. Unfortunately, for
many businesses, this is the great attraction of China. PNTR will
perpetuate the increasing exploitation of Chinese workers and add to
the suffering of thousands of children who toil in filthy hazardous
sweatshops. We must not aid in this human tragedy.
Mr. Speaker, human rights is a fundamental principal of American
democracy; the ability of the American worker to gain meaningful
employment is critical to the prosperity of America; labor standards
and worker rights are fundamental rights which should be extended to
every worker--across the globe; and exploitation of innocent children
is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 510, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on 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.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Bonior

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BONIOR. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bonior moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4444, to the
Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on
International Relations with instructions that those
committees report the bill back to the House promptly with
the following amendment:
Add at the end of title I the following new section:

SEC. 105. WITHDRAWAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) Article XXI of the GATT 1994 (as defined in section
2(1)(B) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C.
3501(1)(B)) allows a member of the World Trade Organization
to take ``any action which it considers necessary for the
protection of its essential security interests,''
particularly ``in time of war or other emergency in
international relations''; and
(2) an attack on, invasion of, or blockade of Taiwan by the
People's Republic of China would constitute a threat to the
essential security interests of the United States and an
emergency in international relations.

[[Page 9151]]

(b) Withdrawal of Normal Trade Relations.--Pursuant to
Article XXI of the GATT 1994, nondiscriminatory treatment
(normal trade relations treatment) shall be withdrawn from
the products of the People's Republic of China if that
country attacks, invades, or imposes a blockade on Taiwan.
(c) Applicability to Existing Contracts.--The President
shall have the authority to determine the extent to which the
withdrawal under subsection (b) of normal trade relations
treatment applies to products imported pursuant to contracts
entered into before the date on which the withdrawal of such
treatment is announced. The President shall issue regulations
to carry out such determination.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is
recognized for 5 minutes on his motion to recommit.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is the exact same
language as an amendment that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Weldon) and I offered in the Committee on Rules we sought to have
incorporated in the base bill or to be offered as an amendment, but we
were not allowed to so. It is very simple. It simply says that PNTR is
automatically revoked if China attacks, invades, or blockades Taiwan.
Now, when we talk to people in the administration or even outside in
the academic world, people who are China experts, they all say, but if
China invades, attacks, or blockades Taiwan, of course we would revoke
PNTR and much more.
But, over and over again in history, we know that when nations do not
tell the consequences for conduct for aggressive actions, other
countries misread those consequences.
Having studied what happened prior to the Gulf War for a very long
time, I believe if we had made more clear to Saddam Hussein what would
have happened should he invade Kuwait, that particular bloody battle
could have been avoided.
If all we are going to do is agree to revoke PNTR should this very
real threat be implemented, then let us tell the Chinese beforehand.
I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), reach out
to the future. But as we do so, remember the past, give the specific
announcement of the consequence for the threat to our national security
interests for which we spend billions of dollars in forward deployment
in the Western Pacific.
And, by the way, this is GATT pursuant to article 21. Arguments being
spread around this Chamber that this somehow is GATT violative are
inaccurate, wrong, and improper legal analysis.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bipartisan motion.
Surely we should use our economic leverage with China to deter any
Chinese aggression against Taiwan. It is a very simple motion that will
do exactly what we need to do to protect our ally.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has been so marvelous on this issue.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, there are good people on both sides. I know as
a Member that sometimes we want to be with our party and sometimes we
want to be with our President.
For me, I want to be with my conscience. My conscience tells me, and
I think the American people would agree, that if China attacks,
invades, or blockades Taiwan, they should lose PNTR.
Support the motion to recommit. That is where the American people
would be.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I think the bottom line
question we all need to ask, Mr. Speaker, is, is there anything that
the dictatorship in Beijing can do that would lead to a loss of support
for PNTR that Beijing so desperately wants? They need to know, as my
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), said, up front what
the consequences will be.
If pervasive torture, religious persecution, Laogai labor, a lack of
press freedom, and worker rights and other human rights abuses are not
enough, I sincerely hope that war with Taiwan is sufficiently egregious
to trigger a loss of support for PNTR.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I asked only three questions of the CIA when I went in
for the briefing. I said, will PNTR, if we pass it, stabilize or
destabilize the regime? They said, stabilize. I said, what will it do
to buildup of forces on the shoreline and the aggressive forces that
are being amassed against Taiwan? They said, it will improve it.
I tell my colleagues now, as I left that meeting, I walked away
thinking about the oath of office I took with all of my colleagues
here, the oath that said I swear to protect and defend this country.
Think about that oath. Vote for this motion to recommit.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, if we supplied the American dollars
for the missile destroyers, we supplied American dollars for the AWACS
and air refueling equipment and for the kilo submarines that China is
acquiring, we at least owe the commitment to Taiwan to condition those
supplies of American cache with a commitment to have a benign
relationship with Taiwan on the part of mainland China.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if this motion to recommit passes, it does
not instruct the committee to report back forthwith with instructions.
Does that mean that if this motion to recommit passes that the bill
will have to go back to committee?

{time} 1700

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas is
correct.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, what that means is that it will be reported
back to committee, and there will be no vote on final passage?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is correct, the
bill would be recommitted to two committees.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, is it not also true that if indeed this
motion passed, this bill could be reported back to the two respective
committees to which it is designated and that bill could be reported
back to the House tomorrow?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. At some subsequent time, the committees
could meet and report the bill back to the House.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Defense of
the Committee on Appropriations for 22 years and a former member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I rise to oppose the motion
to recommit. First of all, the Bonior motion to recommit violates GATT
provision article 1, because you cannot condition most favored nation
status, MFN, or NTR, so this is a killer amendment.
The President, by the way, already has the authority to withdraw at
any time MFN or NTR status for the People's Republic of China. Also,
under article 21 of GATT, the United States has unilateral authority to
exert its national security exception for any reason. Clearly reacting
to an attack on Taiwan would meet the security exception.

[[Page 9152]]

The U.S. can withdraw MFN or NTR clearly under those circumstances
without having to in any way compensate China. And WTO members have
wide discretion to invoke its GATT 21 rights. This authority has gone
back for many years. We have exerted it against Cuba, we have exerted
it against Nicaragua, and it has been sustained in every instance. So
this amendment is not necessary, it is a killer amendment, and I hope
that the House will reject the motion to recommit.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion to
recommit. If Members are for the bill, vote for it. If they are against
the bill, vote against it, but do not do it this way. This is a very
clear poison pill by opponents of free trade to kill this historic
legislation, make no mistake about it. This amendment is a procedural
vote that is cleverly drafted to appeal to those of us who support
Taiwan. But let us be clear. This is a blatant political move to bring
down this bill both on substance and on procedure.
Mr. Speaker, there is no bigger supporter and defender of Taiwan than
myself. I have worked with Members on both sides of this aisle and on
both sides of this debate on legislation to protect Taiwan and give it
the resources it needs to defend itself from Beijing. Most Members
voted for the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. I have been and will
continue to be an outspoken opponent against China's Communist leaders.
I share the concerns of my friend the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman) about Beijing's constant refusal to renounce the use of force
against Taiwan, and I will continue to work with anyone in this
Congress who wants to address these issues. But, Mr. Speaker, this
amendment does not help Taiwan. It puts them square in the middle of a
vicious political fight. Taiwan supporters need to understand this.
Taiwan does not support this language. We have spoken to I-jen Chiou,
the Deputy Secretary-General of the Taiwan Security Council, and he
made it clear that this amendment is not helpful to Taiwan. They
support PNTR. They support China getting into the WTO. This amendment
puts all of that in jeopardy.
Let me say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, if China attacks
Taiwan, I will be the first to come down on this floor to force any
administration, whether it be Democrat or Republican, to take action
against China. But let us be clear. This language will do nothing to
address our concerns with Beijing, it will have no impact on their
actions but will permit the Chinese to refuse WTO benefits to American
companies.
The USTR has already made it clear that this language will subject us
to punishing tariffs once China enters the WTO. And at the same time,
it does not give us any new authority. We already have the authority
under the WTO to remove PNTR for China for national security reasons.
However, singling out China preemptively is a violation of our
commitments under the WTO. So, Mr. Speaker, I understand why this
language looks appealing, but I urge my colleagues not to use our
friends in Taiwan as a political tool.
After all the discussions, after all the commitments that have been
made on this issue, Members will not even get to vote on final passage
today if this motion to recommit passes. Now, they say it will come
back from committee. I have got to tell Members, they do not come back
from committee. When motions to recommit like this go back to
committee, they are subject to oblivion.
This is it. If you are against it, vote against the bill. If you are
for it, vote for the bill but do not play this kind of game. Vote
``no'' on 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.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 258, not voting 1, as follows:

[Roll No. 227]

AYES--176

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Baca
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Buyer
Capuano
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doyle
Duncan
Engel
Evans
Farr
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Goode
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hefley
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Luther
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Ney
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pombo
Rahall
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--258

Ackerman
Allen
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clayton
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds

[[Page 9153]]

Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--1

Scarborough

{time} 1724

Mr. RUSH and Ms. WATERS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237,
noes 197, not voting 1, as follows:

[Roll No. 228]

AYES--237

Ackerman
Allen
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Roemer
Rogan
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (FL)

NOES--197

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Baca
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Capuano
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doyle
Duncan
Ehrlich
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Goode
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Ney
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pombo
Quinn
Rahall
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--1

Scarborough

{time} 1741

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to authorize extension
of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to
the People's Republic of China, and to establish a framework for
relations between the United States and the People's Republic of
China.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 3688

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my
name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3688.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.

____________________

{time} 1745

COMMENDING ISRAEL'S REDEPLOYMENT FROM SOUTHERN LEBANON

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on International Relations be discharged from further consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 331) commending Israel's
redeployment from southern Lebanon, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

H. Con. Res. 331

Whereas Israel has been actively seeking a comprehensive
peace with all of her neighbors to bring about an end to the
Arab-Israeli conflict;
Whereas southern Lebanon has for decades been the staging
area for attacks against Israeli cities and towns by
Hezbollah and by Palestinian terrorists, resulting in the
death or wounding of hundreds of Israeli civilians;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 425
(March 19, 1978) calls upon Israel to withdraw its forces
from all Lebanese territory;

[[Page 9154]]

Whereas the Government of Israel unanimously agreed to
implement Security Council Resolution 425 and has stated its
intention of redeploying its forces to the international
border by July 7, 2000;
Whereas Security Council Resolution 425 also calls for
``strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty
and political independence of Lebanon within its
internationally recognized boundaries'' and establishes a
United Nations interim force to help restore Lebanese
sovereignty; and
Whereas the Government of Syria currently deploys 30,000
Syrian troops in Lebanon: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress--
(1) commends Israel for its decision to withdraw its forces
from southern Lebanon and for taking risks for peace in the
Middle East;
(2) calls upon the United Nations Security Council--
(A) to recognize Israel's fulfillment of its obligations
under Security Council Resolution 425 and to provide the
necessary resources for the United Nations Interim Force in
Lebanon (UNIFIL) to implement its mandate under that
resolution; and
(B) insist upon the withdrawal of all foreign forces from
Lebanese territory so that Lebanon may exercise sovereignty
throughout its territory;
(3) urges UNIFIL, in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed
Forces, to gain full control over southern Lebanon, including
taking actions to ensure the disarmament of Hezbollah and all
other such groups, in order to eliminate all terrorist
activity originating from that area;
(4) appeals to the Government of Lebanon to grant clemency
and assure the safety and rehabilitation into Lebanese
society of all members of the South Lebanon Army and their
families;
(5) calls upon the international community to ensure that
southern Lebanon does not once again become a staging ground
for attacks against Israel and to cooperate in bringing about
the reconstruction and reintegration of southern Lebanon;
(6) recognizes Israel's right, enshrined in Chapter 7,
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, to defend itself
and its people from attack and reasserts United States
support for maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge in
order to ensure Israel's long-term security; and
(7) urges all parties to reenter the peace process with the
Government of Israel in order to bring peace and stability to
all the Middle East.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking minority member of our
committee, for purposes of debate only, pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 331, introduced
by our distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey), which commends Israel's decision to withdraw its forces from
southern Lebanon.
The events of the past few days have indeed been historic. I was
pleased to be an original sponsor of this resolution, which calls on
the U.N. Security Council to recognize Israel's fulfillment of U.N.
Security Council Resolution 425 by withdrawing from Lebanon and to
insist that all foreign forces be withdrawn from that country.
The measure we are considering today is a major foreign policy
statement of the Congress. It is pro-Israel and pro-Lebanon, sends a
strong bipartisan message of peace and stability to the region. As a
result of this latest major development, a high priority of the United
States must also be to affirm Israel's right as noted in the U.N.
charter to defend itself and its civilians from attack.
H. Con. Res. 331, Mr. Speaker, also reasserts U.S. support for
maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge in order to ensure
Israel's long-term security.
Mr. Speaker, Israel's courageous decision to pull out of Lebanon
demonstrates its strong commitment to a peaceful resolution to the
conflicts that troubled that region. I hope that Israel's courage is
reciprocated by both Syria and Iran in their dealings with Lebanon.
This means that the 30,000 Syrian forces now occupying Lebanon should
also be removed as required by the Taif Accord. Moreover, Iran must
understand that it cannot continue to equip and train Hezbollah and
other terrorist groups without bearing the consequences of
international public opinion.
As our colleagues know, Israel has been actively seeking a
comprehensive peace with all of her neighbors since its miraculous
creation in 1948, yet southern Lebanon has for decades been the staging
area for attacks against Israeli citizens and towns by Hezbollah and
Palestinian terrorists, resulting in the death or wounding of hundreds
of Israeli civilians.
H. Con. Res. 331 recognizes the courageous risks for Israel that
Israel is taking, as well as confirming the strict respect for the
territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of
Lebanon. It also appeals to the government of Lebanon to grant clemency
and ensure the safety and rehabilitation into Lebanese society of all
members of the south Lebanon Army and their families.
This measure underscores the congressional desire for the U.N.
Security Council to swiftly recognize Israel's fulfillment of its
obligation. The U.N. should also provide the necessary resources for
the U.N. interim force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, to implement its mandate
under resolution 425. UNIFIL, in cooperation with the Lebanese armed
forces, must gain full control over southern Lebanon, including taking
actions to ensure the disarmament of Hezbollah and all other such
groups.
All terrorist activities originating from southern Lebanon must end
and every effort must be taken to ensure that southern Lebanon does not
once again become a staging ground for attacks against Israel.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say that progress in the Middle East
peace process is frequently measured in inches; yet the events of the
past few days emphasize the miles that Israel will go to achieve
peaceful co-existence with her neighbors.
Accordingly, I urge all parties to reenter the negotiating process
with the government of Israel in order to bring peace and stability to
the entire region and reiterate my strongest support for the adoption
of H. Con. Res. 331.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our distinguished
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the sponsor of
this resolution.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my comments today by
paying my respects, as old professors are wont to do sometimes, I would
say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), to a former favored
student, Mr. Nami Saba, a young man that had grown up in Lebanon and a
young man who loved peace, who loved freedom, who loved learning and
became quite a scholar in his own right. He set for me an example of
what Lebanese culture, what the Lebanese people could be like and what
this nation that we call Lebanon could once again be someday perhaps.
So my wish tonight is not only for the people of Israel but for the
people of Lebanon, those who, like Nami Saba, wanted only to be free to
live in peace and to learn and to study and to share lovingly and
graciously what they understood with other people.
Still, at this time, Mr. Speaker, we have a resolution that commends
Israel for having the courage to take a risk for peace, and it does
take a risk. As anybody watching these events now knows, Israel has
again been willing to take that risk. It can only hope, as the
resolution also urges, that all foreign forces will now leave Lebanon.
There is no reason for the Syrians or anyone else to be there. Lebanon,
its problems and its challenges, should be left to the Lebanese.
Mr. Speaker, Israel has faced dangers on its northern border and
indeed from all sides, this despite the fact that her people desire
only to live in peace. I firmly believe, as this resolution further
states, that the United States must help maintain Israel's qualitative
military edge. Israel is our best friend in the region, and we must
stand with the Israeli people.
Again, I want to commend Israel for taking risks for peace; and if I
might dare say again, on a personal note here, for the people of Israel
and indeed for my friend, Nami Saba, I wish shalom, shalom.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Florida

[[Page 9155]]

(Mr. Hastings) be in control of my time at the conclusion of my
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, the courage of the head of the Israeli
government, Mr. Barak, during the campaign to state with certainty that
he would remove Israeli forces from Lebanon was an exhibit of the
courage that he has in his commitment to the peace process. As the
majority leader pointed out, this did take risks, but with a
recognition that things cannot remain as they are in the Middle East.
Israel took tremendous risks to remove its forces and pull back from an
area that had buffered its people from constant assaults and attack.
This is an opportunity for peace. We would hope that all the
countries in the region, that in particular Syria does not make any
effort to exploit this movement of Israeli forces back to Israel's
territory. All the world watches to see if the countries of the region
will help Lebanon, that has suffered so much for so many years, to
rebuild itself and gain control of its own territory.
Hezbollah should understand this is an opportunity for them to
develop a political presence, not to expand a military presence in the
region.
The courageous acts of the Israelis recognizing during the campaign
that Israeli presence out of Lebanon was a necessity should now be
supported by the U.N. and other countries helping to rebuild Lebanon,
helping Lebanon to regain control of its own territory, and helping us
move forward in the peace process, with the Palestinians and all the
countries of the region. When we look at the Middle East and we see the
courage of the new king of Jordan, the leadership of the president of
Egypt, we understand there is the capacity for peace. Now we will test
all the countries in the region to see if that capacity can be spread
and peace can indeed return to the land.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, there are four basic points I would like to make. First,
I want to join the majority leader and my other colleagues in
commending the State of Israel for withdrawing its forces from southern
Lebanon. These forces were inserted into southern Lebanon in the first
place because there were cross-border raids resulting in the death and
mutilation of large numbers of Israelis, adults as well as children.
The Israeli forces were in southern Lebanon not as an occupying force.
Israel did not covet a single square inch of Lebanese territory. They
were there as a buffer to protect the northern communities of the State
of Israel from terrorist attacks.
I want to particularly commend Prime Minister Barak, Israel's most
highly decorated soldier, for having the courage and taking the
initiative in withdrawing these forces. Too, Mr. Speaker, we now have
to ask Lebanon to act like a sovereign and independent country. Lebanon
has a sizable military. That military now must move to the southern
border of Lebanon, as any other country would do, so that the Lebanese
military will protect its own territory. It is unacceptable that
terrorist groups such as Hezbollah maintain control over the border
region. Should that happen, it is easy to predict that a conflagration
is just around the corner with incalculable consequences.
So the second thing we in this Congress must call for is for Lebanon
to accept its own responsibility as a sovereign nation and to protect
its own southern border.

{time} 1800

The third point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make relates to Syria.
Syria has had over 30,000 troops in Lebanon for years. The excuse for
the stationing of such a huge Syrian military force in Lebanon was the
presence in southern Lebanon of Israeli forces. That presence no longer
exists. Let me repeat. That presence no longer exists. There is not a
single Israeli soldier left on Lebanese territory.
I call upon President Asad to remove all of his forces from Lebanon.
There is no justification in the 21st century for a neighbor to have
occupying forces in a sovereign country. Syrian forces must forthwith
withdraw from Lebanon if, indeed, a regional peace is to be built.
My final comment, Mr. Speaker, relates to the United Nations. The
United Nations has about 4,500 troops in southern Lebanon. Some of
these troops have been effective in policing. Some of the United
Nations forces have performed their responsibilities well. Others have
not. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, whom
we will welcome here tomorrow for lunch, now has the task of persuading
the Security Council to send an additional United Nations force made up
of dependable national contingents to assist in the policing of
southern Lebanon. If these things happen, Mr. Speaker, we might look
forward to the restoration of peace and stability between the state of
Israel and the state of Lebanon.
May I say on a personal note, Mr. Speaker, that my first trip to
Lebanon was in 1956. In the 1960s, I was asked to assume the Presidency
of the American University in Beirut, Lebanon. Lebanon used to be
referred to as the Switzerland of the Middle East and justifiably so.
I hope that the Lebanese government will show the responsibility and
the courage to move in this crisis. If they do, a new future will be
opened to the Lebanese people who certainly deserve it, and peace
between Lebanon and Israel will follow the peace that was established
between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.
Once the Lebanese-Israeli peace is at long last established,
President Asad of Syria will recognize that he, too, has this option to
make peace with his neighbor Israel so that, at long last, this region
can live in peace.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls for the United Nations Security
Council Resolution 425 to be implemented, and it is being done or has
been done by Israel in that it has now withdrawn its forces from all
Lebanese territory.
Bridges of peace are buttressed by planks of good faith. Israel has
acted in good faith by their actions, and they are right in this
resolution by my colleagues and those of us that are cosponsors and are
commended.
The time is now for all the parties to reenter the peace process.
Central to this resolution are two things that I would like to point
to. One, it appeals to the government of Lebanon to grant clemency and
assure the safety and rehabilitation into Lebanese society of all
members of the South Lebanon Army and their families. I wish that they
would undertake that portion of the resolution.
In addition, it calls upon the international community to ensure that
southern Lebanon does not once again become a staging ground for
attacks against Israel and to cooperate in bringing about the
reconstruction and reintegration of southern Lebanon. Syria has a role
to play in that, the United Nations has a role to play in that, and
Hezbollah law has a critical role to play in ensuring that that takes
place.
I would like to commend Mr. Barak and his colleagues for their
foresightedness with reference to this matter and urge all parties to
reenter the negotiations so that there can be peace and stability in
the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Wexler) whose district abuts mine.
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I think that there are two points that need to be made
very clearly and could not be more dramatic. First and foremost, from
here on in, nobody can say anything other than Israel has, in fact,
fulfilled its obligations under the United Nations Security Council
Resolution 425.

[[Page 9156]]

As a result of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, could it also not be
said that the ball is now in the court of the Lebanese people, their
leadership, as well as the Syrian people and their leadership.
This is an extraordinary opportunity for the Israeli withdrawal from
Lebanon to be an impetus for peace. But Israel's actions, as they
represent a risk for peace, will only result in peace if they are
followed by similar risks by the Lebanese government and the Syrian
government.
There can be no more excuses. Those that allege a fight in the name
of some kind of redeployment or removal from Israel from Lebanon have
no more excuses. It is time for Hezbollah to put down its arms. It is
time for the United Nations to ensure peace in southern Lebanon and
Israel's northern border.
The world should be put at alarm because, for now, it is the Lebanese
people and the Syrian leadership that have the opportunity to create a
real and lasting peace.
This resolution first and foremost sends our message, sends our
strong will to the Israeli people and, at the same time, sends our
great hope to the Lebanese people that they will reassert sovereignty
over their country.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a tireless worker
for peace in the Middle East.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, my
mother's congressman, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 331, commending
Israel's redeployment from southern Lebanon. Israel has fully complied
with UN Resolution 425, removing its troops from Lebanon. Now I think
it is fairly obvious that Syria ought to do the same.
There are currently 35,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon, and clearly
those troops stop the Lebanese people from being masters of their own
destiny. Syria allows Hezbollah, has allowed Hezbollah to stage attacks
on the Israeli soldiers who were in southern Lebanon. If Hezbollah
attempts to go across the border and attack Israel proper, the blame
will surely be and squarely be at Syria's doorstep.
Indeed, when Israel announced that it was withdrawing from southern
Lebanon, something that the United Nations and the Syrians and other
Nations, the Arab Nations, have all said that they wanted for all these
years, it was the Syrians who warned Israel and said they better not do
that, they better not leave, which, to me, was simply mind boggling.
When Israel said it will remove its troops from Lebanon, the Syrians
were the ones who objected.
So it clearly shows that Syria has been using Lebanon and the
Lebanese people as bargaining chips and for whatever purposes, other
purposes they have for many, many years. Syria should get out of
Lebanon now and allow the Lebanese people to control their own destiny.
I commend Prime Minister Barak and the Israeli government and the
Israeli people for clearly showing that they want peace. What better
way to show peace is at hand than to have Syria pull out as well?
When President Clinton met with Mr. Asad in Europe not long ago
trying to help broker a peace between Syria and Israel, it was
painfully clear to all that Mr. Asad and the Syrian government was not
really interested in a genuine peace. In order to have peace, there has
to be give-and-take. There has to be compromise. Both sides need to
give in. But Mr. Asad, unfortunately, wanted it to be only a one-sided
peace.
So the world really can look now at the Middle East and see which
country is prepared to take risks for peace, which country is taking
risks for peace, which country wanted to do it together, and not being
allowed to do it together is now doing it unilaterally taking risks for
peace. That country is Israel. Syria ought to do the same.
We ought to pass this resolution unanimously.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a new member of the
Committee on International Relations who has distinguished himself with
his service there.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 331,
commending Israel's redeployment from southern Lebanon.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the
majority leader; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the
minority leader; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), Committee on
International Relations chairman; and the gentleman form Connecticut
(Mr. Gejdenson), ranking member, for their leadership on this issue and
for bringing this resolution to the floor so quickly.
As a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 331, I am extremely pleased to see
this legislation come before the House this evening.
Israel has shown great courage in unilaterally withdrawing its forces
from Lebanon.
Israeli Prime Minister Barak is to be commended for keeping his word
to the Israeli people and removing Israeli defense forces from southern
Lebanon. This action clearly demonstrates that Prime Minister Barak is
firmly committed to moving the peace process forward, despite the
intransigence of the Syrians and the security risks associated with
this withdrawal.
I am pleased that the UN just yesterday endorsed a plan for verifying
Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon. The UN has also called for all
parties to show restraint and cooperate with UN peacekeepers in
Lebanon. UN officials must now verify that Israel has returned over the
borders that it crossed in 1978. I urge them to do this quickly.
In another positive move, the Lebanese government indicated that it
was ready to delay pressing its claim, although tenuous at best, to the
land in the Golan Heights. Unfortunately, Hezbollah guerrillas appear
committed to continuing the war.
Israel has withdrawn. The UN peacekeepers must now be allowed to do
their work in that region. It is my hope that Hezbollah will show some
restraint and restrain from attacks against Israel and the Israeli
people. But if Hezbollah does not respect Israel's borders, then Israel
has every right to defend itself.
Israel has taken an enormous leap of faith to make peace with its
neighbors, and I call upon Syria to resume its negotiations with Israel
in good faith and broker a lasting peace with Israel.
Finally, I would like to say that I am ready to work with the
leadership of this House, the Committee on International Relations, and
the government of Israel should assistance in settling the SLA and
their families either here or in Israel be needed.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), a tireless worker, a
person that has worked actively for peace in the Middle East.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida so much
for yielding me this time. He has been such a leader.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 331. As
we know, this resolution commends Israel for its decision to withdraw
its troops from southern Lebanon and for taking risks for peace and the
Middle East.

{time} 1815

And we should be commending them, all of us together, unanimously
hopefully, for the risks that they have taken for peace.
This resolution also calls upon the United Nations Security Council
to recognize Israel's fulfillment of its obligations under Security
Council Resolution 425 and to provide the necessary resources for the
United Nations interim force in Lebanon to implement

[[Page 9157]]

its mandate under that resolution. It also insists upon the withdrawal
of all foreign forces from Lebanon territory so that Lebanon may
exercise sovereignty throughout its territory.
It is also important that this resolution calls upon the entire
international community to ensure that southern Lebanon does not once
again become a staging ground for attacks against Israel, and to
cooperate in bringing about the reconstruction and reintegration of
southern Lebanon.
It is important that we are here this evening. It is important that
we are here recognizing the risks that have been taken for peace, and I
hope that we will all join together in supporting Israel's actions, the
independence of Lebanon, and a secure Middle East peace.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), who has worked tirelessly in
this effort and others for peace throughout the world.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot emphasize too much how big a risk this is for
peace. Since the establishment of the State of Israel, a little more
than 50 years ago, the people of Israel have had to fight five wars
just to survive, and I am proud of the fact that the United States of
America has been an ally to Israel all throughout those years. I am
proud of the fact that Harry Truman was the first world leader to step
forward and recognize the State of Israel.
From time to time I am asked by my constituents why I am such a
strong supporter of aid to Israel, and I give them many answers. Two of
them are these: Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and
Israel is the best ally that the United States has at the U.N.
Another thing Harry Truman used to say is, ``Let's look at the
record.'' I have looked at the record and Israel is our best ally. Now,
some might say, well, we have a lot of other allies around the world.
But a lot of time when push comes to shove, they are not there for us,
they do not vote with us, they do not act with us.
I remember in the early days of the Reagan administration, when
President Ronald Reagan wanted to do a retaliatory strike against Libya
for its terrorist activities. We went to one of our traditional allies,
which would not exist if it were not for the United States of America
and what we did in World War II, and we did not ask for money, we did
not ask for any military personnel, and we did not ask for planes. The
President said, on our way to do the mission, can we fly through your
airspace. And our ally said, no.
I submit to my colleagues that with allies like that, we do not need
enemies.
So I stand here before my colleagues today in support of a true ally,
who once again takes the risk for peace. And as they step forward and
take that risk again, I join with my colleagues in making the point
that it is now time for Syria to reciprocate.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a person who has spent years
working for Middle East peace and for peace in this country as well.
She is a mentor of mine and one who has no peer on this subject, a
person with whom I have had the pleasure of being in Israel with on
three different occasions.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this
resolution. And, first, I want to thank my good colleague, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for that very gracious
introduction.
I remember that trip to Israel, and I remember very well when the
gentleman and I and the black caucus visited all the sites, and every
one came back committed, understanding the strong relationship between
Israel and the United States and the importance of that relationship,
and that our support for Israel is in the interest of the United
States. I appreciate the gentleman's generosity as a very, very strong
supporter, which the gentleman is.
I want to commend Israel, Mr. Speaker, on the completion of its
historic withdrawal from southern Lebanon, the latest in one of many
risks the government and the people of Israel have taken for peace.
This unilateral action is a significant step in the effort to achieve a
comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
The people of Israel have had enough. They have seen enough of their
sons, their fathers, their husbands die during the last 2 decades. With
the implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 425,
redeployment from southern Lebanon, Israel has taken a very brave step
towards achieving peace with their neighbors, a peace that will benefit
Israel's children, Lebanon's children, and the whole region for years
to come.
This decision has not come without risks. Hezbollah terrorists have
consistently staged attacks against cities and towns on Israel's
northern border. The withdrawal of Israeli forces have left a vacuum in
southern Lebanon, and Syria still harbors 30,000 troops on Lebanese
soil. As we stand here, thousands of Israeli citizens have fled their
homes in northern Israel to escape violent attacks.
As a champion of Middle East peace, the United States must stand
firmly, strongly, and unequivocally with the people of Israel during
this difficult time. We must insist on the immediate withdrawal of
Syrian forces from Lebanon. We must encourage the United Nations to
recognize Israel's brave choice and to help stabilize southern Lebanon
and reintegrate it with the rest of the country. Most of all, we must
never, ever forget Israel's paramount right to make its own decisions
about the security of its people and its border.
I urge all of my colleagues to recognize the courage of the people of
Israel, the courage they have shown this week and throughout the Middle
East peace process, and to reaffirm our commitment to the present and
future security of one of our very best allies. I urge my colleagues to
support this resolution.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise to join in the commendation of the people of Israel
and the government of Israel for taking this important step.
It is a courageous step to try to bring some order to the chaos that
has been Lebanon. The prime minister of Israel and the government of
Israel have taken a very methodical look at what it is going to take to
bring peace to that part of the world, and it is clear that the chaos
that has been Lebanon has to be brought to order. So the government of
Israel, the prime minister of Israel, have unilaterally and
courageously taken this step.
We, as friends, deep friends of Israel, must lend our help; and we
must call on Syria to follow with full withdrawal from Lebanon so that
order can be restored to Lebanon. So I join my friend, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and my good friend, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. McNulty), and the others here today in commending Israel and
urging our support, the support of the American people, as they try to
bring peace to this part of the world, to the Middle East, which has
been wracked with war for far too long.
Through this courageous action, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that they
will have peace now on the northern border and that this will remove
some of the difficulties that Syria has been putting in the way. So we
here should lend our support and our commendation to Israel.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume merely to commend the majority leader, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey), and the chairman of the Committee on International
Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), as well as the
ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Gejdenson), for their cooperative effort in expediting this resolution
in the

[[Page 9158]]

hope that it will be on the floor for Members to act on tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the measure now under consideration, H. Con. Res. 331.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS

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

____________________

SUDDEN SNIFFING DEATH SYNDROME

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my
colleagues a story that was told to me by a mother in my community.
Kathy Abel of Keizer, Oregon, was met at her doorstep by a police
officer to inform her that her 18-year-old son was dead.
Kathy's son James did not die in a car accident or a shooting.
Kathy's son died at the hands of an everyday household product. Kathy's
son died as a result of inhalant abuse.
Kathy's son James was no different than most high school students. He
was active in school, popular amongst his classmates, and on his way to
starting his life as an adult.
The death of this bright young man should never have happened. The
young man that James was with should not know what it feels like to
have his friend die in his arms, and James's family should not have
known the hopeless, tragic feeling of hearing that their beloved son
was dead.
Most of us do not even know what inhalant abuse is, and too often we
find out after it is too late. Inhalant abuse is the intentional
breathing in of gas and vapors with the goal of getting high. Typical
substances that are inhaled include gasoline, paint thinner, nail
polish remover, typewriter correction fluid, butane and propane.

{time} 1830

These products are typically household items that we all keep in our
homes.
In Oregon, a 1998 study showed that 20 percent of 8th graders have
tried inhalants. That is one out of every five students. Scarier yet is
the fact that children can often die after inhaling these substances
only one time. Inhalants also serve as a gateway drug that can lead
young people toward other forms of drug abuse.
Let me explain the way inhalants affect the body. Inhalants produce
an effect within seconds that may last from 15 to 45 minutes. They will
generally act as central nervous system depressants. After an initial
euphoria, a depressed state follows that can be accompanied by
drowsiness or sleep. Inhalants lower breathing and heart rates and
impair coordination and judgment. Dosages must be repeated to maintain
intoxication.
Inhalants can cause severe and permanent damage to the brain, liver,
kidneys, and other organs. More than any substance, inhalants can cause
sudden death resulting from heart arrhythmia and suffocation. Let me
repeat that. More than any other substance, inhalants can cause Sudden
Sniffing Death Syndrome. This means users can die the first time, the
10th time, or the 100th time. No one really knows.
Today my colleague the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I
are introducing a bill that will allow grants to go for education
programs to combat inhalant abuse. If passed, this legislation will
bring much-needed attention to this very serious problem.
It is never too early to teach our children about the dangers of
inhalants. Inhalant use starts as early as elementary school. Parents
often remain ignorant of inhalant use or do not educate their children
until it is too late.
Let me remind my colleagues, inhalants are not drugs. They are
poisons and toxins and should be discussed as such.
The Partnership for a Drug-Free America produced this ad in Monday's
New York Times. It says, ``Every parent should take a drug test. Learn
about inhalants. What you don't know may surprise you.''
Mr. Speaker, I include the article for the Record:

[From the New York Times, May 22, 2000]

Every Parent Should Take a Drug Test

learn about inhalants. What you don't know may surprise you

An alarming number of children across the country are using
household products to get high.
If you're going to protect your kids, you'd better know
something about this problem.
Here's a chance to test yourself. The answers are printed
below.
1. How many substances found in the average home can make
you high if inhaled?
a. 10-15
b. More than 25
c. More than 100
d. More than 500
e. More than 1,000
2. By the eighth grade, how many kids have tried at least
one inhalant?
a. One in a hundred
b. One in fifty
c. One in 25
d. One in 5
e. One in 2
3. Which of the following can you use with an inhalant to
get high?
a. A soda can
b. A sock
c. A plastic bag
d. A balloon
e. All of the above
4. What is ``huffing?''
a. Sucking on an aerosol can
b. Blowing into a bag, then inhaling the fumes
c. Inhaling a chemical by panting
d. Putting a rag soaked with a chemical to your mouth and
inhaling the fumes
e. Pouring a chemical directly into your mouth and
breathing the fumes
5. What percentage of inhalants can be toxic?
a. 10-15%
b. 15-20%
c. 25-50%
d. 50-75%
e. All of them
6. A danger of inhaling chemical substances is:
a. Brain damage
b. Liver and Kidney damage
c. Suffocation
d. Death
e. All of the above
7. Of the inhalants that will make you ``high,'' how many
can cause permanent brain damage?
a. One or two
b. A dozen or so
c. Almost a hundred
d. Nearly all of them
e. None of them
8. Why do kids abuse inhalants?
a. Products that can be sniffed to get high can be found in
every household
b. They're inexpensive
c. They're legal
d. Users don't realize how dangerous they are
e. All of the above
9. What is SSD?
a. Sweet Sniffing Dreams
b. Sudden Sniffing Desire
c. Sudden Sniffing Death
d. Sure Sniffing Damage
e. Shaky Sniffing Dancing
10. The best approach to prevention with kids is:
a. Threaten them--e.g. ``I'll break your neck if I ever
catch you using inhalants
b. Talk with them, tell them how you feel about inhalants,
and warn them of the dangers
c. Ignore the problem. What your kids don't know can't hurt
them
d. Tell your kids you want them to talk with their guidance
counselor in school about inhalants
e. Talk with the guidance counselor yourself and get his or
her advice

[[Page 9159]]

Answers: 1(c); 2(d); 3(e); 4(d); 5(e); 6(e); 7(d); 8(e);
9(c); 10(b) or (e).

You don't need to score 100% before you talk about this
problem with your kids.
You simply have to let them know how you feel about the
problem and warn them of the dangers.
Don't be put off if your words don't seem to register. What
does register is not so much what you say, but the fact you
care enough to be concerned. Kids have a name for this kind
of parental involvement. Love.
A good first step is simply to clip this test and put it up
on your refrigerator.
Your kids may make jokes about it. But they'll get it.
For more information call, 1-800-729-6686.

Many States, including Oregon, have begun a campaign to inform
children and their parents about inhalant abuse. We must begin our own
fight at the national level. The Senate recently passed identical
legislation unanimously. It is time that we give this issue due credit
in the House and begin this crusade to educate ourselves and our
children about this terrible problem.

____________________

MEDALS OF HONOR

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. King). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some good news about
well-deserved recognition of three American heroes and the role of the
Congress in attaining their highest honor and distinction in our
country.
Four years ago, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 created a process to permit Members of Congress to obtain
reviews of military decoration recommendations for merit, even though
the time limits established in the law would normally preclude such
consideration.
Since then, many heroic acts have been properly but belatedly
recognized. Many of these heroic acts would have gone unnoticed had it
not been for Members of Congress demanding fair hearings of the facts
and circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, today I want to focus on three cases of valor which
Congress will soon formally recognize by making possible the award of
our Nation's highest decoration for bravery and combat, the Medal of
Honor.
I will start with the recommendation from my colleague, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), that Corporal Andrew J. Smith of the 55th
Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry be posthumously awarded the Medal of
Honor for his actions on November 30, 1864, at the Civil War Battle of
Honey Hill in South Carolina.
Mr. Smith, from Clinton, Illinois, volunteered to serve in the 55th
Massachusetts. The battle that day had brought the 55th to a narrow
bridge in front of a Confederate stronghold on the hill. The 55th
joined another regiment in filing across the bridge in the face of
withering enemy fire.
The officers leading the charge were killed immediately. The
commander was wounded and trapped under his dead horse.
In a fight that would see one-half the unit's officers and a third of
the enlisted men killed or wounded, the regimental colors, that
critical symbol that is the heart of any unit, had been put at risk.
The flag bearer had been blown to pieces by an exploding shell.
Corporal Smith ignored his own safety and grabbed the regimental colors
from the hand of the dead sergeant. He then maneuvered through the
heavy grape and canister being fired at close range and carried the
colors to safety, thereby leading his men.
His actions are of conspicuous valor and, therefore, worthy of the
Medal of Honor.
The next case involves the recommendation from Senator Daniel Akaka
to award the Medal of Honor posthumously to Technician Fifth Grade
James K. Okubo, Medical Detachment, 442 Regimental Combat Team, for his
actions on October 28, 29, and November 4 of 1944 near Biffontaine,
France.
Technician Fifth Grade Okubo and his compatriots in the highly
decorated Japanese-American 442nd Regimental Combat Team had fought
through Italy and were engaging German forces in France in the fall of
1944.
During the battle, while subjected to continuous machine gun, mortar,
and artillery fire, this soldier coolly and efficiently rendered first
aid to 25 wounded soldiers. On two occasions, he crawled 150 yards to
points within 40 yards of enemy lines to evacuate wounded comrades.
On November 4, he ran 75 yards through deadly machine gun fire, and
while exposed to intense enemy fire directed at him, he evacuated a
seriously wounded crewman from a burning tank.
His actions on these days are of conspicuous valor and, therefore,
make him worthy of the Medal of Honor.
The third case involves the recommendation by Senator John McCain to
award the Medal of Honor to Captain Ed W. Freeman, 229th Assault
Helicopter Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division, for his actions on November
14, 1965, at landing zone X-ray during the battle of the IDrang Valley,
the Republic of Vietnam.
Captain Freeman was flying resupply missions into the now famous
landing zone X-ray, one of the hottest and most embattled LZs of the
Vietnam War.
U.S. forces were reporting heavy casualties and a shortage of water
and supplies. The Medevac helicopter had tried to land but was driven
off by intense enemy fire.
Despite these dangers, Captain Freeman ignored the enemy fire and
repeatedly flew into the landing zone X-ray carrying in supplies and
lifting out the wounded. He flew a total of 14 missions to a landing
zone that was just 100 meters from the defensive perimeter, and he
evacuated 30 seriously wounded soldiers from the LZ that would not have
otherwise lived. He quit flying that day several hours after dark only
after all the wounded had been evacuated.
His actions are of conspicuous valor and, therefore, worthy of the
Medal of Honor.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that the legal barriers that have
prevented these heroes from being recognized will be lifted in
legislation soon to be enacted by Congress.
As a result, these heroic individuals will soon be recipients of the
Medal of Honor and we have set the record straight and we have touched
for a moment that which is at the heart of our pride in being American.

____________________

PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again on the floor of the
House of Representatives to call upon this House to pass prescription
drug coverage for senior citizens and those who are disabled under
Medicare and to work for other strategies to lower the cost of
prescription drugs for all family members.
Today in particular, I am rising to read a letter, as I am every week
now rising to share a letter from one of my constituents in Michigan.
This week I would like to read a letter from a 76-year-old woman who is
a breast cancer survivor from Fenton, Michigan. She is the widow of a
disabled veteran.
I want to speak more about the fact that we need to be focused on our
veterans who do not have prescription drug coverage and are struggling
to pay the cost of their medications. Now, as we are approaching
Memorial Day, we need to be honoring them by addressing this serious
health care issue.
But first let me read the letter.

Dear Mrs. Stabenow, I am writing to you concerning the high
cost of prescription drugs, which, I believe, you are on a
campaign to cut the cost of for senior citizens who are on a
fixed income and need these drugs.
I am the widow of a disabled veteran, who, at the age of
32, was on total disability. I went to work to help out, as
we needed the extra money. We had two children. My mother
lived with us and took care of the children.
My mother became too ill to take care of them, so I had to
quit my job and stay home. It was hard financially, but we
managed to get by, living on a strict budget. My husband's
disability was a condition that he needed me around him all
the time. When

[[Page 9160]]

the boys got older, I tried to work again, but my husband
begged me to stay home with him, which I did.
My husband died when he was 50. I was able to save a little
money, which I intended to use to enjoy a little more life
than I had been able to.
In 1995, I was diagnosed with breast cancer, which I went
through and got on with my life. In December 1999, I had
another mastectomy, which I hope I will recover from as well
as I did in the case of my first mastectomy.
Since the time I was diagnosed with cancer, the cost of my
drugs has spiraled up and up. I live on a fixed income. I
also have to pay for health insurance. Believe me, I am not
complaining, ``poor little me.'' There are many people worse
off than me, and this is why I am writing. Maybe my letter
will help others.
I will give you an estimate of what I am paying every month
for drugs.

She proceeds through a long list. Her cancer medication is $180 for
31 tablets. Her high blood pressure medication is $21 for a month's
supply. Her blood thinner medication is $20 for a month. Nasal spray is
$58 for a month. And on and on.
The total for each month for my constituent is $377.85 and it
continues to go up and up, as she indicates in her letter.
She indicates here that she hopes that everyone who needs these drugs
will be able to afford them and live a healthier life.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise, as we approach Memorial Day, to recognize
the fact that not only my constituent from Fenton, Michigan, but four
million veterans and four million spouses of veterans in this country
have no help for their prescription drug coverage. We are talking about
people who were willing to lay their lives on the line.
This Monday we will honor those who gave their lives in service for
our Nation. And in light of this and these statistics, I believe we
need to call upon all of us to act immediately to address the issue of
the high cost of prescription drugs, particularly for our older
Americans where we have the opportunity by just simply passing Medicare
coverage, by modernizing Medicare, to cover the way health care is
provided today with prescription drug coverage.
We can honor our veterans by fulfilling the promise of health care
that was made to them. Each one of our servicemen and women, as they
come to the service of our country, they sign on the dotted line; and
we, in return, indicate to them the promise of health care. Not only
are we not fulfilling the health care promise to our veterans as it
relates to full funding health care for our veterans, but when we have
4 million of our veterans, 4 million of their spouses that do not have
any access to help cover their prescription drug coverage, we need to
act. There is something wrong; and we need to take it very, very
seriously.
It is not right when someone who has cared for her disabled husband,
someone who is a disabled veteran, his wife, who goes on to have health
care problems herself, who has saved a little bit in her life now finds
herself using all of those little bit of savings in order to pay for
her medication and then find herself on a fixed income paying almost
$400 a month for medications.
We need to act. It is time now to lower the cost of prescription
drugs and to modernize Medicare.

____________________

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES PASSES BILL TO PURCHASE BACA RANCH IN NEW MEXICO

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today the Committee on Resources passed a
bill to purchase the Baca Ranch in New Mexico. This is a very bad deal
for the taxpayers.
The family that owns this ranch bought it in 1961 for $2.1 million.
Now, under the bill passed out of committee today, the Federal
Government is going to pay $101 million for this property, almost 50
times the original purchase price.
I would bet almost everyone in this Nation would like to sell their
property for 50 times what they paid for it.

{time} 1845

This is a colossal rip-off of the taxpayers. My office yesterday
asked the Congressional Research Service to run the numbers for us.
According to CRS, there has been a 452 percent inflation since 1961.
Adjusted for inflation, this property should be worth $11.7 million, or
about 5\1/2\ times the original purchase price.
We definitely should not be paying $101 million for property that was
bought for $2.1 million, and today adjusted for inflation should be
worth $11.7 million. This is welfare for the rich, a windfall for the
wealthy.
However, it will be passed by a huge margin, because it has strong
bipartisan support in New Mexico. I watched a tape about this property.
It is beautiful; however, the most overused word in this Congress is
the word pristine. We are constantly told that we have to buy this
property or that property, because it is beautiful and pristine, but if
the Federal Government tried to buy every beautiful, pristine piece of
property in this country, it would bankrupt our government and shatter
our economy, besides the Federal Government already owns 37 percent of
New Mexico, millions of acres.
The Federal Government certainly does not need any more of New
Mexico; it has too much already. Private property is one of the main
foundations of our prosperity. It is one of the cornerstones of our
freedom. Private property is one of the main things that has set us
apart from socialist and Communist nations.
Already the Federal Government owns 30 percent of the land in this
Nation. State and local governments and quasigovernmental units own
another 20 percent, half the land in some type of public ownership.
Also we keep putting more and more restrictions, limitations, rules,
regulations, redtape on the land that does remain in private hands. If
we keep doing away with private property, we are going to drive up
prices for homes and cause much serious damage to our economy. We will
hurt the poor and working people the most and those of middle income.
We should not waste the taxpayers money in this way. We should not
rip off the taxpayers in this way. $101 million for property bought for
$2.1 million is more than 4,000 percent higher than what it should be
when adjusted for inflation. We should not take money from lower- and
middle-income Americans to pay a family almost 50 times what they paid
for their property.
Mr. Speaker, $101 million for property originally bought for $2.1
million is simply too much. The Baca Ranch purchase will pass this
Congress overwhelmingly; but I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this is a colossal
rip-off of the taxpayers of this Nation.

____________________

FEARS OVER CHANGES IN SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM PROPOSED BY GOVERNOR BUSH
OF TEXAS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. King). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to use the entire hour this
evening, but I want to take what time I have to discuss my fears, and I
stress fears, this evening over the changes in the Social Security
system that have been proposed by Governor Bush of Texas.
Mr. Speaker, Social Security has lifted millions of seniors out of
poverty. It is, by far, the most successful economic program ever
passed by Congress, and the reasons for the success are simple. It
offers a guaranteed, and I stress guaranteed, benefit for every
American retiree. More than half of all Americans, especially working
families, have no retirement savings beyond Social Security.
Without the guaranteed income provided by Social Security, millions
of seniors could fall through the cracks left to live out their lives
in poverty. Recently, Governor George Bush proposed a Social Security
plan that would undermine Social Security, in my opinion, and
simultaneously threaten our thriving economy.

[[Page 9161]]

By diverting funds from the Social Security Trust Fund to set up
individual retirement accounts, as Bush proposed, the plan would hasten
the insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. It would also force
seniors to question rather than count on their Social Security
benefits.
Now, Governor Bush has also proposed a tax cut that would cost an
estimated $1.7 trillion. When combined with the cost of his individual
retirement accounts that he has mentioned with regard to Social
Security, Governor Bush's plan would spend more than three times the
projected surplus over the next 10 years. That money would come
directly out of the Social Security Trust Fund, weakening the program
even further and leaving little room in the budget for other priorities
like a prescription drug benefit for Medicare.
No plan that would endanger the guarantees of Social Security, rob
the trust fund, and leave other priorities unfunded can possibly be
taken seriously, and that is why I refer to the Bush plan as extremely
radical. Democrats have pretty much said that we are going to fight
this dangerous ill-conceived proposal, and I think we need to fight it
every step of the way.
Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss three of my concerns about the Bush
Social Security plan in a little more detail this evening. First of
all, I would like to express my concern that ultimately Governor Bush's
plan would lead to complete privatization of Social Security. Right now
the governor is saying only 2 percent of the money would be invested by
individuals in retirement accounts.
But in an Associated Press story on May 17, just a week or so ago,
Governor Bush said it was possible workers would eventually be allowed
to invest their entire Social Security tax, not just a portion of it.
The Houston Chronicle reported on the same day, and I quote, ``Bush
on Tuesday said his plan to create private savings accounts could be
the first step toward a complete privatization of Social Security.''
And I want to stress this: the Social Security program was began
under Franklin Roosevelt. The Republican leadership for many years
totally opposed it being started, and I think that this is part of a
historical trend essentially that what Governor Bush is saying, I do
not like a government program, Social Security is a government program.
Ultimately, I think it is best if it is privatized completely.
The second concern I have is this question of whether or not there
will be a guaranteed income, because that is what Social Security is
about to most seniors. They know that when they retire they will have a
guaranteed income every month, and a certain amount over the course of
the year.
Well, when asked on May 15 whether or not there would be a guaranteed
income, basically Governor Bush said this, and this is from the Dallas
Morning News of May 15, ``maybe or maybe not.'' Asked whether he
envisions a system in which future beneficiaries would receive no less
than they would have under the current system, Mr. Bush said ``maybe,
maybe not.''
Well, what he was essentially admitting was that it was conceivable
that a worker taking advantage of these private investment accounts
would get a lower guaranteed benefit from Social Security, and we know
that that obviously is the case, because it would depend how that
worker invested the money since it is an individual decision.
The New York Times reported on May 17, and I quote, ``Bush also
refused to say how much benefits might be reduced for workers who
created private investment accounts. That is all up for discussion,''
Mr. Bush said.
When I say that this is a radical proposal, it is radical because
most Americans think that they are going to have a certain guaranteed
income from their Social Security. It is clear that with the private
investment accounts and the further privatization that Governor Bush
has been talking about, there is no guaranteed income.
The third major concern that I have and would like to focus on in a
little more detail this evening is what I call the transition costs,
the trillion dollars in transition costs that might not be accounted
for or that Bush is really not accounting for. Bush acknowledged in
this same Associated Press story that I mentioned on May 17 that he has
not fully accounted for the cost of moving from the current Social
Security system to his proposed one.
Now, Vice President Al Gore says that the cost of that transition
could be something like $900 billion, almost $1 trillion. The plan laid
out by Governor Bush leaves out the most important factor, and that is
the cost. According to a new report published by the Center for Budget
and Policy Priorities, Bush's privatization plan would cost $900
billion over the first 10 years. These costs occur because the Social
Security system must simultaneously pay out current benefits while
privatization drains over 16 percent of the amount of money coming into
the system. That is assuming the 2 percent point diversion that Bush
has talked about. If we combine this with the cost of Bush's nearly $2
trillion tax cut, the Bush plan will leave multitrillion dollar debts
as far as the eye can see. This is basically from the Center for Budget
and Policy Priorities.
I want to talk a little further about some of the other impacts that
Governor Bush's privatization plan with regard to Social Security would
have. Here I would like to raise three issues, three impacts, if you
will, from this Bush Social Security privatization plan.
First, it would weaken our economy by eliminating our chance to pay
down the debt, which we have started to do ever since the surplus
occurred. Second, it would place at risk the secure retirement benefit
that Social Security provides. Third, and this is something that I
think a lot of people have not thought about but we have to think
about, the Bush Social Security privatization plan would force a
massive S&L, savings and loan-style bailout if people's investments
failed.
Let me talk, Mr. Speaker, in a little more detail about these three
impacts from this privatization plan.
First, let me go back to the fact that the Bush plan will eliminate
the chance to pay down the debt. This goes back to this $1 trillion in
transition cost that I mentioned before. According to the Center for
Budget and Policy Priorities, Bush's privatization plan would cost the
$900 billion I mentioned over 10 years. The reason these costs occur is
because the Social Security system has to pay out the current benefits,
as I mentioned, while the privatization drains this other 16 percent.
But the bottom line is that Bush's own aides acknowledge that these
transition costs would siphon away the money that could be used to pay
down the debt. Less debt reduction would translate into higher interest
payments on the debt over the same 10-year period, which in turn would
reduce the budget surplus.
If I could talk about this in a little more detail, I would like to
contrast it with what Vice President Gore not only has proposed but
what he is doing. Under Mr. Gore's plan, all of the Social Security
surplus will go to reducing the national debt held by the public. Some
of this is already happening. Some of the debt is actually being paid
down now. What Gore is saying, that he would take all of the Social
Security surplus and use it essentially to reduce the national debt.
There would not be that opportunity with Bush's plan. The money simply
would not be there to exercise that option.
As I said, not only Vice President Gore but President Clinton and the
administration's deficit and debt reduction that they have already done
has already helped the economy and families. Seven years ago, the
budget deficit was nearly $300 billion and growing; and as a result,
interest rates were high and growth was slow. By the year 2012, it was
projected that 25 cents on every tax dollar would be needed to pay
interest on the debt. Because of this administration, the Clinton-Gore
administration's commitment to fiscal discipline, deficits have turned
into surpluses and the Nation's debt is already $1.7 trillion lower
than it was projected to be this year. Because of

[[Page 9162]]

the deficit and debt reduction that the Clinton administration has
already done, it is estimated the typical family with a home mortgage
might be expected to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments.
Currently, about 13 cents on every Federal dollar is spent on net
interest payments. These payments which were once projected to be
nearly double that would be eliminated under Al Gore's plan. With the
Government no longer draining resources from capital markets, interest
rates are lower and businesses have more funds for productive
investment. Paying off the debt will continue to help fuel investment
and productivity growth.
What I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is essentially this. Let us
continue the policy of paying down the debt because ultimately that
makes the economy grow and it saves money that would be available in
the long run for Social Security. Let us not go down this risky,
radical plan that Governor Bush has proposed where on the one hand he
is spending trillions of dollars on tax cuts and on the other hand his
transition costs to this privatization plan would use up a significant
portion of the surplus as well.
I talked about why my fear about how Bush's privatization plan places
retirement funds at risk, but I would like to talk about that a little
more in terms of the second point here on potential impacts of this
risky Bush plan. For whatever reason, I guess it is because the stock
market has done so well in the last 5, 10 years now that people do not
even remember that there was a time when it was not doing that well.
But the bottom line is that if you have privatization the way Governor
Bush proposes, it puts individual retirement security at the whims of
the stock market where people can lose.
Throughout its history, Social Security has stood as a guaranteed
secure retirement regardless of the fluctuations of the economy or the
stock market. Investing these funds in the market means that some or
all of that benefit could be lost. There was a GAO report that shows
the risk of stock market investments with Social Security. This is from
a statement by the associate director of income security issues for the
GAO, April 22, 1998.
The GAO report noted that caution is warranted in counting on future
stock returns in designing Social Security reform. The report goes on.
However, an average over nearly a century obscures the reality that
stock returns fluctuate substantially from year to year. Over the past
70 years or so, stock market returns were negative in nearly 1 out of 4
years. There is no guarantee that investing in the stock market even
over 2 or 3 decades will yield the long-term average return. The stock
market could drop and stay depressed for a prolonged period of time. Of
course it has. We know that historically it has stayed depressed for a
long period of time.

{time} 1900

Interestingly enough, in this same GAO report they point out that the
Social Security Trust Fund actually outperformed nominal stock returns
35 percent of the time from 1950 to 1996, over a period of 45 or so
years. The 10-year moving average of the S&P 500 underperformed the
Social Security Trust Fund's treasury returns at times. A long-term
average does not reflect fluctuations in year-to-year stock returns. In
fact, nominal stock returns were less than the Social Security Trust
Fund's annual yield in 17 years from 1950 to 1996, more than 35 percent
of the time, from that same GAO report.
Sometimes I wonder why it is necessary to explain why the stock
market is a risky business, because I would think that anybody who
looks at the history of the market knows that that is the case, but I
guess because the market has done so well in the last few years and the
last decade there are people, particularly young people, who feel that
it will always do well. But that is simply not true. It is not borne
out by the historical facts.
Let me mention the third impact that I would like to discuss in a
little more detail this evening, and that is that privatization could
result in massive government bailouts. The reason for that is simple,
that if the people who take these private investment accounts do not
succeed and actually lose money or the stock market goes bad, they are
going to come back to the Government and ask the Government to bail
them out, because everybody does that, the big corporations do, the
savings & loan associations did, and obviously the average person is
going to do that if they lose all their money and they cannot make ends
meet.
Bush and his advisers have indicated that his privatization plan for
Social Security will have no downside risk and the Government will
guarantee that future Social Security beneficiaries will receive no
less than they would have under the current system. Thus, the risky
nature of the stock market could force the Government to bail out
Social Security during market downturns or for people who make poor
investment choices.
The Governor is saying, Don't worry. If you do these investments with
your private accounts, don't worry, because we will make it good if you
don't do well. How is he going to do that without a massive bailout,
and where is the money going to come from? Ultimately the taxpayers. We
would have a major problem.
The other thing is that obviously privatization could make Social
Security go insolvent a lot earlier. Plans to divert 2 percentage
points of the payroll tax, or 16 percent of the money paid into the
Social Security system, into private accounts, could make Social
Security go insolvent 14 years sooner than it would if no action were
taken at all. Under a 2 percentage point plan, Social Security could go
bankrupt by 2023, according to a study again from the Center for Budget
and Policy Priorities.
Well, that is common sense. If this money is taken out of the system,
then this system will go broke sooner; and that is, again, why it makes
no sense to move with this very risky Bush privatization plan.
Now, I want to talk a little bit, if I could, about what Vice
President Gore has proposed and why his plan to shore up Social
Security is much preferable to Governor Bush's, and certainly not
risky, by any means.
Because of the administration's commitment to fiscal discipline, as I
have mentioned, the Nation's debt is already $1.7 trillion lower than
it was projected to be this year. In fact, when the administration took
office, by the year 2012 it was projected that 25 cents of every dollar
would go to pay the interest on the national debt. That has not
happened, because we are now paying down the national debt with the
surplus that has been generated.
Vice President Gore is basically saying that he is going to pay off
the national debt and help maintain America's prosperity in a number of
ways. But what I want to zero in on is how he would dedicate $2.1
trillion for debt reduction, and this is basically to prepare the
Nation for the retiring of the baby-boomers.
He is proposing to use more than 95 percent of the Social Security
surplus to pay down the debt, with the idea being, of course, that
ultimately that will strengthen the economy and prepare for the fact
that so many more senior citizens are going to be retiring as part of
this baby-boom generation.
After a decade of debt reduction, Gore transfers the interest savings
that come from using the Social Security surplus to buy down the debt
to strengthen the solvency of the Social Security program. By 2016,
Gore will be adding about $250 billion annually to strengthen Social
Security until at least 2050.
He is investing $103 billion, less than 5 percent of the surplus, in
strengthening Social Security's benefits for older women, because, as
we know, poverty among elderly women is a major national challenge. In
1997, poverty among elderly widows was 1 percent, compared to 5 percent
for married women. Gore believes that we can and should strengthen
benefits for widows and mothers that were penalized for years spent
caring for children as part of the plan to extend the solvency of
Social Security.

[[Page 9163]]

Now, I could talk in more detail about how the Vice President's plan
helps older women, but I just want to mention two things, if I could,
about that before I conclude this evening. One point is to eliminate
the motherhood penalty. The current Social Security formula is based on
average earnings over 35 years of work. Because women take several
years raising their children, the typical woman only works 27 years.
However, those years raising children do not count towards Social
Security earnings, effectively creating this motherhood penalty. Gore
says that he would eliminate the motherhood penalty by allowing parents
to take credit for up to 5 years of earnings, if they take that time to
raise children. This would increase Social Security benefits for those
women by about $600 a year.
The second thing that Gore would do to strengthen benefits for women,
under current law widows can have their combined benefits cut in half.
Living costs such as rent and utilities often do not decrease with the
death of a spouse, but then there is a cut in benefits to that widow.
In fact, single elderly women are four times as likely to be poor as
married women. Gore would fight to raise the widow's benefit to three-
quarters of the couple's combined benefit, helping more than 3 million
elderly women receive a benefit that reflects their cost of living.
I am not going to go in more detail tonight, but I know over the next
few weeks, and certainly after the Memorial Day recess, you are going
to see myself and other Democrats come to the floor and constantly talk
about our concerns with regard to the Bush privatization Social
Security plan, because I really believe it is a radical plan, and I do
not think the average American or senior understands what it is all
about.
This plan, and this is how I want to conclude this evening, the
greatest fault in it is the numbers simply do not add up. I think this
goes back, again, to the fact that he has this $1 trillion tax cut, and
then he is taking all this money out of the Social Security system.
If you take the money out of the surplus for tax cuts, and then you
put in effect this risky Social Security plan, it just has too much of
a drain on the Federal budget. Taken together, the tax cut and Bush's
privatization plan essentially would swallow the whole surplus for the
next 10 years, and also use a significant portion of the surplus that
is dedicated to Social Security.
The combination of those two large $1 trillion plans and the impact
that they would have on the budget would basically not leave any room
for other vital priorities. I think, Mr. Speaker, you know that both
the Democrats and the Republicans have talked about a Medicare drug
benefit. There is no way that there would be any money left in this
surplus to pay for a Medicare drug benefit for seniors if we
implemented the Bush plan. The money would simply not be there. It just
does not add up.
That is not to mention other priorities. Governor Bush has talked
about education. Where is the money going to come from to pay for our
education priorities, such as money that goes back to the
municipalities to pay for extra teachers to bring class size down, or
money that would go back to the towns around the country for school
construction and renovation? It just does not add up. The money simply
is not going to be there.
So that is why I think it is important for me and Democrats, and
hopefully Republicans as well, to bring up the truth about this very
risky privatization plan that Governor Bush has proposed, because it
would not only have a negative impact on Social Security, but would
have a negative impact basically on the economy and the Federal budget,
and essentially I think what Americans see today as the reasons for our
prosperity.

____________________

MANAGED CARE REFORM

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Souder). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, we are going to discuss managed care reform
tonight. It is pertinent that we do this. Back in October this House
voted 275 to 151 to pass the Norwood-Dingell-Ganske Patient Protection
Act. That is in conference now. Things are going very, very slow.
Mr. Speaker, I remember back at the time of the debate that we had on
managed care reform, a lot of our colleagues, primarily on the
Republican side of the aisle, but some on the Democratic side of the
aisle, said, Well, you know, we ought to just let the free market work
this out.
I am happy tonight to have join me in this special order my
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), who has worked
so hard on this issue. We are going to discuss in some detail his bill,
which will come to the floor tomorrow, the Quality Health Care
Coalition Act.
I am going to yield to the gentleman to describe his bill, and then
we will talk about various aspects of it.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say, I am so proud to have the support of
not only a brilliant man and a great colleague, but a medical doctor in
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske). All of us here in the House that
have dealt with him know that is the case. When he speaks on issues of
patient care, he speaks from knowledge and compassion.
Mr. GANSKE. If the gentleman would yield, since we will be dealing
with an issue related to antitrust, I very much appreciate the
gentleman's expertise on this issue as a former professor of law at
Stanford University and somebody well qualified to talk about the legal
aspects of this bill which we are going to be talking about.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, in 1914 the Sherman Act was amended to say that the
labor of a human being shall not be an article of commerce. The reason
it was amended was to make absolutely clear what I think most people
would consider common sense, that cement and steel and petroleum are
one thing, but what was quite different was when an individual did not
know exactly what it was they needed, they had to go to a professional,
and the professional exercised her or his judgment, and, in exercising
her or his judgment, really the doctor or the professional was making a
decision that the client or the patient placed in that doctor's hands,
and that was not the same thing as cement or steel or petroleum,
because the individual did not know what they needed.
The concept of a professional was quite different than the concept of
commerce, because the State would regulate the professions and the
professions would regulate themselves. They would have a code of
ethics. For example, the doctor said that we do not want people
advertising cut rate prices, because you run the risk then that some
patients will get something that is not the best service because it is
cheaper.
Well, that is the concept of a profession, and I respect the concept
of a profession. I regret the fact that we lost a sense of that when
the antitrust laws were reversed in 1975, not by action of the
Congress, but by the Supreme Court in a case, sadly, that came from my
profession, the attorneys. In that case the Supreme Court said not only
are we going to extent antitrust to attorneys, but we are going to
extend antitrust to all the professions.
The height of absurdity, in my judgment, was reached in 1982 when the
Supreme Court said that a group of doctors who had band together to
keep prices low in Arizona were price fixers and, hence, subject to the
per se rules of the antitrust laws.

{time} 1915

I really do think that we can date the decline of the profession of
medicine from that 1975 original and 1982 subsequent Supreme Court
date, because doctors are suddenly treated under the law as though they
were the same as commercial enterprises providing steel or autos or
cement.
One of the greatest artifacts of being treated the same as any
article of commerce, just as an article of commerce,

[[Page 9164]]

not a profession anymore; no more respect for the fact that a doctor is
licensed and in every instance that I know of, and I am sure there is
good and bad, but in every instance that I know of are dedicated
individuals trying to prevent disease and cure it; one of the artifacts
is that when one bargains with an HMO, it is now against the law for
one to do something that is as natural as one can imagine; one is
treated as though one has to take the contract or leave it.
The HMO comes up to you, and let us say you are an opthalmologist and
let us say you perform cataract surgery and the HMO says, you know, we
are not going to exactly say you cannot perform a cataract surgery on
patients over 70, but the risk is a lot higher, and you may not get
reupped next year; you may not be able to get your contract renewed
next year if you perform too many cataract surgeries on patients over
70. Get the idea, Dr. Smith, Dr. Jones?
Dr. Smith says well, I am an opthalmologist. I will decide when the
patient can benefit from cataract surgery. They say well, take it or
leave it, because Dr. Green over here is the other opthalmologist in
town, maybe there are three or four, in several small towns in America
there is only one; take it or leave it. Take it or leave it. And if Dr.
Smith calls up Dr. Green and says, you know what they just gave me, I
think it is outrageous, at that moment, Dr. Smith has violated the
antitrust laws per se and is subject to treble damage action, indeed
although the Justice Department has not yet put any doctor in jail for
this, it is actually a criminal offense.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time for a moment, as the
gentleman mentioned, prior to my coming to Congress, I was a
reconstructive surgeon. I took care of women who had cancer operations,
farmers who had put their hands into machines, children with birth
defects. But when I was elected to Congress, I closed my practice, so I
no longer practice, except for going overseas to do some charity work.
So I want to say this because I do not have a personal interest in
this legislation. My wife is a physician, but my wife is a salaried
physician. So she has an exemption to this prohibition that we are
going to be talking about, because for instance, as a salaried
physician, she could join a union and collectively bargain. But this is
what has happened.
Let us say back in 1993 and 1994, when I was still practicing before
being elected to Congress, in Des Moines, Iowa, there were probably
seven or eight HMOs that were offering services. None of them
controlled such a large market share that they could make or break a
practice. So, for instance, if any one of them was behaving
irresponsibly, not taking care of their patients properly, I could get
on the phone, give them a call and say, I think you are not treating
this patient right. I hope you change your mind. You could lobby on
behalf of your patient. They might actually listen to you at that time.
But what has happened since then?
Mr. Speaker, in the last 5 or 6 years, since 1994, there have been
275 mergers and acquisitions of health plans around the country. So,
for instance, in Des Moines, Iowa, essentially there are two HMOs. For
instance Blue Cross/Blue Shield in Iowa controls the health care of 98
percent of hospitals and 90 percent of doctors. One insurance company
controls the access and cost of health care for 60 percent of insured
Oregonians.
Market competition in Texas is all but gone. Mr. Speaker, 24
competing companies have been compressed into 4 mega-managed care
companies. Sixty percent of the Pittsburgh market is controlled by one
plan. Half of the Philadelphia market is controlled by one plan. Each
of those plans maintains its dominance by virtue of an agreement not to
compete with each other. One insurance company dictates health care to
over half of Washington State. In Seattle, the figure is higher. In
eastern Washington, 70 percent of the patients are controlled by one
plan.
What does this mean? It means, for instance, that an HMO can devise a
contract like this one. We define medical necessity as the short test,
least expensive or least intense level of treatment as determined by
us, the health plan. Then they can give the physicians, let us say we
are talking about eastern Washington where this HMO controls 70 percent
of the population. They can give that contract to employees; they can
also give a contract to the physicians or the nurses, or, for that
matter, the pharmacists, and they can say, take it or leave it.
Now, in the old days, and this is where the market competition comes
in that my friend who opposed the managed care reform bill said, well
just let the market work. Well, in the old days, you could. You could
say, I am sorry, I am not going to sign that contract with you when you
define medical necessity that way. But today, if they control 70
percent of the patients and they say take it or leave it, one may be
left not being able to pay mortgage payments or pay for your daughter's
education. That is tough. That is a tough decision. It could break your
practice. It could mean you could no longer practice in eastern Oregon,
for example.
So you say, well, what is the problem with signing that contract that
has that clause in it?
Let me give an example, and then I will yield back to the gentleman.
As a reconstructive surgeon I used to take care of, and I still take
care of overseas kids that are born with this type of birth defect, a
cleft lip and palate. Under that plan's arbitrary definition in their
contract, they could say, we are not going to authorize surgical
correction of that huge hole in the roof of this baby's mouth; we are
just going to authorize you using a little piece of plastic to shove up
in there to close the hole, it is called a plastic obturator. They can
do that according to the contract. If I came back to them and I said,
that is egregiously wrong; that is keeping this child from being able
to learn to speak properly. If I then went to some of my medical
colleagues and I started to talk to them about that HMO's practices and
we mentioned to each other gee, we do not think that we can support or
sign up for an HMO that does that kind of practice, my friend from
California, what would happen to us?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, you would be sued for treble damages by
the insurance company that made the offer to you.
Mr. GANSKE. And what effect would that have on the ability of this
child to get this?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, if I were the gentleman's attorney, I
would advise the gentleman not to treat that child, because he would
run the risk not only of financial damage, but he also might run the
risk of a conviction, and a conviction even of a misdemeanor is, in
many States, sufficient to disqualify one to practice medicine.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, let me continue then about another type of
contract provision that HMOs force on providers, and that is what is
called gag rules. That is where, for instance, Aetna has said,
providers shall not provide or threaten to provide inferior care or
imply to members that their care or access to care will be inferior due
to source of payment.
In other words, there are some HMOs that say, before you can tell a
patient all of their treatment options, you must first get an okay from
us. And if you do not do that, we are going to deselect you from our
plan. If our plan happens to cover 50 percent of your patients, tough
luck.
The point is this: by using their market share, they have a huge
amount of leverage on the individual practitioners that can then
significantly interfere with the physician in his professional duty of
being the advocate for the patient.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, that example
is even worse than the first. One's obligation as a physician to advise
a patient on what the patient's best choice of treatment should be
seems to me paramount and ought to be untouchable. Yet, what we have
allowed to develop in this country, through contract, not through any
Federal law, but through contract and the force of power of the

[[Page 9165]]

HMO or the insurance company on the other side of the contract, is that
you do not offer that advice. You are gagged. You are subject to the
gag rule.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what happens then? The
company uses its ability to gag you or deny necessary care, and so you
have a baby born with that birth defect that does not get the treatment
that they need.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. GANSKE. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, it is most galling that this situation
persists because the insurance company has an antitrust exemption, and
what we are trying to do in the bill that we will vote on tomorrow is
to say that a medical doctor ought to be treated no worse than the
insurance company on the other side of the bargaining table. What
happened is remarkably fascinating to the situation at hand.
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court said that insurance was not subject to
the antitrust laws for about 50 years, and then in the 1940s, they held
that it did apply. Do my colleagues know how long it took before the
insurance industry got an exemption from insurance from antitrust
through this Congress? It took less than 2 years. And so today, we are
left with insurance having an antitrust exemption to the extent that it
is regulated by State law, the business of insurance is exempt from
antitrust.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight, reclaiming my
time. So while the insurance industry is critical of the bill, they, at
the same time, have an antitrust exemption. Is that right?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is quite right. In fact,
they ought to consider emulation is the highest form of flattery. They
came to Congress and got an exemption from antitrust for their industry
and they begrudge those who they say are exploiting on the other side
of the bargaining table.
Mr. Speaker, I go back to the example of take it or leave it. Take it
or leave it was something that employers used to say to employees too,
and the employees said, I am not taking it. I am joining the union. In
1914, the Clayton Act was passed that created an exemption from
antitrust for labor unions for exactly the same reason, that it was not
fair for the powerful employer in a particular area to say, take it or
leave it. Even worse is the insurance company, because the employer
would have market power just by reason of being large; the insurance
company has market power in some instances because of the antitrust
exemption. So in the case of labor, if a doctor is a member of a labor
union, the doctor can say, no, I am not taking it or leaving it, and
neither is my brother and neither is my sister.
What we are trying to do in this bill is not force every doctor to
join a labor union. Indeed, this bill is quite explicit. It does not
touch the question of a doctor being in a labor union; it explicitly
says the bill gives no right to any doctor to strike, but it says one
very important thing, that the doctor or the medical professional shall
be allowed the same degree as though they were in a labor union an
exemption from the antitrust laws solely in the context of bargaining,
just getting the terms of that contract so that one can treat that
child with a cleft palate, so that one can communicate with one's
patient and tell her or him all of the options available.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, practically speaking,
what has happened is this: we have seen a number of HMO abuses around
the country. Eighty percent of the public thinks that Congress should
do something to fix this problem. Almost everybody knows a friend or a
family member or a fellow worker, an employee who has not been treated
fairly and gotten the type of treatment that they need. There are two
approaches to fixing this.
The first approach is a regulatory approach.

{time} 1930

When Congress took away from the States for employer plans the
ability to oversee the quality of those health plans, those insurance
plans through the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, it basically
left a vacuum. It did not fill in that traditional State oversight by a
State insurance commissioner, and so people, most of the people in this
country who are working get their insurance from their employer. Most
of them are surprised to know that if their State legislature has
passed some type of patient protection, it probably does not even apply
to them.
So what we did back in October was, we started to fill in the gaps in
terms of patients being treated with due process, the regulatory gap at
the Federal level. But we had a lot of comment on that. People said,
well, you know, maybe we just ought to let the market work better.
Well, what we are talking about tonight is that because of market
concentration where we now essentially have six large HMOs in the
country, the free market is not working right. I mean, the gentleman
could probably give me analogies better to what it was like for a
farmer having to deal with a railroad monopoly.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GANSKE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes an excellent point,
because this is another example, it is called the Capper-Volstead Act,
and the farmers of the United States have an antitrust exemption. And
the reason was that Congress was scared, worried, troubled that the
great purchasers, the railroad cooperative or the purchaser, I hesitate
to use a company name, but let me say in the past what you might have
called Cargill or Archer Daniels & Midland, I am not in the slightest
alleging that they are engaged in exploitative practices now or that
they ever were specifically, but use them as an example, a large
purchaser might be able to tell the farmer, hey, we are not buying your
crop, go put it back in the ground.
Mr. GANSKE. Reclaiming my time, I believe there have also been some
antitrust exemptions for fisherman.
Mr. CAMPBELL. For the same reason, the Fisherman's Cooperative
Antitrust Exemption Act, because once you catch the fish, you cannot
put them back in the ocean and hope to collect them again. And what is
common, whether we are speaking about the labor union or the farmer or
the fisherman, is that there is unequal bargaining power, because the
other purchaser, the other side of the contract, the purchaser is able
to say take it or leave it.
What has been done with Congress in every instance that we have been
through here, that we have been explaining, it is fair for the other
side to present a united front, whether it is the employee facing the
employer in the company town, whether it is the single purchaser of the
fish or the large purchaser of the grain, and what is proposed in this
bill is to do, even, more importantly, for an industry that faces an
insurer, which as the gentleman has so wisely observed is increasingly
concentrated market power in some particular geographic markets. I know
the gentleman can give examples that are in the 90 and 95 percent
range, but also with an antitrust exemption.
Let me say this is completely in keeping with the other antitrust
exemptions that we have created in the context of unequal bargaining
power. But it is more narrow than virtually any of them, because it
only will extend to the process of bargaining. It does not, for example
in insurance, say the business of insurance is hereby exempt to the
extent it is regulated by State law. That is a huge exemption.
This bill will only exempt in the context of negotiating the medical
professional who joins with another medical professional to tell the
HMO we speak as one.
Mr. GANSKE. Reclaiming my time, let us go back to this for a minute.
Let us say you have a family practitioner out in a small rural town and
he knows of some examples where this HMO has

[[Page 9166]]

not treated his patients fairly; and he says, you know, I think also
possibly through specific contract provisions as they relate to his
relationship with the HMO, that, for instance, might gag him from
telling the patients about their illnesses, if he says to that large
insurer, you know, I think you ought to change that, but 80 percent or
50 percent of his patients are in that, do you think that that large
insurer is going to bargain with them, is going to change their
contract with him? No. They are going to say, as the gentleman said,
take it or leave it.
Mr. CAMPBELL. They will go next door.
Mr. GANSKE. They will go next door, and so what we are looking at is
an ability, and I think this is crucial, the gentleman has it in your
bill, and we have to repeat this, the gentleman has in his bill a
prohibition on strikes.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Absolutely.
Mr. GANSKE. Let us repeat that.
Mr. CAMPBELL. There is a clear statement in the bill that there is no
right to strike conferred by this bill.
Mr. GANSKE. So that nobody tomorrow when we debate this can say that
doctors, if we pass this bill, the Campbell bill will allow physicians
to go on strike; is that right?
Mr. CAMPBELL. That is right, no one can say that truthfully tomorrow.
Mr. GANSKE. That is a good point. Now, what we are talking about then
is for a group of physicians, for instance, that have seen abuses by
that HMO to be able to get together, possibly to hire somebody to
negotiate for them to go to that HMO and correct some of the abuses
that they are seeing, and, say, look, as a group now, they have more
equality in terms of this bargaining position. We want you to treat
patients more fairly when, for instance, they go to the emergency room.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Great example. I say to the gentleman, ought there not
be some understanding that the HMO will cover the costs in the
emergency room closest to the accident? Ought this not be a minimum
sort of situation, and if a doctor insists on that and says I am sorry,
we are not going to put that in your contract, take it or leave it, who
cares more for the patient, the doctor who is the trained professional
committed to a code of conduct regulated sternly by the State and by
her or his own colleagues in caring for the patient, or the HMO. And I
am not saying that they are all bad; I am not saying that they are most
bad. But I am saying that they are differently motivated.
Mr. GANSKE. Reclaiming my time, what we are dealing with is a
situation, for instance, where it may not be a matter that is
specifically in the contract that the physician has, but he knows that
there are provisions in the contract that an employee might have that
are preventing the patient from getting the needed care in an
emergency.
I will give my colleagues one example here. We have a little boy here
who is 6 months old. One night about 3:00 in the morning, he had a
temperature of about 104, 105. The mother and father lived south of
Atlanta, Georgia. His mother gets on the 1-800 HMO number line, talks
to somebody a thousand miles away, says my baby Jimmy has a
temperature. He is really sick. He needs to go to the emergency room.
The HMO reviewer, who has never examined the child, says, well, I
guess I could authorize you to go to an emergency room, but the only
emergency room we are going to authorize is one that is 70 miles away,
70 miles away. And if you go to any other one, then you can pay for it
yourself. So Mom and Dad wrap up little Jimmy. They get in the car;
they start their drive. 20 miles or 30 miles into the drive, they pass
three emergency rooms that they should have been able to stop at,
because Jimmy was really sick; but they were not health professionals,
they did not know how sick he was.
Before they got to the designated hospital, he has a cardiac arrest.
Imagine, Dad's driving this little baby frantically, mother is trying
to keep him alive. He is not breathing any more. His heart is not
going. They finally screech into an emergency room. Mother leaps out of
the car, screaming save my baby, save my baby. A nurse comes running
out of the emergency room, gives him mouth to mouth resuscitation.
They start an IV. They start medicines and somehow they get him back
to life, but they were not able to save all of this little baby,
because he ended up with gangrene in both hands and both feet as a
consequence of that HMO's decision. He ends up having to have both
hands and both feet amputated.
Now, the point of the gentleman's bill I say to the gentleman is
this. Let us say I am the family doctor, and I find out that this HMO
has treated my patient this way, and I hear from some other fellow
physicians that they have done the same thing; and we say, you know, we
are not incorporated together. We are not salaried physicians. We are
just individual physicians out there, but we know there is a problem
with this HMO, the way they are treating babies like this.
We say to the HMO, unless you change your emergency room policy, we
are not going to sign up with you. Under current law, that group of
doctors advocating on behalf of their patient could be sued under
antitrust. Is that not right?
Mr. CAMPBELL. It is absolutely right. I say to the gentleman, they
could be sued by the Federal Trade Commission. They could be sued by
the Department of Justice. They could also be sued by the HMO, which
would calculate for the year, let us say, how much additional costs the
HMO had to pay out over what the contract would have been if they had
only access to the emergency room 70 miles away, and multiply that
additional cost by three, it is trouble damages in antitrust, plus the
HMO would get its attorneys fees, because prevailing plaintiffs, not
prevailing defendants, only prevailing plaintiffs get their attorneys
fees in antitrust.
Mr. GANSKE. Let us deal with some of the myths about the Campbell
bill. Some people say that this would allow price fixing. I wonder if
the gentleman would like to address that issue.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, indeed, when we are speaking about doctors
presenting a united front, it is going to impact the compensation that
they get. It just has to. If you are a family physician and you are
being forced to accept a per-patient capitated rate, that means you see
20 patients per hour, you are not the same family physician that you
wanted to be when you graduated from medical school. And in most
instances, you are not really adequately providing health care.
It is impossible, impossible to divide the question of compensation
from the question of care. That, however, leaves us open to criticism
by the unfair, to create traps for those who would use the trap. It is
unavoidable if you are going to get better care that you are going to
have to have some payment for the better care. You cannot repeal the
law of economics any more than you can repeal the law of physics.
Mr. GANSKE. What the gentleman is saying is that some may try to
narrow the law to only deal with nonfiduciary matters, but I believe
what the gentleman is saying is that an HMO can set a fee so low as to
effectively deny the treatment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman is absolutely right. And we anticipate an
amendment to this extent being offered tomorrow. And on its first
blush, it will sound good. It will say none of this antitrust immunity
shall extend to the question of compensation. It is, however, a gutting
amendment, a killer amendment. What it would do is leave virtually
nothing, because virtually nothing that we speak about here tonight is
unrelated to the question of compensation. So that is a very important
point to make clear.
Mr. GANSKE. I go overseas and I do cleft lip and palate operations in
Third World countries where the families cannot afford it. But I will
tell you what, people are spending an awful lot of money in this
country for their health insurance. It ought to mean something when
they actually get sick and need it, for instance, a child. And it ought
to be covered at a level that would not preclude a person from getting
it.

[[Page 9167]]

But I want to go back to one thing, and that is that under the
gentleman's bill, price fixing or fee setting by physicians is still
illegal, and that is because what we are talking about is a group of
physicians being able to negotiate with an HMO, but we are not talking
about that group of physicians being able to set fees across the board.
Is that not correct?
Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman is absolutely right. The extent of the
immunity is in the context of bargaining. And even today, I heard a
related myth, that this will be a wholesale antitrust exemption and
would allow doctors to join in a boycott, a boycott of a particular
pharmaceutical company, Merck was mentioned because it was in the news,
the argument about price fixing, the argument that doctors could get
together and agree that no nurse anesthetist would practice.
Those are all false. The exemption is specific to the practice only
of bargaining; and to make it even more clear, we added an amendment
that even in the context of bargaining it shall not be permitted as an
exemption from the antitrust laws to agree to exclude any other
professional from their scope of conduct, and we have our colleague
from the other side of aisle, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler),
to thank for working out that amendment. The Nadler amendment is part
of this bill. So price fixing at the patient level, not permitted.
Exclusion of other professionals, not permitted. Barring the doctor's
right to choose a pharmaceutical of his or her choice, not permitted.
And, yet, I suspect in fear, we will hear about those tomorrow.
Indeed, with my colleagues' indulgence, let me say that I woke to a
fascinating circumstance yesterday. I heard my name mentioned in an ad
on the local radio station in Washington D.C. And I had no idea I was
so evil, but the Campbell bill was being described as OPEC for doctors,
and this is actually the first thing I heard after waking up. The
Campbell bill is OPEC for doctors; call your Congressman and oppose the
Campbell bill.

{time} 1945

Well, being Campbell, this did get me out of bed very quickly.
My own view, is that, as I described, OPEC is the scariest cartel
because Americans know about price-fixing by petroleum companies. This
bill is restricted to the bargaining context. And I am grateful, I
suppose, that people are mentioning my name, and hopefully they will
spell it right, but I am not running for office in the District of
Columbia.
Mr. GANSKE. Reclaiming my time, I have to laugh that they are calling
this bill a doctors cartel, because when we look at the oil cartel, we
have 11 OPEC countries controlling the cost and access of 40 percent of
the world's oil. What we have in this country is we have a managed care
cartel where seven giant insurers and the Blues control costs and
access of over 50 percent of the U.S. health care market. OPEC nations
utilize their oil production policies to control the market, the price
and the profit of oil. And that is exactly what the managed care cartel
does.
But I think we should also go onto this issue of, well, is the
Campbell bill just going to mean that physicians are going to become
unionized. I find this the most amazing misunderstanding of the
gentleman's bill, because the gentleman's bill, H.R. 1304, would allow
physicians and other health care professionals to negotiate with
insurers without forming a union.
Let me tell my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that if
they want to see physicians become a union, then they should vote
against the Campbell bill. Because if we take those physicians out
there in those small communities where they are just squished in any
type of consumer care problems with the HMOs, and the only recourse
they have is to join a health group and become salaried physician, then
in that circumstance, under the current law, then they can form a
union.
If we do not pass the Campbell bill, I will make a prediction. I will
predict that we will see an acceleration of physicians into unions. The
Campbell bill is a preventive piece of medicine in terms of physicians
becoming unionized.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I am pleased that the gentleman made it very clear,
particularly for our colleagues on the Republican side. I want to add a
word for our colleagues on the Democratic side, however, as well.
I have been very pleased with the support that we have had from
several unions who have said, even though this undercuts the
attractiveness of a union, we recognize and we are happy to see the
benefit of collective bargaining. And we have actually had support from
the American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees Union for
that concept. So to make it clear, it actually provides some of the
benefits of being in a union and, hence, makes it less attractive to be
in a union.
Nevertheless, it is my delight to report that it is supported by over
100 Democrats as well as just under 100 Republicans. We have about 90
Republican cosponsors and about 120 Democrats.
May I say one extra thing, too, at this moment, because it is
important. The American Medical Association is supporting the bill. So
also is the National Medical Association. And let me just take a moment
on that. The National Medical Association was organized as an
alternative for medical doctors of the African American race. That was
its origin. And there are parts of our history in this area, as in so
many others, where there was the practice of discrimination. It has
been a source of great pride and support to me that the medical
association most connected with increasing the prominence and
opportunity for African Americans in our country has endorsed this
bill.
Their president has testified in favor of this bill; and he believes,
and has said in testimony, that this will yield increased quality of
service in those communities that may not get the maximum attention. So
on the question of, let me say the traditional issues of importance to
all of us, but sometimes more identified on the Democratic side, we are
proud of the support that we have.
Would the gentleman indulge me one second.
Mr. GANSKE. I wonder if the gentleman would address the issue,
because I am sure we will hear about this tomorrow, the issue of the
cost of the gentleman's bill. I know there was an initial Congressional
Budget Office analysis of the bill which was incorrect in several of
their assumptions, and I will bet the gentleman can fill me in on the
details of that.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, indeed. What reminds me of this was the radio
advertisement that I referred to. The advertisement now running in
Washington, D.C., says that one estimate says that this will increase
cost 15 percent. No, that is not correct.
The Congressional Budget Office assessment is that the ultimate
effect to the patient will be six-tenth's of 1 percent. Six-tenth's of
1 percent. Now, I have good reason to believe that is wrong because
they do not measure quality. And if quality is improving, which it
surely will under this bill, any measurement of cost-per-unit quality
will likely drop.
But let me explain how 15 percent came to be. The Congressional
Budget Office said, well, we have to make some assumption as to what
the initial increase in compensation to the doctors will be. Let us
just assume that the studies of industrial unions, which show that
members of industrial unions make roughly 15 percent more than
individuals in that same calling who are not members of industrial
unions, let us assume 15 percent.
Mr. Speaker, it was done on no more basis than that. But it started
there, and then it came down to six-tenth's of 1 percent after figuring
the following. Even assuming that 15 percent increase goes to the
medical professional, the next step is the HMO. And the HMO is going to
take a hit to its profit. I do not deny that, and I do not apologize
for it. And as it does, that eats up some of the proposed increase in
cost. Then the HMO has a certain amount it

[[Page 9168]]

passes along to the employer, and the employer takes a certain amount
of that in her or his profit. And then the employer passes along a
certain amount of it to the employee. And by the time it gets down to
the employee, the Congressional Budget Office estimate was six-tenth's
of 1 percent.
Mr. GANSKE. Okay. So they originally said that the cost was going to
be how much?
Mr. CAMPBELL. They said that the reimbursement to the physician was
15 percent. But their original estimate of the cost was 2 percent, and
I pointed out a couple of errors in their analysis.
Mr. GANSKE. And now the CBO is saying that the cost would be six-
tenths of 1 percent.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Six-tenths of 1 percent.
Mr. GANSKE. Six-tenths of 1 percent. And I would point out that that
is probably an accurate figure. I think that there would be a very
small increase. And the reason why there would be a very small increase
is because, quite frankly, when groups of physicians get together to
negotiate with those HMOs, especially concerning those consumer
practices that affect whether a patient can get the type of treatment
that they need, let us say on the medical-necessity issue, then I think
there would be a little bit of an increase in cost because, quite
frankly, I think a lot of HMOs have been denying appropriate care, and
that care is going to cost a little bit more.
But the fact of the matter is that we can, if we treat people
appropriately and fairly, and they get the type of treatment that they
need at an appropriate time, then, in the long run, I think we can
prevent not just additional expenses to the medical system, but we can
also prevent disasters like happened to this little boy when he lost
his hands and feet. And how do we calculate what his hands and feet are
going to be worth to him the rest of his life?
Mr. CAMPBELL. There is one other aspect, if the gentleman will yield,
on the question of cost. But I cannot leave the gentleman's previous
example without saying he is absolutely right. And for those whose only
focus is cost, they will forever be subject to the predatory activities
of those who offer a quality that is diminished.
But the other aspect of the cost estimate is the CBO, in coming to
the six-tenths of 1 percent, did not include the following
consideration: that as dealing with HMOs becomes a little bit fairer
and a little bit more enjoyable and a little bit more professional for
the medical doctor, we will see doctors staying in HMOs who otherwise
would have left them.
It is true that the HMO is a lower cost effect delivery than fee-for-
service has been. And so as we have more doctors going into HMOs
because it is a more hospitable environment, we will actually have a
depressing effect on cost. That I pointed out, but the CBO did not
include in its estimate.
So I think we can safely conclude two things: one, that the cost
increase to the patient is going to be very, very small. And I will
accept the six-tenths of 1 percent, as does the gentleman. But,
secondly, that estimate has not considered quality. And there are many
points where we simply cannot measure quality in dollars and cents. But
taking the most conservative assessments, the quality increase is worth
it.
Mr. GANSKE. I wonder if the gentleman would care to comment on the
opposition of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of
Justice.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I had the honor to be director of the Bureau of
Competition, Federal Trade Commission, during the administration of
President Ronald Reagan. As a result, I am an FTC graduate. I used to
bring antitrust lawsuits on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission. And
the Federal Trade Commission, to my knowledge, has opposed every
exemption from the antitrust laws ever proposed. I do not run the risk
of being corrected on that.
I remember testifying before Congress, when I was the director of the
Bureau of Competition, for a limitation on the antitrust exemption for
ocean shipping. In each case, the FTC and the Department of Justice do
exactly what we would expect of them, and I do not fault them at all.
Mr. GANSKE. They are protecting their turf.
Mr. CAMPBELL. That might be a doctor's assessment of a lawyer. A
lawyer might say defending his jurisdiction. Protecting his turf sounds
like the same thing.
Mr. GANSKE. I wonder if the gentleman would care to comment on the
fact that the Department of Justice did not challenge a single health
care merger in the last decade of all these HMOs, while the 18 largest
health plans merged into just six, at least not until one of the health
groups pushed the DOJ to look at the issue, and then I think they went
ahead and granted the merger anyway. Would the gentleman care to
comment on that?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Indeed, I was in charge of the aspects of merger
analysis that was applied by the Federal Trade Commission. And, roughly
speaking, and this is ballpark but it is about right, up until 40, 50
percent market share is achieved in a merger, the FTC and the
Department of Justice will permit the merger.
It is actually more complex than that. It is done under an index
called the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. But the FTC and Justice will
oftentimes make an analysis of will there be potential competition.
Will another hospital enter if the existing merged entity extracts a
higher price. And in so doing, the patients might suffer for a year or
two until that new entrant happens. The analysis, in other words,
allows a substantial accumulation of market share.
I find myself admiring the analysis that involves economics at the
Federal Trade Commission and not admiring the outcomes that, at least
in this instance, allowed the accumulation of market power. The
theories might have been right; but the practice, as we have seen, did
not result in consumer benefit.
Mr. GANSKE. Now, some people say that H.R. 1304 will come under the
National Labor Relations Act. Is there anything in the gentleman's bill
that has to do with the National Labor Relations Act?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Only the one sentence in the bill that it does not come
under the National Labor Relations Act. I explicitly put into the bill
a statement that nothing in this bill shall alter in the slightest the
application of the National Labor Relations Act or extend to areas
which previously it did not extend to. Absolutely false. Not a change.
And I will put to the gentleman something he and all of us in the
House know. If there were any such implication, the bill would have
been referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, which is
jealous of its jurisdiction, and it was not. It was kept in Judiciary,
dealing strictly with antitrust.
Mr. GANSKE. Now, the gentleman has wide bipartisan support of this
bill. How many cosponsors does the gentleman have for this bill?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I am proud to say we have 220 cosponsors. And as
everyone here knows, 218 is a majority of the House. Of those 220, as I
said, just under 100 are Republicans and the rest, slightly more, are
Democrats.
Mr. GANSKE. So it would be the gentleman's contention that since
Congress is indicating now that they think that there is a problem, our
leadership does too, that there is a problem with HMO abuses, that for
those who think, well, let the market do its will, the market has to be
able to do its will.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Right. And we cannot have an antitrust exemption on one
side and individuals unable even to call each other on the other. And
market power with fewer and fewer HMOs on one side, and a doctor who
cannot even express her or his revulsion against a gag order to her or
his colleague, is not the market.
I suppose if one were a real free market Ricardo economist, they
might say, let us go back to the state of nature. Let us get rid of the
antitrust exemption for insurance. Incidently, I actually offered that
once, and it got one vote in the Committee on the Judiciary in 1989.

[[Page 9169]]

{time} 2000

Mr. GANSKE. I know that I have many friends who will say, well, you
know, maybe we do not need to deal with this issue right now because,
after all, the Managed Care Reform Act of 1999 that passed the House is
now in conference with the Senate and maybe we just ought to wait and
see what happens on that conference.
My personal opinion on this is I think we probably need both. I think
we need to see some regulatory oversight in the vacuum that was created
by ERISA. I think we would probably need less of that if the Campbell
bill passed. I do not see them as exclusive of each other.
Furthermore, I would say this: The managed care industry is very
creative. We have no way of knowing how they will change their
contracts, how they will change their business practices, and what kind
of quality issues will arise out of that in the next few years. And
that is why I would say H.R. 1304 would address this issue because it
would enable the health care providers who are having to deal with
this, who are having to stand up and advocate for their patients at
that time to be able to band together and advocate for those patients
as new permeations arise within the industry.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point of the gentleman.
As I said at the start, I admire his compassion, his knowledge, his
medical as well as congressional experience.
I took a slightly different view, as the gentleman knows on the
Patients' Bill of Rights. So it is fascinating, here we are with two
different positions on the Patients' Bill of Rights.
Mr. GANSKE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the gentleman on his
bill. I wish he would have supported me on mine, but he did not. But I
understand the commitment of the gentleman when I asked him to support
the bill he said I want to approach this from a different aspect, I
want to try to make that market work, but in order for a market to
work, you have to have fairness in terms of the bargaining positions of
the participants.
Mr. CAMPBELL. That is exactly right. And I do have ultimate trust
that market solutions are better than Government-imposed solutions. And
so, if we pass H.R. 1304 tomorrow and the other body passes it and the
President signs it into law, we will have the opportunity to let that
private ordering between the insurer and doctor prevail.
My hesitation was the Federal Government seldom gets it right, and
having Government put in terms of contracts certainly is offered as an
alternative but it is an alternative I would go to as the last one
rather than the first.
Might I ask my colleague to yield on one last point, which is the
amendment that will be offered by our friend the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Stearns)?
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, first of all, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Stearns) is a colleague of mine. We entered Congress the same
year. So I have high regard for him, but I also have a friendship for
him.
The amendment he offers tomorrow, however, is a killing amendment. I
just want to draw attention to this. It says that all of this may be
well and good, however, the Federal Trade Commission shall have the
authority to vitiate any contract reached after such process if in the
Federal Trade Commission's opinion that contract does not enhance
patient welfare.
If my colleague sees my point, it is directly against the principle I
just announced. Here is a Federal Government agency, which does not
want this bill, which has been hostile to the concept that medicine
should be a perceived as a profession rather than the subject of
antitrust to be given the power to vitiate any contract upon its own
determination that the particular contract, and here the judgment is
not an economic one but a social one, does not enhance patient welfare.
It is a killer amendment. In fact, it goes much farther than an
amendment which was offered by our friend from Indiana in the
committee, which said they have got to get approval from the FTC first.
The theory there was let the FTC sign on or not and give them the yes
or no in any particular case.
Well, once again, we know pretty much what the FTC did. Here is the
power to vitiate any contract the FTC chooses to decide that it does
not benefit health care in its own essentially unreviewable discretion.
So I say to my colleagues who might be listening or to their
constituents who might wish to advise them, if they feel this bill is
not good, of course vote against it, but it would be disappointing to
vote in favor of the amendment being offered by our friend from Florida
(Mr. Stearns) thinking it is improving the bill when in reality it is
killing the bill. Vote up or down on the merits. Do not kill by subtle
amendment.
Mr. GANSKE. Let me just go back to the nitty-gritty of the bill, and
that is that physicians cannot sue under this bill.
The most recent cost estimates by the Congressional Budget Office are
six-tenths of one percent. What we are talking about is a group of
physicians who do not join a labor union but are concerned about HMO
practices who want to get together and tell that HMO, you know, the
contract that you are giving those employees for that company where it
says ``medical necessity'' means the shortest, least expensive, or
least intense level of care is just not right and, together as a group,
we will not sign onto a health plan where you are treating one of your
subscribers in that way or, for instance, when you have provisions in
your contract that says first we have to phone you before we can even
tell a patient about their treatment options.
I mean, this affects real-life people and the ability of a physician
to be an advocate for your patient.
This is a lady who was profiled in Time Magazine. She had received a
recommendation for treatment. She lived in California, the home State
of my colleague. She had received a recommendation for treatment from
her HMO. The HMO referred her to a medical center, which I will not
name, and then put undue pressure on that medical center to deny her
the treatment and not tell her all of her treatment options.
She died because of that practice. This little girl and that little
boy and her husband now no longer have a mother or a wife because of
that. But we have a situation now where if a group of physicians or
nurses or pharmacists or other health care providers, professionals,
wanted to get together to try to effect changes and to negotiate with
an HMO to stop those kinds of practices, unless they were salaried,
then they could be brought to court for an antitrust violation.
I just find that that is terribly, terribly wrong. And I know that
this happens. I know from practice that physicians are very, very
careful about sharing information of misadventures of other HMOs for
exactly this reason. Because if they get together and start talking
about it sort of as a group, even if it is done on an individual basis,
they decide, I am not going to renew that contract, then they could get
hit with a big antitrust.
But the fact of the matter is that now they are not even given that
choice in many examples anymore because of the concentration in the
industry, it may very well mean that they have just lost half of their
patients without being able to effect any negotiations with any
reasonable chance of success on that; and that may mean, in effect,
that they can no longer practice in that community.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I have just received a signal that we have only 2
minutes left. So I simply want to say in about 10 seconds that the
whole purpose behind H.R. 1304 is to allow medical professionals to
practice their profession so that they can help their patients and that
what has happened is that decision has in large part been taken away
from them and that is what we wish to correct.
I thank the gentleman for sharing his hour with me.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell) joining me

[[Page 9170]]

in this discussion on his bill, which will reach the floor tomorrow
morning at about 9 o'clock. We will have a couple hours of debate on
it.
I will encourage all of our colleagues who have cosponsored this
legislation to vote against any weakening amendments and to vote for
the bill, as my colleagues have indicated they would in cosponsoring
this legislation.

____________________

REVISIONS TO ALLOCATION FOR HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Souder). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with section 218 of H. Con.
Res. 290, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record
adjustments to the 302(a) allocation for the House Committee on Armed
Services, set forth in H. Rept. 106-577, to reflect $28 million in
additional new budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2001 and
$184 million in new budget authority and outlays for the period of
fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
Section 218 of H. Con. Res. 290 authorizes the Chairman of the House
Budget Committee to increase the 302(a) allocation of the Committee on
Armed Services of the House for Department of Defense Authorization
legislation by the amount of budget authority provided by that bill
(and any resulting outlays) for improvements to health care programs
for military retirees and their dependents. The maximum adjustment is
$50 million in fiscal year 2001 and $400 million for the period of
fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
As reported to the House, H.R. 4205, the Department of Defense
Authorization Act of 2000, provides for various initiatives related to
the improvement in military health, $28 million in budget authority
(and in the resulting outlays) in fiscal year 2001 and $184 million in
budget authority (and in resulting outlays) for the period of fiscal
years 2001 through 2005.
These adjustments shall apply while the legislation is under
consideration and shall take effect upon final enactment of the
legislation. Questions may be directed to Dan Kowalski or Jim Bates at
6-7270.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

____________________

{time} 2241

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Dreier) at 10 o'clock and 41 minutes p.m.

____________________

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2559, AGRICULTURAL RISK PROTECTION ACT OF
2000

Mr. COMBEST submitted the following conference report and statement
on the bill (H.R. 2559) to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to
strengthen the safety net for agricultural producers by providing
greater access to more affordable risk management tools and improved
protection from production and income loss, to improve the efficiency
and integrity of the Federal crop insurance program, and for other
purposes.

Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-639)

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2559), to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen
the safety net for agricultural producers by providing
greater access to more affordable risk management tools and
improved protection from production and income loss, to
improve the efficiency and integrity of the Federal crop
insurance program, and for other purposes, having met, after
full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do
recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment, insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

TITLE I--CROP INSURANCE COVERAGE

Subtitle A--Crop Insurance Coverage

Sec. 101. Premium schedule for additional coverage.
Sec. 102. Premium schedule for other plans of insurance.
Sec. 103. Catastrophic risk protection.
Sec. 104. Administrative fee for additional coverage.
Sec. 105. Assigned yields and actual production history adjustments.
Sec. 106. Review and adjustment in rating methodologies.
Sec. 107. Quality adjustment.
Sec. 108. Double insurance and prevented planting.
Sec. 109. Noninsured crop disaster assistance program.

Subtitle B--Improving Program Integrity

Sec. 121. Improving program compliance and integrity.
Sec. 122. Protection of confidential information.
Sec. 123. Good farming practices.
Sec. 124. Records and reporting.

Subtitle C--Research and Pilot Programs

Sec. 131. Research and development.
Sec. 132. Pilot programs.
Sec. 133. Education and risk management assistance.
Sec. 134. Options pilot program.

Subtitle D--Administration

Sec. 141. Relation to other laws.
Sec. 142. Management of Corporation.
Sec. 143. Contracting for rating of plans of insurance.
Sec. 144. Electronic availability of crop insurance information.
Sec. 145. Adequate coverage for States.
Sec. 146. Submission of policies and materials to Board.
Sec. 147. Funding.
Sec. 148. Standard Reinsurance Agreement.

Subtitle E--Miscellaneous

Sec. 161. Limitation on revenue coverage for potatoes.
Sec. 162. Crop insurance coverage for cotton and rice.
Sec. 163. Indemnity payments for certain producers.
Sec. 164. Sense of Congress regarding the Federal crop insurance
program.
Sec. 165. Sense of Congress on rural America, including minority and
limited-resource farmers.

Subtitle F--Effective Dates and Implementation

Sec. 171. Effective dates.
Sec. 172. Regulations.
Sec. 173. Savings clause.

TITLE II--AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE

Subtitle A--Market Loss Assistance

Sec. 201. Market loss assistance.
Sec. 202. Oilseeds.
Sec. 203. Specialty crops.
Sec. 204. Other commodities.
Sec. 205. Payments in lieu of loan deficiency payments.
Sec. 206. Expansion of producers eligible for loan deficiency payments.

Subtitle B--Conservation

Sec. 211. Conservation assistance.
Sec. 212. Condition on development of Little Darby National Wildlife
Refuge, Ohio.

Subtitle C--Research

Sec. 221. Carbon cycle research.
Sec. 222. Tobacco research for medicinal purposes.
Sec. 223. Research on soil science and forest health management.
Sec. 224. Research on waste streams from livestock production.
Sec. 225. Improved storage and management of livestock and poultry
waste.
Sec. 226. Ethanol research pilot plant.
Sec. 227. Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species.

Subtitle D--Agricultural Marketing

Sec. 231. Value-added agricultural product market development grants.

Subtitle E--Nutrition Programs

Sec. 241. Calculation of minimum amount of commodities for school lunch
requirements.
Sec. 242. School lunch data.
Sec. 243. Child and adult care food program integrity.
Sec. 244. Adjustments to WIC program.

Subtitle F--Other Programs

Sec. 251. Authority to provide loan in connection with boll weevil
eradication.
Sec. 252. Animal disease control.
Sec. 253. Emergency loans for seed producers.
Sec. 254. Temporary suspension of authority to combine certain offices.
Sec. 255. Farm operating loan eligibility.
Sec. 256. Water systems for rural and Native villages in Alaska.
Sec. 257. Crop and pasture flood compensation program.
Sec. 258. Flood mitigation near Pierre, South Dakota.
Sec. 259. Restoration of eligibility for crop loss assistance.

Subtitle G--Administration

Sec. 261. Funding.
Sec. 262. Obligation period.

[[Page 9171]]

Sec. 263. Regulations.
Sec. 264. Paygo adjustment.
Sec. 265. Commodity Credit Corporation reimbursement.

TITLE III--BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Findings.
Sec. 303. Definitions.
Sec. 304. Cooperation and coordination in biomass research and
development.
Sec. 305. Biomass Research and Development Board.
Sec. 306. Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory
Committee.
Sec. 307. Biomass Research And Development Initiative.
Sec. 308. Administrative support and funds.
Sec. 309. Reports.
Sec. 310. Termination of authority.

TITLE IV--PLANT PROTECTION ACT

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Findings.
Sec. 403. Definitions.

Subtitle A--Plant Protection

Sec. 411. Regulation of movement of plant pests.
Sec. 412. Regulation of movement of plants, plant products, biological
control organisms, noxious weeds, articles, and means of
conveyance.
Sec. 413. Notification and holding requirements upon arrival.
Sec. 414. General remedial measures for new plant pests and noxious
weeds.
Sec. 415. Declaration of extraordinary emergency and resulting
authorities.
Sec. 416. Recovery of compensation for unauthorized activities.
Sec. 417. Control of grasshoppers and mormon crickets.
Sec. 418. Certification for exports.

Subtitle B--Inspection and Enforcement

Sec. 421. Inspections, seizures, and warrants.
Sec. 422. Collection of information.
Sec. 423. Subpoena authority.
Sec. 424. Penalties for violation.
Sec. 425. Enforcement actions of attorney general.
Sec. 426. Court jurisdiction.

Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 431. Cooperation.
Sec. 432. Buildings, land, people, claims, and agreements.
Sec. 433. Reimbursable agreements.
Sec. 434. Regulations and orders.
Sec. 435. Protection for mail handlers.
Sec. 436. Preemption.
Sec. 437. Severability.
Sec. 438. Repeal of superseded laws.

Subtitle D--Authorization of Appropriations

Sec. 441. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 442. Transfer authority.

TITLE V--INSPECTION ANIMALS

Sec. 501. Civil penalty.
Sec. 502. Subpoena authority.
TITLE I--CROP INSURANCE
Subtitle A--Crop Insurance Coverage

SEC. 101. PREMIUM SCHEDULE FOR ADDITIONAL COVERAGE.

(a) Expected Market Price.--Section 508(c) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(c)) is amended by striking
paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
``(5) Expected market price.--
``(A) Establishment or approval.--For the purposes of this
title, the Corporation shall establish or approve the price
level (referred to in this title as the `expected market
price') of each agricultural commodity for which insurance is
offered.
``(B) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in
subparagraph (C), the expected market price of an
agricultural commodity shall be not less than the projected
market price of the agricultural commodity, as determined by
the Corporation.
``(C) Other authorized approaches.--The expected market
price of an agricultural commodity--
``(i) may be based on the actual market price of the
agricultural commodity at the time of harvest, as determined
by the Corporation;
``(ii) in the case of revenue and other similar plans of
insurance, may be the actual market price of the agricultural
commodity, as determined by the Corporation;
``(iii) in the case of cost of production or similar plans
of insurance, shall be the projected cost of producing the
agricultural commodity, as determined by the Corporation; or
``(iv) in the case of other plans of insurance, may be an
appropriate amount, as determined by the Corporation.''.
(b) Premium Amounts.--Section 508(d) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C)
and inserting the following:
``(B) In the case of additional coverage equal to or
greater than 50 percent of the recorded or appraised average
yield indemnified at not greater than 100 percent of the
expected market price, or a comparable coverage for a policy
or plan of insurance that is not based on individual yield,
the amount of the premium shall--
``(i) be sufficient to cover anticipated losses and a
reasonable reserve; and
``(ii) include an amount for operating and administrative
expenses, as determined by the Corporation, on an industry-
wide basis as a percentage of the amount of the premium used
to define loss ratio.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Performance-based discount.--The Corporation may
provide a performance-based premium discount for a producer
of an agricultural commodity who has good insurance or
production experience relative to other producers of that
agricultural commodity in the same area, as determined by the
Corporation.''.
(c) Payment Schedule.--Section 508(e)(2) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(e)(2)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding the subparagraphs, by striking
``The amount'' and inserting ``Subject to paragraph (4), the
amount''; and
(2) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the
following:
``(B) In the case of additional coverage equal to or
greater than 50 percent, but less than 55 percent, of the
recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not
greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or a
comparable coverage for a policy or plan of insurance that is
not based on individual yield, the amount shall be equal to
the sum of--
``(i) 67 percent of the amount of the premium established
under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level
selected; and
``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii)
for the coverage level selected to cover operating and
administrative expenses.
``(C) In the case of additional coverage equal to or
greater than 55 percent, but less than 65 percent, of the
recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not
greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or a
comparable coverage for a policy or plan of insurance that is
not based on individual yield, the amount shall be equal to
the sum of--
``(i) 64 percent of the amount of the premium established
under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level
selected; and
``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii)
for the coverage level selected to cover operating and
administrative expenses.
``(D) In the case of additional coverage equal to or
greater than 65 percent, but less than 75 percent, of the
recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not
greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or a
comparable coverage for a policy or plan of insurance that is
not based on individual yield, the amount shall be equal to
the sum of--
``(i) 59 percent of the amount of the premium established
under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level
selected; and
``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii)
for the coverage level selected to cover operating and
administrative expenses.
``(E) In the case of additional coverage equal to or
greater than 75 percent, but less than 80 percent, of the
recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not
greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or a
comparable coverage for a policy or plan of insurance that is
not based on individual yield, the amount shall be equal to
the sum of--
``(i) 55 percent of the amount of the premium established
under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level
selected; and
``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii)
for the coverage level selected to cover operating and
administrative expenses.
``(F) In the case of additional coverage equal to or
greater than 80 percent, but less than 85 percent, of the
recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not
greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or a
comparable coverage for a policy or plan of insurance that is
not based on individual yield, the amount shall be equal to
the sum of--
``(i) 48 percent of the amount of the premium established
under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level
selected; and
``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii)
for the coverage level selected to cover operating and
administrative expenses.
``(G) Subject to subsection (c)(4), in the case of
additional coverage equal to or greater than 85 percent of
the recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not
greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or a
comparable coverage for a policy or plan of insurance that is
not based on individual yield, the amount shall be equal to
the sum of--
``(i) 38 percent of the amount of the premium established
under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level
selected; and
``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii)
for the coverage level selected to cover operating and
administrative expenses.''.
(d) Temporary Prohibition on Continuous Coverage.--Section
508(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(e))
is amended by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the
following:
``(4) Temporary prohibition on continuous coverage.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (2), during each of the 2001
through 2005 reinsurance years, additional coverage under
subsection (c) shall be available only in 5 percent
increments beginning at 50 percent of the recorded or
appraised average yield.''.
(e) Premium Payment Disclosure.--Section 508(e) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(e)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(5) Premium payment disclosure.--Each policy or plan of
insurance under this title shall prominently indicate the
dollar amount of the portion of the premium paid by the
Corporation.''.
(f) Conforming Amendment.--Section 508(g)(2)(D) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(g)(2)(D)) is
amended by striking ``(as provided in subsection (e)(4))''.

SEC. 102. PREMIUM SCHEDULE FOR OTHER PLANS OF INSURANCE.

(a) Premium Schedule.--Section 508(h) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(h)) is amended--

[[Page 9172]]

(1) in paragraph (2), by striking the second sentence; and
(2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
``(5) Premium schedule.--
``(A) Payment by corporation.--In the case of a policy or
plan of insurance developed and approved under this
subsection or section 522, or conducted under section 523
(other than a policy or plan of insurance applicable to
livestock), the Corporation shall pay a portion of the
premium of the policy or plan of insurance that is equal to--
``(i) the percentage, specified in subsection (e) for a
similar level of coverage, of the total amount of the premium
used to define loss ratio; and
``(ii) an amount for administrative and operating expenses
determined in accordance with subsection (k)(4).
``(B) Transitional schedule.--Effective only during the
2001 reinsurance year, in the case of a policy or plan of
insurance developed and approved under this subsection or
section 522, or conducted under section 523 (other than a
policy or plan of insurance applicable to livestock), and
first approved by the Board after the date of enactment of
this subparagraph, the payment by the Corporation of a
portion of the premium of the policy may not exceed the
dollar amount that would otherwise be authorized under
subsection (e) (consistent with subsection (c)(5), as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this
subparagraph).''.
(b) Reimbursement Rate.--Section 508(k)(4) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(4)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(C) Other reductions.--Beginning with the 2002
reinsurance year, in the case of a policy or plan of
insurance approved by the Board that was not reinsured during
the 1998 reinsurance year but, had it been reinsured, would
have received a reduced rate of reimbursement during the 1998
reinsurance year, the rate of reimbursement for
administrative and operating costs established for the policy
or plan of insurance shall take into account the factors used
to determine the rate of reimbursement for administrative and
operating costs during the 1998 reinsurance year, including
the expected difference in premium and actual administrative
and operating costs of the policy or plan of insurance
relative to an individual yield policy or plan of insurance
and other appropriate factors, as determined by the
Corporation.''.

SEC. 103. CATASTROPHIC RISK PROTECTION.

(a) Alternative Coverage.--Section 508(b) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)) is amended by striking
paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Alternative catastrophic coverage.--Beginning with
the 2001 crop year, the Corporation shall offer producers of
an agricultural commodity the option of selecting either of
the following:
``(A) The catastrophic risk protection coverage available
under paragraph (2)(A).
``(B) An alternative catastrophic risk protection coverage
that--
``(i) indemnifies the producer on an area yield and loss
basis if such a policy or plan of insurance is offered for
the agricultural commodity in the county in which the farm is
located;
``(ii) provides, on a uniform national basis, a higher
combination of yield and price protection than the coverage
available under paragraph (2)(A); and
``(iii) the Corporation determines is comparable to the
coverage available under paragraph (2)(A) for purposes of
subsection (e)(2)(A).''.
(b) Administrative Fee.--
(1) Revised fee.--Section 508(b)(5) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)(5)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$50'' and inserting
``$100'';
(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``amounts required
under subparagraphs (A) and (B)'' and inserting
``administrative fee required by this paragraph''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 748 of the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section
101(a) of division A of Public Law 105-277; 7 U.S.C. 1508
note), is amended by striking ``$50'' and inserting ``$100''.
(c) Payment of Administrative Fee on Behalf of Producers.--
Section 508(b)(5) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(b)(5)), as amended by subsection (b)(1)(B), is amended
by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) Payment on behalf of producers.--
``(i) Payment authorized.--If State law permits a licensing
fee or other payment to be paid by an insurance provider to a
cooperative association or trade association and rebated to a
producer with catastrophic risk protection or additional
coverage, a cooperative association or trade association
located in that State may pay, on behalf of a member of the
association in that State or a contiguous State who consents
to be insured under such an arrangement, all or a portion of
the administrative fee required by this paragraph for
catastrophic risk protection.
``(ii) Treatment of licensing fees.--A licensing fee or
other payment made by an insurance provider to the
cooperative association or trade association in connection
with the issuance of catastrophic risk protection or
additional coverage to members of the cooperative association
or trade association shall be subject to the laws regarding
rebates of the State in which the fee or other payment is
made.
``(iii) Selection of provider.--Nothing in this
subparagraph limits the option of a producer to select the
licensed insurance agent or other approved insurance provider
from whom the producer will purchase a policy or plan of
insurance or to refuse coverage for which a payment is
offered to be made under clause (i).
``(iv) Delivery of insurance.--A policy or plan of
insurance for which a payment is made under clause (i) shall
be delivered by a licensed insurance agent or other approved
insurance provider.
``(v) Additional coverage encouraged.--A cooperative
association or trade association, and any approved insurance
provider with whom a licensing fee or other arrangement under
this subparagraph is made, shall encourage producer members
to purchase appropriate levels of additional coverage in
order to meet the risk management needs of the member
producers.
``(vi) Report.--Not later than April 1, 2002, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate a report that evaluates--

``(I) the operation of this subparagraph; and
``(II) the impact of this subparagraph on participation in
the Federal crop insurance program, including the impact on
levels of coverage purchased.''.

(d) Reimbursement Rate Change.--Section 508(b)(11) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)(11)) is amended
by striking ``11 percent'' and inserting ``8 percent''.

SEC. 104. ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR ADDITIONAL COVERAGE.

Section 508(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(c)) is amended by striking paragraph (10) and inserting
the following:
``(10) Administrative fee.--
``(A) Fee required.--If a producer elects to purchase
coverage for a crop at a level in excess of catastrophic risk
protection, the producer shall pay an administrative fee for
the additional coverage of $30 per crop per county.
``(B) Use of fees; waiver.--Subparagraphs (D) and (E) of
subsection (b)(5) shall apply with respect to the collection
and use of administrative fees under this paragraph.''.

SEC. 105. ASSIGNED YIELDS AND ACTUAL PRODUCTION HISTORY
ADJUSTMENTS.

(a) Assigned Yields.--Section 508(g)(2)(B) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(g)(2)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``assigned a yield'' and inserting
``assigned--
``(i) a yield'';
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) a yield determined by the Corporation, in the case
of--

``(I) a producer that has not had a share of the production
of the insured crop for more than 2 crop years, as determined
by the Secretary;
``(II) a producer that produces an agricultural commodity
on land that has not been farmed by the producer; or
``(III) a producer that rotates a crop produced on a farm
to a crop that has not been produced on the farm.''.

(b) Actual Production History Adjustments.--Section 508(g)
of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(g)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Adjustment in actual production history to establish
insurable yields.--
``(A) Application.--This paragraph shall apply whenever the
Corporation uses the actual production records of the
producer to establish the producer's actual production
history for an agricultural commodity for any of the 2001 and
subsequent crop years.
``(B) Election to use percentage of transitional yield.--
If, for 1 or more of the crop years used to establish the
producer's actual production history of an agricultural
commodity, the producer's recorded or appraised yield of the
commodity was less than 60 percent of the applicable
transitional yield, as determined by the Corporation, the
Corporation shall, at the election of the producer--
``(i) exclude any of such recorded or appraised yield; and
``(ii) replace each excluded yield with a yield equal to 60
percent of the applicable transitional yield.
``(C) Premium adjustment.--In the case of a producer that
makes an election under subparagraph (B), the Corporation
shall adjust the premium to reflect the risk associated with
the adjustment made in the actual production history of the
producer.
``(5) Adjustment to reflect increased yields from
successful pest control efforts.--
``(A) Situations justifying adjustment.--The Corporation
shall develop a methodology for adjusting the actual
production history of a producer when each of the following
apply:
``(i) The producer's farm is located in an area where
systematic, area-wide efforts have been undertaken using
certain operations or measures, or the producer's farm is a
location at which certain operations or measures have been
undertaken, to detect, eradicate, suppress, or control, or at
least to prevent or retard the spread of, a plant disease or
plant pest, including a plant pest (as defined in section 102
of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 147a)).
``(ii) The presence of the plant disease or plant pest has
been found to adversely affect the yield of the agricultural
commodity for which the producer is applying for insurance.
``(iii) The efforts described in clause (i) have been
effective.

[[Page 9173]]

``(B) Adjustment amount.--The amount by which the
Corporation adjusts the actual production history of a
producer of an agricultural commodity shall reflect the
degree to which the success of the systematic, area-wide
efforts described in subparagraph (A), on average, increases
the yield of the commodity on the producer's farm, as
determined by the Corporation.''.

SEC. 106. REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT IN RATING METHODOLOGIES.

Section 508(i) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Corporation'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Corporation''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Review of rating methodologies.--To maximize
participation in the Federal crop insurance program and to
ensure equity for producers, the Corporation shall
periodically review the methodologies employed for rating
plans of insurance under this title consistent with section
507(c)(2).
``(3) Analysis of rating and loss history.--The Corporation
shall analyze the rating and loss history of approved
policies and plans of insurance for agricultural commodities
by area.
``(4) Premium adjustment.--If the Corporation makes a
determination that premium rates are excessive for an
agricultural commodity in an area relative to the
requirements of subsection (d)(2) for that area, then, for
the 2002 crop year (and as necessary thereafter), the
Corporation shall make appropriate adjustments in the premium
rates for that area for that agricultural commodity.''.

SEC. 107. QUALITY ADJUSTMENT.

Section 508 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508) is amended by striking subsection (m) and inserting the
following:
``(m) Quality Loss Adjustment Coverage.--
``(1) Effect of coverage.--If a policy or plan of insurance
offered under this title includes quality loss adjustment
coverage, the coverage shall provide for a reduction in the
quantity of production of the agricultural commodity
considered produced during a crop year, or a similar
adjustment, as a result of the agricultural commodity not
meeting the quality standards established in the policy or
plan of insurance.
``(2) Additional quality loss adjustment.--
``(A) Producer option.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, in addition to the quality loss adjustment coverage
available under paragraph (1), the Corporation shall offer
producers the option of purchasing quality loss adjustment
coverage on a basis that is smaller than a unit with respect
to an agricultural commodity that satisfies each of the
following:
``(i) The agricultural commodity is sold on an identity-
preserved basis.
``(ii) All quality determinations are made solely by the
Federal agency designated to grade or classify the
agricultural commodity.
``(iii) All quality determinations are made in accordance
with standards published by the Federal agency in the Federal
Register.
``(iv) The discount schedules that reflect the reduction in
quality of the agricultural commodity are established by the
Secretary.
``(B) Basis for adjustment.--Under this paragraph, the
Corporation shall set the quality standards below which
quality losses will be paid based on the variability of the
grade of the agricultural commodity from the base quality for
the agricultural commodity.
``(3) Review of criteria and procedures.--The Corporation
shall contract with a qualified person to review the quality
loss adjustment procedures of the Corporation so that the
procedures more accurately reflect local quality discounts
that are applied to agricultural commodities insured under
this title. Based on the review, the Corporation shall make
adjustments in the procedures, taking into consideration the
actuarial soundness of the adjustment and the prevention of
fraud, waste, and abuse.''.

SEC. 108. DOUBLE INSURANCE AND PREVENTED PLANTING.

The Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is
amended by inserting after section 508 (7 U.S.C. 1508) the
following:

``SEC. 508A. DOUBLE INSURANCE AND PREVENTED PLANTING.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) First crop.--The term `first crop' means the first
crop of the first agricultural commodity planted for harvest,
or prevented from being planted, on specific acreage during a
crop year and insured under this title.
``(2) Second crop.--The term `second crop' means a second
crop of the same agricultural commodity as the first crop, or
a crop of a different agricultural commodity following the
first crop, planted on the same acreage as the first crop for
harvest in the same crop year, except the term does not
include a replanted crop.
``(3) Replanted crop.--The term `replanted crop' means any
agricultural commodity replanted on the same acreage as the
first crop for harvest in the same crop year if the
replanting is required by the terms of the policy of
insurance covering the first crop.
``(b) Double Insurance.--
``(1) Options on loss to first crop.--Except as provided in
subsections (d) and (e), if a first crop insured under this
title in a crop year has a total or partial insurable loss,
the producer of the first crop may elect 1 of the following
options:
``(A) No second crop planted.--The producer may--
``(i) elect to not plant a second crop on the same acreage
for harvest in the same crop year; and
``(ii) collect an indemnity payment that is equal to 100
percent of the insurable loss for the first crop.
``(B) Second crop planted.--The producer may--
``(i) plant a second crop on the same acreage for harvest
in the same crop year; and
``(ii) collect an indemnity payment established by the
Corporation for the first crop, but not to exceed 35 percent
of the insurable loss for the first crop.
``(2) Effect of no loss to second crop.--If a producer
makes an election under paragraph (1)(B) and the producer
does not suffer an insurable loss to the second crop, the
producer may collect an indemnity payment for the first crop
that is equal to--
``(A) 100 percent of the insurable loss for the first crop;
less
``(B) the amount previously collected under paragraph
(1)(B)(ii).
``(3) Premium for first crop if second crop planted.--
``(A) Initial premium.--If a producer makes an election
under paragraph (1)(B), the producer shall be responsible for
a premium for the first crop that is commensurate with the
indemnity paid under paragraph (1)(B)(ii). The Corporation
shall adjust the total premium for the first crop to reflect
the reduced indemnity.
``(B) Effect of no loss to second crop.--If the producer
makes an election under paragraph (1)(B) and the producer
does not suffer an insurable loss to the second crop, the
producer shall be responsible for a premium for the first
crop that is equal to--
``(i) the full premium owed by the producer for the first
crop; less
``(ii) the amount of premium previously paid under
subparagraph (A).
``(c) Prevented Planting Coverage.--
``(1) Options on loss to first crop.--Except as provided in
subsections (d) and (e), if a first crop insured under this
title in a crop year is prevented from being planted, the
producer of the first crop may elect 1 of the following
options:
``(A) No second crop planted.--The producer may--
``(i) elect to not plant a second crop on the same acreage
for harvest in the same crop year; and
``(ii) subject to paragraph (4), collect an indemnity
payment that is equal to 100 percent of the prevented
planting guarantee for the acreage for the first crop.
``(B) Second crop planted.--The producer may--
``(i) plant a second crop on the same acreage for harvest
in the same crop year; and
``(ii) subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), collect an
indemnity payment established by the Corporation for the
first crop, but not to exceed 35 percent of the prevented
planting guarantee for the acreage for the first crop.
``(2) Premium for first crop if second planted.--If the
producer makes an election under paragraph (1)(B), the
producer shall pay a premium for the first crop that is
commensurate with the indemnity paid under paragraph
(1)(B)(ii). The Corporation shall adjust the total premium
for the first crop to reflect the reduced indemnity.
``(3) Effect on actual production history.--Except in the
case of double cropping described in subsection (d), if a
producer make an election under paragraph (1)(B) for a crop
year, the Corporation shall assign the producer a recorded
yield for that crop year for the first crop equal to 60
percent of the producer's actual production history for the
agricultural commodity involved, for purposes of determining
the producer's actual production history for subsequent crop
years.
``(4) Area conditions required for payment.--The
Corporation shall limit prevented planting payments for
producers to those situations in which other producers, in
the area where a first crop is prevented from being planted
is located, are also generally affected by the conditions
that prevented the first crop from being planted.
``(5) Planting date.--If a producer plants the second crop
before the latest planting date established by the
Corporation for the first crop, the Corporation shall not
make a prevented planting payment with regard to the first
crop.
``(d) Exception for Established Double Cropping
Practices.--A producer may receive full indemnity payments on
2 or more crops planted for harvest in the same crop year and
insured under this title if each of the following conditions
are met:
``(1) There is an established practice of planting 2 or
more crops for harvest in the same crop year in the area, as
determined by the Corporation.
``(2) An additional coverage policy or plan of insurance is
offered with respect to the agricultural commodities planted
on the same acreage for harvest in the same crop year in the
area.
``(3) The producer has a history of planting 2 or more
crops for harvest in the same crop year or the applicable
acreage has historically had 2 or more crops planted for
harvest in the same crop year.
``(4) The second or more crops are customarily planted
after the first crop for harvest on the same acreage in the
same year in the area.
``(e) Subsequent Crops.--Except in the case of double
cropping described in subsection (d), if a producer elects to
plant a crop (other than a replanted crop) subsequent to a
second crop on the same acreage as the first crop and second
crop for harvest in the same crop year, the producer shall
not be eligible for insurance under

[[Page 9174]]

this title, or noninsured crop assistance under section 196
of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7333),
for the subsequent crop.''.

SEC. 109. NONINSURED CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

(a) Operation and Administration of Program.--Section
196(a)(2) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C.
7333(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Combination of similar types or varieties.--At the
option of the Secretary, all types or varieties of a crop or
commodity, described in subparagraphs (A) and (B), may be
considered to be a single eligible crop under this
section.''.
(b) Timely Application.--Section 196(b)(1) of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7333(b)(1)) is
amended in the second sentence by striking ``at such time as
the Secretary may require'' and inserting ``not later than 30
days before the beginning of the coverage period, as
determined by the Secretary''.
(c) Records and Reports.--Section 196(b) of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7333(b)) is
amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Records.--To be eligible for assistance under this
section, a producer shall provide annually to the Secretary
records of crop acreage, acreage yields, and production for
each crop, as required by the Secretary.''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``annual'' after ``shall
provide''.
(d) Loss Requirements.--Section 196 of the Agricultural
Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7333) is amended by striking
subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Loss Requirements.--
``(1) Cause.--To be eligible for assistance under this
section, a producer of an eligible crop shall have suffered a
loss of a noninsured commodity as the result of a cause
described in subsection (a)(3).
``(2) Assistance.--On making a determination described in
subsection (a)(3), the Secretary shall provide assistance
under this section to producers of an eligible crop that have
suffered a loss as a result of the cause described in
subsection (a)(3).
``(3) Prevented planting.--Subject to paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall make a prevented planting noninsured crop
disaster assistance payment if the producer is prevented from
planting more than 35 percent of the acreage intended for the
eligible crop because of drought, flood, or other natural
disaster, as determined by the Secretary.
``(4) Area trigger.--The Secretary shall provide assistance
to individual producers without any requirement of an area
loss.''.
(e) Service Fee.--Section 196 of the Agricultural Market
Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7333) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(k) Service Fee.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive assistance for
an eligible crop for a crop year under this section, a
producer shall pay to the Secretary (at the time at which the
producer submits the application under subsection (b)(1)) a
service fee for the eligible crop in an amount that is equal
to the lesser of--
``(A) $100 per crop per county; or
``(B) $300 per producer per county, but not to exceed a
total of $900 per producer.
``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary shall waive the service fee
required under paragraph (1) in the case of a limited
resource farmer, as defined by the Secretary.
``(3) Use.--The Secretary shall deposit service fees
collected under this subsection in the Commodity Credit
Corporation Fund.''.
Subtitle B--Improving Program Integrity

SEC. 121. IMPROVING PROGRAM COMPLIANCE AND INTEGRITY.

(a) Additional Methods of Ensuring Program Compliance and
Integrity.--Section 515 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1514) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 515. PROGRAM COMPLIANCE AND INTEGRITY.

``(a) Purpose.--
``(1) In general.--The purpose of this section is to
improve compliance with, and the integrity of, the Federal
crop insurance program.
``(2) Role of insurance providers.--The Corporation shall
work actively with approved insurance providers to address
program compliance and integrity issues as such issues
develop.
``(b) Notification of Compliance Problems.--
``(1) Notification of errors, omissions, and failures.--The
Corporation shall notify in writing an approved insurance
provider of any error, omission, or failure to follow
Corporation regulations or procedures for which the approved
insurance provider may be responsible and which may result in
a debt owed the Corporation.
``(2) Time for notification.--Notice under paragraph (1)
shall be given within 3 years after the end of the insurance
period during which the error, omission, or failure is
alleged to have occurred, except that this time limitation
shall not apply with respect to an error, omission, or
procedural violation that is willful or intentional.
``(3) Effect of failure to timely notify.--Except as
provided in paragraph (2), the failure to timely provide the
notice required under this subsection shall relieve the
approved insurance provider from the debt owed the
Corporation.
``(c) Reconciling Producer Information.--The Secretary
shall develop and implement a coordinated plan for the
Corporation and the Farm Service Agency to reconcile all
relevant information received by the Corporation or the Farm
Service Agency from a producer who obtains crop insurance
coverage under this title. Beginning with the 2001 crop year,
the Secretary shall require that the Corporation and the Farm
Service Agency reconcile such producer-derived information on
at least an annual basis in order to identify and address any
discrepancies.
``(d) Identification and Elimination of Fraud, Waste, and
Abuse.--
``(1) FSA monitoring program.--The Secretary shall develop
and implement a coordinated plan for the Farm Service Agency
to assist the Corporation in the ongoing monitoring of
programs carried out under this title, including--
``(A) at the request of the Corporation or, subject to
paragraph (2), on its own initiative if the Farm Service
Agency has reason to suspect the existence of program fraud,
waste, or abuse, conducting fact finding relative to
allegations of program fraud, waste, or abuse;
``(B) reporting to the Corporation, in writing in a timely
manner, the results of any fact finding conducted pursuant to
subparagraph (A), any allegation of fraud, waste, or abuse,
and any identified program vulnerabilities; and
``(C) assisting the Corporation and approved insurance
providers in auditing a statistically appropriate number of
claims made under any policy or plan of insurance under this
title.
``(2) FSA inquiry.--If, within 5 calendar days after
receiving a report submitted under paragraph (1)(B), the
Corporation does not provide a written response that
describes the intended actions of the Corporation, the Farm
Service Agency may conduct its own inquiry into the alleged
program fraud, waste, or abuse on approval from the State
director of the Farm Service Agency of the State in which the
alleged fraud, waste, or abuse occurred. If as a result of
the inquiry, the Farm Service Agency concludes further
investigation is warranted, but the Corporation declines to
proceed with the investigation, the Farm Service Agency may
refer the matter to the Inspector General of the Department
of Agriculture.
``(3) Use of field infrastructure.--The plan required by
paragraph (1) shall provide for the use of the field
infrastructure of the Farm Service Agency. The Secretary
shall ensure that relevant Farm Service Agency personnel are
appropriately trained for any responsibilities assigned to
the personnel under the plan. At a minimum, the personnel
shall receive the same level of training and pass the same
basic competency tests as required of loss adjusters of
approved insurance providers.
``(4) Maintenance of provider effort.--
``(A) In general.--The activities of the Farm Service
Agency under this subsection do not affect the responsibility
of approved insurance providers to conduct any audits of
claims or other program reviews required by the Corporation.
``(B) Notification of providers.--The Corporation shall
notify the appropriate approved insurance provider of a
report from the Farm Service Agency regarding alleged program
fraud, waste, or abuse, unless the provider is suspected to
be included in, or a party to, the alleged fraud, waste, or
abuse.
``(C) Response.--An approved insurance provider that
receives a notice under subparagraph (B) shall submit a
report to the Corporation, within an appropriate time period
determined by the Secretary, describing the actions taken by
the provider to investigate the allegations of program fraud,
waste, or abuse contained in the notice.
``(5) Corporation response to provider reports.--
``(A) Prompt response.--If an approved insurance provider
reports to the Corporation that the approved insurance
provider suspects intentional misrepresentation, fraud,
waste, or abuse, the Corporation shall make a determination
and provide, within 90 calendar days after receiving the
report, a written response that describes the intended
actions of the Corporation.
``(B) Cooperative effort.--The approved insurance provider
and the Corporation shall take coordinated action in any case
where misrepresentation, fraud, waste, or abuse is alleged.
``(C) Failure to timely respond.--If the Corporation fails
to respond as required by subparagraph (A), an approved
insurance provider may request the Farm Service Agency to
assist the provider in an inquiry into the alleged program
fraud, waste, or abuse.
``(e) Consultation with State FSA Committees.--The
Secretary shall establish procedures under which the
Corporation shall consult with the State committee of the
Farm Service Agency for a State with respect to policies,
plans of insurance, and material related to such policies or
plans of insurance (including applicable sales closing dates,
assigned yields, and transitional yields) offered in that
State under this title.
``(f) Detection of Disparate Performance.--
``(1) Covered activities.--The Secretary shall establish
procedures under which the Corporation will be able to
identify the following:
``(A) Any agent engaged in the sale of coverage offered
under this title where the loss claims associated with such
sales by the agent are equal to or greater than 150 percent
(or an appropriate percentage specified by the Corporation)
of the mean for all loss claims associated with such sales by
all other agents operating in the same area, as determined by
the Corporation.
``(B) Any person performing loss adjustment services
relative to coverage offered under this

[[Page 9175]]

title where such loss adjustments performed by the person
result in accepted or denied claims equal to or greater than
150 percent (or an appropriate percentage specified by the
Corporation) of the mean for accepted or denied claims (as
applicable) for all other persons performing loss adjustment
services in the same area, as determined by the Corporation.
``(2) Review.--
``(A) Review required.--The Corporation shall conduct a
review of any agent identified pursuant to paragraph (1)(A),
and any person identified pursuant to paragraph (1)(B), to
determine whether the higher loss claims associated with the
agent or the higher number of accepted or denied claims (as
applicable) associated with the person are the result of
fraud, waste, or abuse.
``(B) Remedial action.--The Corporation shall take
appropriate remedial action with respect to any occurrence of
fraud, waste, or abuse identified in a review conducted under
this paragraph.
``(3) Oversight of agents and loss adjusters.--The
Corporation shall develop procedures to require an annual
review by an approved insurance provider of the performance
of each agent and loss adjuster used by the approved
insurance provider. The Corporation shall oversee the conduct
of annual reviews and may consult with an approved insurance
provider regarding any remedial action that is determined to
be necessary as a result of the annual review of an agent or
loss adjuster.
``(g) Submission of Information to Corporation to Support
Compliance Efforts.--
``(1) Types of information required.--The Secretary shall
establish procedures under which approved insurance providers
shall submit to the Corporation the following information
with respect to each policy or plan of insurance offered
under this title:
``(A) The name and identification number of the insured.
``(B) The agricultural commodity to be insured.
``(C) The elected coverage level, including the price
election, of the insured.
``(2) Time for submission.--The information required by
paragraph (1) with respect to a policy or plan of insurance
shall be submitted so as to ensure receipt by the Corporation
not later than the Saturday of the week containing the
calendar day that is 30 days after the applicable sales
closing date for the crop to be insured.
``(h) Sanctions for Program Noncompliance and Fraud.--
``(1) False information.--A producer, agent, loss adjuster,
approved insurance provider, or other person that willfully
and intentionally provides any false or inaccurate
information to the Corporation or to an approved insurance
provider with respect to a policy or plan of insurance under
this title may, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing
on the record, be subject to 1 or more of the sanctions
described in paragraph (3).
``(2) Compliance.--A person may, after notice and an
opportunity for a hearing on the record, be subject to 1 or
more of the sanctions described in paragraph (3) if the
person is a producer, agent, loss adjuster, approved
insurance provider, or other person that willfully and
intentionally fails to comply with a requirement of the
Corporation.
``(3) Authorized sanctions.--If the Secretary determines
that a person covered by this subsection has committed a
material violation under paragraph (1) or (2), the following
sanctions may be imposed:
``(A) Civil fines.--A civil fine may be imposed for each
violation in an amount not to exceed the greater of--
``(i) the amount of the pecuniary gain obtained as a result
of the false or inaccurate information provided or the
noncompliance with a requirement of this title; or
``(ii) $10,000.
``(B) Producer disqualification.--In the case of a
violation committed by a producer, the producer may be
disqualified for a period of up to 5 years from receiving any
monetary or nonmonetary benefit provided under each of the
following:
``(i) This title.
``(ii) The Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C.
7201 et seq.), including the noninsured crop disaster
assistance program under section 196 of that Act (7 U.S.C.
7333).
``(iii) The Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et
seq.).
``(iv) The Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15
U.S.C. 714 et seq.).
``(v) The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C.
1281 et seq.).
``(vi) Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3801 et seq.).
``(vii) The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7
U.S.C. 1921 et seq.).
``(viii) Any law that provides assistance to a producer of
an agricultural commodity affected by a crop loss or a
decline in the prices of agricultural commodities.
``(C) Disqualification of other persons.--In the case of a
violation committed by an agent, loss adjuster, approved
insurance provider, or other person (other than a producer),
the violator may be disqualified for a period of up to 5
years from participating in any program, or receiving any
benefit, under this title.
``(4) Assessment of sanction.--The Secretary shall consider
the gravity of the violation of the person covered by this
subsection in determining--
``(A) whether to impose a sanction under this subsection;
and
``(B) the type and amount of the sanction to be imposed.
``(5) Disclosure of sanctions.--Each policy or plan of
insurance under this title shall provide notice describing
the sanctions prescribed under paragraph (3) for willfully
and intentionally--
``(A) providing false or inaccurate information to the
Corporation or to an approved insurance provider; or
``(B) failing to comply with a requirement of the
Corporation.
``(6) Insurance fund.--Any funds collected under this
subsection shall be deposited into the insurance fund
established under section 516(c).
``(i) Annual Report on Program Compliance and Integrity
Efforts.--
``(1) Report required.--The Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate an annual report describing the operation of this
section during the preceding year and efforts undertaken by
the Secretary and the Corporation to carry out this section.
``(2) Information regarding fraud, waste, and abuse.--The
report shall identify specific occurrences of waste, fraud,
or abuse and contain an outline of actions that have been or
are being taken to eliminate the identified waste, fraud, or
abuse.
``(j) Information Management.--
``(1) Systems upgrades.--The Secretary shall upgrade the
information management systems of the Corporation used in the
administration and enforcement and this title. In upgrading
the systems, the Secretary shall ensure that new hardware and
software are compatible with the hardware and software used
by other agencies of the Department to maximize data sharing
and promote the purpose of this section.
``(2) Use of available information technologies.--The
Secretary shall use the information technologies known as
data mining and data warehousing and other available
information technologies to administer and enforce this
title.
``(3) Use of private sector.--The Secretary may enter into
contracts to use private sector expertise and technological
resources in implementing this subsection.
``(k) Funding.--
``(1) Available funds.--To carry out this section and
sections 502(c), 506(h), 508(a)(3)(B), and 508(f)(3)(A), the
Corporation may use, from amounts made available from the
insurance fund established under section 516(c), not more
than $23,000,000 during the period of fiscal years 2001
through 2005, of which not more than $9,000,000 shall be
available for fiscal year 2001.
``(2) Prohibition.--None of the funds made available under
paragraph (1) may be used to pay the salaries of employees of
the Corporation.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 506 of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1506) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (q); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (r) and (s) as subsections
(q) and (r), respectively.

SEC. 122. PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

Section 502 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1502) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Protection of Confidential Information.--
``(1) General prohibition against disclosure.--Except as
provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary, any other officer
or employee of the Department or an agency thereof, an
approved insurance provider and its employees and
contractors, and any other person may not disclose to the
public information furnished by a producer under this title.
``(2) Authorized disclosure.--
``(A) Disclosure in statistical or aggregate form.--
Information described in paragraph (1) may be disclosed to
the public if the information has been transformed into a
statistical or aggregate form that does not allow the
identification of the person who supplied particular
information.
``(B) Consent of producer.--A producer may consent to the
disclosure of information described in paragraph (1). The
participation of the producer in, and the receipt of any
benefit by the producer under, this title or any other
program administered by the Secretary may not be conditioned
on the producer providing consent under this paragraph.
``(3) Violations; penalties.--Section 1770(c) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 2276(c)) shall apply with
respect to the release of information collected in any manner
or for any purpose prohibited by this subsection.''.

SEC. 123. GOOD FARMING PRACTICES.

Section 508(a) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting
the following:
``(3) Exclusion of losses due to certain actions of
producer.--
``(A) Exclusions.--Insurance provided under this subsection
shall not cover losses due to--
``(i) the neglect or malfeasance of the producer;
``(ii) the failure of the producer to reseed to the same
crop in such areas and under such circumstances as it is
customary to reseed; or
``(iii) the failure of the producer to follow good farming
practices, including scientifically sound sustainable and
organic farming practices.
``(B) Good farming practices.--
``(i) Informal administrative process.--A producer shall
have the right to a review of a determination regarding good
farming practices

[[Page 9176]]

made under subparagraph (A)(iii) in accordance with an
informal administrative process to be established by the
Corporation.
``(ii) Administrative review.--

``(I) No adverse decision.--The determination shall not be
considered an adverse decision for purposes of subtitle H of
the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 6991 et seq.).
``(II) Reversal or modification.--Except as provided in
clause (i), the determination may not be reversed or modified
as the result of a subsequent administrative review.

``(iii) Judicial review.--

``(I) Right to review.--A producer shall have the right to
judicial review of the determination without exhausting any
right to a review under clause (i).
``(II) Reversal or modification.--The determination may not
be reversed or modified as the result of judicial review
unless the determination is found to be arbitrary or
capricious.''.

SEC. 124. RECORDS AND REPORTING.

(a) Condition of Obtaining Coverage.--Section 508(f)(3) of
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(f)(3)) is
amended by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) provide annually records acceptable to the Secretary
regarding crop acreage, acreage yields, and production for
each agricultural commodity insured under this title or
accept a yield determined by the Corporation; and''.
(b) Additional General Power.--Section 506 of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1506) is amended by striking
subsection (h) and inserting the following:
``(h) Collection and Sharing of Information.--
``(1) Surveys and investigations.--The Corporation may
conduct surveys and investigations relating to crop
insurance, agriculture-related risks and losses, and other
issues related to carrying out this title.
``(2) Data collection.--The Corporation shall assemble data
for the purpose of establishing sound actuarial bases for
insurance on agricultural commodities.
``(3) Sharing of records.--Notwithstanding section 502(c),
records submitted in accordance with this title and section
196 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7333)
shall be available to agencies and local offices of the
Department, appropriate State and Federal agencies and
divisions, and approved insurance providers for use in
carrying out this title, such section 196, and other
agricultural programs.''.
Subtitle C--Research and Pilot Programs

SEC. 131. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

The Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 522. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

``(a) Definition of Policy.--In this section, the term
`policy' means a policy, plan of insurance, provision of a
policy or plan of insurance, and related materials.
``(b) Reimbursement of Research, Development, and
Maintenance Costs.--
``(1) Research and development reimbursement.--The
Corporation shall provide a payment to reimburse an applicant
for research and development costs directly related to a
policy that is--
``(A) submitted to the Board and approved by the Board
under section 508(h) for reinsurance; and
``(B) if applicable, offered for sale to producers.
``(2) Existing plans.--The Corporation shall reimburse
costs associated with research and development costs directly
related to a policy that was approved by the Board prior to
the date of enactment of this section.
``(3) Marketability.--The Corporation shall approve a
reimbursement under paragraph (1) or (2) only after
determining that the policy is marketable based on a
reasonable marketing plan, as determined by the Board.
``(4) Maintenance payments.--
``(A) Requirement.--The Corporation shall reimburse
maintenance costs associated with the annual cost of
underwriting for a policy described in paragraphs (1) and
(2).
``(B) Duration.--Payments with respect to maintenance costs
may be provided for a period of not more than 4 reinsurance
years subsequent to Board approval for payment under this
subsection.
``(C) Options for maintenance.--On the expiration of the 4-
year period described in subparagraph (B), the approved
insurance provider responsible for maintenance of the policy
may--
``(i) maintain the policy and charge a fee to approved
insurance providers that elect to sell the policy under this
subsection; or
``(ii) transfer responsibility for maintenance of the
policy to the Corporation.
``(D) Fee.--
``(i) Amount.--Subject to approval by the Board, the amount
of the fee that is payable by an approved insurance provider
that elects to sell the policy shall be an amount that is
determined by the approved insurance provider maintaining the
policy.
``(ii) Approval.--The Board shall approve the amount of a
fee determined under clause (i) for maintenance of the policy
unless the Board determines that the amount of the fee--

``(I) is unreasonable in relation to the maintenance costs
associated with the policy; or
``(II) unnecessarily inhibits the use of the policy.

``(5) Treatment of payment.--Payments made under this
subsection for a policy shall be considered as payment in
full by the Corporation for the research and development
conducted with regard to the policy and any property rights
to the policy.
``(6) Reimbursement amount.--The Corporation shall
determine the amount of the payment under this subsection for
an approved policy based on the complexity of the policy and
the size of the area in which the policy or material is
expected to be sold.
``(c) Research and Development Contracting Authority.--
``(1) Authority.--The Corporation may enter into contracts
to carry out research and development to--
``(A) increase participation in States in which the
Corporation determines that--
``(i) there is traditionally, and continues to be, a low
level of Federal crop insurance participation and
availability; and
``(ii) the State is underserved by the Federal crop
insurance program;
``(B) increase participation in areas that are underserved
by the Federal crop insurance program; and
``(C) increase participation by producers of underserved
agricultural commodities, including specialty crops.
``(2) Underserved agricultural commodities and areas.--
``(A) Authority.--The Corporation may enter into contracts
under procedures prescribed by the Corporation with qualified
persons to carry out research and development for policies
that promote the purposes of paragraph (1).
``(B) Consultation.--Before entering into a contract under
subparagraph (A), the Corporation shall consult with groups
representing producers of agricultural commodities that would
be served by the policies that are the subject of the
research and development.
``(3) Qualified persons.--A person with experience in crop
insurance or farm or ranch risk management (including a
college or university, an approved insurance provider, and a
trade or research organization), as determined by the
Corporation, shall be eligible to enter into a contract with
the Corporation under this subsection.
``(4) Types of contracts.--A contract under this subsection
may provide for research and development regarding new or
expanded policies, including policies based on adjusted gross
income, cost-of-production, quality losses, and an
intermediate base program with a higher coverage and cost
than catastrophic risk protection.
``(5) Use of resulting policies.--The Corporation may offer
any policy developed under this subsection that is approved
by the Board.
``(6) Research and development priorities.--The Corporation
shall establish as 1 of the highest research and development
priorities of the Corporation the development of a pasture,
range, and forage program.
``(7) Study of multiyear coverage.--
``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall contract with a
qualified person to conduct a study to determine whether
offering policies that provide coverage for multiple years
would reduce fraud, waste, and abuse by persons that
participate in the Federal crop insurance program.
``(B) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Corporation shall submit to
the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of
the Senate a report that describes the results of the study
conducted under subparagraph (A).
``(8) Contract for revenue coverage plans.--The Corporation
shall enter into a contract for research and development
regarding 1 or more revenue coverage plans that are designed
to enable producers to take maximum advantage of fluctuations
in market prices and thereby maximize revenue realized from
the sale of an agricultural commodity. A revenue coverage
plan may include the use of existing market instruments or
the development of new market instruments. Not later than 15
months after the date of the enactment of this section, the
Corporation shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report
that describes the results of the contract entered into under
this paragraph.
``(9) Contract for cost of production policy.--
``(A) Authority.--The Corporation shall enter into a
contract for research and development regarding a cost of
production policy.
``(B) Research and development.--The research and
development shall--
``(i) take into consideration the differences in the cost
of production on a county-by-county basis; and
``(ii) cover as many commodities as is practicable.
``(10) Relation to limitations.--A policy developed under
this subsection may be prepared without regard to the
limitations of this title, including--
``(A) the requirement concerning the levels of coverage and
rates; and
``(B) the requirement that the price level for each insured
agricultural commodity must equal the expected market price
for the agricultural commodity, as established by the Board.
``(d) Partnerships for Risk Management Development and
Implementation.--
``(1) Purpose.--The purpose of this subsection is to
authorize the Corporation to enter into partnerships with
public and private entities for the purpose of increasing the
availability of loss mitigation, financial, and other risk
management tools for producers, with a priority given

[[Page 9177]]

to risk management tools for producers of agricultural
commodities covered by section 196 of the Agricultural Market
Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7333), specialty crops, and
underserved agricultural commodities.
``(2) Authority.--The Corporation may enter into
partnerships with the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service, the Agricultural Research Service, the
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, and other
appropriate public and private entities with demonstrated
capabilities in developing and implementing risk management
and marketing options for producers of specialty crops and
underserved agricultural commodities.
``(3) Objectives.--The Corporation may enter into a
partnership under paragraph (2)--
``(A) to enhance the notice and timeliness of notice of
weather conditions that could negatively affect crop yields,
quality, and final product use in order to allow producers to
take preventive actions to increase end product profitability
and marketability and to reduce the possibility of crop
insurance claims;
``(B) to develop a multifaceted approach to pest management
and fertilization to decrease inputs, decrease environmental
exposure, and increase application efficiency;
``(C) to develop or improve techniques for planning,
breeding, planting, growing, maintaining, harvesting,
storing, shipping, and marketing that will address quality
and quantity challenges associated with year-to-year and
regional variations;
``(D) to clarify labor requirements and assist producers in
complying with requirements to better meet the physically
intense and time-compressed planting, tending, and harvesting
requirements associated with the production of specialty
crops and underserved agricultural commodities;
``(E) to provide assistance to State foresters or
equivalent officials for the prescribed use of burning on
private forest land for the prevention, control, and
suppression of fire;
``(F) to provide producers with training and informational
opportunities so that the producers will be better able to
use financial management, crop insurance, marketing
contracts, and other existing and emerging risk management
tools; and
``(G) to develop other risk management tools to further
increase economic and production stability.
``(e) Funding.--
``(1) Reimbursements.--Of the amounts made available from
the insurance fund established under section 516(c), the
Corporation may use to provide reimbursements under
subsection (b) not more than $10,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2001 and 2002 and not more than $15,000,000 for fiscal
year 2003 and each subsequent fiscal year.
``(2) Contracting.--
``(A) Authority.--Of the amounts made available from the
insurance fund established under section 516(c), the
Corporation may use to carry out contracting and partnerships
under subsections (c) and (d) not more than $20,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003 and not more than
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and each subsequent fiscal
year.
``(B) Underserved states.--Of the amount made available
under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year, the Corporation
shall use not more than $5,000,000 for the fiscal year to
carry out contracting for research and development to carry
out the purpose described in subsection (c)(1)(A).
``(3) Unused funding.--If the Corporation determines that
the amount available to provide either reimbursement payments
or contract payments under this section for a fiscal year is
not needed for such purposes, the Corporation may use the
excess amount to carry out another function authorized under
this section.
``(4) Prohibited research and development by corporation.--
``(A) New policies.--Notwithstanding subsection (d), on and
after October 1, 2000, the Corporation shall not conduct
research and development for any new policy for an
agricultural commodity offered under this title.
``(B) Existing policies.--Any policy developed by the
Corporation under this title before that date may continue to
be offered for sale to producers.''.

SEC. 132. PILOT PROGRAMS.

(a) Authority.--The Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.), as amended by section 131, is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 523. PILOT PROGRAMS.

``(a) General Provisions.--
``(1) Authority.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the Corporation may conduct a pilot program
submitted to and approved by the Board under section 508(h),
or that is developed under subsection (b) or section 522, to
evaluate whether a proposal or new risk management tool
tested by the pilot program is suitable for the marketplace
and addresses the needs of producers of agricultural
commodities.
``(2) Private coverage.--Under this section, the
Corporation shall not conduct any pilot program that provides
insurance protection against a risk if insurance protection
against the risk is generally available from private
companies.
``(3) Covered activities.--The pilot programs described in
paragraph (1) may include pilot programs providing insurance
protection against losses involving--
``(A) reduced forage on rangeland caused by drought or
insect infestation;
``(B) livestock poisoning and disease;
``(C) destruction of bees due to the use of pesticides;
``(D) unique special risks related to fruits, nuts,
vegetables, and specialty crops in general, aquacultural
species, and forest industry needs (including appreciation);
``(E) after October 1, 2001, wild salmon, except that--
``(i) any pilot program with regard to wild salmon may be
carried out without regard to the limitations of this title;
and
``(ii) the Corporation shall conduct all wild salmon
programs under this title so that, to the maximum extent
practicable, all costs associated with conducting the
programs are not expected to exceed $1,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002 and each subsequent fiscal year.
``(4) Scope of pilot programs.--The Corporation may--
``(A) approve a pilot program under this section to be
conducted on a regional, State, or national basis after
considering the interests of affected producers and the
interests of, and risks to, the Corporation;
``(B) operate the pilot program, including any
modifications of the pilot program, for a period of up to 4
years;
``(C) extend the time period for the pilot program for
additional periods, as determined appropriate by the
Corporation; and
``(D) provide pilot programs that would allow producers--
``(i) to receive a reduced premium for using whole farm
units or single crop units of insurance; and
``(ii) to cross State and county boundaries to form
insurable units.
``(5) Evaluation.--
``(A) Requirement.--After the completion of any pilot
program under this section, the Corporation shall evaluate
the pilot program and submit to the Committee on Agriculture
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report
on the operations of the pilot program.
``(B) Evaluation and recommendations.--The report shall
include an evaluation by the Corporation of the pilot program
and the recommendations of the Corporation with respect to
implementing the program on a national basis.
``(b) Livestock Pilot Programs.--
``(1) Definition of livestock.--In this subsection, the
term `livestock' includes, but is not limited to, cattle,
sheep, swine, goats, and poultry.
``(2) Programs required.--Subject to paragraph (7), the
Corporation shall conduct 2 or more pilot programs to
evaluate the effectiveness of risk management tools for
livestock producers, including the use of futures and options
contracts and policies and plans of insurance that protect
the interests of livestock producers and that provide--
``(A) livestock producers with reasonable protection from
the financial risks of price or income fluctuations inherent
in the production and marketing of livestock; or
``(B) protection for production losses.
``(3) Purpose of programs.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the Corporation shall evaluate the greatest
number and variety of pilot programs described in paragraph
(2) to determine which of the offered risk management tools
are best suited to protect livestock producers from the
financial risks associated with the production and marketing
of livestock.
``(4) Timing.--The Corporation shall begin conducting
livestock pilot programs under this subsection during fiscal
year 2001.
``(5) Relation to other limitations.--Any policy or plan of
insurance offered under this subsection may be prepared
without regard to the limitations of this title.
``(6) Assistance.--As part of a pilot program under this
subsection, the Corporation may provide reinsurance for
policies or plans of insurance and subsidize the purchase of
futures and options contracts or policies and plans of
insurance offered under the pilot program.
``(7) Private insurance.--No action may be undertaken with
respect to a risk under this subsection if the Corporation
determines that insurance protection for livestock producers
against the risk is generally available from private
companies.
``(8) Location.--The Corporation shall conduct the
livestock pilot programs under this subsection in a number of
counties that is determined by the Corporation to be adequate
to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the feasibility,
effectiveness, and demand among producers for the risk
management tools evaluated in the pilot programs.
``(9) Eligible producers.--Any producer of a type of
livestock covered by a pilot program under this subsection
that owns or operates a farm or ranch in a county selected as
a location for that pilot program shall be eligible to
participate in that pilot program.
``(10) Limitation on expenditures.--The Corporation shall
conduct all livestock programs under this title so that, to
the maximum extent practicable, all costs associated with
conducting the livestock programs (other than research and
development costs covered by section 522) are not expected to
exceed the following:
``(A) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
``(B) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
``(C) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and each subsequent
fiscal year.
``(c) Revenue Insurance Pilot Program.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to section 522(e)(4), the
Secretary shall carry out a pilot program in a limited number
of counties, as determined by the Secretary, for crop years
1997 through 2001, under which a producer of wheat, feed
grains, soybeans, or such other commodity as the Secretary
considers appropriate may elect to receive

[[Page 9178]]

insurance against loss of revenue, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(2) Administration.--Revenue insurance under this
subsection shall--
``(A) be offered through reinsurance arrangements with
private insurance companies;
``(B) offer at least a minimum level of coverage that is an
alternative to catastrophic crop insurance;
``(C) be actuarially sound; and
``(D) require the payment of premiums and administrative
fees by an insured producer.
``(d) Premium Rate Reduction Pilot Program.--
``(1) Purpose.--The purpose of the pilot program
established under this subsection is to determine whether
approved insurance providers will compete to market policies
or plans of insurance with reduced rates of premium, in a
manner that maintains the financial soundness of approved
insurance providers and is consistent with the integrity of
the Federal crop insurance program.
``(2) Establishment.--
``(A) In general.--Beginning with the 2002 crop year, the
Corporation shall establish a pilot program under which
approved insurance providers may propose for approval by the
Board policies or plans of insurance with reduced rates of
premium--
``(i) for 1 or more agricultural commodities; and
``(ii) within a limited geographic area, as proposed by the
approved insurance provider and approved by the Board.
``(B) Determination by board.--The Board shall approve a
policy or plan of insurance proposed under this subsection
that involves a premium reduction if the Board determines
that--
``(i) the interests of producers are adequately protected
within the pilot area;
``(ii) rates of premium are actuarially appropriate, as
determined by the Board;
``(iii) the size of the proposed pilot area is adequate;
``(iv) the proposed policy or plan of insurance would not
unfairly discriminate among producers within the proposed
pilot area;
``(v) if the proposed policy or plan of insurance were
available in a geographic area larger than the proposed pilot
area, the proposed policy or plan of insurance would--

``(I) not have a significant adverse impact on the crop
insurance delivery system;
``(II) not result in a reduction of program integrity;
``(III) be actuarially appropriate; and
``(IV) not place an additional financial burden on the
Federal Government; and

``(vi) the proposed policy or plan of insurance meets other
requirements of this title determined appropriate by the
Board.
``(C) Time limitations and procedures.--The time
limitations and procedures of the Board established under
section 508(h) shall apply to a proposal submitted under this
subsection.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 518 of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1518) is amended--
(1) by striking ``livestock and'' after ``commodity,
excluding''; and
(2) by striking ``under subsection (a) or (m) of section
508 of this title''.

SEC. 133. EDUCATION AND RISK MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

The Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), as
amended by section 132(a), is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``SEC. 524. EDUCATION AND RISK MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

``(a) Education Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the amounts made available
under paragraph (4)--
``(A) the Corporation shall carry out the program
established under paragraph (2); and
``(B) the Secretary, acting through the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, shall carry out
the program established under paragraph (3).
``(2) Education and information.--The Corporation shall
establish a program under which crop insurance education and
information is provided to producers in States in which (as
determined by the Secretary)--
``(A) there is traditionally, and continues to be, a low
level of Federal crop insurance participation and
availability; and
``(B) producers are underserved by the Federal crop
insurance program.
``(3) Partnerships for risk management education.--
``(A) Authority.--The Secretary, acting through the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
shall establish a program under which competitive grants are
made to qualified public and private entities (including land
grant colleges, cooperative extension services, and colleges
or universities), as determined by the Secretary, for the
purpose of educating agricultural producers about the full
range of risk management activities, including futures,
options, agricultural trade options, crop insurance, cash
forward contracting, debt reduction, production
diversification, farm resources risk reduction, and other
risk management strategies.
``(B) Basis for grants.--A grant under this paragraph shall
be awarded on the basis of merit and shall be subject to peer
or merit review.
``(C) Obligation period.--Funds for a grant under this
paragraph shall be available to the Secretary for obligation
for a 2-year period.
``(D) Administrative costs.--The Secretary may use not more
than 4 percent of the funds made available for grants under
this paragraph for administrative costs incurred by the
Secretary in carrying out this paragraph.
``(4) Funding.--From the insurance fund established under
section 516(c), there is transferred--
``(A) for the education and information program established
under paragraph (2), $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and each
subsequent fiscal year; and
``(B) for the partnerships for risk management education
program established under paragraph (3), $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year.
``(b) Agricultural Management Assistance.--
``(1) Authority.--The Secretary shall provide cost share
assistance to producers, in a manner determined by the
Secretary, in not less than 10, nor more than 15, States in
which participation in the Federal crop insurance program is
historically low, as determined by the Secretary.
``(2) Uses.--A producer may use cost share assistance
provided under this subsection to--
``(A) construct or improve--
``(i) watershed management structures; or
``(ii) irrigation structures;
``(B) plant trees to form windbreaks or to improve water
quality;
``(C) mitigate financial risk through production
diversification or resource conservation practices,
including--
``(i) soil erosion control;
``(ii) integrated pest management; or
``(iii) transition to organic farming;
``(D) enter into futures, hedging, or options contracts in
a manner designed to help reduce production, price, or
revenue risk;
``(E) enter into agricultural trade options as a hedging
transaction to reduce production, price, or revenue risk; or
``(F) conduct any other activity related to the activities
described in subparagraphs (A) through (E), as determined by
the Secretary.
``(2) Payment limitation.--The total amount of payments
made to a person (as defined in section 1001(5) of the Food
Security Act (7 U.S.C. 1308(5))) under this subsection for
any year may not exceed $50,000.
``(3) Commodity credit corporation.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out this
subsection through the Commodity Credit Corporation.
``(B) Funding.--The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make
available to carry out this subsection $10,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year.''.

SEC. 134. OPTIONS PILOT PROGRAM.

Section 191 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7
U.S.C. 7331) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by striking
``100 counties, except that not more than 6'' and inserting
``300 counties, except that not more than 25'';
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``during any calendar year in which a county
in which the farm of the producer is located is included in
the pilot program''; and
(3) in the first sentence of subsection (h), by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``, except that
the amount of Commodity Credit Corporation funds used to
carry out this section shall not exceed, to the maximum
extent practicable, $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2001,
$15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and $2,000,000 for fiscal
year 2003''.
Subtitle D--Administration

SEC. 141. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.

Section 502 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1502), as amended by section 122, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(d) Relation to Other Laws.--
``(1) Terms and conditions of policies and plans.--The
terms and conditions of any policy or plan of insurance
offered under this title that is reinsured by the Corporation
shall not--
``(A) be subject to the jurisdiction of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission or the Securities and Exchange
Commission; or
``(B) be considered to be accounts, agreements (including
any transaction that is of the character of, or is commonly
known to the trade as, an `option', `privilege', `indemnity',
`bid', `offer', `put', `call', `advance guaranty', or
`decline guaranty'), or transactions involving contracts of
sale of a commodity for future delivery, traded or executed
on a contract market for the purposes of the Commodity
Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
``(2) Effect on cftc and commodity exchange act.--Nothing
in this title affects the jurisdiction of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission or the applicability of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) to any
transaction conducted on a contract market under that Act by
an approved insurance provider to offset the approved
insurance provider's risk under a plan or policy of insurance
under this title.''.

SEC. 142. MANAGEMENT OF CORPORATION.

(a) Board of Directors of Corporation.--
(1) Change in composition.--Section 505 of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1505) is amended by striking the
section heading, ``Sec. 505.'', and subsection (a) and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 505. MANAGEMENT OF CORPORATION.

``(a) Board of Directors.--
``(1) Establishment.--The management of the Corporation
shall be vested in a Board of Directors subject to the
general supervision of the Secretary.
``(2) Composition.--The Board shall consist of only the
following members:
``(A) The manager of the Corporation, who shall serve as a
nonvoting ex officio member.

[[Page 9179]]

``(B) The Under Secretary of Agriculture responsible for
the Federal crop insurance program.
``(C) 1 additional Under Secretary of Agriculture (as
designated by the Secretary).
``(D) The Chief Economist of the Department of Agriculture.
``(E) 1 person experienced in the crop insurance business.
``(F) 1 person experienced in reinsurance or the regulation
of insurance.
``(G) 4 active producers who are policy holders, are from
different geographic areas of the United States, and
represent a cross-section of agricultural commodities grown
in the United States, including at least 1 specialty crop
producer.
``(3) Appointment of private sector members.--The members
of the Board described in subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) of
paragraph (2)--
``(A) shall be appointed by, and hold office at the
pleasure of, the Secretary;
``(B) shall not be otherwise employed by the Federal
Government;
``(C) shall be appointed to staggered 4-year terms, as
determined by the Secretary; and
``(D) shall serve not more than 2 consecutive terms.
``(4) Chairperson.--The Board shall select a member of the
Board to serve as Chairperson.''.
(2) Implementation.--The initial members of the Board of
Directors of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation required
to be appointed under section 505(a)(3) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (as amended by paragraph (1)) shall be
appointed during the period beginning February 1, 2001, and
ending April 1, 2001.
(3) Effect on existing board.--A member of the Board of
Directors of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation on the
date of enactment of this Act may continue to serve as a
member of the Board until the members referred to in
paragraph (2) are first appointed.
(b) Expert Review of Policies, Plans of Insurance, and
Related Material.--Section 505 of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1505) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Expert Review of Policies, Plans of Insurance, and
Related Material.--
``(1) Review by experts.--The Board shall establish
procedures under which any policy or plan of insurance, as
well as any related material or modification of such a policy
or plan of insurance, to be offered under this title shall be
subject to independent reviews by persons experienced as
actuaries and in underwriting, as determined by the Board.
``(2) Review of corporation policies and plans.--Except as
provided in paragraph (3), the Board shall contract with at
least 5 persons to each conduct a review of the policy or
plan of insurance, of whom--
``(A) not more than 1 person may be employed by the Federal
Government; and
``(B) at least 1 person must be designated by approved
insurance providers pursuant to procedures determined by the
Board.
``(3) Review of private submissions.--If the reviews under
paragraph (1) cover a policy or plan of insurance, or any
related material or modification of a policy or plan of
insurance, submitted under section 508(h)--
``(A) the Board shall contract with at least 5 persons to
each conduct a review of the policy or plan of insurance, of
whom--
``(i) not more than 1 person may be employed by the Federal
Government; and
``(ii) none may be employed by an approved insurance
provider; and
``(B) each review must be completed and submitted to the
Board not later than 30 days prior to the end of the 120-day
period described in section 508(h)(4)(D).
``(4) Consideration of reviews.--The Board shall include
reviews conducted under this subsection as part of the
consideration of any policy or plan or insurance, or any
related material or modification of a policy or plan of
insurance, proposed to be offered under this title.
``(5) Funding of reviews.--Each contract to conduct a
review under this subsection shall be funded from amounts
made available under section 516(b)(2)(A)(ii).
``(6) Relation to other authority.--The contract authority
provided in this subsection is in addition to any other
contracting authority that may be exercised by the Board
under section 506(l).''.

SEC. 143. CONTRACTING FOR RATING OF PLANS OF INSURANCE.

Section 507(c)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1507(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``actuarial, loss adjustment,'' and
inserting ``actuarial services, services relating to loss
adjustment and rating plans of insurance,''; and
(2) by inserting after ``private sector'' the following:
``and to enable the Corporation to concentrate on regulating
the provision of insurance under this title and evaluating
new products and materials submitted under section 508(h) or
523''.

SEC. 144. ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY OF CROP INSURANCE
INFORMATION.

Section 508(a)(5) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1508(a)(5)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively, and moving such clauses 2 ems to
the right;
(2) by striking ``The Corporation'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) Available information.--The Corporation''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Use of electronic methods.--
``(i) Dissemination by corporation.--The Corporation shall
make the information described in subparagraph (A) available
electronically to producers and approved insurance providers.
``(ii) Submission to corporation.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the Corporation shall allow producers and
approved insurance providers to use electronic methods to
submit information required by the Corporation.''.

SEC. 145. ADEQUATE COVERAGE FOR STATES.

Section 508(a) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Adequate coverage for states.--
``(A) Definition of adequately served.--In this paragraph,
the term `adequately served' means having a participation
rate that is at least 50 percent of the national average
participation rate.
``(B) Review.--The Board shall review the policies and
plans of insurance that are offered by approved insurance
providers under this title to determine if each State is
adequately served by the policies and plans of insurance.
``(C) Report.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 30 days after completion
of the review under subparagraph (B), the Board shall submit
to Congress a report on the results of the review.
``(ii) Recommendations.--The report shall include
recommendations to increase participation in States that are
not adequately served by the policies and plans of
insurance.''.

SEC. 146. SUBMISSION OF POLICIES AND MATERIALS TO BOARD.

(a) Persons Authorized To Submit.--Section 508(h)(1) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(h)(1)) is amended
by inserting after ``a person'' the following: ``(including
an approved insurance provider, a college or university, a
cooperative or trade association, or any other person)''.
(b) Sale by Approved Insurance Providers.--Section
508(h)(3) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(h)(3)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting
after ``for sale'' the following: ``by approved insurance
providers''.
(c) Guidelines for Submission and Review.--Section
508(h)(4) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(h)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) Confidentiality.--
``(i) In general.--A proposal submitted to the Board under
this subsection (including any information generated from the
proposal) shall be considered to be confidential commercial
or financial information for the purposes of section
552(b)(4) of title 5, United States Code.
``(ii) Standard of confidentiality.--If information
concerning a proposal could be withheld by the Secretary
under the standard for privileged or confidential information
pertaining to trade secrets and commercial or financial
information under section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United States
Code, the information shall not be released to the public.
``(iii) Application.--This subparagraph shall apply with
respect to a proposal only during the period preceding any
approval of the proposal by the Board.'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``Personal
presentation.--'' before ``The''; and
(3) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D) and inserting the
following:
``(C) Notification of intent to disapprove.--
``(i) Time period.--The Board shall provide an applicant
with notification of intent to disapprove a proposal not
later than 30 days prior to making the disapproval.
``(ii) Modification of application.--

``(I) Authority.--An applicant that receives the
notification may modify the application, and such
application, as modified, shall be considered by the Board in
the manner provided in subparagraph (D) within the 30-day
period beginning on the date the modified application is
submitted.
``(II) Time period.--Clause (i) shall not apply to the
Board's consideration of the modified application.

``(iii) Explanation.--Any notification of intent to
disapprove a policy or other material submitted under this
subsection shall be accompanied by a complete explanation as
to the reasons for the Board's intention to deny approval.
``(D) Determination to approve or disapprove policies or
materials.--
``(i) Time period.--Not later than 120 days after a policy
or other material is submitted under this subsection, the
Board shall make a determination to approve or disapprove the
policy or material.
``(ii) Explanation.--Any determination by the Board to
disapprove any policy or other material shall be accompanied
by a complete explanation of the reasons for the Board's
decision to deny approval.
``(iii) Failure to meet deadline.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this title, if the Board fails to make a
determination within the prescribed time period, the
submitted policy or other material shall be deemed approved
by the Board for the initial reinsurance year designated for
the policy or material, unless the Board and the applicant
agree to an extension.''.
(d) Technical Amendments.--Section 508(h) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(h)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (6), (8), (9), and (10); and
(2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (6).

[[Page 9180]]

SEC. 147. FUNDING.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 516(a)(2) of
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516(a)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``years--'' and inserting ``years the
following:'';
(2) by capitalizing the first letter of the first word of
each subparagraph;
(3) by striking ``; and'' at the end of subparagraph (A)
and inserting a period; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Costs associated with the conduct of livestock and
wild salmon pilot programs carried out under section 523,
subject to the limitations in subsections (a)(3)(E)(ii) and
(b)(10) of section 523.
``(D) Costs associated with the reimbursement, contracting,
and partnerships for research and development under section
522.''.
(b) Payment of General Corporation Expenses From Insurance
Fund.--Section 516(b)(1) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1516(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``including--'' and inserting ``including
the following:'';
(2) by capitalizing the first letter of the first word of
each subparagraph;
(3) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph
(A) and inserting a period;
(4) by striking ``; and'' at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting a period; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Costs associated with the conduct of livestock and
wild salmon pilot programs carried out under section 523,
subject to the limitations in subsections (a)(3)(E)(ii) and
(b)(10) of section 523.
``(E) Costs associated with the reimbursement, contracting,
and partnerships for research and development under section
522.''.
(c) Expedited Consideration and Implementation of Policies,
Plans of Insurance, and Related Materials.--Section 516(b)(2)
of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516(b)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Research and development expenses.--''
and inserting ``Policy consideration and implementation.--'';
(2) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``may pay from'' and inserting ``may use'';
(B) by striking ``research and development expenses of the
Corporation''; and
(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``, to pay the following:
``(i) Costs associated with the consideration and
implementation of policies, plans of insurance, and related
materials submitted under section 508(h) or developed under
section 522 or 523.
``(ii) Costs to contract for the review of policies, plans
of insurance, and related materials under section 505(e) and
to contract for other assistance in considering policies,
plans of insurance, and related materials.''; and
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``research and
development''.
(d) Deposits to Insurance Fund.--Section 516(c)(1) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``income and'' and inserting ``income,'';
and
(2) by inserting ``, and civil fines collected under
section 515(h)'' after ``(a)(2)''.

SEC. 148. STANDARD REINSURANCE AGREEMENT.

Notwithstanding section 536 of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 1506
note; Public Law 105-185), the Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation may renegotiate the Standard Reinsurance
Agreement once during the 2001 through 2005 reinsurance
years.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous

CHAPTER 1--OTHER PROVISIONS

SEC. 161. LIMITATION ON REVENUE COVERAGE FOR POTATOES.

Section 508(a)(3) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1508(a)(3)), as amended by section 123, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(C) Limitation on revenue coverage for potatoes.--No
policy or plan of insurance provided under this title
(including a policy or plan of insurance approved by the
Board under subsection (h)) shall cover losses due to a
reduction in revenue for potatoes except as covered under a
whole farm policy or plan of insurance, as determined by the
Corporation.''.

SEC. 162. CROP INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR COTTON AND RICE.

Section 508(a) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(a)), as amended by 145, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(8) Special provisions for cotton and rice.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, beginning
with the 2001 crops of upland cotton, extra long staple
cotton, and rice, the Corporation shall offer plans of
insurance, including prevented planting coverage and
replanting coverage, under this title that cover losses of
upland cotton, extra long staple cotton, and rice resulting
from failure of irrigation water supplies due to drought and
saltwater intrusion.''.

SEC. 163. INDEMNITY PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN PRODUCERS.

(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, notwithstanding section 508(c)(5) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(c)(5)), a producer that
purchased a 1999 Crop Revenue Coverage policy for a commodity
covered by Bulletin MGR-99-004 (as in effect before being
voided by subsection (d)) by the sales closing date
prescribed in the actuarial documents in the county where the
policy was sold shall receive an indemnity payment in
accordance with the policy.
(b) Base and Harvest Prices.--The base price and harvest
price under the policy for a commodity described in
subsection (a) shall be determined in accordance with the
Commodity Exchange Endorsement published by the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation on July 14, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 37829).
(c) Reinsurance.--Subject to subsection (b),
notwithstanding section 508(c)(5) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(c)(5)), the Corporation shall
provide reinsurance with respect to the policy in accordance
with the Standard Reinsurance Agreement.
(d) Voiding of Bulletin.--Bulletin MGR-99-004, issued by
the Administrator of the Risk Management Agency of the
Department of Agriculture, is void.
(e) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on October
1, 2000.

SEC. 164. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE FEDERAL CROP
INSURANCE PROGRAM.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) farmer-owned cooperatives play a valuable role in
achieving the purposes of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) by--
(A) encouraging producer participation in the Federal crop
insurance program;
(B) improving the delivery system for crop insurance; and
(C) helping to develop new and improved insurance products;
(2) the Risk Management Agency, through its regulatory
activities, should encourage efforts by farmer-owned
cooperatives to promote appropriate risk management
strategies among their membership;
(3) partnerships between approved insurance providers and
farmer-owned cooperatives provide opportunity for
agricultural producers to obtain needed insurance coverage on
a more competitive basis and at a lower cost;
(4) the Risk Management Agency is following an appropriate
regulatory process to ensure the continued participation by
farmer-owned cooperatives in the delivery of crop insurance;
(5) efforts by the Risk Management Agency to finalize
regulations that would incorporate the currently approved
business practices of cooperatives participating in the
Federal crop insurance program should be commended; and
(6) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation should
complete promulgation of the proposed rule entitled ``General
Administrative Regulations; Premium Reductions; Payment of
Rebates, Dividends, and Patronage Refunds; and Payments to
Insured-Owned and Record-Controlling Entities'', published by
the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation on May 12, 1999 (64
Fed. Reg. 25464), in a manner that--
(A) effectively responds to comments received from the
public during the rulemaking process;
(B) provides an effective opportunity for farmer-owned
cooperatives to assist the members of the cooperatives to
obtain crop insurance and participate most effectively in the
Federal crop insurance program;
(C) incorporates the currently approved business practices
of farmer-owned cooperatives participating in the Federal
crop insurance program; and
(D) protects the interests of agricultural producers.

SEC. 165. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RURAL AMERICA, INCLUDING
MINORITY AND LIMITED-RESOURCE FARMERS.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) rural America, including minority and limited resource
farmers, has not experienced this recent period of economic
prosperity;
(2) as a result of sustained low commodity prices, they
face significant challenges, including--
(A) a depressed farm economy;
(B) a loss of business and jobs on rural main streets;
(C) a reduction of capital investment; and
(D) a loss of independent farmers;
(3) Congress applauds American farmers and rural advocates,
including the organizers of the Rally for Rural America, for
their efforts in calling this situation to the public's
attention; and
(4) Congress is committed to responding to the concerns of
rural America and pledges to devote full attention to making
necessary changes to Federal agricultural programs in a
manner that will--
(A) alleviate the agricultural price crisis;
(B) ensure competitive markets by empowering farm families;
(C) ensure that all farmers, including minority and
limited-resource farmers, participate fully in the benefits
of those programs;
(D) invest in rural education and health;
(E) increase resources for outreach and technical farming
assistance;
(F) conserve our natural resources for future generations;
and
(G) ensure a safe and secure food supply for all.
Subtitle F--Effective Dates and Implementation

SEC. 171. EFFECTIVE DATES.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this
Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Exceptions.--
(1) 2001 fiscal year.--The following provisions and the
amendments made by the provisions take effect on October 1,
2000:
(A) Subtitle C.

[[Page 9181]]

(B) Section 146.
(C) Section 163.
(2) 2001 crop year.--The amendments made by the following
provisions apply beginning with the 2001 crop of an
agricultural commodity:
(A) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 101.
(B) Section 102(a).
(C) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 103.
(D) Section 104.
(E) Section 105(b).
(F) Section 108.
(G) Section 109.
(H) Section 162.
(3) 2001 reinsurance year.--The amendments made by the
following provisions apply beginning with the 2001
reinsurance year:
(A) Section 101(d).
(B) Section 102(b).
(C) Section 103(d).

SEC. 172. REGULATIONS.

Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate
regulations to carry out this Act and the amendments made by
this Act.

SEC. 173. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

The Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and
section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333), as in effect on day before the
date of the enactment of this Act, shall--
(1) continue to apply with respect to the 1999 crop year;
and
(2) apply with respect to the 2000 crop year, to the extent
the application of an amendment made by this Act is delayed
under section 171(b) or by the terms of the amendment.
TITLE II--AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE
Subtitle A--Market Loss Assistance

SEC. 201. MARKET LOSS ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to
in this title as the ``Secretary'') shall use funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to provide assistance in the
form of a market loss assistance payment to owners and
producers on a farm that are eligible for a final payment for
fiscal year 2000 under a production flexibility contract for
the farm under the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.).
(b) Amount and Manner.--In providing payments under this
section, the Secretary shall--
(1) use the same contract payment rates as are used under
section 802(b) of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2000 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note; Public Law 106-78); and
(2) provide the payments in a manner that is consistent
with section 802(c) of that Act.
(c) Timing.--The Secretary shall make the payments required
by this section not earlier than September 1, 2000, and not
later than September 30, 2000.

SEC. 202. OILSEEDS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use $500,000,000 of
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make payments to
producers of the 2000 crop of oilseeds that are eligible to
obtain a marketing assistance loan under section 131 of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7231).
(b) Computation.--A payment to producers on a farm under
this section for an oilseed shall be equal to the product
obtained by multiplying--
(1) a payment rate determined by the Secretary;
(2) the acreage of the producers on the farm for the
oilseed, as determined under subsection (c); and
(3) the yield of the producers on the farm for the oilseed,
as determined under subsection (d).
(c) Acreage.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
acreage of the producers on the farm for an oilseed under
subsection (b)(2) shall be equal to the number of acres
planted to the oilseed by the producers on the farm during
the 1997, 1998, or 1999 crop year, whichever is greatest, as
reported by the producers on the farm to the Secretary
(including any acreage reports that are filed late).
(2) New producers.--In the case of producers on a farm that
planted acreage to an oilseed during the 2000 crop year but
not the 1997, 1998, or 1999 crop year, the acreage of the
producers for the oilseed under subsection (b)(2) shall be
equal to the number of acres planted to the oilseed by the
producers on the farm during the 2000 crop year, as reported
by the producers on the farm to the Secretary (including any
acreage reports that are filed late).
(d) Yield.--
(1) Soybeans.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), in the
case of soybeans, the yield of the producers on a farm under
subsection (b)(3) shall be equal to the greatest of--
(A) the average county yield per harvested acre for each of
the 1995 through 1999 crop years, excluding the crop year
with the highest yield per harvested acre and the crop year
with the lowest yield per harvested acre; or
(B) the actual yield of the producers on the farm for the
1997, 1998, or 1999 crop year.
(2) Other oilseeds.--Except as provided in paragraph (3),
in the case of oilseeds other than soybeans, the yield of the
producers on a farm under subsection (b)(3) shall be equal to
the greatest of--
(A) the average national yield per harvested acre for each
of the 1995 through 1999 crop years, excluding the crop year
with the highest yield per harvested acre and the crop year
with the lowest yield per harvested acre; or
(B) the actual yield of the producers on the farm for the
1997, 1998, or 1999 crop year.
(3) New producers.--In the case of producers on a farm that
planted acreage to an oilseed during the 2000 crop year but
not the 1997, 1998, or 1999 crop year, the yield of the
producers on a farm under subsection (b)(3) shall be equal to
the greater of--
(A) the average county yield per harvested acre for each of
the 1995 through 1999 crop years, excluding the crop year
with the highest yield per harvested acre and the crop year
with the lowest yield per harvested acre; or
(B) the actual yield of the producers on the farm for the
2000 crop.
(4) Data source.--To the maximum extent available, the
Secretary shall use data provided by the National
Agricultural Statistics Service to carry out this subsection.

SEC. 203. SPECIALTY CROPS.

(a) Replenishment of Perishable Agricultural Commodities
Act Fund.--Of the amount made available under section
261(a)(2), $30,450,000 shall--
(1) be deposited in the Perishable Agricultural Commodities
Act Fund established by section 3(b)(5) of the Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499c(b)(5));
(2) be merged with other amounts in the Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act Fund; and
(3) be available for the same purposes and for the same
time period as other amounts in the Perishable Agricultural
Commodities Act Fund.
(b) Replenishment of Trust Funds for Services under
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.--Of the amount made
available under section 261(a)(2), $29,000,000 shall--
(1) be deposited in the trust fund account established to
cover the cost of inspection, certification, and
identification services provided under section 203(h) of the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622(h));
(2) be merged with other amounts in the trust fund account;
and
(3) be available for the same purposes and for the same
time period as other amounts in the trust fund account.
(c) Inspection Services Improvements.--Of the amount made
available under section 261(a)(2), $11,550,000 shall be used
by the Secretary to improve the infrastructure and system
used for inspecting fruits and vegetables, including
improving--
(1) the program used to train inspectors, including the
establishment of an inspector training center;
(2) the technological resources used by inspectors;
(3) the use of digital imaging by inspectors; and
(4) the office space and grading tables used by inspectors.
(d) Surplus Crop Purchases.--
(1) Purchases.--Of the amount made available under section
261(a)(2), $200,000,000 shall be used by the Secretary to
purchase specialty crops that have experienced low prices
during the 1998 or 1999 crop years, including apples, black-
eyed peas, cherries, citrus, cranberries, onions, melons,
peaches, and potatoes.
(2) Displacement.--The Secretary shall ensure that
purchases of specialty crops under this subsection will not
displace purchases by the Secretary under any other law.
(e) Grower Compensation.--
(1) Compensation.--Of the amount made available under
section 261(a)(2), $25,000,000 shall be used by the Secretary
to compensate--
(A) growers covered by the Secretary's Declaration of
Extraordinary Emergency published on March 2, 2000 (65 Fed.
Reg. 11280), regarding the plum pox virus;
(B) growers for losses due to Pierce's disease; and
(C) commercial producers for losses due to citrus canker.
(2) Report.--Not later than July 19, 2000, the Secretary,
in coordination with the Inspector General of the Department
of Agriculture, shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report
that analyzes--
(A) the economic losses to the produce industry as a result
of allegations of false inspection certificates prepared by
graders of the Department of Agriculture at Hunts Point
Terminal Market, Bronx, New York; and
(B) the restitution by the Secretary for persons damaged as
a result of losses described in subparagraph (A).
(f) Apple Loans.--
(1) Requirement.--The Secretary, acting through the Farm
Service Agency, shall use funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to make loans to producers of apples that are
suffering economic loss as the result of low prices for
apples.
(2) Term.--The term of a loan made under this subsection
shall be not more than 3 years.
(3) Interest rate.--The interest rate for a loan made under
this subsection shall be at a rate equal to the then current
cost of money to the Government of the United States for
loans of similar maturity.
(4) Security.--The Secretary may require a loan made under
this subsection to be secured by real property or such other
collateral as the Secretary considers appropriate and
protects the interests of the Federal Government.
(5) Limitation.--The cost of all loans made under this
subsection shall not exceed $5,000,000.

SEC. 204. OTHER COMMODITIES.

(a) Peanuts.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to provide payments to producers
of quota peanuts or additional peanuts to partially
compensate

[[Page 9182]]

the producers for continuing low commodity prices, and
increasing costs of production, for the 2000 crop year.
(2) Amount.--The amount of a payment made to producers on a
farm of quota peanuts or additional peanuts under paragraph
(1) shall be equal to the product obtained by multiplying--
(A) the quantity of quota peanuts or additional peanuts
produced or considered produced by the producers; and
(B) a payment rate equal to--
(i) in the case of quota peanuts, $30.50 per ton; and
(ii) in the case of additional peanuts, $16.00 per ton.
(b) Tobacco.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Eligible person.--The term ``eligible person'' means a
person that owns or operates, or produces eligible tobacco
on, a farm--
(i) for which the quantity of quota of eligible tobacco
allotted to the farm under part I of subtitle B of title III
of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1311 et
seq.) was reduced from the 1999 crop year to the 2000 crop
year; and
(ii) that is used for the production of eligible tobacco
during the 2000 crop year.
(B) Eligible tobacco.--The term ``eligible tobacco'' means
each of the following kinds of tobacco:
(i) Flue-cured tobacco, comprising types 11, 12, 13, and
14.
(ii) Fire-cured tobacco, comprising type 21.
(iii) Burley tobacco, comprising type 31.
(iv) Cigar-filler and cigar-binder tobacco, comprising
types 42, 43, 44, 54, and 55.
(2) Payments.--Effective beginning October 1, 2000, the
Secretary shall use $340,000,000 of funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation to make payments to eligible persons.
(3) Allocation of funds among states.--The funds made
available for eligible persons under paragraph (2) shall be
allocated among States in the following dollar amounts:

Alabama.......................................................$100,000
Arkansas.........................................................1,000
Florida......................................................2,500,000
Georgia.....................................................13,000,000
Indiana......................................................5,400,000
Kansas..........................................................23,000
Kentucky...................................................140,000,000
Missouri.....................................................2,000,000
North Carolina.............................................100,000,000
Ohio.........................................................6,000,000
Oklahoma.........................................................1,000
South Carolina..............................................15,000,000
Tennessee...................................................35,000,000
Virginia....................................................19,000,000
Wisconsin......................................................675,000
West Virginia................................................1,300,000.

(4) Allocation of funds among farms in a state.--The
Secretary shall divide the amount allocated to a State under
paragraph (3) among farms in the State based on the quota of
eligible tobacco available to each farm of an eligible person
for the 2000 crop year.
(5) Division of farm payments among eligible persons in a
state.--Not later than October 20, 2000, the Secretary shall
divide amounts made available to farms in a State under
paragraph (4) among eligible persons who are quota owners,
quota lessees, and tobacco producers on farms in the State,
and make payments to the eligible persons, on the basis of--
(A) in the case of a State that is a party to the National
Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust, the formula in the Trust
used to allocate funds among quota owners, quota lessees, and
tobacco producers on farms in the State, with such
adjustments as the Secretary determines are necessary to
enable the payments to be made by October 20, 2000; or
(B) in the case of a State that is not a party to the
National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust, a formula
established by the Secretary.
(6) Payments to eligible persons in georgia.--The Secretary
shall use the amount allocated to the State of Georgia under
paragraph (3) to make payments to eligible persons in Georgia
only if the State of Georgia agrees to use an equal amount
(not to exceed $13,000,000) to make payments at the same
time, or subsequently, to the same eligible persons in the
same manner as provided for the Federal payment under
paragraphs (4) and (5).
(7) Use for administrative costs.--None of the funds made
available under paragraphs (1) through (7) may be used to pay
administrative costs incurred in carrying out those
paragraphs.
(8) Transfer of allotments.--Section 318 of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1314d) is
amended by striking subsection (g) and inserting the
following:
``(g) Transfer of Allotments.--Under this section, the
total acreage allotted to any farm after any transfer shall
not exceed 50 percent of the acreage of cropland on the
farm.''.
(9) Burley tobacco inventories of producer associations.--
Section 319(c)(3) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938
(7 U.S.C. 1314e(c)(3)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``In'' and inserting
``Except as provided in subparagraph (D), in''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Nonapplicability of downward adjustment.--If the
Secretary determines for any of the 2001 or subsequent crop
years that noncommitted pool stocks of Burley tobacco are
equal to or less than the reserve stock level established
under this paragraph, subparagraph (B) shall not apply to the
crop year for which the determination is made and all
subsequent crop years.''.
(10) Limitations on burley tobacco quota adjustments.--
(A) Carry forward adjustment.--Section 319(e) of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1314e(e)) is
amended in the fifth sentence--
(i) by striking ``: Provided, That'' and inserting ``,
except that (1)''; and
(ii) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and (2) the aggregate of such increases for
all farms for any crop year may not exceed 10 percent of the
national basic quota for the preceding crop year''.
(B) Lease and transfer of quota due to natural disasters.--
Section 319(k) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7
U.S.C. 1314e(k)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) Limitation.--The total quantity of quota leased or
transferred to a farm during a crop year under this
subsection may not exceed 15 percent of the quota on the farm
that existed prior to any such lease or transfer for the crop
year.''.
(11) Lease and transfer of burley tobacco quota.--Section
319 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C.
1314e) is amended by striking subsection (l) and inserting
the following:
``(l) Lease and Transfer of Burley Tobacco Quota.--
``(1) Approval by producers.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the Secretary may permit the lease
and transfer of a burley tobacco quota from 1 farm in a State
to any other farm in the State if, in a statewide referendum
conducted by the Secretary, a majority of the active burley
tobacco producers voting in the referendum approve the use of
that type of lease and transfer.
``(2) Application.--This subsection shall apply only to the
States of Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and
Virginia.''.
(12) Recordkeeping and sale of burley tobacco quota and
acreage.--Section 319 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1938 (7 U.S.C. 1314e) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(m) Computerized Recordkeeping System for Burley Tobacco
Quota and Acreage.--
``(1) Producer reports.--Each person that owns a farm for
which a Burley tobacco marketing quota is established under
this Act shall annually file with the Secretary a report
describing the acreage planted to Burley tobacco on the farm.
``(2) Computerized recordkeeping system.--Not later than
180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the
Secretary shall establish a computerized recordkeeping system
that contains all information reported under paragraph (1)
and related records, as determined by the Secretary.
``(n) Sale of Burley Tobacco Quota.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this section, if a person that owns a farm
for which a Burley tobacco marketing quota is established
under this Act sells all or part of the acreage on the farm
to a buyer, the Secretary shall permit the seller and buyer
of the acreage to determine the percentage of the quota that
is transferred with the acreage sold.''.
(c) Honey.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to make available recourse loans
to producers of the 2000 crop of honey on fair and reasonable
terms and conditions, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Loan rate.--The loan rate for a loan under paragraph
(1) shall be equal to 85 percent of the average price of
honey during the 5-crop year period preceding the 2000 crop
year, excluding the crop year in which the average price of
honey was the highest and the crop year in which the average
price of honey was the lowest in the period.
(d) Wool and Mohair.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to make payments to producers of
wool, and producers of mohair, for the 1999 marketing year
(2) Payment rate.--The payment rate for payments made to
producers under paragraph (1) shall be equal to--
(A) in the case of wool, 20 cents per pound; and
(B) in the case of mohair, 40 cents per pound.
(e) Cottonseed.--The Secretary shall use $100,000,000 of
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide
assistance to producers and first-handlers of the 2000 crop
of cottonseed.

SEC. 205. PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS.

(a) Eligible Producers.--Effective for the 2001 crop year,
in the case of a producer that would be eligible for a loan
deficiency payment under section 135 of the Agricultural
Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7235) for wheat, barley, or
oats, but that elects to use acreage planted to the wheat,
barley, or oats for the grazing of livestock, the Secretary
shall make a payment to the producer under this section if
the producer enters into an agreement with the Secretary to
forgo any other harvesting of the wheat, barley, or oats on
that acreage.
(b) Payment Amount.--The amount of a payment made to a
producer on a farm under this section shall be equal to the
amount determined by multiplying--
(1) the loan deficiency payment rate determined under
section 135(c) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7
U.S.C. 7235(c)) in effect, as of the date of the agreement,
for the county in which the farm is located; by
(2) the payment quantity determined by multiplying--
(A) the quantity of the grazed acreage on the farm with
respect to which the producer elects

[[Page 9183]]

to forgo harvesting of wheat, barley, or oats; and
(B) the greater of--
(i) the established yield for the crop on the farm; or
(ii) the average county yield per harvested acre of the
crop, as determined by the Secretary.
(c) Time, Manner, and Availability of Payment.--
(1) Time and manner.--A payment under this section shall be
made at the same time and in the same manner as loan
deficiency payments are made under section 135 of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7235), except
that the payment shall be made not later than September 30,
2001.
(2) Availability.--The Secretary shall establish an
availability period for the payment authorized by this
section that is consistent with the availability period for
wheat, barley, and oats established by the Secretary for
marketing assistance loans authorized by subtitle C of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7231 et seq.).
(d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate under
section 263 such regulations as are necessary to administer
the payments authorized by this section in a fair and
equitable manner with respect to producers of wheat and feed
grains that do not receive a payment under this section.
(e) Funding.--The Secretary shall use funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this section.

SEC. 206. EXPANSION OF PRODUCERS ELIGIBLE FOR LOAN DEFICIENCY
PAYMENTS.

(a) Eligible Producers.--Section 135(a) of the Agricultural
Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7235(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``to producers'' and inserting ``to--
``(1) producers'';
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) effective only for the 2000 crop year, producers
that, although not eligible to obtain such a marketing
assistance loan under section 131, produce a contract
commodity.''.
(b) Calculation.--Section 135(b)(2) of the Agricultural
Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7235(b)(2)) is amended by
striking ``that the producers'' and all that follows through
the period at the end and inserting the following: ``produced
by the eligible producers, excluding any quantity for which
the producers obtain a loan under section 131.''.
(c) Transition; Beneficial Interest.--Section 135 of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7235) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Transition.--A payment to a producer eligible for a
payment under subsection (a)(2) that harvested a commodity on
or before the date that is 30 days after the promulgation of
the regulations implementing subsection (a)(2) shall be
determined as the date the producer lost beneficial interest
in the commodity, as determined by the Secretary.
``(f) Beneficial Interest.--Subject to subsection (e), a
producer shall be eligible for a payment under this section
only if the producer has a beneficial interest in the
commodity, as determined by the Secretary.''.
Subtitle B--Conservation

SEC. 211. CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE.

(a) Farmland Protection.--For the purposes described in
section 388 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 3830 note; Public Law 104-127), the
Secretary shall use $10,000,000 of funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation to make payments to--
(1) any agency of any State or local government, or
federally recognized Indian tribe, including farmland
protection boards and land resource councils established
under State law; and
(2) any organization that--
(A) is organized for, and at all times since the formation
of the organization has been operated principally for, 1 or
more of the conservation purposes specified in clause (i),
(ii), or (iii) of section 170(h)(4)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986;
(B) is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of
that Code that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a)
of that Code;
(C) is described in section 509(a)(2) of that Code; or
(D) is described in section 509(a)(3) of that Code and is
controlled by an organization described in section 509(a)(2)
of that Code.
(b) Soil and Water Conservation Assistance.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall use $40,000,000 of
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide
financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to--
(A) address threats to soil, water, and related natural
resources, including grazing land, wetland, and wildlife
habitat;
(B) comply with Federal and State environmental laws; and
(C) make beneficial, cost-effective changes to cropping
systems, grazing management, manure, nutrient, pest, or
irrigation management, land uses, or other measures needed to
conserve and improve soil, water, and related natural
resources.
(2) Type of assistance.--Assistance under this subsection
may be made in the form of cost share payments or incentive
payments, as determined by the Secretary.
(3) Areas.--The Secretary shall provide assistance under
this subsection to areas that are not designated under
section 1230(c) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3830(c)).

SEC. 212. CONDITION ON DEVELOPMENT OF LITTLE DARBY NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE, OHIO.

The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director
of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall prepare
an environmental impact statement pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
before proceeding with any further development of the Little
Darby National Wildlife Refuge in Madison and Union Counties,
Ohio.
Subtitle C--Research

SEC. 221. CARBON CYCLE RESEARCH.

(a) In General.--Of the amount made available under section
261(a)(2), the Secretary shall use $15,000,000 to provide a
grant to the Consortium for Agricultural Soils Mitigation of
Greenhouse Gases, acting through Kansas State University, to
develop, analyze, and implement, through the land grant
universities described in subsection (b), carbon cycle
research at the national, regional, and local levels.
(b) Land Grant Universities.--The land grant universities
referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Colorado State University.
(2) Iowa State University.
(3) Kansas State University.
(4) Michigan State University.
(5) Montana State University.
(6) Purdue University.
(7) Ohio State University.
(8) Texas A & M University.
(9) University of Nebraska.
(c) Use.--Land grant universities described in subsection
(b) shall use funds made available under this section--
(1) to conduct research to improve the scientific basis of
using land management practices to increase soil carbon
sequestration, including research on the use of new
technologies to increase carbon cycle effectiveness, such as
biotechnology and nanotechnology;
(2) to enter into partnerships to identify, develop, and
evaluate agricultural best practices, including partnerships
between--
(A) Federal, State, or private entities; and
(B) the Department of Agriculture;
(3) to develop necessary computer models to predict and
assess the carbon cycle;
(4) to estimate and develop mechanisms to measure carbon
levels made available as a result of--
(A) voluntary Federal conservation programs;
(B) private and Federal forests; and
(C) other land uses;
(5) to develop outreach programs, in coordination with
Extension Services, to share information on carbon cycle and
agricultural best practices that is useful to agricultural
producers; and
(6) to collaborate with the Great Plains Regional Earth
Science Application Center to develop a space-based carbon
cycle remote sensing technology program to--
(A) provide, on a near-continual basis, a real-time and
comprehensive view of vegetation conditions;
(B) assess and model agricultural carbon sequestration; and
(C) develop commercial products.
(d) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 3 percent of the
funds made available under subsection (a) may be used by the
Secretary to pay administrative costs incurred in carrying
out this section.

SEC. 222. TOBACCO RESEARCH FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES.

(a) Assistance.--Of the amount made available under section
261(a)(2), the Secretary, acting through the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, shall use
$3,000,000 to provide a grant jointly to Georgetown
University and North Carolina State University to conduct
research regarding the extraction and purification of
proteins from genetically altered tobacco that may be used as
a vaccine for cervical cancer.
(b) Relation to Other Law.--The Secretary may make the
grant described in subsection (a) notwithstanding any general
prohibition on the use of appropriated funds to carry out
research related to the production, processing, or marketing
of tobacco or tobacco products.

SEC. 223. RESEARCH ON SOIL SCIENCE AND FOREST HEALTH
MANAGEMENT.

Of the amount made available under section 261(a)(2), the
Secretary shall use $10,000,000 to provide a grant to the
University of Nebraska in Lincoln, Nebraska, for laboratories
and equipment for research on soil science and forest health
and management.

SEC. 224. RESEARCH ON WASTE STREAMS FROM LIVESTOCK
PRODUCTION.

Of the amount made available under section 261(a)(2), the
Secretary shall use $3,500,000 to expand current research
related to technologies for--
(1) reducing, modifying, recycling, and using waste streams
from livestock production; and
(2) eliminating associated air, water, and soil quality
problems.

SEC. 225. IMPROVED STORAGE AND MANAGEMENT OF LIVESTOCK AND
POULTRY WASTE.

(a) Assistance.--Of the amount made available under section
261(a)(2), the Secretary shall use $5,000,000--
(1) to review and assess the actual or potential failure of
waste storage and handling systems used in livestock or
poultry production and the environmental damages associated
with the failure of the systems; and
(2) to study and demonstrate appropriate market-oriented
mechanisms to assist livestock producers and poultry
producers to prevent the failure of the systems and rectify
environmental

[[Page 9184]]

damages associated with the failure of the systems.
(b) Implementation.--The Secretary shall carry out this
section through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements
with livestock producers, poultry producers, associations of
such producers, and foundations supported by such producers.

SEC. 226. ETHANOL RESEARCH PILOT PLANT.

Of the amount made available under section 261(a)(2), the
Secretary shall use $14,000,000 to provide a grant to the
State of Illinois to complete the construction of a corn-
based ethanol research pilot plant (agreement #59-3601-7-078)
at Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, Illinois.

SEC. 227. BIOINFORMATICS INSTITUTE FOR MODEL PLANT SPECIES.

(a) Establishment and Purpose.--The Secretary, acting
through the Agricultural Research Service, may enter into a
cooperative agreement with the National Center for Genome
Resources in Santa Fe, New Mexico, New Mexico State
University, and Iowa State University, for the establishment
and operation of an institute (to be known as the
``Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species'') in
Santa Fe, New Mexico, for the purpose of enhancing the
accessibility and utility of genomic information for plant
genetic research.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $3,000,000 for the purpose of establishing the
Institute under subsection (a); and
(2) such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal year to
carry out the cooperative agreement authorized by subsection
(a).
Subtitle D--Agricultural Marketing

SEC. 231. VALUE-ADDED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT MARKET DEVELOPMENT
GRANTS.

(a) Grant Program.--
(1) Establishment and purposes.--Of the amount made
available under section 261(a)(2), $15,000,000 shall be used
by the Secretary to award competitive grants to eligible
independent producers (as determined by the Secretary) of
value-added agricultural commodities and products of
agricultural commodities to assist an eligible producer--
(A) to develop a business plan for viable marketing
opportunities for a value-added agricultural commodity or
product of an agricultural commodity; or
(B) to develop strategies for the ventures that are
intended to create marketing opportunities for the producers.
(2) Amount of grant.--The total amount provided under this
subsection to a grant recipient may not exceed $500,000.
(3) Producer strategies.--A producer that receives a grant
under paragraph (1) shall use the grant--
(A) to develop a business plan or perform a feasibility
study to establish a viable marketing opportunity for a
value-added agricultural commodity or product of an
agricultural commodity; or
(B) to provide capital to establish alliances or business
ventures that allow the producer to better compete in
domestic or international markets.
(b) Agricultural Marketing Resource Center Pilot Project.--
(1) Establishment.--Notwithstanding the limitation on
grants in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall not use more
than $5,000,000 of the funds made available under subsection
(a) to establish a pilot project (to be known as the
``Agricultural Marketing Resource Center'') at an eligible
institution described in paragraph (2) that will--
(A) develop a resource center with electronic capabilities
to coordinate and provide to independent producers and
processors (as determined by the Secretary) of value-added
agricultural commodities and products of agricultural
commodities information regarding research, business, legal,
financial, or logistical assistance; and
(B) develop a strategy to establish a nationwide market
information and coordination system.
(2) Eligible institution.--To be eligible to receive
funding to establish the Agricultural Marketing Resource
Center, an applicant shall demonstrate to the Secretary--
(A) the capacity and technical expertise to provide the
services described in paragraph (1)(A);
(B) an established plan outlining support of the applicant
in the agricultural community; and
(C) the availability of resources (in cash or in kind) of
definite value to sustain the Center following establishment.
(c) Matching Funds.--A recipient of funds under subsection
(a) or (b) shall contribute an amount of non-Federal funds
that is at least equal to the amount of Federal funds
received.
(d) Limitation.--Funds provided under this section may not
be used for--
(1) planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or
construction of a building or facility (including a
processing facility); or
(2) the purchase, rental, or installation of fixed
equipment.
Subtitle E--Nutrition Programs

SEC. 241. CALCULATION OF MINIMUM AMOUNT OF COMMODITIES FOR
SCHOOL LUNCH REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, in addition to any assistance provided under any
other provision of law, of the amount made available under
section 261(a)(1), the Secretary shall use $34,000,000 in
fiscal year 2000 to purchase commodities of the type provided
under section 6 of the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755) for distribution to schools
participating in the school lunch program established under
that Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
(b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Section 6(e)(1)(B) of the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755(e)(1)(B))
is amended by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2001''.
(c) Additional Commodities in Fiscal Year 2001.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in addition to
any assistance provided under any other provision of law
(including the amendment made by subsection (b)), of the
amount made available under section 261(a)(2), the Secretary
shall use $21,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 to purchase
commodities of the type provided under section 6 of the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755)
for distribution to schools participating in the school lunch
program established under that Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
(d) Distribution to Schools.--The commodities purchased
under subsections (a) and (c) shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, be distributed in the same manner as commodities
are distributed under section 6 of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755).

SEC. 242. SCHOOL LUNCH DATA.

(a) Limited Waiver of Confidentiality Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Section 9(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.
1758(b)(2)(C)(iii)) is amended--
(A) in subclause (II), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subclause (III), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:

``(IV) a person directly connected with the administration
of the State medicaid program under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) or the State children's
health insurance program under title XXI of that Act (42
U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.) solely for the purpose of identifying
children eligible for benefits under, and enrolling children
in, such programs, except that this subclause shall apply
only to the extent that the State and the school food
authority so elect.''.

(2) Certification and notification.--Section 9(b)(2)(C) of
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.
1758(b)(2)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(vi) Requirements for waiver of confidentiality.--A State
that elects to exercise the option described in clause
(iii)(IV) shall ensure that any school food authority acting
in accordance with that option--

``(I) has a written agreement with the State or local
agency or agencies administering health insurance programs
for children under titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq., 1397aa et seq.) that requires
the health agencies to use the information obtained under
clause (iii) to seek to enroll children in those health
insurance programs; and
``(II)(aa) notifies each household, the information of
which shall be disclosed under clause (iii), that the
information disclosed will be used only to enroll children in
health programs referred to in clause (iii)(IV); and
``(bb) provides each parent or guardian of a child in the
household with an opportunity to elect not to have the
information disclosed.

``(vii) Use of disclosed information.--A person to which
information is disclosed under clause (iii)(IV) shall use or
disclose the information only as necessary for the purpose of
enrolling children in health programs referred to in clause
(iii)(IV).''.
(b) Demonstration Project.--
(1) In general.--Section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of
1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(r) Demonstration Project Relating to Use of the WIC
Program for Identification and Enrollment of Children in
Certain Health Programs.--
``(1) In general.--In accordance with paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall establish a demonstration project in at least
20 local agencies in 1 State under which costs of nutrition
services and administration (as defined in subsection (b)(4))
shall include the costs of identification of children
eligible for benefits under, and the provision of enrollment
assistance for children in--
``(A) the State medicaid program under title XIX of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.); and
``(B) the State children's health insurance program under
title XXI of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.).
``(2) State-related requirements.--The State in which a
demonstration project is established under paragraph (1)--
``(A) shall operate not fewer than 20 pilot site locations;
``(B) as of the date of establishment of the demonstration
project--
``(i) with respect to the programs referred to in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1)--

``(I) shall have in use a simplified application form with
a length of not more than 2 pages;
``(II) shall accept mail-in applications; and
``(III) shall permit enrollment in the program in a variety
of locations; and

``(ii) shall have served as an original pilot site for the
program under this section; and
``(C) as of December 31, 1998, shall have had--
``(i) an infant mortality rate that is above the national
average; and
``(ii) an overall rate of age-appropriate immunizations
against vaccine-preventable diseases that is below 80
percent.

[[Page 9185]]

``(3) Termination of authority.--The authority provided by
this subsection terminates September 30, 2003.''.
(2) Technical amendments.--Section 17 of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``(4)'' and all that
follows through ``means'' and inserting ``(4) `Costs of
nutrition services and administration' or `nutrition services
and administration' means''; and
(B) in subsection (h)(1)(A), by striking ``costs incurred
by State and local agencies for nutrition services and
administration'' and inserting ``costs of nutrition services
and administration incurred by State and local agencies''.
(3) Grant for demonstration project.--Section 12 of the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1760)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(p) Grant for Demonstration Project.--
``(1) Use of funds for wic demonstration project.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants of funds
under this subsection to a State--
``(i) for purposes that include carrying out the
demonstration project under section 17(r) of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(r)); and
``(ii) for the purpose described in clause (i), in amounts
not to exceed $10,000 for each fiscal year for each site in
the State.
``(B) Apportionment.--A State that receives a grant under
subparagraph (A) shall apportion the funds received to ensure
that each site in the State receives not more than $10,000
for any fiscal year.
``(2) Evaluations of demonstration project.--The Secretary
shall conduct an evaluation of the demonstration project and
grant program for identification and enrollment efforts
funded under this subsection that include a determination
of--
``(A) the number of children enrolled as a result of the
enactment of this subsection;
``(B) the income levels of the families of enrolled
children;
``(C) the cost of identification and enrollment assistance
services provided under the project or grant program;
``(D) the effect on the caseloads of local agencies that
carry out the special supplemental nutrition program for
woman, infants, and children established under section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786); and
``(E) such other factors as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
``(3) Funding.--
``(A) In general.--Out of any moneys in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
provide to the Secretary to carry out this subsection
$1,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2004,
to remain available until expended but not later than
September 30, 2004.
``(B) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be
entitled to receive the funds and shall accept the funds
provided under subparagraph (A), without further
appropriation.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2000.

SEC. 243. CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM INTEGRITY.

(a) Definition of Institution; Exclusion of Seriously
Deficient Institutions.--Section 17(a) of the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Grant Authority and Institution Eligibility.--
``(1) Grant authority.--The Secretary'';
(2) by striking the second and third sentences and
inserting the following:
``(2) Definition of institution.--In this section, the term
`institution' means--
``(A) any public or private nonprofit organization
providing nonresidential child care or day care outside
school hours for school children, including any child care
center, settlement house, recreational center, Head Start
center, and institution providing child care facilities for
children with disabilities;
``(B) any other private organization providing
nonresidential child care or day care outside school hours
for school children for which the organization receives
compensation from amounts granted to the States under title
XX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 et seq.) (but
only if the organization receives compensation under that
title for at least 25 percent of its enrolled children or 25
percent of its licensed capacity, whichever is less);
``(C) any public or private nonprofit organization acting
as a sponsoring organization for 1 or more of the
organizations described in subparagraph (A) or (B) or for an
adult day care center (as defined in subsection (o)(2));
``(D) any other private organization acting as a sponsoring
organization for, and that is part of the same legal entity
as, 1 or more organizations that are--
``(i) described in subparagraph (B); or
``(ii) proprietary title XIX or title XX centers (as
defined in subsection (o)(2));
``(E) any public or private nonprofit organization acting
as a sponsoring organization for 1 or more family or group
day care homes; and
``(F) any emergency shelter (as defined in subsection
(t)).'';
(3) by striking ``Except as provided in subsection (r),''
and inserting the following:
``(3) Age limit.--Except as provided in subsection (r),'';
(4) by striking ``The Secretary may establish separate
guidelines'' and inserting the following:
``(4) Additional guidelines.--The Secretary may establish
separate guidelines'';
(5) by striking ``For purposes of determining'' and all
that follows through ``an institution'' and inserting the
following:
``(5) Licensing.--In order to be eligible, an
institution''; and
(6) by striking ``standards; and'' and inserting
``standards.'';
(7) by striking ``(2) no institution'' and inserting the
following:
``(6) Eligibility criteria.--No institution''; and
(8) in paragraph (6) (as so designated)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, or has not been
determined to be ineligible to participate in any other
publicly funded program by reason of violation of the
requirements of the program'' before ``, for a period'';
(B) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(C)''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) in the case of a sponsoring organization, the
organization shall employ an appropriate number of monitoring
personnel based on the number and characteristics of child
care centers and family or group day care homes sponsored by
the organization, as approved by the State (in accordance
with regulations promulgated by the Secretary), to ensure
effective oversight of the operations of the child care
centers and family or group day care homes; and'';
(C) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) in the case of a sponsoring organization, the
organization has in effect a policy that restricts other
employment by employees that interferes with the
responsibilities and duties of the employees of the
organization with respect to the program; and
``(F) in the case of a sponsoring organization that applies
for initial participation in the program on or after the date
of the enactment of this subparagraph and that operates in a
State that requires such institutions to be bonded under
State law, regulation, or policy, the institution is bonded
in accordance with such law, regulation, or policy.''.
(b) Institution Approval and Applications.--
(1) In general.--Section 17(d) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(d)) is amended by
striking the subsection designation and all that follows
through the end of paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(d) Institution Approval and Applications.--
``(1) Institution approval.--
``(A) Administrative capability.--Subject to subparagraph
(B) and except as provided in subparagraph (C), the State
agency shall approve an institution that meets the
requirements of this section for participation in the child
and adult care food program if the State agency determines
that the institution--
``(i) is financially viable;
``(ii) is administratively capable of operating the program
(including whether the sponsoring organization has business
experience and management plans appropriate to operate the
program) described in the application of the institution; and
``(iii) has internal controls in effect to ensure program
accountability.
``(B) Approval of private institutions.--
``(i) In general.--In addition to the requirements
established by subparagraph (A) and subject to clause (ii),
the State agency shall approve a private institution that
meets the requirements of this section for participation in
the child and adult care food program only if--

``(I) the State agency conducts a satisfactory visit to the
institution before approving the participation of the
institution in the program; and
``(II) the institution--

``(aa) has tax exempt status under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986;
``(bb) is operating a Federal program requiring nonprofit
status to participate in the program; or
``(cc) is described in subsection (a)(2)(B).
``(ii) Exception for family or group day care homes.--
Clause (i) shall not apply to a family or group day care
home.
``(C) Exception for certain sponsoring organizations.--
``(i) In general.--The State agency may approve an eligible
institution acting as a sponsoring organization for 1 or more
family or group day care homes or centers that, at the time
of application, is not participating in the child and adult
care food program only if the State agency determines that--

``(I) the institution meets the requirements established by
subparagraphs (A) and (B); and
``(II) the participation of the institution will help to
ensure the delivery of benefits to otherwise unserved family
or group day care homes or centers or to unserved children in
an area.

``(ii) Criteria for selection.--The State agency shall
establish criteria for approving an eligible institution
acting as a sponsoring organization for 1 or more family or
group day care homes or centers that, at the time of
application, is not participating in the child and adult care
food program for the purpose of determining if the
participation of the institution will help ensure the
delivery of benefits to otherwise unserved family or group
day care homes or centers or to unserved children in an area.
``(D) Notification to applicants.--Not later than 30 days
after the date on which an applicant institution files a
completed application

[[Page 9186]]

with the State agency, the State agency shall notify the
applicant institution whether the institution has been
approved or disapproved to participate in the child and adult
care food program.''.
(2) Site visits.--Section 17(d)(2)(A) of the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(d)(2)(A))
is amended--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(B) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
(C) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
``(ii)(I) requires periodic unannounced site visits at not
less than 3-year intervals to sponsored child care centers
and family or group day care homes to identify and prevent
management deficiencies and fraud and abuse under the
program;
``(II) requires at least 1 scheduled site visit each year
to sponsored child care centers and family or group day care
homes to identify and prevent management deficiencies and
fraud and abuse under the program and to improve program
operations; and
``(III) requires at least 1 scheduled site visit at not
less than 3-year intervals to sponsoring organizations and
nonsponsored child care centers to identify and prevent
management deficiencies and fraud and abuse under the program
and to improve program operations; and''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 17(d)(2)(B) of the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.
1766(d)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``subsection (a)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (a)(5)''.
(4) Program information.--
(A) In general.--Section 17(d) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(d)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) Program information.--
``(A) In general.--On enrollment of a child in a sponsored
child care center or family or group day care home
participating in the program, the center or home (or its
sponsoring organization) shall provide to the child's parents
or guardians--
``(i) information that describes the program and its
benefits; and
``(ii) the name and telephone number of the sponsoring
organization of the center or home and the State agency
involved in the operation of the program.
``(B) Form.--The information described in subparagraph (A)
shall be in a form and, to the maximum extent practicable,
language easily understandable by the child's parents or
guardians.''.
(B) Effective date.--In the case of a child that is
enrolled in a sponsored child care center or family or group
day care home participating in the child and adult care food
program under section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766) before the date of the
enactment of this Act, the center or home shall provide
information to the child's parents or guardians pursuant to
section 17(d)(3) of that Act, as added by subparagraph (A),
not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(5) Allowable administrative expenses for sponsoring
organizations.--Section 17(d) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(d)), as amended by
paragraph (4)(A), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(4) Allowable administrative expenses for sponsoring
organizations.--In consultation with State agencies and
sponsoring organizations, the Secretary shall develop, and
provide for the dissemination to State agencies and
sponsoring organizations of, a list of allowable reimbursable
administrative expenses for sponsoring organizations under
the program.''.
(c) Termination or Suspension of Participating
Organizations.--Section 17(d) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(d)), as amended by
subsection (b)(5), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5) Termination or suspension of participating
organizations.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish procedures
for the termination of participation by institutions and
family or group day care homes under the program.
``(B) Standards.--Procedures established pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall include standards for terminating the
participation of an institution or family or group day care
home that--
``(i) engages in unlawful practices, falsifies information
provided to the State agency, or conceals a criminal
background; or
``(ii) substantially fails to fulfill the terms of its
agreement with the State agency.
``(C) Corrective action.--Procedures established pursuant
to subparagraph (A)--
``(i) shall require an entity described in subparagraph (B)
to undertake corrective action; and
``(ii) may require the immediate suspension of operation of
the program by an entity described in subparagraph (B),
without the opportunity for corrective action, if the State
agency determines that there is imminent threat to the health
or safety of a participant at the entity or the entity
engages in any activity that poses a threat to public health
or safety.
``(D) Hearing.--An institution or family or group day care
home shall be provided a fair hearing in accordance with
subsection (e)(1) prior to any determination to terminate
participation by the institution or family or group day care
home under the program.
``(E) List of disqualified institutions and individuals.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain a list of
institutions, sponsored family or group day care homes, and
individuals that have been terminated or otherwise
disqualified from participation in the program.
``(ii) Availability.--The Secretary shall make the list
available to State agencies for use in approving or renewing
applications by institutions, sponsored family or group day
care homes, and individuals for participation in the
program.''.
(d) Recovery of Amounts From Institutions.--Section
17(f)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
(42 U.S.C. 1766(f)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(f)(1) Funds paid'' and inserting the
following:
``(f) State Disbursements to Institutions.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Requirement.--Funds paid''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Fraud or abuse.--
``(i) In general.--The State may recover funds disbursed
under subparagraph (A) to an institution if the State
determines that the institution has engaged in fraud or abuse
with respect to the program or has submitted an invalid claim
for reimbursement.
``(ii) Payment.--Amounts recovered under clause (i)--

``(I) may be paid by the institution to the State over a
period of 1 or more years; and
``(II) shall not be paid from funds used to provide meals
and supplements.

``(iii) Hearing.--An institution shall be provided a fair
hearing in accordance with subsection (e)(1) prior to any
determination to recover funds under this subparagraph.''.
(e) Limitation on Administrative Expenses for Certain
Sponsoring Organizations.--Section 17(f)(2) of the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(f)(2)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Limitation on administrative expenses for certain
sponsoring organizations.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), a
sponsoring organization of a day care center may reserve not
more than 15 percent of the funds provided under paragraph
(1) for the administrative expenses of the organization.
``(ii) Waiver.--A State may waive the requirement in clause
(i) with respect to a sponsoring organization if the
organization provides justification to the State that the
organization requires funds in excess of 15 percent of the
funds provided under paragraph (1) to pay the administrative
expenses of the organization.''.
(f) Limitations on Ability of Family or Group Day Care
Homes to Transfer Sponsoring Organizations.--Section 17(f)(3)
of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42
U.S.C. 1766(f)(3)) is amended by striking subparagraph (D)
and inserting the following:
``(D) Limitations on ability of family or group day care
homes to transfer sponsoring organizations.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), a State agency
shall limit the ability of a family or group day care home to
transfer from a sponsoring organization to another sponsoring
organization more frequently than once a year
``(ii) Good cause.--The State agency may permit or require
a family or group day care home to transfer from a sponsoring
organization to another sponsoring organization more
frequently than once a year for good cause (as determined by
the State agency), including circumstances in which the
sponsoring organization of the family or group day care home
ceases to participate in the child and adult care food
program.''.
(g) Statewide Demonstration Projects Involving Private For-
Profit Organizations That Provide Nonresidential Day Care
Services.--
(1) In general.--Section 17(p) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(p)) is amended--
(A) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking ``2
statewide demonstration projects'' and inserting ``statewide
demonstration projects in 3 States''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by inserting ``in'' after ``subsection'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) 1 other State--
``(i) with fewer than 60,000 children below 5 years of age;
``(ii) that serves more than the national average
proportion of children potentially eligible for assistance
provided under the Child Care and Development Fund (as
indicated in data published by the Department of Health and
Human Services in October 1999);
``(iii) that exempts all families from cost sharing
requirements under programs funded by the Child Care and
Development Fund; and
``(iv) in which State spending represents more than 50
percent of total expenditures made under the Child Care and
Development Fund.''.
(2) Effective date.--The Secretary may carry out
demonstration projects in the State described in section
17(p)(3)(C) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act, as added by paragraph (1)(B)(iv), beginning not earlier
than October 1, 2001.
(h) Technical and Training Assistance for Identification
and Prevention of Fraud and Abuse.--Section 17(q) of the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.
1766(q)) is amended--

[[Page 9187]]

(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Technical and training assistance for identification
and prevention of fraud and abuse.--As part of training and
technical assistance provided under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall provide training on a continuous basis to
State agencies, and shall ensure that such training is
provided to sponsoring organizations, for the identification
and prevention of fraud and abuse under the program and to
improve management of the program.''.
(i) Program for At-Risk School Children.--Section 17(r) of
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.
1766(r)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``meals or'' before
``supplements'';
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Supplement'' and
inserting ``Meal and supplement'';
(B) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``only for'' and all that follows through
``(i) a supplement'' and inserting ``only for 1 meal per
child per day and 1 supplement per child per day'';
(ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and
(iii) by striking clause (ii);
(C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``Rate.--A
supplement'' and inserting the following: ``Rates.--
``(i) Meals.--A meal shall be reimbursed under this
subsection at the rate established for free meals under
subsection (c).
``(ii) Supplements.--A supplement''; and
(D) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``meal or'' before
``supplement''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Limitation.--The Secretary shall limit reimbursement
under this subsection for meals served under a program to
institutions located in 6 States, of which 4 States shall be
Pennsylvania, Missouri, Delaware, and Michigan and 2 States
shall be approved by the Secretary through a competitive
application process.''.
(j) Withholding of Funds for Failure to Provide Sufficient
Training, Technical Assistance, and Monitoring.--Section
7(a)(9)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.
1776(a)(9)(A)) is amended by inserting after ``the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.)''
the following: ``(including any requirement to provide
sufficient training, technical assistance, and monitoring of
the child and adult care food program under section 17 of
that Act (42 U.S.C. 1766))''.

SEC. 244. ADJUSTMENTS TO WIC PROGRAM.

(a) Definition.--Section 17(b) of the Child Nutrition Act
of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(b)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(21) Remote indian or native village.--The term `remote
Indian or Native village' means an Indian or Native village
that--
``(A) is located in a rural area;
``(B) has a population of less than 5,000 inhabitants; and
``(C) is not accessible year-around by means of a public
road (as defined in section 101 of title 23, United States
Code).''.
(b) Cost-of-Living Allowances for Members of Uniformed
Services.--Section 17(d)(2)(B) of the Child Nutrition Act of
1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(d)(2)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``income any'' and inserting ``income--
``(i) any'';
(2) by striking ``quarters'' and inserting ``housing'';
(3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) any cost-of-living allowance provided under section
405 of title 37, United States Code, to a member of a
uniformed service who is on duty outside the continental
United States.''.
(c) Proof of Residency.--Section 17(d)(3) of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(d)(3)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(F) Proof of residency.--An individual residing in a
remote Indian or Native village or an individual served by an
Indian tribal organization and residing on a reservation or
pueblo may, under standards established by the Secretary,
establish proof of residency under this section by providing
to the State agency the mailing address of the individual and
the name of the remote Indian or Native village.''.
(d) Adjustment of Grant.--Section 17(h)(1)(B) of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(h)(1)(B)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``the fiscal year 1987'' and
inserting ``the preceding fiscal year''; and
(2) in clause (ii)--
(A) by striking ``the fiscal year 1987'' and inserting
``the preceding fiscal year''; and
(B) by striking subclause (I) and inserting the following:
``(I) the value of the index for State and local government
purchases, as published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of
the Department of Commerce, for the 12-month period ending
June 30 of the second preceding fiscal year; and''.
(e) Allocation of Funds.--Section 17(h)(5) of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(h)(5)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(D) Remote indian or native villages.--For noncontiguous
States containing a significant number of remote Indian or
Native villages, a State agency may convert amounts allocated
for food benefits for a fiscal year to the costs of nutrition
services and administration to the extent that the conversion
is necessary to cover expenditures incurred in providing
services (including the full cost of air transportation and
other transportation) to remote Indian or Native villages and
to provide breastfeeding support in remote Indian or Native
villages.''.
(f) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section take effect on the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Allocation of funds.--The amendments made by
subsections (d) and (e) take effect on October 1, 2000.
Subtitle F--Other Programs

SEC. 251. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE LOAN IN CONNECTION WITH BOLL
WEEVIL ERADICATION.

(a) Loan Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary, acting through the Farm Service Agency,
shall use $10,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to make a loan to the Texas Boll Weevil
Eradication Foundation, Inc., to enable the Foundation to
retire certain debt associated with boll weevil eradication
zones which have ended their participation, in whole or in
part, in the federally funded boll weevil eradication
program.
(b) Repayment Terms and Conditions.--The loan provided
under subsection (a) shall be subject to the following terms
and conditions:
(1) Repayment shall be scheduled to begin on January 1 of
the year following the first year during which the boll
weevil eradication zone, or any part thereof, responsible for
the debt retired using the loan resumes participation in any
federally funded boll weevil eradication program.
(2) No interest shall be charged.
(c) Limitation.--The cost of the loan made under this
section shall not exceed the loan subsidy sufficient to make
the loan.

SEC. 252. ANIMAL DISEASE CONTROL.

(a) Pseudorabies.--Of the amount made available under
section 261(a)(2), the Secretary shall use $7,000,000 to
cover pseudorabies vaccination costs incurred by pork
producers.
(b) Bovine Tuberculosis.--Of the amount made available
under section 261(a)(2), the Secretary shall use $6,000,000
to respond to bovine tuberculosis in the State of Michigan.
The funds shall be available for the following purposes:
(1) The surveillance and testing of cattle and wildlife.
(2) Research regarding bovine tuberculosis, to be conducted
by the Agricultural Research Service and Michigan State
University.
(3) The provision of increased indemnity payments to
encourage the depopulation of infected herds.
(4) The performance of diagnostic testing and treatment of
humans affected by bovine tuberculosis.
(5) Slaughter surveillance.
(6) The control and prevention of the exposure of livestock
to infected wildlife, including the installation of fencing
to minimize contact between livestock and wildlife.
(7) The distribution of information regarding the risk and
control of bovine tuberculosis, including technological
improvements to enhance communication.

SEC. 253. EMERGENCY LOANS FOR SEED PRODUCERS.

(a) In General.--Of the amount made available under section
261(a)(2), the Secretary shall use $35,000,000, plus $200,000
for payment of administrative costs, to make no-interest
loans to producers of the 1999 crop of grass, forage,
vegetable, and sorghum seed that have not received payments
from AgriBiotech for the seed as a result of bankruptcy
proceedings involving AgriBiotech (referred to in this
section as the ``bankruptcy proceedings'').
(b) Loans.--
(1) In general.--The amount of the loan made to a seed
producer under this section shall be not more than 65 percent
of the amount owed by AgriBiotech to the seed producer for
the 1999 seed crop, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a loan under this
section, the claim of a seed producer in the bankruptcy
proceedings must have arisen from a contract to grow seeds in
the United States.
(3) Control.--In determining the amount owed by AgriBiotech
to a seed producer under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
consider whether the seed producer has relinquished control
of the seed to AgriBiotech or has the seed in inventory
waiting to be sold.
(4) Security.--A loan to a seed producer under this section
shall be secured in part by the claim of the seed producer in
the bankruptcy proceedings.
(5) Repayment.--Each seed producer shall repay to the
Secretary, for deposit in the Treasury, the amount of the
loan made to the seed producer on the earlier of--
(A) the date of settlement of, completion of, or final
distribution of assets in the bankruptcy proceedings
involving AgriBiotech; or
(B) the date that is 18 months after the date on which the
loan was made to the seed producer.
(c) Additional Terms.--
(1) Shortfall in amount received from bankruptcy
proceedings.--If the amount that the seed producer receives
as a result of the proceedings described in subsection
(b)(5)(A) is less than the amount of the loan made to the
seed producer under subsection (b)(1), the seed producer
shall be eligible to have the balance of the loan converted,
but not refinanced, to a loan that has the same terms and
conditions as an operating loan under subtitle B of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1941 et
seq.).

[[Page 9188]]

(2) Lengthy bankruptcy proceedings.--If a seed producer is
required to repay a loan under subsection (b)(5)(B), the seed
producer shall be eligible to have the balance of the loan
converted, but not refinanced, to a loan that has the same
terms and conditions as an operating loan under subtitle B of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1941 et seq.).
(d) Limitation.--The cost of all loans made under this
section shall not exceed $15,000,000.

SEC. 254. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF AUTHORITY TO COMBINE
CERTAIN OFFICES.

(a) Suspension.--During the period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act and ending on June 1, 2001, the
Secretary may not combine or take any action to combine, at
the State level, offices of the agencies specified in
subsection (b) unless the offices are located in the same
county as of the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Covered Offices.--Subsection (a) applies to an office
of any of the following agencies:
(1) The Farm Service Agency.
(2) The Natural Resources Conservation Service.
(3) The Rural Utilities Service.
(4) The Rural Housing Service.
(5) The Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
(c) Report.--Not later than April 1, 2001, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate a report describing any proposed
combination of offices specified in subsection (b) that
includes a certification that the proposed combination would
result in the lowest cost to the Federal Government over the
long term.

SEC. 255. FARM OPERATING LOAN ELIGIBILITY.

During the period beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act and ending on December 31, 2002--
(1) sections 311(c) and 319 of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1941(c), 1949) shall have no
force or effect; and
(2) in making direct loans under subtitle B of that Act (7
U.S.C. 1941 et seq.), the Secretary shall give priority to a
qualified beginning farmer or rancher who has not operated a
farm or ranch, or who has operated a farm or ranch for not
more than 5 years.

SEC. 256. WATER SYSTEMS FOR RURAL AND NATIVE VILLAGES IN
ALASKA.

Section 306D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1926d) is amended by striking subsection (d)
and inserting the following:
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section $30,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2001 and 2002.
``(2) Training and technical assistance.--Not more than 2
percent of the amount made available under paragraph (1) for
a fiscal year may be used by the State of Alaska for training
and technical assistance programs relating to the operation
and management of water and waste disposal services in rural
and Native villages.
``(3) Availability.--Funds appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in paragraph (1) shall be
available until expended.''.

SEC. 257. CROP AND PASTURE FLOOD COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

(a) Definition of Covered Land.--In this section:
(1) In general.--The term ``covered land'' means land
that--
(A) was unusable for agricultural production during the
2000 crop year as the result of flooding;
(B) was used for agricultural production during at least 1
of the 1992 through 1999 crop years;
(C) is a contiguous parcel of land of at least 1 acre; and
(D) is located in a county in which producers were eligible
for assistance under the 1998 Flood Compensation Program
established under part 1439 of title 7, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(2) Exclusions.--The term ``covered land'' excludes any
land for which a producer is insured, enrolled, or assisted
during the 2000 crop year under--
(A) a policy or plan of insurance authorized under the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.);
(B) the noninsured crop assistance program operated under
section 196 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7
U.S.C. 7333);
(C) any crop disaster program established for the 2000 crop
year;
(D) the conservation reserve program established under
subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.);
(E) the wetlands reserve program established under
subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837 et seq.);
(F) any emergency watershed protection program or Federal
easement program that prohibits crop production or grazing;
or
(G) any other Federal or State water storage program, as
determined by the Secretary.
(b) Compensation.--The Secretary shall use not more than
$24,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
compensate producers with covered land described with respect
to losses from long-term flooding.
(c) Payment Rate.--The payment rate for compensation
provided to a producer under this section shall equal the
average county cash rental rate per acre established by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service for the 2000 crop
year.
(d) Payment Limitation.--The total amount of payments made
to a person (as defined in section 1001(5) of the Food
Security Act (7 U.S.C. 1308(5))) under this section may not
exceed $40,000.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--H.R. 3425 of the 106th Congress
(as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(5) of Public Law 106-
113 (113 Stat. 1535) and included as Appendix E of that
Public Law (113 Stat. 1501A-289)) is amended in section 207
(113 Stat. 1501A-294) by inserting ``or Lake'' after
``Harney''.

SEC. 258. FLOOD MITIGATION NEAR PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA.

(a) Requirement.--Subject to subsection (b), as soon as
practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, with
respect to land and property described in the Flood
Mitigation Study and Project Implementation Plan for the
Missouri River near Pierre, South Dakota, prepared by the
Omaha District Corps of Engineers, dated August 12, 1999, the
Secretary of the Army shall--
(1) acquire the land and property from willing sellers; and
(2)(A) floodproof the land;
(B) relocate individuals located on the land;
(C) improve infrastructure on the land; or
(D) take other measures determined by the Secretary.
(b) Releases.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not proceed with full
wintertime Oahe Powerplant releases until the Secretary
amends the economic analysis in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act to include an assumption that the
Federal Government is responsible for mitigating any existing
ground water flooding to the land and property described in
subsection (a).
(2) Reduction.--To the extent the Secretary identifies
benefits of mitigating any existing ground water flooding,
full wintertime Oahe Powerplant releases shall be reduced
consistent with the economic analysis described in paragraph
(1).
(3) Minimum level.--This subsection shall not permit Oahe
Powerplant releases to be reduced below existing operational
levels.

SEC. 259. RESTORATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR CROP LOSS
ASSISTANCE.

(a) Effect of Change in Legal Structure.--In the case of an
individual or entity that was not eligible for a payment
pursuant to subsection (c) of section 1102 of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained
in section 101(a) of division A of Public Law 105-277; 7
U.S.C. 1421 note), solely because the individual or entity
changed the legal structure of the individual's or entity's
farming operation, the individual or entity shall be eligible
for the payment the individual or entity would have received
pursuant to that subsection had the individual or entity not
changed the legal structure, less the amount of any payment
received by the individual or entity pursuant to subsection
(b) of that section.
(b) Multiple Farming Operations.--
(1) Eligible individuals.--In the case of an individual not
described in subsection (a) that farmed acreage as a producer
as a part of more than one farming operation, none of which
received a payment pursuant to subsection (c) of section 1102
of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1999, the individual shall be eligible for a payment pursuant
to that subsection for losses that the Secretary determines
would have been eligible for compensation with respect to
that acreage based on the individual's interest in the
production from that acreage.
(2) Reduction.--A payment made pursuant to paragraph (1) to
an individual shall be reduced by the amount of a payment
made pursuant to subsection (b) of that section 1102
attributed directly or indirectly to the individual with
respect to the acreage described in paragraph (1).
Subtitle G--Administration

SEC. 261. FUNDING.

(a) Payment.--Out of any moneys in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
provide to the Secretary the following:
(1) $34,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 to carry out section
241(a).
(2) $465,500,000 for fiscal year 2001 to carry out the
following:
(A) Section 203 (other than subsection (f)).
(B) Subtitle C.
(C) Section 231.
(D) Section 241 (other than subsection (a)).
(E) Sections 252 and 253.
(b) Acceptance.--The Secretary shall be entitled to receive
the funds and shall accept the funds, without further
appropriation.

SEC. 262. OBLIGATION PERIOD.

Except as otherwise provided in this title, the Secretary
and the Commodity Credit Corporation shall obligate and
expend--
(1) funds made available under section 261(a)(1) only
during fiscal year 2000; and
(2) funds made available under section 261(a)(2), and funds
of the Commodity Credit Corporation made available under this
title, only during fiscal year 2001.

SEC. 263. REGULATIONS.

(a) Promulgation.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Commodity Credit
Corporation, as appropriate, shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to implement this title and the
amendments made by this title. The promulgation of the
regulations and administration of this title shall be made
without regard to--

[[Page 9189]]

(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(b) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 264. PAYGO ADJUSTMENT.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
not make any estimates of changes in direct spending outlays
and receipts under section 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902(d))
resulting from enactment of this title.

SEC. 265. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION REIMBURSEMENT.

Out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall use such
sums as may be necessary to reimburse the Commodity Credit
Corporation for net realized losses sustained, but not
previously reimbursed, under this title.
TITLE III--BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Biomass Research and
Development Act of 2000''.

SEC. 302. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) conversion of biomass into biobased industrial products
offers outstanding potential for benefit to the national
interest through--
(A) improved strategic security and balance of payments;
(B) healthier rural economies;
(C) improved environmental quality;
(D) near-zero net greenhouse gas emissions;
(E) technology export; and
(F) sustainable resource supply;
(2) the key technical challenges to be overcome in order
for biobased industrial products to be cost-competitive are
finding new technology and reducing the cost of technology
for converting biomass into desired biobased industrial
products;
(3) biobased fuels, such as ethanol, have the clear
potential to be sustainable, low cost, and high performance
fuels that are compatible with both current and future
transportation systems and provide near-zero net greenhouse
gas emissions;
(4) biobased chemicals have the clear potential for
environmentally benign product life cycles;
(5) biobased power can--
(A) provide environmental benefits;
(B) promote rural economic development; and
(C) diversify energy resource options;
(6) many biomass feedstocks suitable for industrial
processing show the clear potential for sustainable
production, in some cases resulting in improved soil
fertility and carbon sequestration;
(7)(A) grain processing mills are biorefineries that
produce a diversity of useful food, chemical, feed, and fuel
products; and
(B) technologies that result in further diversification of
the range of value-added biobased industrial products can
meet a key need for the grain processing industry;
(8)(A) cellulosic feedstocks are attractive because of
their low cost and widespread availability; and
(B) research resulting in cost-effective technology to
overcome the recalcitrance of cellulosic biomass would allow
biorefineries to produce fuels and bulk chemicals on a very
large scale, with a commensurately large realization of the
benefit described in paragraph (1);
(9) research into the fundamentals to understand important
mechanisms of biomass conversion can be expected to
accelerate the application and advancement of biomass
processing technology by--
(A) increasing the confidence and speed with which new
technologies can be scaled up; and
(B) giving rise to processing innovations based on new
knowledge;
(10) the added utility of biobased industrial products
developed through improvements in processing technology would
encourage the design of feedstocks that would meet future
needs more effectively;
(11) the creation of value-added biobased industrial
products would create new jobs in construction,
manufacturing, and distribution, as well as new higher-valued
exports of products and technology;
(12)(A) because of the relatively short-term time horizon
characteristic of private sector investments, and because
many benefits of biomass processing are in the national
interest, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to
provide precommercial investment in fundamental research and
research-driven innovation in the biomass processing area;
and
(B) such an investment would provide a valuable complement
to ongoing and past governmental support in the biomass
processing area; and
(13) several prominent studies, including studies by the
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology
and the National Research Council--
(A) support the potential for large research-driven
advances in technologies for production of biobased
industrial products as well as associated benefits; and
(B) document the need for a focused, integrated, and
innovation-driven research effort to provide the appropriate
progress in a timely manner.

SEC. 303. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Advisory committee.--The term ``Advisory Committee''
means the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory
Committee established by section 306.
(2) Biobased industrial product.--The term ``biobased
industrial product'' means fuels, chemicals, building
materials, or electric power or heat produced from biomass.
(3) Biomass.--The term ``biomass'' means any organic matter
that is available on a renewable or recurring basis,
including agricultural crops and trees, wood and wood wastes
and residues, plants (including aquatic plants), grasses,
residues, fibers, and animal wastes, municipal wastes, and
other waste materials.
(4) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Biomass Research
and Development Board established by section 305.
(5) Initiative.--The term ``Initiative'' means the Biomass
Research and Development Initiative established under section
307.
(6) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the
term in section 102(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1002(a)).
(7) National laboratory.--The term ``national laboratory''
has the meaning given the term ``laboratory'' in section
12(d) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of
1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)).
(8) Point of contact.--The term ``point of contact'' means
a point of contact designated under section 304(d).
(9) Processing.--The term ``processing'' means the
derivation of biobased industrial products from biomass,
including--
(A) feedstock production;
(B) harvest and handling;
(C) pretreatment or thermochemical processing;
(D) fermentation;
(E) catalytic processing;
(F) product recovery; and
(G) coproduct production.
(10) Research and development.--The term ``research and
development'' means research, development, and demonstration.

SEC. 304. COOPERATION AND COORDINATION IN BIOMASS RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of Energy shall cooperate with respect to, and
coordinate, policies and procedures that promote research and
development leading to the production of biobased industrial
products.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the cooperation and
coordination shall be--
(1) to understand the key mechanisms underlying the
recalcitrance of biomass for conversion into biobased
industrial products;
(2) to develop new and cost-effective technologies that
would result in large-scale commercial production of low cost
and sustainable biobased industrial products;
(3) to ensure that biobased industrial products are
developed in a manner that enhances their economic, energy
security, and environmental benefits; and
(4) to promote the development and use of agricultural and
energy crops for conversion into biobased industrial
products.
(c) Areas.--In carrying out this title, the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with
heads of appropriate departments and agencies, shall promote
research and development--
(1) to advance the availability and widespread use of
energy efficient, economically competitive, and
environmentally sound biobased industrial products in a
manner that is consistent with the goals of the United States
relating to sustainable and secure supplies of food,
chemicals, and fuel;
(2) to ensure full consideration of Federal land and land
management programs as potential feedstock resources for
biobased industrial products; and
(3) to assess the environmental, economic, and social
impact of production of biobased industrial products from
biomass on a large scale.
(d) Points of Contact.--
(1) In general.--To coordinate research and development
programs and activities relating to biobased industrial
products that are carried out by their respective
Departments--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture shall designate, as the
point of contact for the Department of Agriculture, an
officer of the Department of Agriculture appointed by the
President to a position in the Department before the date of
the designation, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate; and
(B) the Secretary of Energy shall designate, as the point
of contact for the Department of Energy, an officer of the
Department of Energy appointed by the President to a position
in the Department before the date of the designation, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(2) Duties.--The points of contact shall jointly--
(A) assist in arranging interlaboratory and site-specific
supplemental agreements for research and development projects
relating to biobased industrial products;
(B) serve as cochairpersons of the Board;
(C) administer the Initiative; and
(D) respond in writing to each recommendation of the
Advisory Committee made under section 306(c).

[[Page 9190]]

SEC. 305. BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD.

(a) Establishment.--There is established the Biomass
Research and Development Board, which shall supersede the
Interagency Council on Biobased Products and Bioenergy
established by Executive Order 13134, to coordinate programs
within and among departments and agencies of the Federal
Government for the purpose of promoting the use of biobased
industrial products by--
(1) maximizing the benefits deriving from Federal grants
and assistance; and
(2) bringing coherence to Federal strategic planning.
(b) Membership.--The Board shall consist of--
(1) the point of contact of the Department of Energy
designated under section 304(d)(1)(B), who shall serve as
cochairperson of the Board;
(2) the point of contact of the Department of Agriculture
designated under section 304(d)(1)(A), who shall serve as
cochairperson of the Board;
(3) a senior officer of each of the Department of the
Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National
Science Foundation, and the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, each of whom shall--
(A) be appointed by the head of the respective agency; and
(B) have a rank that is equivalent to the rank of the
points of contact; and
(4) at the option of the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of Energy, other members appointed by the
Secretaries (after consultation with the members described in
paragraphs (1) through (3)).
(c) Duties.--The Board shall--
(1) coordinate research and development activities relating
to biobased industrial products--
(A) between the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Energy; and
(B) with other departments and agencies of the Federal
Government; and
(2) provide recommendations to the points of contact
concerning administration of this title.
(d) Funding.--Each agency represented on the Board is
encouraged to provide funds for any purpose under this title.
(e) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at least quarterly to
enable the Board to carry out the duties of the Board under
subsection (c).

SEC. 306. BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.

(a) Establishment.--There is established the Biomass
Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee, which
shall supersede the Advisory Committee on Biobased Products
and Bioenergy established by Executive Order 13134--
(1) to advise the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of
Agriculture, and the points of contact concerning--
(A) the technical focus and direction of requests for
proposals issued under the Initiative; and
(B) procedures for reviewing and evaluating the proposals;
(2) to facilitate consultations and partnerships among
Federal and State agencies, agricultural producers, industry,
consumers, the research community, and other interested
groups to carry out program activities relating to the
Initiative; and
(3) to evaluate and perform strategic planning on program
activities relating to the Initiative.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of--
(A) an individual affiliated with the biobased industrial
products industry;
(B) an individual affiliated with an institution of higher
education who has expertise in biobased industrial products;
(C) 2 prominent engineers or scientists from government or
academia who have expertise in biobased industrial products;
(D) an individual affiliated with a commodity trade
association;
(E) an individual affiliated with an environmental or
conservation organization;
(F) an individual associated with State government who has
expertise in biobased industrial products;
(G) an individual with expertise in energy analysis;
(H) an individual with expertise in the economics of
biobased industrial products;
(I) an individual with expertise in agricultural economics;
and
(J) at the option of the points of contact, other members.
(2) Appointment.--The members of the Advisory Committee
shall be appointed by the points of contact.
(c) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall--
(1) advise the points of contact with respect to the
Initiative; and
(2) evaluate whether, and make recommendations in writing
to the Board to ensure that--
(A) funds authorized for the Initiative are distributed and
used in a manner that is consistent with the goals of the
Initiative;
(B) the points of contact are funding proposals under this
title that are selected on the basis of merit, as determined
by an independent panel of scientific and technical peers;
and
(C) activities under this title are carried out in
accordance with this title.
(d) Coordination.--To avoid duplication of effort, the
Advisory Committee shall coordinate its activities with those
of other Federal advisory committees working in related
areas.
(e) Meetings.--The Advisory Committee shall meet at least
quarterly to enable the Advisory Committee to carry out the
duties of the Advisory Committee under subsection (c).
(f) Terms.--Members of the Advisory Committee shall be
appointed for a term of 3 years, except that--
(1) \1/3\ of the members initially appointed shall be
appointed for a term of 1 year; and
(2) \1/3\ of the members initially appointed shall be
appointed for a term of 2 years.

SEC. 307. BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of Energy, acting through their respective points
of contact and in consultation with the Board, shall
establish and carry out a Biomass Research and Development
Initiative under which competitively awarded grants,
contracts, and financial assistance are provided to, or
entered into with, eligible entities to carry out research on
biobased industrial products.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of grants, contracts, and
assistance under this section shall be--
(1) to stimulate collaborative activities by a diverse
range of experts in all aspects of biomass processing for the
purpose of conducting fundamental and innovation-targeted
research and technology development;
(2) to enhance creative and imaginative approaches toward
biomass processing that will serve to develop the next
generation of advanced technologies making possible low cost
and sustainable biobased industrial products;
(3) to strengthen the intellectual resources of the United
States through the training and education of future
scientists, engineers, managers, and business leaders in the
field of biomass processing; and
(4) to promote integrated research partnerships among
colleges, universities, national laboratories, Federal and
State research agencies, and the private sector as the best
means of overcoming technical challenges that span multiple
research and engineering disciplines and of gaining better
leverage from limited Federal research funds.
(c) Eligible Entities.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible for a grant, contract, or
assistance under this section, an applicant shall be--
(A) an institution of higher education;
(B) a national laboratory;
(C) a Federal research agency;
(D) a State research agency;
(E) a private sector entity;
(F) a nonprofit organization; or
(G) a consortium of 2 or more entities described in
subparagraphs (A) through (F).
(2) Administration.--After consultation with the Board, the
points of contact shall--
(A) publish annually 1 or more joint requests for proposals
for grants, contracts, and assistance under this section;
(B) establish a priority in grants, contracts, and
assistance under this section for research that--
(i) demonstrates potential for significant advances in
biomass processing;
(ii) demonstrates potential to substantially further scale-
sensitive national objectives such as--

(I) sustainable resource supply;
(II) reduced greenhouse gas emissions;
(III) healthier rural economies; and
(IV) improved strategic security and trade balances; and

(iii) would improve knowledge of important biomass
processing systems that demonstrate potential for commercial
applications;
(C) require that grants, contracts, and assistance under
this section be awarded competitively, on the basis of merit,
after the establishment of procedures that provide for
scientific peer review by an independent panel of scientific
and technical peers; and
(D) give preference to applications that--
(i) involve a consortia of experts from multiple
institutions; and
(ii) encourage the integration of disciplines and
application of the best technical resources.
(d) Uses of Grants, Contracts, and Assistance.--A grant,
contract, or assistance under this section may be used to
conduct--
(1) research on process technology for overcoming the
recalcitrance of biomass, including research on key
mechanisms, advanced technologies, and demonstration test
beds for--
(A) feedstock pretreatment and hydrolysis of cellulose and
hemicellulose, including new technologies for--
(i) enhanced sugar yields;
(ii) lower overall chemical use;
(iii) less costly materials; and
(iv) cost reduction;
(B) development of novel organisms and other approaches to
substantially lower the cost of cellulase enzymes and
enzymatic hydrolysis, including dedicated cellulase
production and consolidated bioprocessing strategies; and
(C) approaches other than enzymatic hydrolysis for
overcoming the recalcitrance of cellulosic biomass;
(2) research on technologies for diversifying the range of
products that can be efficiently and cost-competitively
produced from biomass, including research on--
(A) metabolic engineering of biological systems (including
the safe use of genetically modified crops) to produce novel
products, especially commodity products, or to increase
product selectivity and tolerance, with a research priority
for the development of biobased industrial products that can
compete in performance and cost with fossil-based products;
(B) catalytic processing to convert intermediates of
biomass processing into products of interest;

[[Page 9191]]

(C) separation technologies for cost-effective product
recovery and purification;
(D) approaches other than metabolic engineering and
catalytic conversion of intermediates of biomass processing;
(E) advanced biomass gasification technologies, including
coproduction of power and heat as an integrated component of
biomass processing, with the possibility of generating excess
electricity for sale; and
(F) related research in advanced turbine and stationary
fuel cell technology for production of electricity from
biomass; and
(3) research aimed at ensuring the environmental
performance and economic viability of biobased industrial
products and their raw material input of biomass when
considered as an integrated system, including research on--
(A) the analysis of, and strategies to enhance, the
environmental performance and sustainability of biobased
industrial products, including research on--
(i) accurate measurement and analysis of greenhouse gas
emissions, carbon sequestration, and carbon cycling in
relation to the life cycle of biobased industrial products
and feedstocks with respect to other alternatives;
(ii) evaluation of current and future biomass resource
availability;
(iii) development and analysis of land management practices
and alternative biomass cropping systems that ensure the
environmental performance and sustainability of biomass
production and harvesting;
(iv) the land, air, water, and biodiversity impacts of
large-scale biomass production, processing, and use of
biobased industrial products relative to other alternatives;
and
(v) biomass gasification and combustion to produce
electricity;
(B) the analysis of, and strategies to enhance, the
economic viability of biobased industrial products, including
research on--
(i) the cost of the required process technology;
(ii) the impact of coproducts, including food, animal feed,
and fiber, on biobased industrial product price and large-
scale economic viability; and
(iii) interactions between an emergent biomass refining
industry and the petrochemical refining infrastructure; and
(C) the field and laboratory research related to feedstock
production with the interrelated goals of enhancing the
sustainability, increasing productivity, and decreasing the
cost of biomass processing, including research on--
(i) altering biomass to make biomass easier and less
expensive to process;
(ii) existing and new agricultural and energy crops that
provide a sustainable resource for conversion to biobased
industrial products while simultaneously serving as a source
for coproducts such as food, animal feed, and fiber;
(iii) improved technologies for harvest, collection,
transport, storage, and handling of crop and residue
feedstocks; and
(iv) development of economically viable cropping systems
that improve the conservation and restoration of marginal
land; or
(4) any research and development in technologies or
processes determined by the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of Energy, acting through their respective points
of contact and in consultation with the Board, to be
consistent with the purposes described in subsection (b) and
the priority described in subsection (c)(2)(B).
(e) Technology and Information Transfer to Agricultural
Users.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service and the Chief of
the Natural Resources Conservation Service shall ensure that
applicable research results and technologies from the
Initiative are adapted, made available, and disseminated
through their respective services, as appropriate.
(2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service and the
Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service shall
submit to the committees of Congress with jurisdiction over
the Initiative a report on the activities conducted by the
services under this subsection.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to funds
appropriated for biomass research and development under the
general authority of the Secretary of Energy to conduct
research and development programs (which may also be used to
carry out this title), there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Agriculture to carry out
this title $49,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through
2005.

SEC. 308. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT AND FUNDS.

(a) In General.--To the extent administrative support and
funds are not provided by other agencies under subsection
(b), the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture
may provide such administrative support and funds of the
Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture to the
Board and the Advisory Committee as are necessary to enable
the Board and the Advisory Committee to carry out their
duties under this title.
(b) Other Agencies.--The heads of the agencies referred to
in section 305(b)(3), and the other members appointed under
section 305(b)(4), may, and are encouraged to, provide
administrative support and funds of their respective agencies
to the Board and the Advisory Committee.
(c) Limitation.--Not more than 4 percent of the amount
appropriated for each fiscal year under section 307(f) may be
used to pay the administrative costs of carrying out this
title.

SEC. 309. REPORTS.

(a) Initial Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy and the
Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly submit to Congress a
report that--
(1) identifies the points of contact, the members of the
Board, and the members of the Advisory Committee;
(2) describes the status of current biobased industrial
product research and development efforts in both the Federal
Government and private sector;
(3) includes a section prepared by the Board that
establishes a set of criteria to assess the potential of
biobased industrial products, which shall include for both
biomass production and transformation into biobased
industrial products--
(A) an energy accounting;
(B) an environmental impact assessment; and
(C) an economic assessment; and
(4) describes the research and development goals of the
Initiative, including how funds will be allocated in order to
accomplish those goals.
(b) Annual Reports.--For each fiscal year for which funds
are made available to carry out this title, the Secretary of
Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly submit
to Congress a detailed report on--
(1) the status and progress of the Initiative, including a
report from the Advisory Committee on whether funds
appropriated for the Initiative have been distributed and
used in a manner that--
(A) is consistent with the purposes described in section
307(b);
(B) uses the set of criteria established under subsection
(a)(3); and
(C) takes into account any recommendations that have been
made by the Advisory Committee;
(2) the general status of cooperation and research and
development efforts carried out at each agency with respect
to biobased industrial products, including a report from the
Advisory Committee on whether the points of contact are
funding proposals that are selected under section
307(c)(2)(C); and
(3) the plans of the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary
of Agriculture for addressing concerns raised in the report,
including concerns raised by the Advisory Committee.

SEC. 310. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority provided under this title shall terminate on
December 31, 2005.
TITLE IV--PLANT PROTECTION ACT

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Plant Protection Act''.

SEC. 402. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the detection, control, eradication, suppression,
prevention, or retardation of the spread of plant pests or
noxious weeds is necessary for the protection of the
agriculture, environment, and economy of the United States;
(2) biological control is often a desirable, low-risk means
of ridding crops and other plants of plant pests and noxious
weeds, and its use should be facilitated by the Department of
Agriculture, other Federal agencies, and States whenever
feasible;
(3) it is the responsibility of the Secretary to facilitate
exports, imports, and interstate commerce in agricultural
products and other commodities that pose a risk of harboring
plant pests or noxious weeds in ways that will reduce, to the
extent practicable, as determined by the Secretary, the risk
of dissemination of plant pests or noxious weeds;
(4) decisions affecting imports, exports, and interstate
movement of products regulated under this title shall be
based on sound science;
(5) the smooth movement of enterable plants, plant
products, biological control organisms, or other articles
into, out of, or within the United States is vital to the
United State's economy and should be facilitated to the
extent possible;
(6) export markets could be severely impacted by the
introduction or spread of plant pests or noxious weeds into
or within the United States;
(7) the unregulated movement of plant pests, noxious weeds,
plants, certain biological control organisms, plant products,
and articles capable of harboring plant pests or noxious
weeds could present an unacceptable risk of introducing or
spreading plant pests or noxious weeds;
(8) the existence on any premises in the United States of a
plant pest or noxious weed new to or not known to be widely
prevalent in or distributed within and throughout the United
States could constitute a threat to crops and other plants or
plant products of the United States and burden interstate
commerce or foreign commerce; and
(9) all plant pests, noxious weeds, plants, plant products,
articles capable of harboring plant pests or noxious weeds
regulated under this title are in or affect interstate
commerce or foreign commerce.

SEC. 403. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Article.--The term ``article'' means any material or
tangible object that could harbor plant pests or noxious
weeds.
(2) Biological control organism.--The term ``biological
control organism'' means any enemy, antagonist, or competitor
used to control a plant pest or noxious weed.
(3) Enter and entry.--The terms ``enter'' and ``entry''
mean to move into, or the act of movement into, the commerce
of the United States.
(4) Export and exportation.--The terms ``export'' and
``exportation'' mean to move from,

[[Page 9192]]

or the act of movement from, the United States to any place
outside the United States.
(5) Import and importation.--The terms ``import'' and
``importation'' mean to move into, or the act of movement
into, the territorial limits of the United States.
(6) Interstate.--The term ``interstate'' means--
(A) from one State into or through any other State; or
(B) within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin
Islands of the United States, or any other territory or
possession of the United States.
(7) Interstate commerce.--The term ``interstate commerce''
means trade, traffic, or other commerce--
(A) between a place in a State and a point in another
State, or between points within the same State but through
any place outside that State; or
(B) within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin
Islands of the United States, or any other territory or
possession of the United States.
(8) Means of conveyance.--The term ``means of conveyance''
means any personal property used for or intended for use for
the movement of any other personal property.
(9) Move and related terms.--The terms ``move'',
``moving'', and ``movement'' mean--
(A) to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport;
(B) to aid, abet, cause, or induce the carrying, entering,
importing, mailing, shipping, or transporting;
(C) to offer to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or
transport;
(D) to receive to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or
transport;
(E) to release into the environment; or
(F) to allow any of the activities described in a preceding
subparagraph.
(10) Noxious weed.--The term ``noxious weed'' means any
plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure
or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant
products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of
agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of
the United States, the public health, or the environment.
(11) Permit.--The term ``permit'' means a written or oral
authorization, including by electronic methods, by the
Secretary to move plants, plant products, biological control
organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, or articles under
conditions prescribed by the Secretary.
(12) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual,
partnership, corporation, association, joint venture, or
other legal entity.
(13) Plant.--The term ``plant'' means any plant (including
any plant part) for or capable of propagation, including a
tree, a tissue culture, a plantlet culture, pollen, a shrub,
a vine, a cutting, a graft, a scion, a bud, a bulb, a root,
and a seed.
(14) Plant pest.--The term ``plant pest'' means any living
stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly
injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or
plant product:
(A) A protozoan.
(B) A nonhuman animal.
(C) A parasitic plant.
(D) A bacterium.
(E) A fungus.
(F) A virus or viroid.
(G) An infectious agent or other pathogen.
(H) Any article similar to or allied with any of the
articles specified in the preceding subparagraphs.
(15) Plant product.--The term ``plant product'' means--
(A) any flower, fruit, vegetable, root, bulb, seed, or
other plant part that is not included in the definition of
plant; or
(B) any manufactured or processed plant or plant part.
(16) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(17) State.--The term ``State'' means any of the several
States of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United
States, or any other territory or possession of the United
States.
(18) Systems approach.--For the purposes of section 412(e),
the term ``systems approach'' means a defined set of
phytosanitary procedures, at least 2 of which have an
independent effect in mitigating pest risk associated with
the movement of commodities.
(19) This title.--Except when used in this section, the
term ``this title'' includes any regulation or order issued
by the Secretary under the authority of this title.
(20) United states.--The term ``United States'' means all
of the States.
Subtitle A--Plant Protection

SEC. 411. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS.

(a) Prohibition of Unauthorized Movement of Plant Pests.--
Except as provided in subsection (c), no person shall import,
enter, export, or move in interstate commerce any plant pest,
unless the importation, entry, exportation, or movement is
authorized under general or specific permit and is in
accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may issue
to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United
States or the dissemination of plant pests within the United
States.
(b) Requirements for Processes.--The Secretary shall ensure
that the processes used in developing regulations under
subsection (a) governing consideration of import requests are
based on sound science and are transparent and accessible.
(c) Authorization of Movement of Plant Pests by
Regulation.--
(1) Exception to permit requirement.--The Secretary may
issue regulations to allow the importation, entry,
exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of specified
plant pests without further restriction if the Secretary
finds that a permit under subsection (a) is not necessary.
(2) Petition to add or remove plant pests from
regulation.--Any person may petition the Secretary to add a
plant pest to, or remove a plant pest from, the regulations
issued by the Secretary under paragraph (1).
(3) Response to petition by the secretary.--In the case of
a petition submitted under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall
act on the petition within a reasonable time and notify the
petitioner of the final action the Secretary takes on the
petition. The Secretary's determination on the petition shall
be based on sound science.
(d) Prohibition of Unauthorized Mailing of Plant Pests.--
(1) In general.--Any letter, parcel, box, or other package
containing any plant pest, whether sealed as letter-rate
postal matter or not, is nonmailable and shall not knowingly
be conveyed in the mail or delivered from any post office or
by any mail carrier, unless the letter, parcel, box, or other
package is mailed in compliance with such regulations as the
Secretary may issue to prevent the dissemination of plant
pests into the United States or interstate.
(2) Application of postal laws and regulations.--Nothing in
this subsection authorizes any person to open any mailed
letter or other mailed sealed matter except in accordance
with the postal laws and regulations.
(e) Regulations.--Regulations issued by the Secretary to
implement subsections (a), (c), and (d) may include
provisions requiring that any plant pest imported, entered,
to be exported, moved in interstate commerce, mailed, or
delivered from any post office--
(1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary
prior to the importation, entry, exportation, movement in
interstate commerce, mailing, or delivery of the plant pest;
(2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued
(in a manner and form required by the Secretary) by
appropriate officials of the country or State from which the
plant pest is to be moved;
(3) be raised under post-entry quarantine conditions by or
under the supervision of the Secretary for the purposes of
determining whether the plant pest--
(A) may be infested with other plant pests;
(B) may pose a significant risk of causing injury to,
damage to, or disease in any plant or plant product; or
(C) may be a noxious weed; and
(4) be subject to remedial measures the Secretary
determines to be necessary to prevent the spread of plant
pests.

SEC. 412. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANTS, PLANT PRODUCTS,
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ORGANISMS, NOXIOUS WEEDS,
ARTICLES, AND MEANS OF CONVEYANCE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may prohibit or restrict the
importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate
commerce of any plant, plant product, biological control
organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance, if
the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction
is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United
States or the dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed
within the United States.
(b) Policy.--The Secretary shall ensure that processes used
in developing regulations under this section governing
consideration of import requests are based on sound science
and are transparent and accessible.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue regulations to
implement subsection (a), including regulations requiring
that any plant, plant product, biological control organism,
noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance imported,
entered, to be exported, or moved in interstate commerce--
(1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary
prior to the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in
interstate commerce;
(2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued
(in a manner and form required by the Secretary) by
appropriate officials of the country or State from which the
plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious
weed, article, or means of conveyance is to be moved;
(3) be subject to remedial measures the Secretary
determines to be necessary to prevent the spread of plant
pests or noxious weeds; and
(4) with respect to plants or biological control organisms,
be grown or handled under post-entry quarantine conditions by
or under the supervision of the Secretary for the purposes of
determining whether the plant or biological control organism
may be infested with plant pests or may be a plant pest or
noxious weed.
(d) Notice.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish for public
comment a notice describing the procedures and standards that
govern the consideration of import requests. The notice
shall--
(1) specify how public input will be sought in advance of
and during the process of promulgating regulations
necessitating a risk assessment in order to ensure a fully
transparent and publicly accessible process; and
(2) include consideration of the following:
(A) Public announcement of import requests that will
necessitate a risk assessment.

[[Page 9193]]

(B) A process for assigning major/nonroutine or minor/
routine status to such requests based on current state of
supporting scientific information.
(C) A process for assigning priority to requests.
(D) Guidelines for seeking relevant scientific and economic
information in advance of initiating informal rulemaking.
(E) Guidelines for ensuring availability and transparency
of assumptions and uncertainties in the risk assessment
process including applicable risk mitigation measures relied
upon individually or as components of a system of mitigative
measures proposed consistent with the purposes of this title.
(e) Study and Report on Systems Approach.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the role
for and application of systems approaches designed to guard
against the introduction of plant pathogens into the United
States associated with proposals to import plants or plant
products into the United States.
(2) Participation by scientists.--In conducting the study
the Secretary shall ensure participation by scientists from
State departments of agriculture, colleges and universities,
the private sector, and the Agricultural Research Service.
(3) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report on
the results of the study conducted under this section to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives.
(f) Noxious Weeds.--
(1) Regulations.--In the case of noxious weeds, the
Secretary may publish, by regulation, a list of noxious weeds
that are prohibited or restricted from entering the United
States or that are subject to restrictions on interstate
movement within the United States.
(2) Petition to add or remove plants from regulation.--Any
person may petition the Secretary to add a plant species to,
or remove a plant species from, the regulations issued by the
Secretary under this subsection.
(3) Duties of the secretary.--In the case of a petition
submitted under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall act on the
petition within a reasonable time and notify the petitioner
of the final action the Secretary takes on the petition. The
Secretary's determination on the petition shall be based on
sound science.
(g) Biological Control Organisms.--
(1) Regulations.--In the case of biological control
organisms, the Secretary may publish, by regulation, a list
of organisms whose movement in interstate commerce is not
prohibited or restricted. Any listing may take into account
distinctions between organisms such as indigenous,
nonindigenous, newly introduced, or commercially raised.
(2) Petition to add or remove biological control organisms
from the regulations.--Any person may petition the Secretary
to add a biological control organism to, or remove a
biological control organism from, the regulations issued by
the Secretary under this subsection.
(3) Duties of the secretary.--In the case of a petition
submitted under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall act on the
petition within a reasonable time and notify the petitioner
of the final action the Secretary takes on the petition. The
Secretary's determination on the petition shall be based on
sound science.

SEC. 413. NOTIFICATION AND HOLDING REQUIREMENTS UPON ARRIVAL.

(a) Duty of Secretary of the Treasury.--
(1) Notification.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
promptly notify the Secretary of Agriculture of the arrival
of any plant, plant product, biological control organism,
plant pest, or noxious weed at a port of entry.
(2) Holding.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall hold a
plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, or noxious weed for which notification is made under
paragraph (1) at the port of entry until the plant, plant
product, biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious
weed--
(A) is inspected and authorized for entry into or transit
movement through the United States; or
(B) is otherwise released by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(3) Exceptions.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to
any plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, or noxious weed that is imported from a country or
region of a country designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture, pursuant to regulations, as exempt from the
requirements of such paragraphs.
(b) Duty of Responsible Parties.--
(1) Notification.--The person responsible for any plant,
plant product, biological control organism, plant pest,
noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance required to
have a permit under section 411 or 412 shall provide the
notification described in paragraph (3) as soon as possible
after the arrival of the plant, plant product, biological
control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means
of conveyance at a port of entry and before the plant, plant
product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious
weed, article, or means of conveyance is moved from the port
of entry.
(2) Submission.--The notification shall be provided to the
Secretary, or, at the Secretary's direction, to the proper
official of the State to which the plant, plant product,
biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed,
article, or means of conveyance is destined, or both, as the
Secretary may prescribe.
(3) Elements of notification.--The notification shall
consist of the following:
(A) The name and address of the consignee.
(B) The nature and quantity of the plant, plant product,
biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed,
article, or means of conveyance proposed to be moved.
(C) The country and locality where the plant, plant
product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious
weed, article, or means of conveyance was grown, produced, or
located.
(c) Prohibition on Movement of Items Without
Authorization.--No person shall move from a port of entry or
interstate any imported plant, plant product, biological
control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means
of conveyance unless the imported plant, plant product,
biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed,
article, or means of conveyance--
(1) is inspected and authorized for entry into or transit
movement through the United States; or
(2) is otherwise released by the Secretary.

SEC. 414. GENERAL REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR NEW PLANT PESTS AND
NOXIOUS WEEDS.

(a) Authority To Hold, Treat, or Destroy Items.--If the
Secretary considers it necessary in order to prevent the
dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed that is new to
or not known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and
throughout the United States, the Secretary may hold, seize,
quarantine, treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy,
or otherwise dispose of any plant, plant pest, noxious weed,
biological control organism, plant product, article, or means
of conveyance that--
(1) is moving into or through the United States or
interstate, or has moved into or through the United States or
interstate, and--
(A) the Secretary has reason to believe is a plant pest or
noxious weed or is infested with a plant pest or noxious weed
at the time of the movement; or
(B) is or has been otherwise in violation of this title;
(2) has not been maintained in compliance with a post-entry
quarantine requirement; or
(3) is the progeny of any plant, biological control
organism, plant product, plant pest, or noxious weed that is
moving into or through the United States or interstate, or
has moved into the United States or interstate, in violation
of this title.
(b) Authority To Order an Owner To Treat or Destroy.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may order the owner of any
plant, biological control organism, plant product, plant
pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance subject
to action under subsection (a), or the owner's agent, to
treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or
otherwise dispose of the plant, biological control organism,
plant product, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of
conveyance, without cost to the Federal Government and in the
manner the Secretary considers appropriate.
(2) Failure to comply.--If the owner or agent of the owner
fails to comply with the Secretary's order under this
subsection, the Secretary may take an action authorized by
subsection (a) and recover from the owner or agent of the
owner the costs of any care, handling, application of
remedial measures, or disposal incurred by the Secretary in
connection with actions taken under subsection (a).
(c) Classification System.--
(1) Development required.--To facilitate control of noxious
weeds, the Secretary may develop a classification system to
describe the status and action levels for noxious weeds. The
classification system may include the current geographic
distribution, relative threat, and actions initiated to
prevent introduction or distribution.
(2) Management plans.--In conjunction with the
classification system, the Secretary may develop integrated
management plans for noxious weeds for the geographic region
or ecological range where the noxious weed is found in the
United States.
(d) Application of Least Drastic Action.--No plant,
biological control organism, plant product, plant pest,
noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance shall be
destroyed, exported, or returned to the shipping point of
origin, or ordered to be destroyed, exported, or returned to
the shipping point of origin under this section unless, in
the opinion of the Secretary, there is no less drastic action
that is feasible and that would be adequate to prevent the
dissemination of any plant pest or noxious weed new to or not
known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and
throughout the United States.

SEC. 415. DECLARATION OF EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY AND
RESULTING AUTHORITIES.

(a) Authority To Declare.--If the Secretary determines that
an extraordinary emergency exists because of the presence of
a plant pest or noxious weed that is new to or not known to
be widely prevalent in or distributed within and throughout
the United States and that the presence of the plant pest or
noxious weed threatens plants or plant products of the United
States, the Secretary may--
(1) hold, seize, quarantine, treat, apply other remedial
measures to, destroy, or otherwise dispose of, any plant,
biological control organism, plant product, article, or means
of conveyance that the Secretary has reason to believe is
infested with the plant pest or noxious weed;
(2) quarantine, treat, or apply other remedial measures to
any premises, including any plants, biological control
organisms, plant products, articles, or means of conveyance
on the premises,

[[Page 9194]]

that the Secretary has reason to believe is infested with the
plant pest or noxious weed;
(3) quarantine any State or portion of a State in which the
Secretary finds the plant pest or noxious weed or any plant,
biological control organism, plant product, article, or means
of conveyance that the Secretary has reason to believe is
infested with the plant pest or noxious weed; and
(4) prohibit or restrict the movement within a State of any
plant, biological control organism, plant product, article,
or means of conveyance when the Secretary determines that the
prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the
dissemination of the plant pest or noxious weed or to
eradicate the plant pest or noxious weed.
(b) Required Finding of Emergency.--The Secretary may take
action under this section only upon finding, after review and
consultation with the Governor or other appropriate official
of the State affected, that the measures being taken by the
State are inadequate to eradicate the plant pest or noxious
weed.
(c) Notification Procedures.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
before any action is taken in any State under this section,
the Secretary shall notify the Governor or other appropriate
official of the State affected, issue a public announcement,
and file for publication in the Federal Register a statement
of--
(A) the Secretary's findings;
(B) the action the Secretary intends to take;
(C) the reasons for the intended action; and
(D) where practicable, an estimate of the anticipated
duration of the extraordinary emergency.
(2) Time sensitive actions.--If it is not possible to file
for publication in the Federal Register prior to taking
action, the filing shall be made within a reasonable time,
not to exceed 10 business days, after commencement of the
action.
(d) Application of Least Drastic Action.--No plant,
biological control organism, plant product, plant pest,
noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance shall be
destroyed, exported, or returned to the shipping point of
origin, or ordered to be destroyed, exported, or returned to
the shipping point of origin under this section unless, in
the opinion of the Secretary, there is no less drastic action
that is feasible and that would be adequate to prevent the
dissemination of any plant pest or noxious weed new to or not
known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and
throughout the United States.
(e) Payment of Compensation.--The Secretary may pay
compensation to any person for economic losses incurred by
the person as a result of action taken by the Secretary under
this section. The determination by the Secretary of the
amount of any compensation to be paid under this subsection
shall be final and shall not be subject to judicial review.

SEC. 416. RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION FOR UNAUTHORIZED
ACTIVITIES.

(a) Recovery Action.--The owner of any plant, plant
biological control organism, plant product, plant pest,
noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance destroyed or
otherwise disposed of by the Secretary under section 414 or
415 may bring an action against the United States to recover
just compensation for the destruction or disposal of the
plant, plant biological control organism, plant product,
plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance
(not including compensation for loss due to delays incident
to determining eligibility for importation, entry,
exportation, movement in interstate commerce, or release into
the environment), but only if the owner establishes that the
destruction or disposal was not authorized under this title.
(b) Time for Action; Location.--An action under this
section shall be brought not later than 1 year after the
destruction or disposal of the plant, plant biological
control organism, plant product, plant pest, noxious weed,
article, or means of conveyance involved. The action may be
brought in any United States district court where the owner
is found, resides, transacts business, is licensed to do
business, or is incorporated.

SEC. 417. CONTROL OF GRASSHOPPERS AND MORMON CRICKETS.

(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of funds
pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall carry out a
program to control grasshoppers and Mormon crickets on all
Federal lands to protect rangeland.
(b) Transfer Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), upon the request
of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the
Interior shall transfer to the Secretary of Agriculture, from
any no-year appropriations, funds for the prevention,
suppression, and control of actual or potential grasshopper
and Mormon cricket outbreaks on Federal lands under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. The
transferred funds shall be available only for the payment of
obligations incurred on such Federal lands.
(2) Transfer requests.--Requests for the transfer of funds
pursuant to this subsection shall be made as promptly as
possible by the Secretary.
(3) Limitation.--Funds transferred pursuant to this
subsection may not be used by the Secretary until funds
specifically appropriated to the Secretary for grasshopper
control have been exhausted.
(4) Replenishment of transferred funds.--Funds transferred
pursuant to this subsection shall be replenished by
supplemental or regular appropriations, which shall be
requested as promptly as possible.
(c) Treatment for Grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets--
(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of funds
pursuant to this section, on request of the administering
agency or the agriculture department of an affected State,
the Secretary, to protect rangeland, shall immediately treat
Federal, State, or private lands that are infested with
grasshoppers or Mormon crickets at levels of economic
infestation, unless the Secretary determines that delaying
treatment will not cause greater economic damage to adjacent
owners of rangeland.
(2) Other programs.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall work in conjunction with other Federal,
State, and private prevention, control, or suppression
efforts to protect rangeland.
(d) Federal Cost Share of Treatment.--
(1) Control on federal lands.--Out of funds made available
or transferred under this section, the Secretary shall pay
100 percent of the cost of grasshopper or Mormon cricket
control on Federal lands to protect rangeland.
(2) Control on state lands.--Out of funds made available
under this section, the Secretary shall pay 50 percent of the
cost of grasshopper or Mormon cricket control on State lands.
(3) Control on private lands.--Out of funds made available
under this section, the Secretary shall pay 33.3 percent of
the cost of grasshopper or Mormon cricket control on private
lands.
(e) Training.--From appropriated funds made available or
transferred by the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary
of Agriculture for such purposes, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall provide adequate funding for a program to
train personnel to accomplish effectively the objective of
this section.

SEC. 418. CERTIFICATION FOR EXPORTS.

The Secretary may certify as to the freedom of plants,
plant products, or biological control organisms from plant
pests or noxious weeds, or the exposure of plants, plant
products, or biological control organisms to plant pests or
noxious weeds, according to the phytosanitary or other
requirements of the countries to which the plants, plant
products, or biological control organisms may be exported.
Subtitle B--Inspection and Enforcement

SEC. 421. INSPECTIONS, SEIZURES, AND WARRANTS.

(a) Role of Attorney General.--The activities authorized by
this section shall be carried out consistent with guidelines
approved by the Attorney General.
(b) Warrantless Inspections.--The Secretary may stop and
inspect, without a warrant, any person or means of conveyance
moving--
(1) into the United States to determine whether the person
or means of conveyance is carrying any plant, plant product,
biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or
article subject to this title;
(2) in interstate commerce, upon probable cause to believe
that the person or means of conveyance is carrying any plant,
plant product, biological control organism, plant pest,
noxious weed, or article subject to this title; and
(3) in intrastate commerce from or within any State,
portion of a State, or premises quarantined as part of a
extraordinary emergency declared under section 415 upon
probable cause to believe that the person or means of
conveyance is carrying any plant, plant product, biological
control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or article
regulated under that section or is moving subject to that
section.
(c) Inspections With a Warrant.--
(1) General authority.--The Secretary may enter, with a
warrant, any premises in the United States for the purpose of
conducting investigations or making inspections and seizures
under this title.
(2) Application and issuance of a warrant.--Upon proper
oath or affirmation showing probable cause to believe that
there is on certain premises any plant, plant product,
biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed,
article, facility, or means of conveyance regulated under
this title, a United States judge, a judge of a court of
record in the United States, or a United States magistrate
judge may, within the judge's or magistrate's jurisdiction,
issue a warrant for the entry upon the premises to conduct
any investigation or make any inspection or seizure under
this title. The warrant may be applied for and executed by
the Secretary or any United States Marshal.

SEC. 422. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.

The Secretary may gather and compile information and
conduct any investigations the Secretary considers necessary
for the administration and enforcement of this title.

SEC. 423. SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.

(a) Authority To Issue.--The Secretary shall have power to
subpoena the attendance and testimony of any witness, and the
production of all documentary evidence relating to the
administration or enforcement of this title or any matter
under investigation in connection with this title.
(b) Location of Production.--The attendance of any witness
and production of documentary evidence may be required from
any place in the United States at any designated place of
hearing.
(c) Enforcement of Subpoena.--In the case of disobedience
to a subpoena by any person, the Secretary may request the
Attorney General to invoke the aid of any court of the United
States within the jurisdiction in which the investigation is
conducted, or where the person resides, is found, transacts
business, is licensed to do business, or is incorporated, in
requiring the attendance and testimony of any witness and

[[Page 9195]]

the production of documentary evidence. In case of a refusal
to obey a subpoena issued to any person, a court may order
the person to appear before the Secretary and give evidence
concerning the matter in question or to produce documentary
evidence. Any failure to obey the court's order may be
punished by the court as a contempt of the court.
(d) Compensation.--Witnesses summoned by the Secretary
shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid to
witnesses in courts of the United States, and witnesses whose
depositions are taken and the persons taking the depositions
shall be entitled to the same fees that are paid for similar
services in the courts of the United States.
(e) Procedures.--The Secretary shall publish procedures for
the issuance of subpoenas under this section. Such procedures
shall include a requirement that subpoenas be reviewed for
legal sufficiency and signed by the Secretary. If the
authority to sign a subpoena is delegated, the agency
receiving the delegation shall seek review for legal
sufficiency outside that agency.
(f) Scope of Subpoena.--Subpoenas for witnesses to attend
court in any judicial district or to testify or produce
evidence at an administrative hearing in any judicial
district in any action or proceeding arising under this title
may run to any other judicial district.

SEC. 424. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.

(a) Criminal Penalties.--Any person that knowingly violates
this title, or that knowingly forges, counterfeits, or,
without authority from the Secretary, uses, alters, defaces,
or destroys any certificate, permit, or other document
provided for in this title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,
and, upon conviction, shall be fined in accordance with title
18, United States Code, imprisoned for a period not exceeding
1 year, or both.
(b) Civil Penalties.--
(1) In general.--Any person that violates this title, or
that forges, counterfeits, or, without authority from the
Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or destroys any
certificate, permit, or other document provided for in this
title may, after notice and opportunity for a hearing on the
record, be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary that
does not exceed the greater of--
(A) $50,000 in the case of any individual (except that the
civil penalty may not exceed $1,000 in the case of an initial
violation of this title by an individual moving regulated
articles not for monetary gain), $250,000 in the case of any
other person for each violation, and $500,000 for all
violations adjudicated in a single proceeding; or
(B) twice the gross gain or gross loss for any violation,
forgery, counterfeiting, unauthorized use, defacing, or
destruction of a certificate, permit, or other document
provided for in this title that results in the person
deriving pecuniary gain or causing pecuniary loss to another.
(2) Factors in determining civil penalty.--In determining
the amount of a civil penalty, the Secretary shall take into
account the nature, circumstance, extent, and gravity of the
violation or violations and the Secretary may consider, with
respect to the violator--
(A) ability to pay;
(B) effect on ability to continue to do business;
(C) any history of prior violations;
(D) the degree of culpability; and
(E) any other factors the Secretary considers appropriate.
(3) Settlement of civil penalties.--The Secretary may
compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any
civil penalty that may be assessed under this subsection.
(4) Finality of orders.--The order of the Secretary
assessing a civil penalty shall be treated as a final order
reviewable under chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code.
The validity of the Secretary's order may not be reviewed in
an action to collect the civil penalty. Any civil penalty not
paid in full when due under an order assessing the civil
penalty shall thereafter accrue interest until paid at the
rate of interest applicable to civil judgments of the courts
of the United States.
(c) Liability for Acts of an Agent.--When construing and
enforcing this title, the act, omission, or failure of any
officer, agent, or person acting for or employed by any other
person within the scope of his or her employment or office,
shall be deemed also to be the act, omission, or failure of
the other person.
(d) Guidelines for Civil Penalties.--The Secretary shall
coordinate with the Attorney General to establish guidelines
to determine under what circumstances the Secretary may issue
a civil penalty or suitable notice of warning in lieu of
prosecution by the Attorney General of a violation of this
title.

SEC. 425. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

The Attorney General may--
(1) prosecute, in the name of the United States, all
criminal violations of this title that are referred to the
Attorney General by the Secretary or are brought to the
notice of the Attorney General by any person;
(2) bring an action to enjoin the violation of or to compel
compliance with this title, or to enjoin any interference by
any person with the Secretary in carrying out this title,
whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that the person
has violated, or is about to violate this title, or has
interfered, or is about to interfere, with the Secretary; and
(3) bring an action for the recovery of any unpaid civil
penalty, funds under reimbursable agreements, late payment
penalty, or interest assessed under this title.

SEC. 426. COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) In General.--The United States district courts, the
District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin
Islands, the highest court of American Samoa, and the United
States courts of other territories and possessions are vested
with jurisdiction in all cases arising under this title. Any
action arising under this title may be brought, and process
may be served, in the judicial district where a violation or
interference occurred or is about to occur, or where the
person charged with the violation, interference, impending
violation, impending interference, or failure to pay resides,
is found, transacts business, is licensed to do business, or
is incorporated.
(b) Exception.--This section does not apply to the
imposition of civil penalties under section 424(b).
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

SEC. 431. COOPERATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may cooperate with other
Federal agencies or entities, States or political
subdivisions of States, national governments, local
governments of other nations, domestic or international
organizations, domestic or international associations, and
other persons to carry out this title.
(b) Responsibility.--The individual or entity cooperating
with the Secretary under subsection (a) shall be responsible
for--
(1) the authority necessary to conduct the operations or
take measures on all land and properties within the foreign
country or State, other than those owned or controlled by the
United States; and
(2) other facilities and means as the Secretary determines
necessary.
(c) Transfer of Biological Control Methods.--The Secretary
may transfer to a State, Federal agency, or other person
biological control methods using biological control organisms
against plant pests or noxious weeds.
(d) Cooperation in Program Administration.--The Secretary
may cooperate with State authorities or other persons in the
administration of programs for the improvement of plants,
plant products, and biological control organisms.
(e) Phytosanitary Issues.--The Secretary shall ensure that
phytosanitary issues involving imports and exports are
addressed based on sound science and consistent with
applicable international agreements. To accomplish these
goals, the Secretary may--
(1) conduct direct negotiations with plant health officials
or other appropriate officials of other countries;
(2) provide technical assistance, training, and guidance to
any country requesting such assistance in the development of
agricultural health protection systems and import/export
systems; and
(3) maintain plant health and quarantine expertise in other
countries--
(A) to facilitate the establishment of phytosanitary
systems and the resolution of phytosanitary issues;
(B) to assist those countries with agricultural health
protection activities; and
(C) to provide general liaison on agricultural health
issues with the plant health or other appropriate officials
of the country.

SEC. 432. BUILDINGS, LAND, PEOPLE, CLAIMS, AND AGREEMENTS.

(a) In General.--To the extent necessary to carry out this
title, the Secretary may acquire and maintain all real or
personal property for special purposes and employ any
persons, make grants, and enter into any contracts,
cooperative agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other
agreements.
(b) Tort Claims.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary may pay tort claims in the manner authorized in the
first paragraph of section 2672 of title 28, United States
Code, when the claims arise outside the United States in
connection with activities that are authorized under this
title.
(2) Requirements of claim.--A claim may not be allowed
under this subsection unless the claim is presented in
writing to the Secretary within 2 years after the date on
which the claim accrues.

SEC. 433. REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS.

(a) Authority To Enter Into Agreements.--The Secretary may
enter into reimbursable fee agreements with persons for
preclearance of plants, plant products, biological control
organisms, and articles at locations outside the United
States for movement into the United States.
(b) Funds Collected for Preclearance.--Funds collected for
preclearance shall be credited to accounts which may be
established by the Secretary for this purpose and shall
remain available until expended for the preclearance
activities without fiscal year limitation.
(c) Payment of Employees.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other law, the
Secretary may pay employees of the Department of Agriculture
performing services relating to imports into and exports from
the United States, for all overtime, night, or holiday work
performed by them, at rates of pay established by the
Secretary.
(2) Reimbursement of the secretary.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may require persons for whom
the services are performed to reimburse the Secretary for any
sums of money paid by the Secretary for the services.
(B) Use of funds.--All funds collected under this paragraph
shall be credited to the account that incurs the costs and
shall remain available until expended without fiscal year
limitation.

[[Page 9196]]

(d) Late Payment Penalties.--
(1) Collection.--Upon failure to reimburse the Secretary in
accordance with this section, the Secretary may assess a late
payment penalty, and the overdue funds shall accrue interest,
as required by section 3717 of title 31, United States Code.
(2) Use of funds.--Any late payment penalty and any accrued
interest shall be credited to the account that incurs the
costs and shall remain available until expended without
fiscal year limitation.

SEC. 434. REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.

The Secretary may issue such regulations and orders as the
Secretary considers necessary to carry out this title.

SEC. 435. PROTECTION FOR MAIL HANDLERS.

This title shall not apply to any employee of the United
States in the performance of the duties of the employee in
handling the mail.

SEC. 436. PREEMPTION.

(a) Regulation of Foreign Commerce.--No State or political
subdivision of a State may regulate in foreign commerce any
article, means of conveyance, plant, biological control
organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or plant product in
order--
(1) to control a plant pest or noxious weed;
(2) to eradicate a plant pest or noxious weed; or
(3) prevent the introduction or dissemination of a
biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed.
(b) Regulation of Interstate Commerce.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
State or political subdivision of a State may regulate the
movement in interstate commerce of any article, means of
conveyance, plant, biological control organism, plant pest,
noxious weed, or plant product in order to control a plant
pest or noxious weed, eradicate a plant pest or noxious weed,
or prevent the introduction or dissemination of a biological
control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed, if the
Secretary has issued a regulation or order to prevent the
dissemination of the biological control organism, plant pest,
or noxious weed within the United States.
(2) Exceptions.--
(A) Regulations consistent with federal regulations.--A
State or a political subdivision of a State may impose
prohibitions or restrictions upon the movement in interstate
commerce of articles, means of conveyance, plants, biological
control organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, or plant
products that are consistent with and do not exceed the
regulations or orders issued by the Secretary.
(B) Special need.--A State or political subdivision of a
State may impose prohibitions or restrictions upon the
movement in interstate commerce of articles, means of
conveyance, plants, plant products, biological control
organisms, plant pests, or noxious weeds that are in addition
to the prohibitions or restrictions imposed by the Secretary,
if the State or political subdivision of a State demonstrates
to the Secretary and the Secretary finds that there is a
special need for additional prohibitions or restrictions
based on sound scientific data or a thorough risk assessment.

SEC. 437. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this title or application of any
provision of this title to any person or circumstances is
held invalid, the remainder of this title and the application
of the provision to other persons and circumstances shall not
be affected by the invalidity.

SEC. 438. REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED LAWS.

(a) Repeal.--The following provisions of law are repealed:
(1) The Act of August 20, 1912 (commonly known as the
``Plant Quarantine Act'')(7 U.S.C. 151-164a, 167).
(2) The Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa et seq., 7
U.S.C. 147a note).
(3) Subsections (a) through (e) of section 102 of the
Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C.
147a).
(4) The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2801 et
seq.), except the first section and section 15 of that Act (7
U.S.C. 2801 note; 7 U.S.C. 2814).
(5) The Act of January 31, 1942 (commonly known as the
``Mexican Border Act'')(7 U.S.C. 149).
(6) The Joint Resolution of April 6, 1937 (commonly known
as the ``Insect Control Act'')(7 U.S.C. 148 et seq.).
(7) The Halogeton Glomeratus Act (7 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.).
(8) The Golden Nematode Act (7 U.S.C. 150 et seq.).
(9) Section 1773 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public
Law 99-198; 7 U.S.C. 148f).
(b) Emergency Transfer Authority Regarding Plant Pests.--
The first section of Public Law 97-46 (7 U.S.C. 147b) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``plant pests or''; and
(2) by striking ``section 102 of the Act of September 21,
1944, as amended (7 U.S.C. 147a), and''.
(c) Effect on Regulations.--Regulations issued under the
authority of a provision of law repealed by subsection (a)
shall remain in effect until such time as the Secretary
issues a regulation under section 434 that supersedes the
earlier regulation.
Subtitle D--Authorization of Appropriations

SEC. 441. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such amounts as may
be necessary to carry out this title. Except as specifically
authorized by law, no part of the money appropriated under
this section shall be used to pay indemnities for property
injured or destroyed by or at the direction of the Secretary.

SEC. 442. TRANSFER AUTHORITY.

(a) Authority To Transfer Certain Funds.--In connection
with an emergency in which a plant pest or noxious weed
threatens any segment of the agricultural production of the
United States, the Secretary may transfer from other
appropriations or funds available to the agencies or
corporations of the Department of Agriculture such amounts as
the Secretary considers necessary to be available in the
emergency for the arrest, control, eradication, and
prevention of the spread of the plant pest or noxious weed
and for related expenses.
(b) Availability.--Any funds transferred under this section
shall remain available for such purposes without fiscal year
limitation.
TITLE V--INSPECTION ANIMALS

SEC. 501. CIVIL PENALTY.

(a) In General.--Any person that causes harm to, or
interferes with, an animal used for the purposes of official
inspections by the Department of Agriculture, may, after
notice and opportunity for a hearing on the record, be
assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of Agriculture not
to exceed $10,000.
(b) Factors in Determining Civil Penalty.--In determining
the amount of a civil penalty, the Secretary shall take into
account the nature, circumstance, extent, and gravity of the
offense.
(c) Settlement of Civil Penalties.--The Secretary may
compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any
civil penalty that may be assessed under this section.
(d) Finality of Orders.--
(1) In general.--The order of the Secretary assessing a
civil penalty shall be treated as a final order reviewable
under chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code. The
validity of the order of the Secretary may not be reviewed in
an action to collect the civil penalty.
(2) Interest.--Any civil penalty not paid in full when due
under an order assessing the civil penalty shall thereafter
accrue interest until paid at the rate of interest applicable
to civil judgments of the courts of the United States.

SEC. 502. SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall have power to subpoena
the attendance and testimony of any witness, and the
production of all documentary evidence relating to the
enforcement of section 501 or any matter under investigation
in connection with this title.
(b) Location of Production.--The attendance of any witness
and the production of documentary evidence may be required
from any place in the United States at any designated place
of hearing.
(c) Enforcement of Subpoena.--In the case of disobedience
to a subpoena by any person, the Secretary may request the
Attorney General to invoke the aid of any court of the United
States within the jurisdiction in which the investigation is
conducted, or where the person resides, is found, transacts
business, is licensed to do business, or is incorporated, in
requiring the attendance and testimony of any witness and the
production of documentary evidence. In case of a refusal to
obey a subpoena issued to any person, a court may order the
person to appear before the Secretary and give evidence
concerning the matter in question or to produce documentary
evidence. Any failure to obey the court's order may be
punished by the court as a contempt of the court.
(d) Compensation.--Witnesses summoned by the Secretary
shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid to
witnesses in courts of the United States, and witnesses whose
depositions are taken, and the persons taking the depositions
shall be entitled to the same fees that are paid for similar
services in the courts of the United States.
(e) Procedures.--The Secretary shall publish procedures for
the issuance of subpoenas under this section. Such procedures
shall include a requirement that subpoenas be reviewed for
legal sufficiency and signed by the Secretary. If the
authority to sign a subpoena is delegated, the agency
receiving the delegation shall seek review for legal
sufficiency outside that agency.
(f) Scope of Subpoena.--Subpoenas for witnesses to attend
court in any judicial district or testify or produce evidence
at an administrative hearing in any judicial district in any
action or proceeding arising under section 501 may run to any
other judicial district.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Larry Combest,
Bill Barrett,
John Boehner,
Thomas W. Ewing,
Richard Pombo,
Charlie Stenholm,
Gary Condit,
Collin C. Peterson,
Cal Dooley,
Managers on the Part of the House.

Richard G. Lugar,
Jesse Helms,
Thad Cochran,
Paul Coverdell,
Pat Roberts,
Tom Harkin,
Patrick Leahy,
Kent Conrad,
Bob Kerrey,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

The Managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.

[[Page 9197]]

2559), to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen
the safety net for agricultural producers by providing
greater access to more affordable risk management tools and
improved protection from production and income loss, to
improve the efficiency and integrity of the Federal crop
insurance program, and for other purposes, submit the
following joint statement to the House and the Senate in
explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the
managers and recommended in the accompanying conference
report:
The Senate amendment struck out all of the House bill after
the enacting clause and inserted a substitute text.
The House recedes from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate with an amendment which is a substitute for the
House bill and the Senate amendment. The differences between
the House bill, the Senate amendment, and the substitute
agreed to in conference are noted below, except for clerical
corrections, conforming changes made necessary by agreements
reached by the conferees, and minor drafting and clarifying
changes.\1\ In the case where a provision of the House bill
or the Senate amendment is adopted under the Conference
substitute, report language appurtenant to such provision of
the House bill or Senate amendment, respectively, stands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In general, the Statement of Managers is arranged in
order by title of the conference substitute, and by the House
bill within the title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short title
The House bill provides that this Act may be cited as the
``Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 1999.'' (Section 1)
The Senate amendment provides that this Act may be cited as
the ``Risk Management for the 21st Century Act.'' (Section 1)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision
providing that the Act be cited as the ``Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000.'' (Section 1)

TITLE I--CROP INSURANCE COVERAGE

Subtitle A--Crop Insurance Coverage

Premium schedule for additional coverage
The House bill amends section 508(d)(2) by striking
subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserts a new subparagraph (B).
Paragraph (B) requires that the premium for insurance
coverage equal to or greater than 50/100 (or an equivalent
coverage) be sufficient to cover anticipated losses and a
reasonable reserve and include operating and administrative
expenses, as determined by FCIC based on an industry-wide
percentage of the amount of premium used to define loss
ratio.
Amends section 508(e)(2) by striking paragraphs (B) and (C)
that provide the amount of premium to be paid by FCIC for
coverage of less than 65/100 but greater than 50/100, and for
coverage greater than 65/100, respectively.
Adds new paragraphs (B) through (G) that provide for the
new amount to be paid by FCIC for coverage levels ranging
from 50 percent coverage to 85 percent coverage.
Provides that the amount to be paid by FCIC for each
coverage level (or equivalent coverage) is the sum of the
percent of premium provided below (plus an amount of
administrative and operating expenses determined under
another section).

50-54% coverage = 67%
55-59% coverage = 64%
60-64% coverage = 64%
65-69% coverage = 59%
70-74% coverage = 59%
75-79% coverage = 54%
80-84% coverage = 40.6%
85% coverage = 30.6%

(Producers may choose any price election up to 100 percent of
the price election, and coverage in 1 percent increments is
authorized as under current law.)
Provides that each policy or plan of insurance contain a
disclosure of the portion of premium paid by FCIC.
The House bill amends section 508(d) by adding a new
paragraph (3) to authorize FCIC to provide performance-based
discounts to producers with good production or insurance
experience.
Authorizes a 20 percent premium discount for the 2000 crop
year for certain producers of specific crops that received a
discounted price due to Scab or Vomitoxin damage.
The House bill amends section 508(c)(5) to provide that in
the case of a cost of production or similar plan of
insurance, the expected market price (price election) is the
projected cost of producing the crop. (Section 101, 106 and
107)
The Senate amendment amends section 508(d)(2) by striking
subparagraph (C) and inserting a new (C) and (D) establishing
premium amounts.
Paragraph (C) requires that the premium for insurance
coverage equal to or greater than 65/100 but less than 75/100
(or a comparable coverage for a plan of insurance not based
on yield) be sufficient to cover anticipated losses and a
reasonable reserve and include operating and administrative
expenses, as determined by FCIC based on an industry-wide
percentage of the amount of premium used to define loss
ratio.
Paragraph (D) requires that the premium for insurance
coverage equal to 75/100, 80/100, and 85/100 (or a comparable
coverage for a plan of insurance not based on yield) is
established at a level as indicated under paragraph (C).
Amends section 508(e) by striking paragraph (1) providing
that FCIC pay a portion of premium and inserts a new
paragraph relative to the same.
Provides under paragraph (1)(A) that FCIC pay a portion of
the premium as established in section 508(e)(2).
Amends section 508(e)(2) by striking paragraphs (B) and (C)
that provide for the amount of premium to be paid by FCIC for
coverage of less than 65/100 but greater than 50/100, and for
coverage greater than 65/100, respectively.
Adds new paragraphs (B) through (G) that provide for the
new amount to be paid by FCIC for coverage levels ranging
from 50/100 to 85/100.
Provides that the amount to be paid by FCIC for each
coverage level (or comparable coverage for a plan of
insurance not based on yield) is the sum of the percent of
premium provided below (plus an amount of administrative and
operating expenses determined under another section).

50/100% coverage = 60%
55/100% coverage = 45%
60/100% coverage = 45%
65/100% coverage = 50%
70/100% coverage = 50%
75/100% coverage = 55%
80/100% coverage = 38%
85/100% coverage = 28%

(Producers must choose 100 percent price election to receive
correlating percentage of assistance, and availability of
coverage is limited to 5 percent increments).
Provides under new paragraph (H) that paragraphs (A)
through (G) are applicable for the 2001 through 2004 fiscal
years.
Amends section 508(a) by striking paragraph (3) relative to
exclusions for coverage and inserting a new paragraph (3)
relative to the same.
Provides conforming amendments amending section 508(e) by
striking paragraph (4) requiring individual and area crop
insurance coverage and by striking reference to such
authority under section 508(g)(2)(D).
The Senate amendment amends section 508(c) by striking
paragraph (5) relative to price levels and inserts a new
paragraph relative to price elections.
Requires FCIC to establish or approve a price level, or
expected market price, for each commodity insured.
Provides that the expected market price (1) not be less
than the projected market price of the crop; (2) may be based
on the actual market price of the crop at the time of
harvest; (3) in the case of revenue or similar policies be
the actual market price of the crop; or (4) in the case of
cost of production or similar policies be the cost of
producing the crop. (Section 103)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
relative to the expected market price with minor changes to
clarify intent. The Conference substitute adopts the House
provisions relative to premium amounts, performance-based
discounts, payment schedule, and premium payment disclosure
with certain changes. Language with respect to premium
amounts and payment schedule has been modified to clarify
intent. The provision providing discounts for producers of
crops damaged by scab is omitted. Premium assistance at the
75, 80, and 85 percent coverage levels are increased to 55
percent, 48 percent, and 38 percent, respectively, of the
amount of premium used to define loss ratio. Current
statutory authority to offer coverage in one percent
increments is temporarily suspended. (Section 101)
Premium schedule for other plans of insurance
The House bill amends section 508(h)(2) by striking the
second sentence limiting the portion of premium FCIC may pay
for innovative policies and by creating paragraphs (A) and
(B).
Subparagraph (B) requires that in the case of a policy
submitted under section 508(h) (except paragraph (10) or
subsection (m)(4)), FCIC shall pay a portion of the premium
equal to the percentage, prescribed under section 508(e) for
a similar level of coverage, of the total amount of the
premium used to define loss ratio, and the dollar amount of
the administrative and operating expenses that would be paid
by FCIC under section 508(e) for a similar level of coverage.
(Section 102)
The Senate amendment amends section 508(e) by striking
paragraph (1) relative to requiring FCIC to pay a portion of
premiums and inserts a new paragraph (1) related to the same.
Provides under the new paragraph (1)(B) that FCIC may pay a
portion of the premium as established in 508(e)(2) for
innovative plans of insurance approved by FCIC under section
508(h). (Section 103)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision
relative to premium assistance for all policies or plans of
insurance developed and approved under section 508(h) or 522
or conducted under section 523 (except livestock pilot
programs) with certain changes. The administrative and
operating costs associated with all such policies or plans of
insurance must comply with section 508(k)(4), including any
proportional reductions that may apply. Section 508(k)(4),
including any proportional reductions, applies

[[Page 9198]]

to all such policies or plans of insurance whether developed
and approved on, before, or after the date of enactment of
this Act. However, the effective date of the amendments made
by section 102 are delayed until after the reinsurance year
2001 with respect to policies or plans of insurance developed
and approved subsequent to the date of enactment. During the
reinsurance year 2001, the portion of the premium paid by the
Corporation for such policies or plans of insurance developed
and approved subsequent to the date of enactment may not
exceed the dollar amount authorized under the new payment
schedule for multiple peril crop insurance. Administrative
and operating costs associated with such policies during the
reinsurance year 2001 are adjusted accordingly, subject to
section 508(k)(4), including any proportional reductions that
may apply. (Section 102)
Catastrophic risk protection
The House bill amends section 508(b) by striking paragraph
(3) relative to yield and loss basis and inserts a new
paragraph (3) relative to the same.
Provides that, beginning with the 2000 crop year, FCIC must
offer producers a choice between the current CAT coverage and
an alternative CAT coverage that indemnifies the producer on
an area yield and loss basis, provides a higher combination
of yield and price election, and that FCIC determines is
comparable to ``CAT.''
The House bill amends section 508(b)(5) by adding a new
subparagraph (F) relative to payment of fees on behalf of
producers. Authorizes a cooperative association or nonprofit
trade association to pay ``CAT'' fees on behalf of consenting
producers.
Provides that licensing fees or other payments made by
approved insurance providers to a cooperative association or
nonprofit trade association in connection with the sale of
``CAT'' or ``buy-up'' insurance shall not be construed as a
rebate providing the producer receives prior notice of the
fee.
Provides that nothing in the subparagraph limits the
ability of a producer to choose an agent or an insurance
provider or refuse ``CAT'' coverage purchased pursuant to
this subparagraph. Further requires that ``CAT'' policies
sold under such an arrangement must be through a licensed
agent or approved insurance provider.
Requires that participating cooperative associations,
nonprofit trade associations, and approved insurance
providers that operate under this subparagraph to encourage
producer members to purchase appropriate coverage.
The House bill amends section 508(b)(11) reducing loss
adjustment expense reimbursements relative to CAT policies to
approved insurance providers from 11 percent of imputed
premium to 8 percent of the same.
Amends section 508(k)(4)(A)(ii) by reducing administrative
and operating expense reimbursements to approved insurance
providers from 24.5 percent of premium used to define loss
ratio to 24 percent of the same.
Provides that amendments are applicable with respect to the
2001 and subsequent reinsurance years. (Sections 108, 109 and
310(a)(1))
The Senate amendment requires any person that sells or
solicits the purchase of a policy or adjusts losses under the
FCIA in any state must be licensed and qualified to do
business in that state, and must comply with all state
regulations (including commission and anti-rebating
regulations) as required under state law. (Section 313)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provisions
relative to the provision of alternative catastrophic risk
protection and the reimbursement rate change for loss
adjustments associated with catastrophic risk protection. The
reduction in administration and operating cost reimbursement
is omitted. The Conference substitute further adopts the
House provision relative to the payment of catastrophic risk
protection fees by associations on behalf of member
producers, and the treatment of licensing fees received by
associations in connection with the issuance of insurance
with changes. Rebating in connection with the issuance of
crop insurance coverage is subject to the State laws in which
the rebate is made. If a cooperative association or trade
association is located in a State that permits rebating in
connection with the issuance of crop insurance coverage, the
association may pay catastrophic risk protection (CAT) fees
on behalf of members in that State or in a contiguous State.
A report to Congress on the operation and impact of this
provision is required. Finally, the Conference substitute
increases the fees associated with catastrophic risk
protection from $60 to $100 per crop per county. (Section
103)
Administrative fee for additional coverage
The Conference substitute provides for an administrative
fee of $30 per crop per county to be paid by producers
electing coverage in excess of catastrophic risk protection.
(Section 104)
Assigned yields and actual production history adjustments
The House bill amends section 508(g) by adding paragraph
(4) relative to adjustment in actual production history to
establish insurable yields.
Provides that this paragraph shall apply when FCIC uses the
APH of a producer to establish insurable yields for a crop
for the 2001 and subsequent crop years.
Provides that, if, for one or more of the crop years used
by a producer to establish APH, the producer's yield is less
than 60 percent of the applicable ``T'' yield, the producer
may exclude each of such crop years and replace the excluded
yield with a yield equal to 60 percent of ``T''. This section
applies retroactively to already recorded yields and
prospectively to future yields.
Amends section 508(g) by adding paragraph (5) relative to
APH adjustment to reflect participation in major pest control
efforts.
Requires FCIC to develop a methodology for adjusting the
APH of a producer's crop when the producer's farm is located
in an area where efforts have been undertaken to eradicate or
retard plant pests and disease, where the presence of the
pest or disease has been found to reduce applicable crop
yields, and where the efforts undertaken have been effective.
Requires APH adjustments to reflect the success of the effort
undertaken. (Section 103)
The Senate amendment amends section 508(g)(2)(B) by
requiring FCIC to assign a producer a yield for a crop where
the producer has not had a share of the production of the
crop for more than 2 years; has not before farmed the land;
or rotates to a crop that has not before been produced on the
farm.
The Senate amendment amends section 508(g) by adding
paragraph (4) relative to transitional adjustments for
disasters.
Defines ``a producer that has suffered a multiyear
disaster'' as a producer or successor entity that has
suffered a natural disaster during at least 3 of the
immediately preceding 5 crop years that resulted in a
cumulative reduction of at least 25 percent in APH of a crop.
Provides that, beginning with the 2001 crop year, a
producer of an insured crop that has suffered a multiyear
disaster may exclude 1 year of the crop's production history
for each 5 years included in the crop's APH.
Requires FCIC to pay for any increased premiums,
indemnities, and administrative and operating expenses that
result from the exercise of a producer to exclude 1 year of a
crop's production history.
Prohibits FCIC from limiting any increase in a producer's
APH due to the producer's actual production of the crop in
succeeding years until such time that the producer's APH has
recovered to the level obtained in the year before the first
year of multiyear disaster.
Rescinds FCIC authority allowing eligible producers to
exclude any 1 crop year in the first crop year where a policy
is available to adequately address natural disasters
occurring in multiple crop years.
Makes the paragraph applicable for the 2001 through 2004
reinsurance years. (Sections 104 & 105)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
relative to assigned yields and the House provision relative
to adjustments to actual production history with minor
changes to clarify intent. (Section 105)
Review and adjustment in rating methodologies
The House bill amends section 508(a) by adding a new
paragraph (7) relative to the review and adjustment in rating
methodologies.
Requires FCIC to periodically review the methodologies
employed for rating plans of insurance consistent with
section 507(c)(2) relative to contracting for such services.
Requires FCIC to analyze the rating and loss history of
policies and plans of insurance for crops by area and make
appropriate adjustments for the 2000 crop year or as soon as
possible where premium rates are found to be excessive.
(Section 104)
The Senate amendment requires FCIC to contract for the
study and development of alternative rating methodologies for
rating plans of insurance for ``CAT'' and ``buy-up''
coverage, taking into account producers not electing to
participate in crop insurance and those electing only ``CAT''
coverage.
Requires that, with respect to such rating studies, a
priority be given to crops with the largest average acreage
nationwide but lowest percentage of producer participation at
buy-up coverage levels.
Requires FCIC to provide funding for rating studies from
the account established under section 516(b)(2)(A) of the
FCIA, and specifically authorizes $1 million for fiscal years
2001 and 2002 and $250,000 in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Provides that the paragraph relative to funding be
applicable for the fiscal years 2001 through 2004. (Section
202)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision
relative to review and adjustment in rating methodologies
with a change to require such adjustments take place in the
2002 crop year and thereafter, rather than in the 2000 crop
year and thereafter. (Section 106)
The Managers urge the Corporation to complete the process
of developing alternative rating methodologies for all
insurable crops. The Managers also urge the Corporation to
base Multi-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) cotton rates in Texas
on the results of the analysis prepared on their behalf by
researchers at Montana State University and to adopt these
rates beginning with the 2001 crop year on the same basis as
the Corporation implemented revised MPCI Premium rates in the
Mid-South and Far West regions.

[[Page 9199]]

Quality adjustment
The House bill amends section 508(a) by adding a new
paragraph (9) relative to quality grade loss adjustment.
Requires that, consistent with subsection (m)(4) relative
to contracting for research requirements, FCIC enter into a
contract by the 2000 crop year to analyze quality loss
adjustment procedures and make adjustments necessary to more
accurately reflect local quality discounts, taking into
account actuarial soundness requirements and prevention of
fraud, waste, and abuse. (Section 112)
The Senate amendment strikes 508(a)(6) requiring
guidelines, reports, studies, and pilot programs relative to
the addition of new and specialty crops, and inserts a new
paragraph (6) relative to quality adjustment.
Requires FCIC to offer coverage that permits a reduction in
production for purposes of determining a loss to reflect any
production not meeting quality standards.
Allows producers to opt-out of quality adjustment coverage
and receive a reduction in premium equal to the cost of the
coverage.
Requires FCIC to contract for the study of quality loss
adjustment procedures and, based on the study, to adjust the
coverage to better reflect local quality discounts, taking
into consideration actuarial soundness and the prevention of
fraud, waste, and abuse. (Section 101)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
relative to quality adjustments with certain changes.
Language to permit producers to opt-out of such coverage and
receive a premium reduction is omitted. Language is included
to permit producers to elect such coverage, under limited
circumstances, on a basis smaller than a unit, and a
provision relative to the manner in which the Corporation
sets quality standards is also included. (Section 107)
Double insurance and prevented planting
The House bill amends section 508(a) by adding a new
paragraph (8) relative to prevented planting.
Allows producers to opt-out of prevented planting coverage
and receive a reduction in premium equal to the cost of the
prevented planting coverage.
Requires FCIC to provide an equal percentage level of
prevented planting coverage for each crop.
Limits prevented planting payments to producers prevented
from planting due to conditions generally affecting the area
in which the producer farms.
Authorizes a producer who received a prevented planting
payment to plant a second crop other than the crop prevented
from being planted on the same acreage, except that the
second crop is not eligible for NAP or crop insurance
coverage.
Provides that a producer who elects to plant a second crop
which is not insurable or NAP eligible still qualifies for
AMTA loans and payments, CRP, and guaranteed and direct loans
and other benefits under the ConAct.
Requires FCIC to assign a producer who receives a prevented
planting payment and who elects to plant a second crop a
yield for the prevented crop for that year equal to 60
percent of the producer's actual production history for
purposes of future APH.
Denies a prevented planting payment to a producer who
plants a second crop before the latest planting date for the
crop prevented from being planted.
The House bill amends section 508(a) by adding a new
paragraph (10) relative to limitations on double insurance.
Prohibits a policy or plan of insurance for more than one
crop planted on the same acreage in the same crop year unless
the coverage for the additional crop is ``CAT'' coverage.
Provides an exception to the limitation on double insurance
where both crops are normally harvested within the same crop
year on the same acreage; there is an established practice of
double-cropping in the area and the additional crop is
customarily double- cropped in the area with the first crop;
a policy of insurance is offered for both crops; and the
additional crop is planted on or before the final or late
planting date for that crop. (Sections 110 and 201)
The Senate amendment is substantially the same as the H.R.
2559 except the following additional provisions.
Makes the prevented planting paragraph applicable for the
2001 through 2004 crop years.
Requires that changes made to prevented planting coverage
be reflected in the rates for coverage not later than the
2001 reinsurance year. (Section 102)
The Senate amendment amends section 508(m) (subsection (n)
designated as (m) under section 207 of Senate amendments.
Requires that FCIC may only offer insurance or reinsurance
on 1 crop produced on specific acreage during a crop year,
unless there is an established practice of double-cropping in
an area, the additional insurance is offered to a crop that
is customarily double-cropped in the area, and the producer
has a history of double-cropping or the acreage has
historically been double-cropped. (Section 308)
The Conference substitute provides limitations with respect
to double insurance and prevented planting coverage. The
Conference substitute establishes a new Section 508A for both
double insurance and prevented planting and provides the
following definitions:
``First Crop'' means the first crop of the first
agricultural commodity insured and planted for harvest, or
prevented from being planted, on specific acreage during a
crop year.
``Second Crop'' means a second crop of the same or
different agricultural commodity following the first crop
that is planted for harvest on the same acreage as the first
crop in the same crop year. However, the term does not
include a replanted crop.
``Replanted Crop'' means the second planting of the first
crop on the same acreage in the same crop year, if the
replanting is required by the terms of the policy of
insurance on the first crop.
In the case of double insurance, the Conference substitute
provides a producer with two options if a first crop has a
total or partial insurable loss. If the producer chooses not
to plant a second crop, then the producer is entitled to 100
percent of the indemnity payment for the first crop.
If the producer plants a second crop, then the producer
will receive an initial indemnity payment up to 35 percent of
the total calculated indemnity payment for the first crop.
The Managers intend that the Secretary adjust the percentage
paid as necessary to prevent abuse of the program. If the
producer is not paid an indemnity on the second crop, then
the producer will receive an additional indemnity payment
equal to the total calculated indemnity on the first crop
less the initial indemnity payment. If an indemnity is paid
with respect to the second crop, then the producer is not
entitled to receive the additional indemnity payment with
respect to the first crop.
In the case of a producer who chooses to plant a second
crop, the premium owed for insurance on the first crop will
be reduced commensurate with any reduction in indemnity
payment received on the first crop. If no indemnity is paid
on the second crop, then the producer owes the full premium
for insurance on the first crop.
With regard to prevented planting, the Conference
substitute provides a producer with two options if a first
crop is prevented from being planted. If the producer chooses
not to plant a second crop, then the producer may collect 100
percent of the prevented planting guarantee for the first
crop.
If the producer plants a second crop, then the producer
will receive up to 35 percent of the prevented planting
guarantee for the first crop. The Managers intend that the
Secretary adjust the percentage paid as necessary to prevent
abuse of the program. In addition, except for producers who
double crop in a double cropping area, a producer who plants
a second crop will be assigned a recorded yield of 60 percent
of the producer's actual production history for the crop on
which a prevented planting guarantee payment is received.
This will be used in determining a producer's actual
production history for subsequent crop years for the first
crop. The Corporation may only pay the prevented planting
guarantee to a producer if the conditions that prevented the
first crop from being planted have also generally affected
other producers in the area. In addition, the Corporation may
not make a prevented planting guarantee payment for the first
crop in the case of any producer who plants a second crop
before the latest planting date for the first crop.
In the case of a producer who chooses to plant a second
crop, the producer's premium for the first crop will be
reduced commensurate with any reduction in indemnity payment
received on the first crop.
The Conference substitute provides that, notwithstanding
the restrictions placed on double insurance and prevented
planting, a producer will receive full indemnity payments and
prevented planting guarantees on 2 or more crops in a double
cropping area. There must be an established practice of
planting 2 or more crops for harvest in the same crop year in
the area, as determined by the Corporation, and an additional
coverage policy or plan of insurance must be offered with
respect to the commodities planted on the same acreage in the
same crop year. In addition, the producer must have a history
of planting 2 or more crops in the same year; the applicable
acreage must have historically been planted to 2 or more
crops in the same year; and the second or subsequent crops
must be customarily planted after the first crop on the same
acreage in the same year. The Managers intend that in
determining when an agricultural commodity is customarily
double cropped in a double cropping area, that the
Corporation consider the farming and irrigation practices
applicable to the crops in the area. (Section 108)
Noninsured crop disaster assistance program
The House bill amends section 196(i) of the AMTA in
paragraph (1) by striking ``gross revenues'' wherever it
appears and inserting ``gross income'' and by striking
paragraph (4) and adding a new paragraph (4).
Paragraph (4) provides that a person with a qualifying
adjusted gross income of greater than $2 million during the
taxable year is ineligible to receive NAP assistance.
The House bill also amends section 196(b) of the FAIR Act
of 1996 to require that to be eligible for NAP, producers
must provide annually to the Secretary, acting through the
agency, records of crop acreage, acreage

[[Page 9200]]

yields, and production for each eligible crop. (Sections 111
and 205)
The Senate amendment amends section 196(a)(2) of AMTA by
adding a new subparagraph (C) allowing the Secretary to
consider all varieties of a crop eligible for NAP as a single
eligible crop for program purposes.
Amends section 196(b)(1) relative to when a producer must
apply for NAP assistance, striking discretionary authority
for the Secretary to determine the application deadline and
inserting the requirement that producers apply not later than
March 15.
Strikes paragraph 196(b)(2) providing the Secretary
discretionary authority pertaining to what production records
a producer must submit, and inserting a requirement that, to
be eligible for NAP, producers must annually submit crop
acreage, acreage yields, and production for each crop.
Amends paragraph 196(b)(3) to require annual reporting of
acreage planted or prevented from being planted.
Strikes section 196(c) relating to loss requirements and
inserts a new subsection (c) relative to the same.
Provides that a producer of an eligible crop must have
suffered a loss of a noninsured crop as a result of drought,
flood, or other natural disaster as determined by the
Secretary.
Authorizes the Secretary to make payments under NAP once a
drought, flood, or other natural disaster determination is
made.
Changes the prevented planting payment trigger for eligible
crops from a 35 percent acreage threshold to a 15 percent
acreage threshold.
Authorizes the Secretary to make a NAP payment irrespective
of any area loss trigger.
Amends section 196 by inserting a new subsection (j) and
(k) relative to new eligible crops and service fees,
respectively, and designating the current subsection (j) as
subsection (l).
Provides under section 196(j)(1) that the NAP payment to a
producer of an eligible crop that is new to an area will be
equal to 35 percent of the established yield for the first
year the crop is produced.
Provides that the NAP payment to a producer of an eligible
crop that is new to an area will be equal to 45 percent of
the established yield for the second through fourth years the
crop is produced, except where a NAP payment was made in the
first year in which case the payment is 35 percent.
Makes a producer of an eligible crop ineligible for a NAP
payment where the producer collects a NAP payment in the
first 2 crop years, until such time that the crop is produced
for 3 consecutive crop years with no reported losses.
Provides for a service fee for NAP eligibility under
section 196(k), requiring producers to pay the Secretary an
amount equal to the fee for a CAT policy ($60 per crop per
county) or $200 per producer per county, not to exceed $600
per producer. Provides for the waiver of NAP fees for limited
resource producers.
Provides that NAP fees collected by the Secretary be
deposited in the CCC Fund. Makes amendments under this
section applicable for the 2001 through 2004 crop years.
(Section 106)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
relative to the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
with changes. Producers are required to make an application
for NAP eligibility not later than 30 days before the
beginning of the coverage period. Changes relative to
prevented planting and yields for new NAP eligible crops
provided under the Senate amendment are omitted. The NAP fee
provided in the Senate amendment is modified to require
producers to pay the lesser of $100 per crop per county or
$300 per producer per county, but not to exceed $900 per
producer. (Section 109)

Subtitle B--Improving Program Integrity

Improving program compliance and integrity
The House bill amends section 506(q) by designating
paragraphs (1) and (2) as (2) and (3), creating paragraph (1)
relative to purposes, and creating new paragraphs (4) through
(7) relative to certain compliance requirements.
Paragraph (4) requires the Secretary to develop and
implement a coordinated plan for FCIC and FSA to reconcile
information received from producers and, beginning with the
2000 crop year, requires FCIC and FSA to annually conduct
such reconciliation to identify and address any
discrepancies.
Paragraph (5) requires the Secretary to develop and
implement a coordinated plan for FSA to assist FCIC in
ongoing monitoring of FCIA programs, including conducting
fact findings relative to allegations of fraud, waste or
abuse at the request of FCIC or on its own initiative after
consultation with FCIC; reporting fraud, waste, abuse, and
program vulnerabilities to FCIC; assisting FCIC in auditing a
statistically appropriate number of claims. Also provides
that the Secretary ensure that FSA personnel are
appropriately trained and, at minimum, receive the same
training and testing as loss adjusters.
Requires maintenance of effort on the part of approved
insurance providers in conducting audits of claims, requires
FCIC to respond within 90 days of receiving notice by
approved insurance providers of intentional violations, and
requires a coordinated response to violations by FCIC and
approved insurance providers.
Paragraph (6) requires the Secretary to establish a
mechanism under which state FSA committees are consulted
concerning policies and plans of insurance offered in the
state.
Paragraph (7) requires the Secretary to submit an annual
report to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees
containing findings relative to the efforts undertaken in
paragraphs (4) and (5), identifying specific incidences of
fraud, waste, and abuse along with actions taken to eliminate
the same.
The House bill amends section 506(n) by striking
``penalties'' where it occurs and inserting ``sanctions'' and
redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3).
Strikes paragraph (1) relative to false information and
inserts new paragraph (1) relating to the same.
Provides that a producer, agent, loss, adjuster, approved
insurance provider, or other person that intentionally
provides false or inaccurate information to FCIC or to an
approved insurance provider with respect to a policy may,
after notice and opportunity for a hearing, be subject to
sanctions.
Provides that sanctions include a civil fine not to exceed
the greater of the amount of the pecuniary gain obtained by
the violator or $10,000; debarment of a producer from
specified farm programs for up to 5 years; and debarment of
other persons from benefits under the FCIA for up to 5 years.
Also provides that FCIC may require the producer to forfeit
any premium owed notwithstanding denial of a claim or
collection of overpayment if the violation is material.
Requires sanctions be disclosed on each policy. (Sections
202 and 203)
The Senate amendment strikes section 506(n), relative to
penalties for false information, and provides a new
subsection (n) relative to sanctions for program
noncompliance and fraud.
Provides that a producer, agent, loss, adjuster, approved
insurance provider, or other person that intentionally
provides false or inaccurate information to FCIC or to an
approved insurance provider with respect to a policy may,
after notice and opportunity for a hearing, be subject to a
sanction under this subsection.
Provides that a producer, agent, loss adjuster, approved
insurance provider, or other person that intentionally fails
to comply with an FCIC requirement is subject to sanctions,
and that any such person (other than a producer)
intentionally failing to comply with an SRA is also subject
to sanctions.
Provides sanctions for material violations relative to
providing false information and compliance failure. Sanctions
include a civil fine not to exceed the greater of the amount
of the pecuniary gain obtained by the violator or $10,000;
debarment of a producer from all farm programs for up to 5
years; and debarment of other persons from benefits under the
FCIA for up to 5 years.
Requires the Secretary to consider the gravity of the
violation in determining whether to impose a sanction and the
amount or degree of any sanction imposed. Also requires
disclosure of sanctions on each policy of insurance.
Requires that funds collected under this subsection be
deposited into the insurance fund provided under section
516(c)(1) of the FCIA (general FCIA insurance fund). Amends
section 516(c)(1) of the FCIA by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting a new paragraph (1) providing that, along with
premium income and amounts under section 516(a)(2), sanctions
fees are to be deposited in this fund.
The Senate amendment amends section 506(q) of the FCIA,
relative to program compliance, by adding at the end
paragraphs (3) and (4).
Paragraph (3) requires FCIC to develop procedures for an
annual review of each agent and loss adjuster by approved
insurance providers, oversee such review, and consult with
approved insurance providers relative to any remedial action
required.
Requires FCIC to file a report with the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees by the end of each fiscal year
relative to compliance, along with recommendations for any
necessary legislative or administrative changes. (Sections
303 and 304)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provisions
relative to improving compliance and integrity with
modifications. Procedures with respect to FSA inquiries into
fraud, waste, and abuse as well as notice and response
requirements concerning allegations of fraud, waste, and
abuse are clarified. The Secretary is required to establish
procedures by which the Corporation will be able to identify
agents and loss adjusters with disparate performance records
in order to conduct a review and take remedial action where
appropriate. Certain information, including the name and
identification number of each insured and the crop to be
insured, the elected coverage level, and price election
selected must be received by the Corporation approximately 30
days subsequent to the sales closing date. The Conference
substitute also adopts the Senate provision relative to
sanctions for program noncompliance and

[[Page 9201]]

fraud, with a minor change to exclude the failure to comply
with a Standard Reinsurance Agreement from the class of
activities that would trigger the imposition of sanctions
enumerated under this section. The Conference substitute
further adopts the Senate provision to require the
Corporation to develop procedures for approved insurance
providers to review the performance of agents and loss
adjusters. Finally, the Conference substitute adopts
provisions to require the Secretary to upgrade information
management systems and use data mining and data warehousing
technologies, including contracting with private entities
with expertise in this area, in implementing compliance
provisions. Limited funding is authorized for fiscal years
2001 through 2005 to carry out these compliance activities,
excluding salaries. (Section 121)
In an effort to combat fraud and abuse in the crop
insurance program, the Managers direct the Secretary to
develop and implement a coordinated plan for the Farm Service
Agency to assist the Corporation in monitoring and reporting
on crop insurance program activity at the local field level.
In addition, the Corporation must establish a working
relationship with insurance providers in order that
information regarding fraud, waste, and abuse may be reported
to the Corporation without fear of legal reprisal to the
insurance providers. The Managers expect the Secretary to
ensure that each of the agency roles are clearly defined with
the Corporation responsible for implementing all rules and
regulations relating to the insurance program.
The Managers expect that the Corporation will make full use
of the capabilities of information management systems,
specifically data warehousing and data mining technologies,
both within or outside of the Federal government, to fulfill
the requirements of this section to improve the compliance
and integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. The
Managers expect the Corporation to use funds made available
by this Act, or otherwise available, to contract with the
Center for Agribusiness Excellence at Tarleton State
University and the Center for Agribusiness and
Agrotechnologies at Bradley University for management and
development of a system to implement the requirements of this
section.
The Managers direct the Corporation to place the highest
financial priority and emphasis on the interactive computer
operations to ensure that participating insurance companies
are able to accurately transmit financial data back to the
agency.
Protection of confidential information
The House bill amends section 502 by adding a new
subsection (c) relative to the protection of confidential
information.
Prohibits the Secretary, any other officer, employee, or
agency of USDA, an approved insurance provider and its
employees and contractors, and any other person from
disclosing producer-derived information to the public unless
it is transformed into a statistical or aggregate form that
does not reveal the producer's identity.
Provides for penalties consistent with section 1770(c) of
the Food Security Act of 1985, including fines up to $10,000
and or imprisonment for up to 1 year. (Section 204)
The Senate amendment has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision
protecting producer confidentiality with a minor change to
allow producers to consent to the release of otherwise
protected information as long as program eligibility is not
conditioned upon the release. (Section 122)
Good farming practices
The House bill amends section 508(a)(3)(C) relative to
losses excluded from coverage by clarifying that
scientifically sound sustainable and organic farming
practices are good farming practices. (Section 309)
The Senate amendment is substantially the same as the House
bill.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
relative to the inclusion of scientifically sound sustainable
and organic farming practices as good farming practices for
purposes of what constitutes an insurable loss under the
Federal Crop Insurance Act. The Conference substitute further
requires that producers be provided with an informal
administrative review of a determination regarding good
farming practices but proscribes any such review pursuant to
the National Appeals Division. Producers have a right to
judicial review relative to a determination regarding good
farming practices without having to exhaust any informal
administrative review. However, any determination regarding
good farming practices may not be reversed under a judicial
review unless it is found to be arbitrary or capricious.
(Section 123)
The Managers understand that producers of organic cotton
who destroy their crop when it has been exposed to chemicals
used in boll weevil eradication are currently being penalized
relative to their actual production history despite the fact
that they do not qualify for a crop insurance indemnity. The
Managers expect the Corporation to immediately rectify this
inequity with respect to any producer of an organic crop who
must destroy that crop in order to maintain organic
certification. To the extent that no indemnity is received
for a lost crop under these circumstances, no penalty
relative to actual production history should obtain.
Records and reporting
The House bill amends section 508(f)(3)(A) of the FCIA
relative to producer reporting requirements.
Requires producers participating in the crop insurance
program to annually report records acceptable to the
Secretary regarding crop acreage, acreage yields, and
production for each crop insured.
Amends section 506(h) of the FCIA by requiring the
coordination of records kept under the FCIA and under the NAP
program to avoid duplication, to streamline submission
procedures, and to enhance accuracy.
Provides that such records collected under NAP and the FCIA
be made available to appropriate state and federal agencies
to carry out these programs and other agricultural programs
and related responsibilities.
Amends section 196(b) of the FAIR Act of 1996 to require
that to be eligible for NAP, producers must provide annually
to the Secretary, acting through the agency, records of crop
acreage, acreage yields, and production for each eligible
crop. (Section 205)
The Senate amendment amends section 508(f)(3)(A) of the
FCIA relative to producer reporting requirements.
Requires producers participating in the crop insurance
program to annually report records acceptable to the
Secretary regarding crop acreage, acreage yields, and
production for each crop insured.
Amends section 506(h) of the FCIA by requiring the
coordination of records kept under the FCIA and under the NAP
program to avoid duplication, to streamline submission
procedures, and to enhance accuracy.
Provides that such records collected under NAP and the FCIA
be made available to appropriate state and federal agencies
to carry out these programs and other agricultural programs
and related responsibilities.
The Senate amendment also strikes paragraph 196(b)(2)
providing the Secretary discretionary authority pertaining to
what production records a producer must submit, and inserting
a requirement that, to be eligible for NAP, producers must
annually submit crop acreage, acreage yields, and production
for each crop. Amends paragraph 196(b)(3) to require annual
reporting of acreage planted or prevented from being planted.
(Sections 306 and 106)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with
changes to omit provisions dealt with elsewhere in the Act.
(Section 124)

Subtitle C--Research and Pilot Programs

Research and development
The House bill amends section 508(h) by adding a new
paragraph (6) relative to reimbursement of research,
development, and maintenance costs.
Requires FCIC to reimburse an applicant for research,
development, and maintenance costs directly related to a
policy submitted to and approved by the Board and, if
applicable, sold to producers.
Authorizes payments to applicants beginning with fiscal
year 2001 and limits reimbursement for maintenance to no more
than 4 reinsurance years from approval, after which FCIC
assumes maintenance of successful policies.
Provides that payments under this paragraph be considered
payment in full for research and development and any property
rights.
Requires FCIC to determine the amount of reimbursement
based upon the complexity of the policy or material and the
size of the area to be served. Requires FCIC to issue final
regulations not later than October 1, 2000.
The House bill also authorizes $55 million for each fiscal
year for reimbursement and direct contracting for research
and development of new policies.
The House bill amends section 508(m) by adding a new
paragraph (4).
Paragraph (4) requires FCIC to make full use of the
reimbursement provisions of section 508(h) to encourage and
promote private research and development of new policies and
plans of insurance.
Provides that where FCIC determines that a crop, including
a specialty crop, is not adequately served by crop insurance,
FCIC may enter into contracts directly with any person or
entity with experience in crop insurance or farm or ranch
risk management, including universities, approved insurance
providers, and trade and research organizations, to conduct
research and development, without regard to the limitations
contained in the FCIA.
Provides that the authority of FCIC to contract for the
research and development of policies, includes research and
development for policies based on adjusted gross income, cost
of production, quality losses, and an intermediate base
program with a higher coverage and cost than ``CAT''.
Delays effective date of contracting authority until
October 1, 2000.
Provides that FCIC may offer any policy developed under
this subparagraph that is approved by the Board.
Requires FCIC to contract for research and development
regarding one or more revenue coverage plans involving
current or new

[[Page 9202]]

market instruments. Requires FCIC to report the results of
the contract within 15 months from enactment of this
paragraph.
Amends section 508(m)(2) relative to the prohibition of
FCIC research with respect to risk protection generally
available from the private sector, to prohibit FCIC from
conducting its own research and development of new policies
on or after October 1, 2000. Provides that FCIC may continue
to offer any policies developed by FCIC before that date.
Amends section 508(m) by adding a new paragraph (5),
relative to partnerships for risk management development and
implementation.
Authorizes FCIC to enter into partnerships with public and
private entities to increase the availability of loss
mitigation, financial, and risk management tools for
producers of crops covered under NAP and other under-served
and specialty crop producers.
Authorizes FCIC to enter into partnerships with CSREES,
ARS, NOAA, and other appropriate public and private entities
with demonstrated ability in developing and implementing risk
management and marketing options for specialty and under-
served crops.
Provides a list of objectives to be obtained as a result of
any partnerships.
Provides that funds not used for reimbursements or for
direct contracting for specialty and under-served crops may
be used by FCIC to enter into such partnerships.
Provides that funding for partnerships during fiscal years
2001 through 2004 are available where amounts used for
reimbursements and direct contracting are less than $44
million, $47 million, $50 million, and $52 million for fiscal
years 2001 through 2004, respectively, and where the amount
for partnerships does not exceed the difference between the
amounts provided above and the amount actually spent thereon.
This paragraph is applicable beginning on October 1, 2000.
The House bill amends section 508(h)(6) by adding a new
subparagraph (E) relative to expenditures on reimbursements
and direct contracting for research and development.
Provides that of the amounts made available for
reimbursements and direct contracting for research and
development, $25 million shall be reserved for direct
contracting for specialty and under-served crops. Provides
that any unused portions of the reserved amount may be used
for reimbursements, with priority for under-served crops.
Also provides that of the amounts made available for
reimbursements and direct contracting for research and
development, more than $25 million may be used for
contracting for specialty and under-served crops where
necessary.
Authorizes $55 million for each fiscal year for
reimbursement and direct contracting for research and
development of new policies.
Amends section 516(a)(2) by adding a new subparagraph (D)
authorizing appropriations for costs associated with
research, development, and maintenance costs.
Amends section 516(b)(1) by adding a new subparagraph (E)
authorizing reimbursements, research, and development costs
to be paid by the FCIA Fund. (Section 302, 303 and 304)
The Senate amendment provides that with respect to research
and analysis concerning any crop insurance issue, including
outreach, education, pilot programs, or the development of
new plans of insurance, FCIC is limited to the authority
provided under the newly created section 522 and the funds
made available under section 516(b)(2)(A) of the FCIA when
contracting or reimbursing research costs related to policy
development or modification. Newly created section 523
relative to specialty crops is exempted from this limitation.
Requires that FCIC establish the development of a pasture,
range, and forage program to promote land stewardship as ``1
of the highest research and development priorities.''
Requires FCIC to contract for a study to determine whether
the development of a plan of insurance providing coverage for
multiple years would curb fraud and abuse, and requires a
report on findings to the House and Senate Agriculture
Committee within 1 year of enactment.
The Senate amendment also amends the FCIA by adding at the
end section 523, relative to specialty crops.
Authorizes the Specialty Crops Coordinator to make grants
or enter into contract for research and development of
policies to serve under-served specialty crops and reimburse
costs associated with such research and development.
Authorizes the Specialty Crops Coordinator to enter into
partnerships with public and private entities to increase the
availability of risk management tools for specialty crop
producers.
Authorizes $20 million in funding from section 516(c)(1)
(FCIA Fund) for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004 to
enter into cooperative agreements with public and private
entities to develop and implement risk management tools for
specialty crop producers. Provides that such amounts may not
come from section 516(b)(2)(A).
Provides a list of objectives to be obtained as a result of
any partnerships.
Prohibits FCIC from establishing a sales closing date for
specialty crops that is before the end of the 120-day period
beginning on the date of the final release of materials for
policies from RMA and the Specialty Crops Coordinator.
Allows producers of specialty crops to purchase new
coverage or increase coverage levels at any time during the
insurance period, subject to a 30-day waiting period and an
inspection by FCIC to verify acceptability of the approved
insurance provider, provided FCIC is able to adequately rate
the risk.
Requires FCIC and the Specialty Crop Coordinator to jointly
conduct feasibility studies for developing new policies for
specialty crops, and requires a progress report to Congress
not later than 1 year from the date of enactment.
The authority for the Specialty Crops Coordinator to enter
into partnerships and the extension of the sales closing date
and time for purchase of coverage is applicable for the 2001
through 2004 fiscal years.
Requires that not later than 180 days after enactment, the
Secretary must submit a report to the President and the House
and Senate Agriculture Committees assessing USDA's progress
in expanding coverage to specialty crops and USDA's plans to
continue that progress.
Also requires that the report include an assessment of
whether ``CAT'' has resulted in uniform quality of protection
for all regions of the country and fulfilled the goal of
increased participation, especially in states with
traditionally low participation rates and high proportion of
specialty crops. The report should also address the question
of whether USDA should resume offering CAT and performing
loss adjustments.
The Senate amendment strikes subsection (m) providing FCIC
its current authority to conduct research, surveys, pilot
programs, and investigations relating to crop insurance and
agriculture-related risks and losses. Subsection (n) is
designated as subsection (m).
Amends section 516(b)(2)(A) to increase mandatory funding
for research and development expenses from not to exceed $3.5
million for each fiscal year to $4.5 million in fiscal years
2001 and 2002, $3.75 million in fiscal years 2003 and 2004,
and returning to $3.5 million for each subsequent fiscal
year.
Provides a conforming amendment relative to section
references in section 518, defining agricultural commodity.
(Section 202, 207 and 309)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provisions
relative to reimbursements, contracting, and partnership for
policy research and development with certain changes. The
provision includes authority to reimburse research and
development costs associated with policies developed before
enactment. Reimbursement for research and development costs
is limited to policies that are determined to be marketable.
Reimbursement for maintenance is limited to 4 reinsurance
years from the date of Board approval after which the
provider responsible for maintenance has three options. The
provider may transfer maintenance responsibility to the
Corporation, charge a Board-approved fee to be paid by other
providers electing to offer the policy, or continue to
maintain the policy and absorb the appurtenant costs. The
provision authorizes the Corporation to enter into contracts
for research and development on policies in order to (1)
increase participation in States where the Corporation
determines there is low crop insurance participation or
availability, and the State is under-served by the program;
(2) increase participation in areas that are under-served by
the program; and (3) increase participation by producers of
under-served agricultural commodities, including specialty
crops. The provision requires the Corporation to consult with
groups representing producers that would be served by a
policy that is the subject of the research and development
before entering into a contract. The Conference substitute
adopts the Senate provisions to require the Corporation to
establish the development of a pasture, range, and forage
program as one of the highest priorities and to require the
Corporation to contract for a study relative to offering
coverage for multiple years to reduce fraud, waste, and
abuse. Provisions are included to make partnership authority
under this section eligible for funding for contracting, and
to reserve $5 million of such funding for contracting for
policy development to increase participation in States where
the Corporation determines there is low crop insurance
participation or availability and the State is under-served
by the program. The Managers consider it a high priority to
develop policies that work for producers and products in
these low participation states. The provision also requires
the Corporation to contract for research and development
relative to a cost of production policy. Finally, funding for
reimbursements and contracting are limited to new levels.
(Section 131)
The Managers recognize that it is difficult to predict the
range of new and innovative approaches to the private
development of insurance products under the new environment
created under this bill. There is no reason to believe all
policies will necessarily fit under the current structure of
yield-based or revenue-based products; some may focus on a
narrower array of perils than are now included in available
coverage. These could include plans to protect against the
uncontrollable risks associated with the use of certain

[[Page 9203]]

conservation techniques such as integrated pest management,
best management practices, or conservation tillage systems.
The Corporation should take such factors into account when
considering approval of such proposals.
The Managers expect the Corporation to study the
feasibility of offering a vine and tree replacement program
as an option for growers of grapes, citrus, tree fruit, nut,
kiwi, blueberries, and other high-value, permanent crops.
Pilot program
The House bill amends section 508(h) by repealing obsolete
pilot programs contained in paragraphs (6) and (8) relative
to cost of production and assigned yields, respectively.
Authorizes FCIC to offer pilot programs on a regional,
state, or national basis after considering the interests of
producers and the interests and risks of FCIC, and to operate
the pilot program, including any modifications, for up to 3
years with authority to extend for additional periods.
Amends section 508(h)(4) to require FCIC to promulgate
regulations within 180 days of enactment to establish
guidelines for the submission and Board review of policies
submitted under section 508(h), including streamlined
guidelines governing the submission and Board review of pilot
programs that the Board determines are limited in scope and
duration and involve a reduced level of liability to the
government and an increased level of liability to the
approved insurance provider.
Provides that FCIC must notify the applicant of its intent
to disapprove a low risk pilot program within 60 days of the
submission.
Requires FCIC to approve or not approve a low risk pilot
program within 90 days of submission, and requires a detailed
explanation for any disapproval.
Provides that where FCIC fails to make a timely
determination with respect to a low risk pilot program, the
pilot is approved for the initial reinsurance year unless an
extension is agreed to.
Amends section 508(h) by striking paragraph (10) relative
to time limits for submission of new policies and inserts a
new paragraph (10) relative to livestock pilot programs.
Requires FCIC to conduct 1 or more livestock pilot programs
to evaluate risk management tools, including futures and
options contracts and policies and plans of insurance,
including protection for environmental liability, and
requires that the greatest number and variety of programs be
evaluated.
Requires FCIC to begin the conduct of livestock pilot
programs during the 2001 fiscal year and without regard to
the limitations in the FCIA, except that no coverage may be
offered where that coverage is generally available from
private insurance.
Requires FCIC to conduct the livestock pilot programs in a
number of counties that will facilitate comprehensive
evaluation, and provides that any producer of eligible
livestock owning a farm or ranch in a selected county is
eligible to participate.
Defines livestock as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and
poultry.
Requires FCIC to operate all livestock pilot programs so
that, to the maximum extent practicable, associated costs
(other than for research and development) are not expected to
exceed $20 million for fiscal year 2001, $30 million for
fiscal year 2002, $40 million for fiscal year 2003, and $55
million for fiscal year 2004 and each subsequent fiscal year.
Amends section 518 of the FCIA by striking the livestock
exclusion from insurance. (Section 105)
The Senate amendment authorizes FCIC to conduct research,
surveys, pilot programs, and investigations relating to crop
insurance and agriculture-related risks and losses based on
proposals developed by FCIC and others to determine their
suitability to meet producer needs.
Provides an exception that FCIC may not conduct such
research activity to provide risk protection where such
protection is generally available from the private sector.
Provides under newly created section 522(a)(3) a list of
eligible activities for research activity, including after
October 1, 2000, livestock and livestock products, wild
salmon, and loss or damage to trees or fruit due to
``sharka.''
Clarifies the scope of pilot programs under newly created
section 522(a)(4). Authorizes FCIC to offer pilot programs on
a regional, state, or national basis after considering the
interests of producers and the interests and risks of FCIC,
and to operate the pilot program, including any
modifications, for up to 4 years with authority to extend for
additional periods. Also authorizes FCIC to provide premium
discounts to producers using whole farm or single crop units
of insurance and to cross state and county boundaries to form
units.
Requires under newly created section 522(a)(5) that FCIC
evaluate each pilot program and submit a report to the Senate
and House Agriculture Committees with a recommendation on
whether to offer the pilot on a national basis.
Authorizes under newly created section 522(a)(6) funds to
carry out research and pilot programs (except for research
related to alternative rating methodologies authorized under
section 202 of the Senate amendment). Authorized amounts may
not exceed $10 million in FY2001, $30 million in FY2002, $50
million in FY2003, and $60 million in FY2004.
Provides that provisions under section 201 of the Senate
amendment that require funding are applicable for fiscal
years 2001 through 2004, including authority for timber, wild
salmon, and livestock coverage, general pilot authority, and
general research funding.
The Senate amendment provides that the purpose of the pilot
program is to determine what incentives are necessary for
approved insurance providers to develop and offer risk
management products, rate premiums, and competitively market
such products.
Requires FCIC to establish a pilot program under which
approved insurance providers may propose to the FCIC Board
loss of yield or revenue insurance coverage for 1 or more
commodities, including commodities not insurable (but
excluding livestock), rates of premium, and underwriting
systems.
Requires FCIC to approve the risk management product before
it can be marketed.
Provides that the FCIC Board may approve a risk management
product submitted if the Board determines that the interests
of producers are protected; premium rates are actuarially
appropriate and underwriting systems are actuarially
appropriate and adequate; the product is reinsured under the
FCIA, through private reinsurance, or self- insured; the size
of the pilot is adequate; the product is not generally
available through private insurance plans; and any other
requirements imposed by FCIC.
Requires that all information concerning a risk management
product be considered confidential commercial or financial
information, and provides the standard that if the Secretary
could withhold such information, the information may not be
released.
Defines original provider as an approved insurance provider
that submits a product for approval under this section.
Provides that risk management products approved under this
section may only be sold by the original provider, unless
another approved insurance provider desiring to offer the
product pays a fee established by the original provider.
(Sections 201 and 205)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provisions
relative to the scope of pilot programs and to a pilot
program for insurance coverage on wild salmon. Pilot
authority for insurance coverage for timber due to drought,
flood, fire or other natural disaster and for trees or fruit
affected by plum pox (including quarantined trees or fruit)
are omitted because statutory authority currently exists to
insure the crops against these perils. The House bill
language relative to expedited consideration of low risk
pilot programs is omitted. The Conference substitute adopts
the House bill's provision relative to livestock pilot
programs, except that pilot authority to offer insurance
coverage for environmental liability is omitted and the
definition of livestock is modified to include but not be
limited to the livestock referenced in the House bill.
Funding for all livestock programs is also limited to new
levels. The provision authorizes a premium-rate reduction
pilot program. Finally, House bill language clarifying
regulatory jurisdiction over policies or plans of insurance
is included but in a separate section of the Act. (Section
132)
The Managers intend for the Corporation to proceed with
crop insurance coverage for sorghum silage beginning with the
2001 crop year by implementing the pilot program that was
drafted and presented to grain sorghum producers in October
of 1999. The Corporation shall develop the program in a way
that provides sorghum silage the same coverage as corn silage
with the program to be fully developed by September 30, 2000.
The Managers are aware of proposals to implement a pilot
insurance policy to provide coverage on timber losses
resulting from drought, flood, fire, or other natural
disaster. The Managers expect the Corporation to implement
this pilot under current authority, with special
consideration given to Florida.
The Managers are aware of the serious concerns the plum pox
virus is causing in several states, including Pennsylvania.
The Managers believe the Corporation has the same authority
to develop a policy to provide coverage for plum pox as has
been developed for citrus canker. The Managers expect the
Corporation to develop an insurance policy that provides
coverage for trees against losses associated with plum pox
virus.
The Managers intend that the premium rate reduction pilot
program authorized by this provision explore whether premium
rate competition can benefit producers without harming
program integrity or the crop insurance delivery system. The
Managers hope and expect that the Corporation will approve
proposed premium reductions, as long as such proposed
reductions meet the standards of approval contained in
Section 132(d) of the Conference substitute.
The Managers are aware that Section 508(e)(3) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act already authorizes premium
reductions if an approved insurance provider can demonstrate
to the Corporation that it can provide crop insurance more
efficiently than the

[[Page 9204]]

expense reimbursement provided by the Corporation. The
508(e)(3) standard, however, is too limiting because an
approved insurance provider's gross income includes
underwriting gain as well as the expense reimbursement. As a
result, the Managers intend that the limitations on premium
reductions contained in Section 508(e)(3) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act not apply to the premium rate reduction pilot
program authorized by this provision.
Education and risk management assistance
The Senate amendment requires FCIC to establish two
programs for the fiscal years 2001 through 2004, not to
exceed the available funding limitations.
Requires FCIC to establish a program of education and
information for states in which there is traditionally and
continues to be a low level of program participation and
coverage availability, and which the Secretary determines is
under-served.
Requires FCIC to establish a program of research and
development to develop new approaches to increasing
participation in states in which there is traditionally and
continues to be a low level of program participation and
coverage availability, and which the Secretary determines is
under-served. Requires that $10 million in each of fiscal
years 2001 through 2004 be made available for the Education,
Information, and Insurance Provider Recruitment program from
the account provided under section 516(a)(2)(C) (mandatory
funding account for risk management payments).
Requires that $5 million in each of fiscal years 2001
through 2004 be made available for the Research and
Development program from the account provided under section
516(a)(2)(C) (mandatory funding account for risk management
payments). (Section 206)
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
relative to education and research with certain changes. The
provision authorizing the Corporation to establish a program
of research and development for new approaches to increase
program participation in specified states is omitted and
partnerships for risk management education is authorized. The
Secretary, acting through the CSREES, is required to
establish a program under which competitive grants are made
to qualified persons for the purpose of educating producers
about risk management activities. Funding for the education
and information program provided under the Senate amendment
and the partnerships for risk management education program
are each limited to $5 million for each fiscal year beginning
with 2001. The provision also provides for an agricultural
management assistance program under which the Secretary is to
offer cost share assistance to producers located in states
with historically low crop insurance participation for the
uses as specified in the Act. Funding for this program is
limited to $10 million for each fiscal year beginning with
2001. (Section 133)
Farmers have voiced support for marketing clubs, supported
through small grants from USDA. The clubs provide an
opportunity for farmers to improve their understanding of
marketing and managing price risk by sharing their marketing
experiences with their peers. The Managers encourage the
Secretary to continue to support development of marketing
clubs for farmers.
Options pilot program
The Senate amendment amends section 191 of the AMTA
relative to options pilot program authority by extending such
authority until December 31, 2004.
Expands authority to operate options pilot programs from
not more than 100 counties with a limit of 6 counties per
state, to not more than 300 counties with a limit of 25
counties per state.
Authorizes the Secretary to enter into a contract with any
producer who volunteers to participate in the pilot program
during any calendar year in which a county in which the farm
of the producer is located is authorized to operate the pilot
program.
Requires FCIC transfer $27 million for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2004 from section 516(a)(2)(C) (mandatory funds
for risk management payments) to the Secretary to fund the
operation of the expanded options pilot program. (Section
204)
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
relative to the options pilot program with certain changes.
Authority to conduct the options pilot program is expanded to
include an increased number of counties with such authority
continuing until the expiration of the 1996 Farm Bill.
Finally, funding is limited under this section. (Section 134)

Subtitle D--Administration

Relation to other laws
The House bill provides that any policy or plan of
insurance offered under the FCIA is not subject to the
jurisdiction of the CFTC or SEC. Provides a savings clause
that states that the provision does not affect the
jurisdiction of the CFTC with respect to transactions
conducted on a contract market.
The Senate amendment provides that any policy or plan of
insurance offered under the FCIA is not subject to the
jurisdiction of the CFTC, but does not affect the
jurisdiction of the CFTC with respect to transactions
conducted on a contract market.
The Conference substitute adopts the provision included in
section 105 of the House Bill relative to jurisdiction over
policies or plans of insurance and over any underlying
instrument utilized in such a policy or plan of insurance.
(Section 141)
Management of corporation
The House bill strikes section 505(a) relative to the Board
of Directors of FCIC and inserts a new section 505(a) and
(b), relative to the same.
Provides that the management of FCIC is to be vested in the
Board of Directors, subject to the supervision of the
Secretary.
Provides that the Board consist of the manager of FCIC
(serving as a non voting ex officio member), 1 member active
in the crop insurance business, 1 member active in the
regulation of insurance, the Under Secretary for Farm and
Foreign Agricultural Services, 1 additional Under Secretary
for Agriculture, USDA's Chief Economist, and 4 active
producers who are policy holders, are from different
geographic regions, represent a cross-section of commodities
grown, with 1 producer being a specialty crop producer.
Provides that the private sector members of the Board be
appointed and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary, and not
otherwise be employed by the government.
Requires that a private-sector member of the Board serve as
its Chairman and be elected by the Board.
Provides that the amendment made by section 301 takes
effect 30 days from enactment, allowing current Board members
to continue to serve until the earlier of their replacement
date or 180 days after enactment. (Section 301)
The Senate amendment strikes section 505(a) relative to the
Board of Directors of FCIC and inserts a new section 505(a).
Provides that the management of FCIC is to be vested in the
Board of Directors, subject to the supervision of the
Secretary.
Provides that the Board consist of 4 producers from each
region of the country, 1 member active in the crop insurance
business, 1 member active in the reinsurance business, the
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services,
the Under Secretary for Rural Development, and USDA's Chief
Economist.
Provides that the private sector members of the Board be
appointed and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary, not be
employed by the government, be appointed to staggered 4 year
terms, and serve no more than 2 consecutive terms.
Requires that a private sector member of the Board serve as
its Chairman and be elected by the Board.
Requires RMA to assist the Board in developing, reviewing,
and recommending new plans of insurance and pilot projects,
terms of the SRA, and with other issues involved in the
administration of the program.
Provides for the appointment of an Executive Director by
the Secretary to assist the Board and report to the
Secretary.
Provides for a staff of 4 to report to the Executive
Director, all 4 having knowledge and experience in
quantitative mathematics and actuarial rating.
Requires the Executive Director and staff to assist the
Board in reviewing and approving policies and plans of
insurance submitted under sections 508, 522, or 523, and
report at least monthly to the Board on crop insurance
issues.
Requires the Executive Director and staff to review
subsidized and unsubsidized insurance, make recommendations
for approval or disapproval, make recommendations to
encourage cooperation between the U.S. attorneys, FCIC, and
approved insurance providers to minimize fraud, and make
recommendations with respect to rating methodologies.
Provides $500,000 for fiscal year 2001 from the FCIA Fund
to pay the salaries and expenses of the Executive Director
and staff.
Requires that RMA transfer $500,000 for fiscal year 2001,
and $1 million for each subsequent fiscal year to the
Executive Director for salaries and expenses, subject to the
availability of appropriations. (Section 301)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision
relative to the composition of the Corporation Board of
Directors with changes to permit the Secretary the option of
appointing 1 person experienced in reinsurance or 1 person
experienced in the regulation of insurance, requiring that
Board members be limited to two consecutive terms and be
appointed for staggered 4-year terms. The new Board is to be
appointed during the period beginning February 1, 2001 and
ending April 1, 2001. Finally, the Board of Directors is
required to contract with persons experienced as actuaries
and in underwriting for expert reviews of policies and plans
of insurance offered under the Federal Crop Insurance Act.
Funding for such reviews is authorized from mandatory funds
formerly dedicated to research and development. The authority
provided under this section, including funding dedicated to
carry out this section, is in addition to the general
management authority over the Corporation, including any
other contracting authority under the title, that is vested
in the Board of Directors. (Section 142)

[[Page 9205]]

Contracting for rating of plans of insurance
The House bill amends section 507(c)(2) relative to
requiring FCIC to contract for certain services by including
the contracting for actuarial services, services relating to
loss adjustment, and rating plans of insurance. Underscores
that FCIC should concentrate on the regulation of insurance
and on the evaluation process for newly developed policies
under section 508(h). (Section 306)
Section 202 of the Senate amendment corresponds with
sections 306 and 104 of House bill
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision
relative to contracting for rating plans of insurance.
(Section 143)
Electronic availability of crop insurance information
The House bill amends section 508(a)(5) by making technical
amendments and adding a new subparagraph (B) relative to
electronic availability of crop insurance information.
Requires FCIC to make general insurance information
electronically available to producers and insurance
providers, and also requires, where practicable, that FCIC
allow producers and providers to provide insurance
information electronically. (Section 307)
The Senate amendment has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision
relative to the electronic availability of crop insurance
information. (Section 144)
Adequate Coverage for States
The Senate amendment amends section 508(a) adding paragraph
(9) relative to adequate coverage for states.
Defines adequately served as having a participation rate
that is at least 50 percent of the national average.
Requires FCIC to review policies offered by approved
insurance providers to determine if each state is adequately
served.
Requires that not later than 30 days after completion of
the review, FCIC must submit to Congress a report of the
results along with recommendations to increase participation
in states not adequately served. (Section 305)
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
relative to adequate coverage for states. (Section 145)
Submission of Policies and Materials to Board
The House bill amends section 508(h)(1) to clarify that a
``person'' that may propose a policy to the Board for
approval includes an approved insurance provider, a college
or university, a cooperative or trade association, or other
persons. Clarifies that policies are to be sold to producers
by approved insurance providers.
Requires FCIC to consider any modified policy proposal
within 30 days from the submission of the modifications, and
requires that any decision to disapprove a policy must be
accompanied by a complete explanation.
Requires that FCIC make a determination to approve or
disapprove a policy proposal within 120 days from submission,
and any decision to disapprove a policy must be accompanied
by a complete explanation. Provides that the proposed policy
is approved for the initial reinsurance year where FCIC fails
to provide a timely determination unless the parties agree to
an extension.
Amends section 516(b)(2) to authorize the current $3.5
million in mandatory funds for research and development to be
used for costs associated with considering and contracting
for assistance in considering policies submitted for approval
and carrying out policies resulting from direct contracting,
The House bill also requires FCIC to issue regulations
establishing guidelines within 180 days of enactment to
govern the submission of policies. (Sections 305 and 105)
The Senate amendment amends section 508(h) by striking
paragraphs (1) through (4) relative to the submission, review
and approval, and guidelines for the same of new policies,
plans of insurance, or related materials, and inserts new
paragraphs (1) through (4) related to the same.
Permits persons to propose to the Board loss of yield or
revenue insurance coverage on an individual, area, or a
combination of individual and area basis for 1 or more crops
and rates of premium and underwriting systems for proposed or
existing policies.
Provides that a proposal submitted under this subsection
may be prepared without regard to FCIA limitations, including
actuarial soundness, levels of coverage, rates of premium,
that the price level equal the expected market price and that
an approved insurance provider must provide coverage for all
crops throughout the state where the provider elects to
provide any coverage in the state.
Provides, however, that FCIC may not pay a portion of the
premium for a policy submitted under this subsection that
exceeds the amount otherwise authorized under subsection (e).
Requires the Board to approve a proposal submitted under
this subsection for subsidy and reinsurance where the Board
determines the proposal adequately ensures the interests of
producers are protected, premiums are actuarially
appropriate, underwriting systems are actuarially appropriate
and adequate, and is reinsured under this title, privately
reinsured, or self-insured.
Provides that rates of premium are actuarially appropriate
where the rate is sufficient to cover projected losses and
expenses, a reasonable reserve, and an amount of operating
and administrative expenses of the approved insurance
provider under subsection (d)(2).
Provides that proposed underwriting plans may be on an area
or individual farm basis and must, at a minimum, specify
factors such as yield history for the farm or region, soils
and resource quality for the farm, and farm production
practices.
Requires FCIC to provide reinsurance to approved insurance
providers to the maximum extent practicable, and allows such
providers to obtain private reinsurance, reinsurance under
the FCIA, or to self-insure.
Requires FCIC to prescribe standards for determining
whether premium rates are actuarially appropriate.
Establishes guidelines with respect to any policy or other
material submitted to the Board after October 1, 2000.
Allows FCIC to enter into more than 1 reinsurance agreement
simultaneously with an approved insurance provider to
facilitate the offering of the new policy.
Requires FCIC to promulgate regulations establishing the
procedure for the submission of policies under this
subsection, including the standards applicable to a proposal,
procedures concerning the time limits and for opportunity to
present the proposal to the Board in person.
Provides that a proposal submitted to the Board is
considered approved unless the Board disapproves the proposal
by the date 60 business days after the later of submission of
the proposal or the date on which the applicant provides the
Board notice of intent to modify.
Requires FCIC to provide notice by registered mail of
intent to disapprove a proposal not later than 15 days before
the date the Board intends to disapprove such proposal.
Provides an applicant with the right to modify a proposal
and provides that any modified proposal be considered the
original. Requires an applicant to provide notice to the
Board of intent to modify a proposal within 5 days of notice
by the Board to disapprove such proposal.
Requires FCIC to prescribe a reasonable deadline for
submission of proposals that approved insurance providers
expect to market during the reinsurance year.
Requires that proposals submitted to the Board be
considered confidential commercial information, and further
requires that if information concerning a proposal could be
considered confidential, the information may not be released.
Provides an exception to the standard of confidentiality
where an approved insurance provider agrees to pay a fee
(prescribed under section 307 of the Senate amendment) to
offer a policy developed by another provider.
Provides that in lieu of publication in the Federal
Register, a general summary of a proposal must be made
available to other providers upon approval of the proposal by
the Board, including the identity of the provider, the
coverage provided, and the area to be served.
Strikes paragraphs (6), (8), and (10) of section 508(h),
related to a pilot cost of production plan, a pilot program
of assigned yields for new producers, and time limits for
submission of proposals, and designates paragraphs (7) and
(9) as (6) and (7), respectively.
Amends section 516(b)(1) by adding a paragraph (D)
authorizing FCIC to pay salaries and expenses of the
Executive Director and staff for fiscal year 2001 from the
FCIA fund, but not to exceed $500,000. (Section 301)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision
relative to the submission of policies and materials to the
Board with changes regarding confidentiality requirements
governing policies. The requirement that policies be printed
in the Federal Register is also stricken from the Federal
Crop Insurance Act. Funding provided under the House
provision is incorporated into the Act but under another
section of the Title. (Section 146)
Funding
The House bill amends section 516(a)(2) authorizing
mandatory funds to be used for costs associated with the
conduct of livestock pilot programs subject to the
limitations above.
Amends section 516(b)(1) authorizing FCIC to fund livestock
pilot programs from the FCIA Fund.
Amends section 516(a)(2) authorizing mandatory funds to be
used for cost associated with reimbursement and contracting
for research and development.
Amends section 516(b)(1) authorizing FCIC to fund
reimbursement and contracting from the FCIA fund.
Amends section 516(b)(2) authorizing mandatory funds for
costs associated with considering policies and other
materials and implementing such policies. (Section 105, 304
and 305)
The Senate amendment amends section 516(a)(1) of the FCIA
by striking paragraph (1) and inserting a new paragraph (1)
providing that, along with premium income and

[[Page 9206]]

amounts under section 516(a)(2), sanctions fees are to be
deposited in this fund.
Amends 516(b)(2)(a) increasing the authorization of
mandatory funds to be used for research and development.
(Sections 207 and 303)
The Conference substitute adopts a funding section that
incorporates funding authorized under various sections of the
House bill and the Senate amendment, including funding to
cover costs associated with the consideration and
implementation of policies. (Section 147)
Standard Reinsurance Agreement
The House bill authorizes FCIC to renegotiate the SRA
effective for the 2002 reinsurance year. (Section 310(b))
The Senate amendment has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision
relative to the Standard Reinsurance Agreement with changes
to allow 1 re-negotiation during the 2001 through 2005
reinsurance years. (Section 148)

Subtitle E--Miscellaneous

Limitation on Revenue Coverage for Potatoes
The Senate amendment restates the exclusions in current law
in subparagraph (A) and adds another exclusion for coverage
under new subparagraph (B) prohibiting the coverage of losses
due to a decline in revenue from potato production, except as
provided under a whole farm plan of insurance.
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
relative to limitations on revenue coverage for potatoes.
(Section 161)
Crop Insurance Coverage for Cotton and Rice
The Senate amendment requires that, beginning with the 2001
rice crop, FCIC offer plans of insurance, including prevented
planting and replanting coverage, to cover the loss of rice
due to the failure of irrigation water supplies from drought
and saltwater intrusion. (Section 107)
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
relative to crop insurance coverage for rice with a change to
include extra long staple cotton and upland cotton. (Section
162)
Indemnity Payments for Certain Producers
The Senate amendment requires that notwithstanding section
508(c )(5) relative to price elections, a producer of durum
wheat that purchased a 1999 CRC wheat policy by the sales
closing date shall receive an indemnity payment in accordance
with the policy. Requires that the base and harvest price
under the policy be in accord with the Commodity Exchange
Endorsement for wheat published by FCIC on July 14, 1998, and
that FCIC provide reinsurance under the SRA for the policy.
Voids the Bulletin MGR- 99-004 issued by the Administrator.
This provision is effective on October 1, 2000. (Section 501)
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
relative to providing indemnity payments to certain producers
with technical changes. (Section 163)
Sense of Congress on regarding the Federal Crop Insurance
Program
The Senate amendment expresses the sense of the Senate
regarding the federal crop insurance program and the role of
farmer-owned cooperatives. Expresses the sense of the Senate
that, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment,
the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation should complete
promulgation of the proposed rule entitled ``General
Administrative Regulations; Premium Reductions; Payment of
Rebates, Dividends, and Patronage Refunds; and Payments to
Insured-Owned and Record-Controlling Entities.''
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
relative to the Sense of Congress regarding the Federal Crop
Insurance Program. (Section 164)
Sense of Congress on rural America, including minority and
limited-resources farmers
The Senate amendment provides findings relative to a rally
for rural America held in Washington on March 20-21, 2000,
the purpose of the rally, and a sense of Congress with
respect to the rally, its participants, and its purpose.
(Section 403)
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
relative to the Sense of Congress on Rally for Rural America
and Rural Crisis with changes. The Conference substitute also
adopts the House provision relative to minority and limited
resource farmers and ranchers with changes. (Section 165)

Subtitle F--Effective Dates and Implementation

Effective dates
The House bill provides that with the exception of sections
301(b) and 305(d), the amendments made by House bill take
effect upon enactment.
Provides that the implementation depends on the terms of
the particular amendment or, in the absence of an express
implementation date, in accordance with section 402. (Section
401)
The Senate amendment provides that with the exception of
certain provisions, the Senate amendment is effective upon
enactment. (Section 501)
The House bill requires implementation of sections 104,
106, 107, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, and 309 for the 2000 crop
year.
Requires implementation of sections 105(a); 305(a), (b),
and (c); 306; and 307 for the 2000 fiscal year.
Requires implementation of sections 101, 102, 103(b), 109,
110, 111, and 201 for the 2001 crop year. Requires
implementation of sections 105(b) and 304 for the fiscal year
2001. (Section 402)
The Senate amendment prohibits FCIC from obligating funds
to carry out sections 102, 103, 105, 106, 201 through 207,
309, and 310 until October 1, 2000.
The Conference substitute provides that this Act take
effect on the date of enactment with certain exceptions.
Subtitle C, section 146 and 163 take effect on October 1,
2000. Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 101, section
102(a), subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 103, section
104, section 105(b), section 108, section 109, and section
162 take effect beginning with the 2001 crop year. Section
101(d), section 102(b), and section 103(d) take effect
beginning with the 2001 reinsurance year. (Section 171)
Regulations
The Senate amendment requires FCIC to promulgate
regulations not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment.
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision
requiring the Corporation to promulgate regulations to carry
out this Act with a change from requiring regulations within
60 days after enactment to 120 days after enactment. (Section
172)
Savings clause
The House bill provides a savings clause with respect to
current law, to the extent that application of an amendment
is delayed. (Section 403)
The Senate amendment has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision
relative to the savings clause. (Section 173)
Compliance with state licensing requirements
The House bill amends section 508 by adding a new
subsection (o) relative to compliance with state licensing
requirements.
Requires that any person who sells or solicits the purchase
of a policy in a state must be licensed and qualified to do
business in that state. (Section 206)
The Senate amendment amends section 508 of the FCIA adding
at the end a new paragraph (n), relative to compliance with
state licensing requirements.
Requires any person that sells or solicits the purchase of
a policy or adjusts losses under the FCIA in any state must
be licensed and qualified to do business in that state, and
must comply with all state regulations (including commission
and anti-rebating regulations) as required under state law.
(Section 313)
The Conference substitute deletes both the House and Senate
provisions because such licensing requirements are dealt with
under a separate section.
Choice of risk management options
The Senate amendment defines an agricultural commodity as a
crop specified in section 518 of the FCIA for which ``CAT''
or ``buy-up'' coverage is available.
The section further defines an agricultural commodity as a
crop that is selected by the Secretary to maximize the number
of participating producers, provides for a mixture of
program, specialty, and regional crops, gives consideration
to crops with low crop insurance participation, and results
in not less than 15 percent of payments going to states with
traditionally low program participation that the Secretary
determines are under-served.
Defines applicable crop to mean the 2002 through 2004
crops, and applicable year to mean the year in which the crop
is produced on the farm and the producer elects to receive a
risk management payment or crop insurance premium subsidy.
Also defines a regulated exchange as a board of trade
designated as a contract market.
Requires FCIC to offer either to make risk management
payments or to provide crop insurance premium subsidies for
each of the 2002 through 2004 crops.
Requires each producer to make an election between the two
options before the sales closing date for the applicable
crop.
Requires FCIC to make a risk management payment for an
applicable crop to a producer electing to receive such a
payment providing the producer engages in at least 1
prescribed risk management practice from at least 2 of 5
categories. The categoriesinclude, (1) the Crop Insurance
Category (buying unsubsidized or private coverage), (2) the
Marketing Risk Category, (3) the Financial Risk Category, (4)
the Farm Resources Risk Category, or (5) the Other Category
(as prescribed by the Secretary).
Requires the Secretary to determine the amount of any risk
management payment taking into consideration the expenditure
by the producer on the risk management activities in which
the producer engaged.
Provides that no risk management payment may be made in an
amount greater

[[Page 9207]]

than equal to the national average of the previous year's
liability for all ``CAT'' policies.
Authorizes $500 million for fiscal years 2002 through 2004
from the account established in section 516(a)(2)(C) of the
FCIA, except that payments in any one fiscal year may not
exceed $200 million. (Sections 204 and 206 of the Senate
amendment reduce this amount to fund options pilot programs
and education and research.)
Requires producers receiving a risk management payment to
certify compliance with qualifying risk management practices
and associated costs for the applicable year.
Authorizes FCIC to conduct random compliance audits.
Requires the producer to refund a risk management payment
where the producer fails to certify compliance or fails to
comply with qualifying risk management practices and subjects
the producer to possible debarment for up to 5 years from
farm programs cited in section 506(n)(3)(B) of the FCIA.
Provides that any assignment of benefits be carried out
consistent with section 8(g) of the Soil Conservation and
Domestic Allotment Act, and requires the producer give notice
of such assignment where FCIC requires.
Requires FCIC to provide for the fair and equitable sharing
of benefits among all producers at risk in the production of
a crop.
Amends section 516(a) by striking paragraph (1) relative to
discretionary expenses and inserts a new paragraph (1)
relating to the same, providing that there authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 1999 and each subsequent fiscal
year such sums as are necessary to cover the salaries and
expenses of the FCIC, and the expenses of approved insurance
providers in carrying out section 522(c).
Amends section 516(a) relative to mandatory expenses by
adding at the end authorization for risk management payments
in an amount not to exceed $500 million for fiscal years 2001
through 2004, with not more than $200 million for any 1
fiscal year. (Section 203)
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute deletes the Senate provision.
Fees for use of new policies and plans of insurance
The House bill amends section 508(h) by adding a new
paragraph (11) relative to fees for new policies and plans of
insurance.
Provides that beginning with fiscal year 2001, a person
that develops a policy that does not apply for reimbursement
has the right to receive a fee from another approved
insurance provider electing to sell that policy.
Provides that the second provider may not sell such policy
without first reaching a fee agreement with the developer.
Provides that ``new policy'' under the paragraph means a
policy that was approved by the Board on or after October 1,
2000 and was not available at the time of approval. Provides
that the fee be determined by the developer subject to the
approval of the Board, except the Board shall approve the fee
unless it is unreasonable in relation to research and
development costs or it unnecessarily inhibits the use of the
policy. (Section 308)
The Senate amendment amends section 508(h) of the FCIA by
striking paragraph (5) relative to required publication of
submissions in the Federal Register and inserts a new
paragraph (5) relative to fees for plans of insurance.
Provides that, beginning with the 2001 reinsurance year, an
approved insurance provider electing to offer a policy that
was developed by another provider and was approved before
January 1, 2000 must pay the developer $2 per policy for each
of the first 5 crop years, $1 per policy for each of the next
3 crop years, and 50 cents for each policy in each succeeding
crop year.
Provides that, beginning with the 2001 reinsurance year, an
approved insurance provider electing to offer a policy that
was developed by another provider and was approved by the
Board on or after January 1, 2000 must pay the developer an
amount determined by the developer, such fee subject to the
approval of the Board. FCIC may not approve fees that would
unnecessarily inhibit the use of a policy.
Requires FCIC to collect and credit fees to approved
insurance providers.
Provides an exception to the general rule relative to fees
where an approved insurance provider electing to offer a
policy in a state where the developer of the policy does not
do business may pay a fee to offer the policy and that fee
may not be refused.
Amends section 516(b)(1) by adding a new paragraph allowing
FCIC to pay fees collected from the insurance fund, and
amends section 516(c)(1)(A) to provide for the deposit of
such fees collected into the fund. (Section 307)
The Conference substitute deletes both the House and Senate
provisions.
Federal Crop Insurance Improvement Commission
The Senate amendment provides in lieu of the current
section 515 of the FCIA a new section 515 relative to the
establishment of a Federal Crop Insurance Improvement
Commission.
Defines commission as the Federal Crop Insurance
Improvement Commission and establishes the same.
Provides that the commission have 15 members, including the
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services,
the FCIC manager, the USDA Chief Economist, an employee of
OMB appointed by the OMB Director, a representative of the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 4 approved
insurance providers appointed by the Secretary, 2
agricultural economists from academia appointed by the
Secretary, and 4 representatives of major farm organizations
or farmer-owned cooperatives.
Provides that members be appointed not later than 60 days
from enactment and serve for the life of the commission.
Provides that the commission review and make
recommendations relative to the amount of risk approved
insurance providers should bear, whether current reinsurance
practices should be continued, the extent to which
development of new policies should be undertaken by private
entities, how to focus research and development to include
new types of products and products for specialty crops, the
progress in reducing administrative and operating expenses,
etc.
Requires the Under Secretary serving on the commission to
serve as chairman and vote in the event of a tie.
Requires the commission to meet at least 6 times per year
and make public records of the commission available at the
Office of the RMA. Requires that not later than 2 years after
enactment the commission submit a report to the House and
Senate Agriculture Committees, with copies to the Secretary
and the FCIC Board. Also, authorizes the commission to make 1
or more interim reports.
Provides that authority for the commission terminates at
the earlier of 60 days after the final report is issued or on
September 30, 2004.
Authorizes to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary. (Section 310)
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute deletes the Senate provision.
Highly erodible land and wetland conservation
The Senate amendment amends sections 1211(3) and 1221(b)(3)
of the Food Security Act of 1985 to make producers who fail
to comply with highly erodible land and wetland conservation
requirements, respectively, ineligible for crop insurance
benefits. (Section 311)
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute deletes the Senate provision.
Projected loss ratio
The Senate amendment strikes paragraph (2) of section
506(o) of the FCIA relative to loss ratio requirements and
inserts a new paragraph related to the same.
Requires FCIC to take such actions as are necessary,
including the establishment of adequate premiums, to improve
the actuarial soundness of the crop insurance program to
achieve a 1.075 loss ratio from October 1, 1998 through the
2001 crop year, and a 1.00 loss ratio beginning with the 2002
crop year. (Section 312)
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute deletes the Senate provision.
Improved risk management education
The Senate amendment amends Title IV of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 by
adding at the end section 409 relative to improved risk
management education for agricultural producers and provides
definitions.
Requires the Secretary to carry out a program to improve
the risk management skills of agricultural producers, to help
producers understand the financial health of their
operations, marketing alternatives available, and relevant
legal, governmental, environmental, and human resource issue.
Requires the Secretary to establish Risk Management
Education Coordinating Centers in each of the 5 regions in
the country.
Requires the Secretary to locate a region's center at risk
management coordinating office of the Cooperatve State
Research, Education, and Extension Service in existence at a
land grant college or an appropriate alternative land grant
college in the region. Requires the land grant college to
demonstrate the capacity to carry out program priorities,
funding distribution, and reporting requirements.
Requires each center to establish a coordinating council
consisting of 5 members, including public and private
organizations, producers, and a representative of the
regional RMA office.
Requires centers to coordinate the offering of intensive
risk management instructional activities for professionals
who work with producers, the provision of educational
programs for producers, and the dissemination of risk
management education materials.
Requires centers to make use of emerging risk management
information and materials, after an evaluation of suitability
is conducted with the assistance of land grant college
personnel and others.
Requires each center to reserve a portion of funds provided
under the section to make special grants to land grant
colleges and private entities in the region to conduct such

[[Page 9208]]

activities, and requires the reservation of funds to award
competitive grants to public and private entities for such
purposes.
Requires that the National Agriculture Risk Education
Library serve as the central agency for coordination and
distribution of education material and provide for the
electronic delivery of the same.
Authorizes to be appropriated $30 million for fiscal year
2001 and each subsequent fiscal year, requiring 2.5 percent
of funds available be distributed to the Library with the
residual funding reserved for the centers.
Requires the land grant colleges hosting a regional center
to administer the funds for the region. Requires that each
center be located in an existing facility and prohibits the
use of funds for new construction.
Requires the Secretary, acting through the CSREES, to
evaluate each center. (Section 401)
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute deletes the Senate provision.
Termination of authority
The Senate amendment provides that the termination of
certain authority is effective on September 30, 2004.
Repeals Senate amendment provided in sections 102, 103,
105, 106, 203(b), and 310 on September 30, 2004, and provides
that the FCIA and NAP shall after this date be administered
as if these provisions had not been enacted.
Provides further conforming amendments to repeal any
funding authority provided under the Senate Amendments and
prohibits the Secretary or FCIC from carrying out the
provisions after September 30, 2004.
The House bill has no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute deletes the Senate provision.

TITLE II--AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE

The Conference substitute includes a new title (Title II)
providing agricultural assistance to producers of the 2000
crops and other assistance:

Subtitle A--Market Loss Assistance

Sec. 201. Market loss assistance
To ensure timely delivery of market loss payments to
eligible producers and owners, the Managers expect the
Secretary to make the payments available under the same terms
and conditions as the 2000 AMTA contract payments. Market
loss payments made under authority of this legislation shall
not be treated as a contract (AMTA) payment for purposes of
section 115 of Title I of the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act of 1996, or section 1001, paragraphs (1)
through (4) of the Food Security Act of 1985. Further, it
should not be necessary to require eligible owners and
operators to file new contracts or redesignate shares in
order to receive market loss payments.
Sec. 202. Oilseeds
The Managers expect the Secretary to deliver oilseed
economic assistance payments to producers in the same manner
used to deliver the 1999 oilseed payments authorized under
Title VIII, section 803 of P.L. 106-354. The Managers note
that the Department has taken over seven months to make
payments to eligible producers. Such delays in delivering
crop year 2000 payments are unacceptable.
The Managers expect that sesame seed will be eligible for
assistance under this section. The Managers note that the
Federal Agricultural Improvement Act of 1996 makes other
oilseeds eligible for assistance under section 131 of the
FAIR Act. The Managers direct the Secretary, using his
authority under section 102 of the FAIR Act and any other
applicable authorities, to ensure that sesame seed producers
may participate in this program under section 202.
Sec. 203. Specialty crops
This section provides for infrastructure improvements for
growers of specialty crops. Specifically, the section
provides $59.45 million for the PACA reserve fund and the
inspection service reserve fund to maintain the cost of
licensing and inspection fees at the current level. The
section also provides $11.55 million to make improvements to
the system used for inspecting fruits and vegetables,
including the program and facilities used to train
inspectors; the technological tools used by inspectors;
expanding digital imaging technology capabilities; and
improving office space and grading tables.
This section also provides $200 million to be used by the
Secretary to purchase specialty crops that experienced low
prices in the 1998 and 1999 crop years, including apples,
black-eyed peas, cherries, citrus, cranberries, onions,
melons, peaches, potatoes and others. The Managers expect the
Secretary to ensure that, as provided in subsection (d) of
this section, purchases with this funding are in addition to
other purchases made by the Secretary under other
authorities. To the extent practicable, the Managers expect
the Secretary to purchase a significant portion of the
commodities purchased under this section directly from
farmers or agricultural cooperatives rather than processors.
This section also provides $25 million to compensate
growers for losses resulting from plum pox virus, Pierce's
disease and citrus canker.
With respect to the plum pox virus, the Managers expect the
Secretary to use at least $5.1 million to compensate growers
whose trees were destroyed as part of the Secretary's
``Declaration of Extraordinary Emergency'' dated March 2,
2000, in a manner that covers: net returns that would have
been earned over the remaining life of all the destroyed
trees; producers being prevented from replanting for three
years; and lost value of nursery stock.
With respect to Pierce's disease, the Managers expect the
Secretary to utilize at least $7,140,000 in a manner that
enables the California Department of Food and Agriculture to
utilize such funding for state and local efforts to contain
and control Pierce's disease which is devastating
agricultural areas in Southern California, and is moving
northward into other regions. Funds are needed immediately to
monitor for the earliest signs of the disease and to inspect
nursery stock prior to shipment. The disease is spread by a
vigorous and difficult to control insect called the glassy-
winged sharpshooter. This insect is a major problem, but the
elimination of the insect would not eliminate the disease.
The Managers are disappointed by the federal response to
this outbreak. It is clear that efforts to control the spread
of the disease must be increased. It is also clear that there
is an immediate need for additional research efforts to study
near and long term alternatives for controlling the bacterium
common to Pierce's disease. The Managers expect the Secretary
to initiate such efforts immediately, within existing
resources.
With respect to citrus canker, the Managers expect the
Secretary to utilize remaining funding to compensate citrus
growers who have suffered economic losses due to the disease.
This section also requires the Secretary, in conjunction
with USDA's Inspector General, to submit a report to Congress
that analyzes the economic losses associated with falsified
inspection certificates issued at the Hunts Point Terminal
Market, including an analysis of how the Secretary intends to
provide restitution.
This section also provides loans, up to three years in
term, for apple producers that are suffering economic losses
resulting from low prices for apples.
Sec. 204. Other commodities
Subsec. (a) Peanuts
This subsection provides economic assistance to peanut
producers. The Managers expect the Secretary to deliver the
peanut economic assistance payments to producers in the same
manner used to deliver the 1999 peanut assistance authorized
under Title VIII, section 803 of P.L. 106-354. The Managers
also expect that the same rules that were used and applied to
a peanut quota lessor and lessee with respect to 1999
assistance will be used with respect to the delivery of the
monies made available under this Act.
Subsec. (b) Tobacco
This subsection-
Provides $340 million to the Secretary to make payments to
States from October 1, 2000, to October 20, 2000. The States
shall divide the funds between quota owners, quota lessees,
and tobacco producers;
Includes language requested from the State of Georgia
requiring the State to match the portion of funds provided
from this title by the Federal Government;
Allows an increase for acreage transfers for dark-fire
cured tobacco;
Allows for an adjustment in the burley noncommitted pool
stocks;
Places limitations on burley carry forward pounds and lease
and transfer due to natural disasters;
Makes a technical correction in the cross county leasing
definition of the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act; and
Requires that the Secretary establish a computerized
recordkeeping system for burley tobacco quota and acreage.
Subsec. (c) Honey
This subsection provides recourse loans for honey producers
on the 2000 crop of honey. The loan rate would equal 85
percent of the average price of honey during the 5-crop year
period preceding the 2000 crop, dropping the year with the
highest price and the year with the lowest price in
calculating the average.
Subsec. (d) Wool and mohair
This subsection provides direct payments to producers of
wool and mohair for the 1999 marketing year. The payment
rates would be 20 cents per pound for wool and 40 cents per
pound for mohair. The Managers expect the Secretary to make
payments under this section in an equitable manner without
regard to size of operation.
Subsec. (e) Cottonseed
This subsection provides cottonseed assistance to producers
and first handlers. The Managers expect the Secretary to
provide additional assistance to cotton producers and first
handlers through direct payments or other means to help
alleviate the problems caused by the unusually low prices.
Sec. 205. Payments in lieu of loan deficiency payments
The Managers intend for crop year 2001 producers of wheat,
oats and barley on a

[[Page 9209]]

farm with an AMTA contract who graze the acreage and forego
mechanical harvesting to be eligible for a payment under the
same terms and conditions as a producer who harvests a crop
and applies for a loan deficiency payment. The Managers
intend for the producer to enter into a payment agreement
with CCC at the loan deficiency payment rate for the
applicable crop in effect on the date of such agreement, at
such time as the producer chooses, but not earlier than the
date a producer who normally harvests a crop would make
application for a loan deficiency payment and no later than
September 30, 2001. The Managers expect the Secretary to
require adequate producer certifications to protect the
program from fraud and abuse. Producers that certify wheat,
oats or barley for grain with either the Farm Service Agency
(FSA) or the Risk Management Agency (RMA) and fail to harvest
the crop because of weather conditions and subsequently graze
the acreage are not intended to be covered by this provision.
The Managers expect the Department to immediately publicize
this provision in FSA county newsletters.
Sec. 206. Expansion of producers eligible for loan deficiency
payments
The Managers intend for producers growing an AMTA contract
commodity on a farm with no AMTA contract to be eligible for
loan deficiency payments on 2000 crop production subject to
the same terms and conditions as applicable to producers on a
farm with an AMTA contract. Producers eligible for payment
under this section are afforded an exception to the
beneficial interest provisions for a period of time that
extends for 30 days after the promulgation of regulations.
The Managers expect the Department to immediately publicize
this provision in FSA county newsletters.

Subtitle B-Conservation

Sec. 211. Conservation assistance
Subsection (a) directs USDA to use $10 million for the
Farmland Protection Program and allows nonprofit conservation
organizations to hold easements in those states that do not
have a state defined farmland protection program. Subsection
(b) directs USDA to use $40 million to provide soil, water
and natural resource conservation assistance for farmers in
the form of cost share or incentive payments. The Managers
believe that farmers and ranchers need additional assistance
to address these natural resource problems.
The Managers agree there is a great demand among the states
to keep prime and unique farmland in agricultural production.
The farmland protection authorization in the 1996 farm bill
was immediately over-subscribed, and the $35 million in funds
were exhausted in two years. Thus, the Managers have provided
a $10-million infusion of funds to the farmland protection
program. In addition, new program participants, such as
nonprofit land resource conservation councils, are now able
to take part in this initiative.
This section also provides $40 million to assist farmers
and ranchers through cost-share or incentive payments to get
proven soil and water conservation practices on their farms
and ranches. In making these funds available, the Managers
recognize that the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) has left certain producers in areas of states and
regions of the country with little or no federal help.
Although the funds made available in the conference report
are limited, they will be directed at areas that are outside
conservation priority areas, where most of the EQIP funds
have been used. The Managers expect for these funds to be
focused on practices that conserve water or improve water
quality. The Managers believe many water quality concerns can
be handled without the time-consuming and expensive
development and writing of whole farm plans. One or two
practices properly completed are the best conservation, which
can be applied to the land for water quality or water
conservation. In that regard, the Managers emphasize that the
funds included in this program are only for financial
assistance through cost-share and incentive payments to
farmers and ranchers. It is the intent of the Managers that
this program will be carried out using the conservation
operations account funded in annual agriculture
appropriations acts.
Sec. 212. Inclusion of farmland in conservation-related areas
This section requires the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 on the proposed
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) on the Little Darby Creek in
Madison and Union Counties, Ohio. This EIS must be completed
before any further development may proceed on the Little
Darby Creek NWR.

Subtitle C--Research

Sec. 221. Carbon cycle research
This section directs USDA to provide $15 million in Fiscal
Year 2001 to the Consortium for Agricultural Soils Mitigation
of Greenhouse Gases for carbon cycle research at the
national, regional and local levels. Additional research is
needed in the sequestration of carbon as it relates to
agricultural best management practices and how these
practices convert carbon dioxide into soil organic carbon
that in turn reduces soil erosion, improves water quality and
increases yields. Producers and policymakers need a better
understanding of the link between the carbon cycle and
agricultural best management practices. The Managers believe
that the storage of carbon may provide additional income to
farmers and ranchers and provide ancillary environmental
benefits.
Sec. 222. Tobacco research for medicinal purposes
This section directs USDA to provide $3 million in Fiscal
Year 2001 to Georgetown University and North Carolina State
University for research regarding the extraction and
purification of proteins from genetically altered tobacco
that can be used as a vaccine for cervical cancer.
Sec. 223. Research on soil science and forest health
management
This section directs USDA to provide a grant to the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln for laboratories and equipment
for research on soil science and forest health and
management.
Sec. 224. Research on waste streams from livestock production
This section provides $3.5 million to expand research
related to livestock production waste streams. The Managers
expect the Secretary to utilize this funding to focus on
technology for reducing, modifying, recycling, and utilizing
livestock waste streams in a manner that will allow
scientists to develop and utilize integrated components
required for a systems approach to livestock waste and odor
research and development. This is required to deal with the
complex interactions among variables influencing nutrient/
contaminant production and flow-through livestock production
systems. The Managers expect the research goals to include:
reducing waste and odor production and emission; reducing
health hazards and improving working conditions in production
facilities; improving efficiency of manure handling and
utilization; increasing recycling of nutrients and water; and
making livestock production compatible with neighboring
individuals and communities.
Sec. 225. Improved storage and management of livestock and
poultry waste
This section provides $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 for
the Secretary to review and assess potential problems
associated with livestock and poultry waste management
systems and to study and demonstrate appropriate market-
oriented solutions to these potential problems. As provided
in this section, the Managers expect the Secretary to carry
out this review and assessments through grants, contracts,
and cooperative agreements with producers, associations of
producers, and foundations supported by producers.
Sec. 226. Ethanol research pilot plant
Authorizes and appropriates $14 million to the Secretary
for the construction of a corn-based ethanol research pilot
plant.
Sec. 227. Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species
Authorizes the Secretary to enter into a cooperative
agreement with the National Center for Genome Resources in
Santa Fe, New Mexico, New Mexico State University and Iowa
State University for the establishment and operation of an
institute to be known as the Bioinformatics Institute for
Model Plant Species for the purpose of enhancing the
accessibility and utility of genomic information for plant
genetic research.

Subtitle D--Agricultural Marketing

Sec. 231. Value-added agricultural product market development
grants
This section directs the Secretary to use $15 million to
award competitive grants to eligible producers for the
purpose of facilitating greater participation in markets for
value-added agricultural commodities. The Managers expect
these grants to fund ventures for a variety of agricultural
commodities. It is the intent of the Managers that the grants
would be made for the purpose of developing business plans
for viable marketing opportunities and the creation of a
pilot project resource center to coordinate assistance
including research, data, business, legal, financial and
logistical operations. The Managers expect that the grants
would only be awarded if the projects, business ventures, and
other authorized activities are determined to be economically
viable and sustainable. Further, the Mangers expect that
grants awarded under this section will facilitate the opening
of new markets for value-added products. It is not the
intention of the Managers that grants made under this section
will interfere with existing markets or be used to fund
construction, acquisition, rental, leasing, or any other
means of obtaining physical capacity to produce or process
agricultural commodities.

Subtitle E--Nutrition Programs

Sec. 241. Calulation of minimum amount of commodities for
School Lunch requirements
Section 241 directs the Secretary to purchase additional
food commodities in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for
distribution to schools participating in the School Lunch
program.
Sec. 242. School Lunch data
Section 242 provides that information obtained for
determining eligibility for free

[[Page 9210]]

and reduced-price school meals in the School Lunch program
may be shared to aid in the enrollment of lower-income
children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP). This section also authorizes a pilot project using
local agencies operating the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program) to
help enroll children in the SCHIP.
Sec. 243. Child and Adult Care Food Program integrity
Section 243 reforms the Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP) to address problems of fraud, abuse, and deficient
management identified in investigations by the General
Accounting Office and the Agriculture Department's Office of
Inspector General. This section also expands the availability
of Federal nutrition assistance for after-school programs and
authorizes an additional State to increase participation in
the CACFP by for-profit child care organizations serving
lower-income children.
Sec. 244. Adjustments to WIC Program
Section 244 provides adjustments to the WIC program to
increase participation by residents of remote Indian or
Native villages and provide a program structure that better
serves these communities.

Subtitle F--Other Programs

Sec. 251. Authority to provide loan in connection with boll
weevil eradication
Section 251 requires the Secretary using the Commodity
Credit Corporation to make a loan to the Texas Boll Weevil
Eradication Foundation, Inc., in the amount of $10,000,000.
This loan is to enable the Foundation to retire debt
associated with boll weevil eradication zones that have ended
their participation, in whole or in part, in the boll weevil
eradication program.
Repayment for the loan will begin on January 1 of the year
following the first year that a boll weevil eradication zone,
or any part of the zone, responsible for the debt retired
using the loan resumes participation in the boll weevil
eradication program.
The cost of the credit subsidy of this loan will be the
amount necessary to provide the full $10,000,000 loan to the
Foundation. The Managers expect that the credit subsidy
necessary to implement the total $10,000,000 loan will be
approximately 51%. However, the Managers expect USDA to use
whatever amount of subsidy is necessary to make the
$10,000,000 loan.
The Managers expect that this loan to the Texas Boll Weevil
Eradication Foundation, Inc., will retire its debt to Farm
Credit System institutions associated with the Lower Rio
Grande Valley Boll Weevil Eradication Zone and that portion
of the debt associated with the South Texas Winter Garden
Zone apportioned to Austin, Brazoria, Colorado, Fort Bend,
Jackson, Matagorda, and Wharton Counties by the Texas
Commissioner of Agriculture. This loan will provide funds to
be used by the Foundation for full and final satisfaction, on
a pro-rata basis, of the notes relating to the debt held by
those Production Credit Associations and the Farm Credit Bank
of Texas. The Managers expect that upon payment of the notes
from the funds provided by this loan, that the Texas Boll
Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc., will be released from
any and all claims, liabilities, or obligations associated
with or evidenced by the notes.
Sec. 252. Animal disease control
Subsection (a) directs USDA to spend $7 million in Fiscal
Year 2001 for psuedorabies vaccination costs incurred by pork
producers. Subsection (b) directs USDA to spend $6 million in
Fiscal Year 2001 on bovine tuberculosis in Michigan. Funding
shall be used for surveillance and testing of cattle;
surveillance and testing of wildlife; research at ARS and
Michigan State University; increases in indemnity payments to
encourage depopulation of infected herds; diagnostic testing
and treatment of humans; slaughter surveillance; controlling
and preventing exposure of livestock to wildlife; fencing to
minimize contact between wildlife and domestic livestock; and
risk communications and improvements in technology for
communications. Current laws stipulate that funding for
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture eradication programs is to be
withdrawn from existing Commodity Credit Corporation funds.
The Managers intend for eradication program funding to
continue to be extracted from Commodity Credit Corporation
funds.
Sec. 253. Emergency loans for seed producers
This section directs USDA to provide non-interest loans to
producers of 1999 crop grass, forage, vegetable and sorghum
seed that have not received payments from AgriBiotech (ABT)
as a result of bankruptcy proceedings involving ABT. ABT, one
of the largest single turf, forage, and alfalfa seed
companies in the country, filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy
affecting over 1200 farmer growers in 39 states. ABT cannot
pay growers for their 1999 produced crop and the growers are
the largest segment of creditors in the bankruptcy. This
section directs the Secretary to create an emergency no-
interest loan program for those producers involved in the
bankruptcy proceedings. For the producer to be eligible, the
seed producer must have a claim in the bankruptcy proceeding.
The Managers believe that this situation is unique as ABT is
an organization of numerous small family producers who will
be adversely impacted financially by this bankruptcy
proceedings.
Sec. 254. Temporary suspension of authority to combine
certain offices
The Managers expect the Secretary to submit a detailed
report regarding the justification used to select a state
office collocation site in each of the applicable states. The
manager expects the Secretary to notify all applicable
Agencies that no agency or agency employee shall take any
action to solicit office space or renovate current leased
space for the purpose of accommodating collocated agencies or
take any other action to collocate state offices from the
date of enactment of this Act through June 1, 2001. The
Managers expect those state agencies that are scheduled for
collocation and located in the same county on the date of
enactment to continue to pursue efforts to collocate. The
Managers expect the report to be inclusive of all factors
used in the selection of the site, including the methodology
used in the site selection.
Sec. 255. Farm operating loan eligibility
This section affects the Secretary of Agriculture's
administration of the loan eligibility limitations of
sections 311 and 319 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act. Current law makes borrowers who have had a
number of direct or guaranteed operating loans from the Farm
Service Agency (FSA) ineligible for additional seasonal
operating loans.
The Managers understand that previous policy was intent on
limiting loans to long- time borrowers in an effort to
graduate them to other sources of credit. The intent was to
free up credit resources for beginning, socially-
disadvantaged and minority farmers and ranchers during a
period when fewer appropriations were being made for federal
farm loan programs. However, because of the recent downturn
in the farm economy caused by low prices, the Managers are
concerned that some farmers may be turned away from the FSA.
The only reason that otherwise efficient farmers cannot get
credit from FSA is because of an arbitrary term limit in the
law. While the Managers believe this change is needed at this
time, the amendment extends only through December 31, 2002,
which should provide ample time for the Congress to fully
reexamine this matter in the context of the next farm bill.
Sec. 256. Water systems for rural and Native villages in
Alaska
This section amends section 306D of the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act by increasing the authorization of
appropriations from $20,000,000 to $30,000,000 for water and
wastewater systems for rural and native villages in Alaska.
Also authorizes a transfer of up to two percent of the funds
for training and technical assistance programs that are
related to the operation and management of the systems.
Sec. 257. Crop and pasture flood compensation program
Directs the Secretary to compensate producers for the loss
of cropland or pastureland due to unusual flooding. This
assistance is targeted to producers who are still
experiencing flooding, but have not been compensated for
loses between time of enactment and the Flood Compensation
Program authorized by the 1998 omnibus appropriations bill,
using that program's framework and base year. The section
sets a specific framework on the compensation. Acres on which
crops were planted but failed are not eligible. A payment
limitation of $40,000 is included.
The Managers encourage the Department to take all necessary
administrative actions to ensure the availability of no less
than 4 million acres for partial field conservation buffer
enrollments within the existing Conservation Reserve Program.
Also, the Committee encourages the Department to extend
stewardship incentive payments to contour grass strips and
cross wind trap strips, as well as any additional
conservation practices that may be made eligible for the
continuous sign-up or conservation reserve enhancement
programs.
This section also includes a technical correction to the
fiscal year 2000 agricultural appropriations act to
specifically include Lake County, Oregon as being eligible
for assistance that was made available under that act. The
Managers are aware that producers in Lake County have faced a
similar disastrous situation, but were inadvertently left out
of the fiscal year 2000 agriculture appropriations section.
The Managers are also aware that, under the fiscal year 2000
agricultural appropriations act, there are still funds
available in this fiscal year to assist ranchers in Lake
County, and this section provides the necessary authority for
the Secretary of Agriculture to move forward with that
assistance. The Managers expect the Secretary to provide that
assistance as soon as possible.
Sec. 258. Flood mitigation near Pierre, South Dakota
This section requires the Army Corps of Engineers to, as
soon as practicable after enactment, begin acquiring land and
property from willing sellers; relocate individuals located
on the land, improve infrastructure,

[[Page 9211]]

and take other necessary actions with respect to such
property.
This section also conditions winter releases of the Oahe
Powerplant on the Secretary of the Army completing an
amendment to his economic analysis and identifying mitigation
benefits with respect to existing ground water flooding.
Sec. 259. Restoration of eligibility for crop loss assistance
This section restores the eligibility for individuals
otherwise eligible for disaster assistance under section 1102
of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999
(as contained in section 101(a) of division A of Public Law
105-277; 7 U.S.C. 1421, solely because the individual or
entity changed the legal structure of the individual's or
entity's farming operation.

Subtitle G--Administration

Sec. 261. Funding
Includes the funding amount for various sections in the
bill.
Sec. 262. Obligation period
Provides that the Commodity Credit Corporation shall
obligate and spend the funds made available under section
261(a)(1) (funding for school lunch commodities) only during
fiscal year 2000 and funds made available to fund other
provisions of the bill shall be obligated and spent only
during fiscal year 2001.
Sec. 263. Regulations
Directs the Secretary and the Commodity Credit Corporation,
whichever is appropriate, to promulgate regulations to
implement Title II of the legislation without regard to
notice and comment rulemaking.
The Managers have provided the Secretary relief from
several statutory provisions relating to the promulgation of
regulations needed to carry out title II. This language is
the same as provisions passed by Congress in prior
legislation for farmers. The Managers are particularly
troubled by the fact that, even with these waivers, the
Department has been unable to implement programs in a timely
manner in prior years, most notably the oilseed assistance
that was provided by Congress in October of 1999 but has yet
to be distributed. In order to assist Congress in future
deliberations the Managers expect the Inspector General to
complete a report for submission to both Agriculture
Committees with 60 days of enactment of this Act addressing
the reasons for the inability of the Department to implement
programs in a timely manner.
Sec. 264. Paygo adjustment
Prohibits the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget from making any estimates of changes in direct
spending outlays and receipts in fiscal year 2000 resulting
from enactment of Title II of the legislation.
Sec. 265. Commodity Credit Corporation reimbursement
This section specifically directs the Secretary of the
Treasury to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for
net realized losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed,
under this title.

TITLE III--THE BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT Of 2000

The Conference substitute adopts a new title which
authorizes research to promote the conversion of biomass into
biobased industrial products:
Section 301. Short title
The Biomass Research and Development Act.
Section 302. Findings
States the need for a focused, integrated and innovation-
driven research effort to develop technologies for the
production of biobased industrial products.
Section 303. Definitions
Defines the terms Advisory Committee, Biobased Industrial
Product, Biomass, Board, Initiative, Institution of Higher
Education, National Laboratory, Point of Contact, Processing,
and Research and Development.
Section 304. Cooperation and coordination in biomass research
and development
Requires that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy
shall cooperate and coordinate policies and procedures that
promote biomass research and development leading to the
production of biobased industrial products. Specifies the
purpose and areas for coordination.
Section 305. Biomass Research and Development Board
Establishes a board to coordinate programs, to maximize
benefits and to bring coherence to strategic planning within
and among departments and agencies of the Federal Government
to promote the use of biobased industrial products. The Board
shall be comprised of a minimum of six members. The Board
shall be cochaired by the points of contact appointed by the
Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate.
Section 306. Biomass Research and Development Technical
Advisory Committee
Establishes an advisory committee to advise the Secretaries
of Agriculture USDA and the Department of Energy DOE and the
Biomass Research and Development Board, to facilitate
consultations and partnerships, and to evaluate and perform
strategic planning for the Biomass Research and Development
Initiative. The Committee shall be comprised of a minimum of
ten members, all appointed by the points of contact. The
Committee will meet at least quarterly. Lengths of terms are
specified.
Section 307. Biomass Research and Development Initiative
Provides that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, in
consultation with the Board, shall establish a Biomass
Research and Development Initiative under which competitively
awarded grants, contracts and financial assistance are
provided to, or entered into, with eligible entities to carry
out research and development of low cost and sustainable
biobased industrial products. Provides that funds
appropriated for biomass research and development under the
general authority of the Secretary of Energy to conduct
research and development programs may be used to carry out
this title. Also authorizes $ 49,000,000 within USDA for each
of fiscal years 2000 through 2005 to carry out this title.
Section 308. Administrative support and funds
Provides the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, and
other agencies, the authority to give administrative support
and funds to the Board and Advisory Committee if needed.
Section 309. Reports
Requires that an initial report be jointly submitted by the
Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy within 180 days of
enactment of the Act and that an annual report be submitted
to Congress for each fiscal year for which funds are made
available.
Section 310. Termination of authority
Authority granted by this title shall terminate on December
31, 2005.

TITLE IV--PLANT PROTECTION

The Conference substitute adopts a new provision which
consolidates and enhances the authority of the Secretary to
regulate in interstate and foreign commerce, the movement of
any plant, plant product, biological control organism, or
noxious weed if the Secretary determines the action is
necessary to prevent the introduction or dissemination of a
plant pest or noxious weed:
Sec. 401. Short title and table of contents
The short title of this Act is the ``Plant Protection
Act.'' This section also contains the table of contents for
the Act.
Sec. 402. Findings
Sec. 403. Definitions
Sections 3(1), (3)-(8), (11), (17), and (19) are all new
definitions, but are commonly accepted definitions for the
words, ``article,'' ``enter and entry,'' ``export and
exportation,'' ``import and importation,'' ``interstate,''
``interstate commerce,'' ``means of conveyance,'' ``permit,''
``State,'' and ``this Act.''
Sec. 403(2) is new. Defining biological control organisms
separately makes our authority over these organisms explicit
when they present a potential plant pest risk.
Sec. 403(9), (12), (13), (15), (16), and (20), ``move and
related terms,'' ``person,'' ``plant,'' ``plant product,''
``Secretary,'' and ``United States'' have all been derived
from existing law with little or no modification.
Sec. 403(10), ``noxious weed,'' has been expanded from
existing law.
Sec. 403(14), ``plant pest,'' has been expanded to include
all vertebrate and invertebrate animals, except humans.
Sec. 403(18), ``systems approach,'' is new.

Subtitle A--Plant Protection

Sec. 411. Regulation of movement of plant pests
Prohibits the importation, entry, exportation, or movement
in interstate commerce, mailing, or delivery (from any post
office or by any mail carrier) of any plant pest unless the
movement is in accordance with regulations issued by the
Secretary. All processes used to develop such regulations
will be transparent and accessible and the regulations will
be based on sound science. This provision does not authorize
the opening of any mail unless such action is authorized
under postal laws. This section would authorize the Secretary
to issue regulations that allow the movement of a plant pest
in interstate commerce without restriction. Also provides for
a petition process to add or remove plant pests from
regulation.
Sec. 412. Restrictions on movement
Authorizes the Secretary to prohibit or restrict the
importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate
commerce of any plant, plant product, biological control
organism, noxious weed, article, or mean of conveyance if the
Secretary determines the action is necessary to prevent the
introduction or dissemination of a plant pest or noxious
weed. Within 1 year after the Act is enacted, the Secretary
shall publish for public comment a notice describing the
processes governing such import requests. Requires the
Secretary to conduct a study of the effectiveness of using
systems approaches to guard against the introduction into the
United States of plant pathogens associated with proposals
for imported plants or plant products. Not later than 2 years
after the Act is enacted, the Secretary shall report to
Congress on the results of this study. Authorizes the
Secretary to determine by regulation those noxious weeds and
biological

[[Page 9212]]

control organisms that may or may not freely move within
interstate commerce. A person may petition the Secretary to
add or remove individual plant species or biological control
organisms from such regulations.
Sec. 413. Notification and holding requirements upon arrival
Requires the Secretary of Treasury to notify promptly the
Secretary of Agriculture of the arrival of plants, plant
products, biological control organisms, plant pests, or
noxious weeds at the port of entry. It also requires the
Secretary of Treasury to hold the articles until the
Secretary of Agriculture has inspected or otherwise released
them.
Further, section 413 requires persons responsible for
articles for which a permit under sections 411 or 412 to
notify the Secretary of Agriculture or appropriate official
in the State of destination of relevant information
concerning the shipment before moving it from the port of
entry. Finally, section 413 prohibits the movement of any
imported plant, plant product, biological control organism,
plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance
from the port of entry or interstate unless it has been
inspected or otherwise released by the Secretary of
Agriculture.
Sec. 414. Remedial measures
Section 414 authorizes the Secretary to hold, seize,
quarantine, treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy,
or dispose of any plant; plant pest; noxious weed; biological
control organism; plant product; article; or means of
conveyance; and progeny of any plant product, plant pest,
biological control organisms, or noxious weed in interstate
or foreign commerce under various circumstances in order to
prevent the dissemination of any plant pest or noxious weed
new to or not known to be widely prevalent or distributed in
the United States. Authorizes the Secretary to order an owner
(including the owner's agent) of any item subject to action
under subsection (a) to treat, apply other remedial measures,
to destroy, or otherwise dispose of such item without cost to
the Federal Government in a manner the Secretary deems
appropriate. If the owner fails to take action as ordered,
the Secretary may take the action and recover the costs of
the actions from the owner or his agent. The Secretary is
authorized to develop a classification system and integrated
management plan regarding noxious weeds. Requires the
Secretary to take the least drastic action to prevent the
dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed.
Sec. 415. Declaration of extraordinary emergency
Authorizes the Secretary to declare an extraordinary
emergency in certain situations. Once an extraordinary
emergency is declared, the Secretary can take actions to
prohibit or restrict movement or require that other actions
be taken concerning regulated items regardless of whether the
items are moving in interstate commerce. Action can be taken
only if the Secretary finds that the actions taken by the
State are not adequate and the Secretary publishes those
findings in the Federal Register. Actions the Secretary takes
must also be the least drastic actions that are feasible to
deal with the plant pest or noxious weed problem. Finally,
the Secretary is authorized to pay compensation for economic
losses.
Sec. 416. Recovery of compensation for unauthorized
activities
Authorizes the owners of plants, biological control
organisms, plant products, plant pests, noxious weeds,
articles, or means of conveyance destroyed or disposed of
under section 414 or 415 to bring an action not later than 1
year after the destruction or disposal in U.S. district court
and for the owner to recover just compensation for an
unauthorized destruction or disposal of such property.
Sec. 417. Control of grasshoppers and mormon crickets
Subject to the availability of funding, the Secretary shall
carry out control programs for grasshoppers and Mormon
crickets on Federal, State, and private lands to protect
rangeland. Authorizes the pooling of funds between the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior
to conduct such programs on Federal lands controlled by the
Department of the Interior. This section also provides the
formula for the Federal cost share for treatment programs.
Sec. 418. Certification for exports
Authorizes the Secretary to certify for export plants,
plant products, and biological control organisms as to
freedom from plant pests or noxious weeds or exposure to
plant pests or noxious weeds according to phytosanitary or
other requirements of the exporting country.

Subtitle B--Inspection and Enforcement

Sec. 421. Inspections, seizures, warrants
Authorizes warrantless inspections based on guidelines
approved by the Attorney General: (1) of persons or means of
conveyance moving into the United States to determine whether
they are carrying any regulated material; (2) of persons or
means of conveyance moving interstate upon probable cause to
believe that they are carrying regulated material; and (3) of
any person or means of conveyance moving intrastate under
extraordinary emergency conditions (see section 415) upon
probable cause to believe that they are carrying regulated
material. The Secretary is also authorized to enter premises
with a warrant issued by a Federal judge to make inspections
and seizures necessary under the Act.
Sec. 422. Collection of information
Authorizes the Secretary to gather and compile information
and to conduct investigations necessary for the
administration and enforcement of the Act.
Sec. 423. Subpoena authority
Authorizes the Secretary to require the attendance of
witnesses and production of documentary evidence through the
use of subpoenas to aid in investigations and proceedings.
This provision also authorizes the Secretary to request the
Attorney General to take actions to enforce such subpoenas.
Sec. 424. Penalties for violation
Allows for criminal penalties as provided under Title 18 of
the U.S. Code for knowing violations of the Act or any misuse
of a permit, certificate, or other document. It also provides
for civil penalties for violations of the Act, including
forging, counterfeiting, using in an unauthorized manner,
altering, defacing, or destroying any certificate, permit, or
document provided for under the Act not to exceed the greater
of: (1) $50,000 for an individual, $250,000 for any other
violation by a person, and $500,000 for all violations
adjudicated in the same proceeding, or (2) twice the gross
gain or gross loss associated with the violation. The penalty
has been increased from $1,000 per violation. Finally,
section 204 authorizes the issuance of a notice of warning in
lieu of criminal prosecution.
Sec. 425. Attorney General enforcement actions
Authorizes the Attorney General to prosecute criminal
violations of the Act; bring an action to enjoin violation of
or compel compliance with the Act; or bring an action for
recovery of reimbursable funds, civil penalties, late payment
penalties, or interest that has not been paid.
Sec. 426. Court jurisdiction
Delineates the jurisdiction of courts in most cases arising
under the Act.

Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 431. Cooperation
Authorizes the Secretary to cooperate with other Federal
agencies, States or their political subdivisions, foreign
governments or their political subdivisions, domestic or
international organizations or associations, or other persons
to carry out the Act. Section 301 authorizes the Secretary to
transfer biological control technology to States, Federal
agencies, or other persons for use in control of plant pests
or noxious weeds. Section 301 also authorizes cooperation
with States and other persons in the administration of
programs for the improvement of plants, plant products, and
biological control organisms. Finally, Section 431 authorizes
the Secretary to ensure that all phytosanitary import/export
issues are addressed based on sound science and consistent
with applicable international agreements.
Sec. 432. Buildings, land, people, claims, and agreements
Authorizes the Secretary to acquire and maintain real or
personal property for special purposes; to enter into
contracts, cooperative agreements, memoranda of
understanding, and other agreements; to employ any person; or
to make grants necessary for carrying out this Act. Section
432 also authorizes the payment of tort claims when the
claims arise outside the United States in connection with
activities authorized by this Act. Claims must be presented
in writing within 2 years after the claim accrues.
Sec. 433. Reimbursable agreements
Authorizes the Secretary to enter into reimbursable fee
agreements for preclearance at locations outside the United
States for plants, plant products, biological control
organisms, and articles. Funds collected are credited to
accounts established by the Secretary and remain available
until expended. Section 433 also authorizes the Secretary to
pay employees performing inspection, quarantine, or other
services relating to imports and exports for all overtime,
night, or holiday work and to require the person for whom the
service is performed to reimburse the Secretary for the
services.
Sec. 434. Regulations and orders
Authorizes the Secretary to issue orders and regulations
necessary to carry out this Act.
Sec. 435. Protection for mail handlers
This Act shall not apply to any employee of the United
States in the performance of the duties of the employee in
handling the mail.
Sec. 436. Preemption
Provides that no State or political subdivision may take an
action to regulate in foreign commerce any article or means
of conveyance, plant, biological control organism, plant
pest, noxious weed, or plant product in order to control or
eradicate a plant pest or noxious weed, or prevent the
introduction or dissemination of a biological control
organism, plant pest, or noxious weed.
Similarly, no State or political subdivision may take an
action to regulate interstate commerce different from Federal
regulations in any of the delineated items; control a

[[Page 9213]]

plant pest or noxious weed; eradicate a plant pest or noxious
weed; or prevent the introduction or dissemination of a
biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed if
the Secretary has issued a regulation or order to prevent the
dissemination of the biological control organism, plant pest,
or noxious weed. However, if State or local officials can
demonstrate a special local circumstance, they can petition
the Secretary to allow for the imposition of additional
prohibitions or restrictions by the State or local
government.
Sec. 437. Severability
Contains standard severability language.
Sec. 438. Repeals
Enumerates the list of laws being repealed and replaced by
this Act.

Subtitle D--Authorizations of Appropriations

Sec. 441. Authorization of appropriations
Authorizes the appropriation of such amounts necessary to
carry out this Act. Unless specifically authorized, no part
of appropriated funds shall be used for indemnification
purposes.
Sec. 442. Transfer authority
Authorizes the Secretary to transfer funds without fiscal
year limitation from any agency or corporation of the
Department to arrest, control, eradicate, and/or prevent the
spread of a plant pest or noxious weed in connection with a
threatening agricultural emergency.

Title V--Inspection Animals

Sec. 501. Inspection animal civil penalties
Provides for civil penalties of up to $10,000 for causing
harm to or interfering with a Department of Agriculture
inspection animal.
Sec. 502. Inspection animal subpoena authority
Authorizes the Secretary to require the attendance of
witnesses and production of documentary evidence through the
use of subpoenas to aid in investigations and proceedings.
This provision also authorizes the Secretary to request the
Attorney General to take actions to enforce such subpoenas.
Larry Combest,
Bill Barrett,
John Boehner,
Thomas W. Ewing,
Richard Pombo,
Charlie Stenholm,
Gary Condit,
Collin C. Peterson,
Cal Dooley,
Managers on the Part of the House.

Richard G. Lugar,
Jesse Helms,
Thad Cochran,
Paul Coverdell,
Pat Roberts,
Tom Harkin,
Patrick Leahy,
Kent Conrad,
Bob Kerrey,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 42 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

____________________

{time} 0032

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) at 12 o'clock and 32
minutes a.m.

____________________

REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT
ON H.R. 2559, AGRICULTURE RISK PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 106-640) on the resolution (H. Res. 512) waiving
points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 2559) to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the
safety net for agricultural producers by providing greater access to
more affordable risk management tools and improved protection from
production and income loss, to improve the efficiency and integrity of
the Federal crop insurance program, and for other purposes, which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

____________________

REPORT ON H.R. 4461, PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4461,
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 106-641) providing for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, which
was referred to the Union Calendar and ordered to be printed.

____________________

HOUSE PASSED PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS FOR CHINA

(Mr. SESSIONS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today has been a glorious day for the
United States House of Representatives. This body, actually yesterday,
debated one of the most outstanding trade packages that will take place
perhaps in my tenure in the House of Representatives, and I am pleased
to report to those listeners that might be hearing us tonight that the
House of Representatives earlier today passed what is known as the
permanent normal trade relations with China. It was a stunning victory
for people who choose to have free and fair trade around this globe.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. McNulty) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Brown of Florida, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Hooley of Oregon, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Stabenow, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Buyer) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Regula, for 5 minutes, May 25.
(The following Member (at the request of Mr. Ganske) to revise and
extend his remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Kasich, for 5 minutes, today.

____________________

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REFERRED

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

S. Con. Res. 116. Concurrent resolution commending Israel's
redeployment from southern Lebanon; to the Committee on
International Relations.

____________________

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that
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. 371. An act to facilitate the naturalization of aliens
who served with special guerrilla units or irregular forces
in Laos.

____________________

BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that
that committee did on the following dates present to the President, for
his approval, bills of the House of the following title:

On Tuesday, May 23, 2000:
H.R. 154. To allow the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to establish a fee system for
commercial filming activities on Federal land, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 834. To extend the authorization for the Historic
Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1832. To reform unfair and anticompetitive practices
in the professional boxing industry.
On Wednesday, May 24, 2000:
H.R. 371. To facilitate the naturalization of aliens who
served with special guerrilla units or irregular forces in
Laos.

____________________

[[Page 9214]]

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 34 minutes
a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Thursday, May 25, 2000, at 10
a.m.

____________________

EXPENDITURE REPORTS CONCERNING OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL

Reports concerning the foreign currencies and U.S. dollars utilized
for official foreign travel during the fourth quarter of 1999 and first
quarter of 2000, by Committees of the U.S. House of Representatives, as
well as a consolidated report of foreign currencies and U.S. dollars
utilized for speaker-authorized official travel during second and
fourth quarters of 1999, and first quarter of 2000, pursuant to Public
Law 95-384, and for miscellaneous groups in connection with official
foreign travel during the first quarter of 2000 are as follows:

AMENDED REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Eliot Engel....................... 11/20 11/22 Ukraine.................. ........... 436.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 436.00
11/22 11/23 Belgium.................. ........... 263.00 ........... 887.41 ........... ........... ........... 1,150.41
Catherine VanWay....................... 10/30 11/5 Germany.................. ........... 1,458.00 ........... 1,999.01 ........... ........... ........... 3,457.01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 2,157.00 ........... 2,886.42 ........... ........... ........... 5,043.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
TOM BLILEY, Chairman, Apr. 10, 2000.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Visit to France; Nov. 1-3, 1999:
Hon. Curt Weldon................... 11/1 11/3 Germany.................. ........... 294.00 1,143.22 ........... ........... 50.43 ........... 1,487.65
Visit to Panama, Nov. 14-16, 1999:
Hon. Walter B. Jones............... 11/14 11/16 Panama................... ........... 348.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 348.00
Mr. Christian P. Zur............... 11/14 11/16 Panama................... ........... 348.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 348.00
Travel to Moldova, Russia, and Norway,
Nov. 20-25, 1999:
Hon. Curt Weldon................... 11/20 11/21 Moldova.................. ........... 225.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 225.00
11/21 11/24 Russia................... ........... 1,143.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,143.00
11/24 11/25 Norway................... ........... 276.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 276.00
Hon. Jim Saxton.................... 11/20 11/21 Moldova.................. ........... 225.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 225.00
11/21 11/24 Russia................... ........... 1,143.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,143.00
11/24 11/25 Norway................... ........... 276.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 276.00
Hon. Roscoe G. Bartlett............ 11/20 11/21 Moldova.................. ........... 225.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 225.00
11/21 11/24 Russia................... ........... 1,143.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,143.00
11/24 11/25 Norway................... ........... 276.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 276.00
Mr. David J. Trachtenberg.......... 11/20 11/21 Moldova.................. ........... 225.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 225.00
11/21 11/24 Russia................... ........... 1,143.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,143.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... 1,486.27 ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,486.27
Visit to Germany, Hungary, Italy and
Ireland, Nov. 22-30, 1999:
Hon. Ike Skelton................... 11/22 11/25 Germany.................. ........... 317.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 317.00
11/25 11/27 Hungary.................. ........... 502.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 502.00
11/27 11/29 Italy.................... ........... 586.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 586.00
11/29 11/20 Ireland.................. ........... 195.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 195.00
Mr. Michael R. Higgins............. 11/22 11/25 Germany.................. ........... 317.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 317.00
11/25 11/27 Hungary.................. ........... 502.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 502.00
11/27 11/29 Italy.................... ........... 586.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 586.00
11/29 11/20 Ireland.................. ........... 195.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 195.00
Visit to Curacao, Aruba, Ecuador and
Panama, Dec. 2-10, 1999:
Hon. Floyd D. Spence............... 12/2 12/4 Curacao.................. ........... 460.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 460.00
12/4 12/6 Aruba.................... ........... 585.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 585.00
12/6 12/8 Ecaudor.................. ........... 385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 385.00
12/8 12/10 Panama................... ........... 448.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 448.00
Hon Solomon P. Ortiz............... 12/2 12/4 Curacao.................. ........... 460.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 460.00
12/4 12/6 Aruba.................... ........... 585.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 585.00
12/6 12/8 Ecaudor.................. ........... 385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 385.00
12/8 12/10 Panama................... ........... 448.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 448.00
Hon. Tillie K. Fowler.............. 12/2 12/4 Curacao.................. ........... 460.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 460.00
12/4 12/6 Aruba.................... ........... 585.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 585.00
12/6 12/8 Ecaudor.................. ........... 385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 385.00
12/8 12/10 Panama................... ........... 448.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 448.00
Hon. Owen B. Pickett............... 12/3 12/6 Aruba.................... ........... 850.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 850.00
12/6 12/8 Ecaudor.................. ........... 385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 385.00
12/8 12/10 Panama................... ........... 448.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 448.00
Hon. Lindsey Graham................ 12/3 12/4 Curacao.................. ........... 230.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 230.00
12/4 12/6 Aruba.................... ........... 585.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 585.00
12/6 12/8 Ecaudor.................. ........... 385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 385.00
12/8 12/9 Panama................... ........... 224.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 224.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 1,662.45 ........... ........... ........... 1,662.45
Hon. Silvestre Reyes............... 12/3 12/6 Aruba.................... ........... 850.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 850.00
12/6 12/8 Ecaudor.................. ........... 385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 385.00
12/8 12/10 Panama................... ........... 448.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 448.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 562.00 ........... ........... ........... 562.00
Dr. Andrew K. Ellis................ 12/2 12/4 Curaco................... ........... 460.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 460.00
12/4 12/6 Aruba.................... ........... 585.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 585.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 761.25 ........... ........... ........... 761.25
Mr. Peter M. Steffes............... 12/2 12/4 Curacao.................. ........... 460.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 460.00
12/4 12/6 Aruba.................... ........... 585.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 585.00
12/6 12/8 Ecaudor.................. ........... 385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 385.00
12/8 12/10 Panama................... ........... 448.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 448.00

[[Page 9215]]

Mrs. Maureen P. Cragin............. 12/2 12/4 Curacao.................. ........... 460.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 460.00
12/4 12/6 Aruba.................... ........... 585.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 585.00
12/6 12/8 Ecaudor.................. ........... 385.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 385.00
12/8 12/10 Panama................... ........... 448.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 448.00
Visit to Colombia and Venezuela, Dec. 3-
7, 1999:
Hon. Steve Buyer................... 12/3 12/6 Colombia................. ........... 709.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 709.00
12/6 12/7 Venezuela................ ........... 334.50 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 334.50
Mr. Christian P. Zur............... 12/3 12/6 Colombia................. ........... 709.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 709.00
12/6 12/7 Venezuela................ ........... 334.50 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 334.50
Visit to Luxembourg, Dec. 11-14, 1999:
Hon. Ike Skelton................... 12/11 12/14 Luxembourg............... ........... 100.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 100.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 5,306.48 ........... ........... ........... 5,306.48
Visit to Japan and Korea, Dec. 17-23,
1999:
Hon. Ellen O. Tauscher............. 12/17 12/19 Japan.................... ........... 674.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 674.00
12/19 12/23 Korea.................... ........... 1,048.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,048.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 5,114.24 ........... ........... ........... 5,114.24
Hon. Silvestre Reyes............... 12/19 12/23 Korea.................... ........... 1,048.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,048.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 5,641.24 ........... ........... ........... 5,641.24
Mr. William Natter................. 12/17 12/19 Japan.................... ........... 674.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 674.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 5,850.37 ........... ........... ........... 5,850.37
Visit to Germany, Dec. 14-17, 1999:
Hon. John M. McHugh................ 12/14 12/17 Germany.................. ........... 700.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 700.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 5,188.32 ........... ........... ........... 5,188.32
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... 33,094.00 ........... 32,716.04 ........... 50.43 ........... 65,860.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
FLOYD SPENCE, Chairman, Jan. 31, 2000.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN JAN. 1 AND MAR. 31, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Travel to Australia and Singapore, Jan.
9-14, 2000:
Hon. Ike Skelton................... 1/9 1/12 Australia................ ........... 774.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 774.00
1/12 1/14 Singapore................ ........... 498.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 498.00
Hon. Neil Abercrombie.............. 1/9 1/12 Australia................ ........... 774.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 774.00
1/12 1/14 Singapore................ ........... 498.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 498.00
Hon. Robert A. Underwood........... 1/9 1/12 Australia................ ........... 774.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 774.00
1/12 1/14 Singapore................ ........... 498.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 498.00
Hon. Silvestre Reyes............... 1/9 1/12 Australia................ ........... 774.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 774.00
1/12 1/14 Singapore................ ........... 498.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 498.00
Hon. John J. Pollard............... 1/9 1/12 Australia................ ........... 774.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 774.00
1/12 1/14 Singapore................ ........... 498.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 498.00
Travek to Ecuador, Jan. 5-7, 2000:
Christian P. Zur................... 1/5 1/7 Ecuador.................. ........... 324.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 324.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 1,815.80 ........... ........... ........... 1,815.80
George O. Withers.................. 1/5 1/7 Ecuador.................. ........... 324.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 324.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 1,815.80 ........... ........... ........... 1,815.80
Travel to Colombia, Peru, Chile,
Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil, Jan. 7-
21, 2000:
Hon. Floyd D. Spence............... 1/7 1/10 Colombia................. ........... 785.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 785.00
1/10 1/12 Peru..................... ........... 526.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 526.00
1/12 1/14 Chile.................... ........... 540.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 540.00
1/14 1/17 Argentina................ ........... 1,466.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,466.00
1/17 1/19 Paraguay................. ........... 185.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 185.00
1/19 1/21 Brazil................... ........... 643.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 643.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 220.60 ........... ........... ........... 220.60
Hon. Solomon P. Ortiz.............. 1/10 1/12 Peru..................... ........... 526.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 526.00
1/12 1/14 Chile.................... ........... 540.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 540.00
1/14 1/16 Argentina................ ........... 902.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 902.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 2,045.00 ........... ........... ........... 2,045.00
Hon. Tillie K. Fowler.............. 1/7 1/10 Colombia................. ........... 785.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 785.00
1/10 1/12 Peru..................... ........... 526.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 526.00
1/12 1/14 Chile.................... ........... 540.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 540.00
1/14 1/17 Argentina................ ........... 1,466.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,466.00
1/17 1/19 paraguay................. ........... 185.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 185.00
1/19 1/21 Brazil................... ........... 643.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 643.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 220.60 ........... ........... ........... 220.60
Hon. Owen Pickett.................. 1/10 1/12 Peru..................... ........... 526.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 526.00
1/12 1/14 Chile.................... ........... 540.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 540.00
1/14 1/16 Argentina................ ........... 902.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 902.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 2,045.00 ........... ........... ........... 2,045.00
Robert S. Rangel................... 1/7 1/10 Colombia................. ........... 785.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 785.00
1/10 1/12 Peru..................... ........... 526.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 526.00
1/12 1/14 Chile.................... ........... 540.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 540.00
1/14 1/17 Argentina................ ........... 1,466.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,466.00
1/17 1/19 Paraguay................. ........... 185.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 185.00
1/19 1/21 Brazil................... ........... 643.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 643.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 220.60 ........... ........... ........... 220.60
Peter M. Steffes................... 1/7 1/10 Colombia................. ........... 785.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 785.00
1/10 1/12 Peru..................... ........... 526.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 526.00
1/12 1/14 Chile.................... ........... 540.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 540.00
1/14 1/17 Argentina................ ........... 1,466.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,466.00
1/17 1/19 Paraguay................. ........... 185.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 185.00
1/19 1/21 Brazil................... ........... 643.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 643.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 220.60 ........... ........... ........... 220.60
Delegation expenses................ 1/12 1/14 Chile.................... ........... ........... ........... 1,186.91 ........... 2,550.25 ........... 3,737.16
1/19 1/21 Brazil................... ........... ........... ........... 403.00 ........... 1,109.00 ........... 1,512.00
Travel to Germany, Bosnia, and Kosovo,
Jan. 10-14, 2000:
Hon. Gene Taylor................... 1/10 1/11 Germany.................. ........... 242.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 242.00
1/11 1/12 Bosnia................... ........... 75.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00

[[Page 9216]]

1/12 1/13 Kosovo................... ........... 75.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
1/13 1/14 Germany.................. ........... 242.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 242.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 5,259.56 ........... ........... ........... 5,259.56
Travel to United Kingdom, Jan. 18-20,
2000:
Hon. Curt Weldon................... 1/18 1/20 United Kingdom........... ........... 973.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 973.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 4,797.92 ........... ........... ........... 4,797.92
Stephen P. Ansley.................. 1/18 1/20 United Kingdom........... ........... 973.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 973.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 5,209.62 ........... ........... ........... 5,209.62
Robert W. Lautrup.................. 1/18 1/20 United Kingdom........... ........... 973.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 973.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 5,209.62 ........... ........... ........... 5,209.62
Travel to Ecuador and Colombia, Feb. 20-
26, 2000:
Hon. Gene Taylor................... 2/20 2/24 Ecuador.................. ........... 973.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 973.00
2/24 2/26 Colombia................. ........... 486.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 486.00
Commercial airfare............... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 1,900.49 ........... ........... ........... 1,900.49
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... 32,536.00 ........... 32,571.12 ........... 3,659.25 ........... 68,766.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
FLOYD SPENCE, Chairman, Apr. 30, 2000.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN JAN. 1 AND MAR. 31, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Mark Souder....................... 1/16 1/18 Venezuela................ ........... 525.40 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/18 1/19 Columbia................. ........... 193.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/19 1/20 Guatemala................ ........... 140.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/20 1/22 Mexico................... ........... 442.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. John Mica......................... 1/9 1/10 Denmark.................. ........... 358.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/10 1/12 Switzerland.............. ........... 616.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/12 1/15 Belgium.................. ........... 790.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/15 1/17 Portugal................. ........... 418.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/17 1/19 Spain.................... ........... 518.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Bernard Sanders................... 1/9 1/10 Denmark.................. ........... 358.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/10 1/12 Switzerland.............. ........... 616.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/12 1/15 Belgium.................. ........... 790.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/15 1/17 Portugal................. ........... 418.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/17 1/19 Spain.................... ........... 518.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Constance Morella................. 1/9 1/10 Denmark.................. ........... 358.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/10 1/12 Switzerland.............. ........... 616.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/12 1/15 Belgium.................. ........... 790.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/15 1/17 Portugal................. ........... 418.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/17 1/19 Spain.................... ........... 518.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Thomas Costa........................... 2/11 2/13 Haiti.................... ........... 269.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Kevin Long............................. 3/30 4/3 Columbia................. ........... 972.00 ........... 1,827.80 ........... ........... ........... ...........
David Rapallo.......................... 3/30 4/3 Columbia................. ........... 972.00 ........... 1,827.80 ........... ........... ........... ...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 11,613.40 ........... 3,655.60 ........... ........... ........... 15,269.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
DAN BURTON, Chairman, Apr. 30, 2000.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Glenn Schmitt.......................... 12/8 12/12 Bahamas.................. ........... 963.00 ........... 432.45 ........... ........... ........... 1,395.45
Carl Thorsen........................... 12/8 12/12 Bahamas.................. ........... 1,096.00 ........... 432.45 ........... ........... ........... 1,528.45
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 2,059.00 ........... 864.90 ........... ........... ........... 2,923.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
HENRY HYDE, Chairman, Feb. 17, 2000.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN JAN. 1 AND MAR. 31, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Asa Hutchinson.................... 1/9 1/10 Panama................... ........... 224.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 224.00
1/10 1/12 Mexico................... ........... 494.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 494.00
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 1,242.08 ........... ........... ........... 1,242.00
Daniel Bryant.......................... 1/9 1/10 Panama................... ........... 224.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 224.00
1/10 1/12 Mexico................... ........... 494.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 494.00
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 1,232.78 ........... ........... ........... 1,232.78
Glenn Schmitt.......................... 1/16 1/19 Colombia................. ........... 757.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 757.00
1/19 1/22 Peru..................... ........... 679.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 679.00
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 661.80 ........... ........... ........... 661.80
Carl Thorsen........................... 1/16 1/19 Colombia................. ........... 757.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 757.00
1/19 1/23 Peru..................... ........... 679.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 679.00

[[Page 9217]]

Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 764.36 ........... ........... ........... 764.36
Stephen Pinkos......................... 1/16 1/19 Colombia................. ........... 757.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 757.00
1/19 1/23 Peru..................... ........... 679.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 679.00
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 661.80 ........... ........... ........... 661.80
Bobby Vassar........................... 1/16 1/19 Colombia................. ........... 757.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 757.00
1/19 1/22 Peru..................... ........... 679.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 679.00
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 661.80 ........... ........... ........... 661.80
Hon. John Conyers, Jr.................. 2/11 2/13 Haiti.................... ........... 369.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 369.00
Hon. William D. Delahunt............... 2/11 2/13 Haiti.................... ........... 369.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 369.00
Anthony Foxx........................... 2/11 2/13 Haiti.................... ........... 369.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 369.00
Cynthia Martin......................... 2/11 2/13 Haiti.................... ........... 369.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 369.00
Hon. Bob Goodlatte..................... 2/19 2/22 England.................. ........... 1,143.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,143.00
2/22 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 Switzerland.............. ........... 616.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 616.00
2/24 2/27 Germany.................. ........... 779.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 779.00
Hon. Charles T. Canady................. 2/19 2/22 England.................. ........... 1,143.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,143.00
2/22 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 Switzerland.............. ........... 616.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 616.00
2/24 2/27 Germany.................. ........... 779.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 779.00
Hon. Rick Boucher...................... 2/19 2/22 England.................. ........... 1,143.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,143.00
2/22 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 Switzerland.............. ........... 616.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 616.00
2/24 2/27 Germany.................. ........... 779.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 779.00
Jon Dudas.............................. 2/19 2/22 England.................. ........... 1,143.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,143.00
2/22 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 Switzerland.............. ........... 616.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 616.00
2/24 2/27 Germany.................. ........... 779.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 779.00
Debra Laman............................ 2/19 2/22 England.................. ........... 1,143.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,143.00
2/22 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 Switzerland.............. ........... 616.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 616.00
2/24 2/27 Germany.................. ........... 779.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 779.00
Robert Jones........................... 2/19 2/22 England.................. ........... 1,143.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,143.00
2/22 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 Switzerland.............. ........... 616.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 616.00
2/24 2/27 Germany.................. ........... 779.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 779.00
Delegation expenses.................... 2/22 2/24 Switzerland.............. ........... ........... ........... 3,010.68 ........... 1,237.35 ........... 4,248.03
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 23,884.00 ........... 8,235.30 ........... 1,237.35 ........... 33,356.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Miliary air transportation.
HENRY HYDE, Chairman, May 5, 2000.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Bob Clement....................... 12/2 12/4 Curacao.................. ........... 460.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 460.00
12/4 12/6 Aruba.................... ........... 585.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 585.00
........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... \4\ 478.00 ........... ........... ........... 478.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 1,045.00 ........... 478.00 ........... ........... ........... 1,523.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
\4\ Commercial transportation from Aruba to Washington, DC.
BUD SHUSTER, Chairman, July 11, 1999.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TRAVEL TO CANADA, EXPENDED BETWEEN MAY 20 AND MAY 24, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Mark Souder....................... 5/20 5/24 Canada................... ........... 553.85 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 553.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total........................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... 553.85 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 553.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
MARK SOUDER, Chairman, Mar. 23, 2000.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TRAVEL TO CANADA, EXPENDED BETWEEN MAY 21 AND MAY 23, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. William D. Delahunt............... 5/21 5/23 Canada................... ........... 570.00 ........... \3\ 961.12 ........... ........... ........... 570.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 570.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 570.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.

[[Page 9218]]

\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ This amount was for a commercial airline ticket to Quebec, and was paid for by U.S./Canada Interparliamentary Delegation official funds; therefore, it was reported on the 1999 U.S./Canada
Interparliamentary Delegation annual report to the Clerk of the House (included in ``representational'').
WILLIAM DELAHUNT, Chairman, Mar. 23,
2000.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TRAVEL TO CANADA, EXPENDED BETWEEN MAY 20 AND MAY 24, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Jack Metcalf...................... 5/20 5/24 Canada................... ........... 300.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 300.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 300.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 300.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
JACK METCALF, Chairman, Mar. 23, 2000.

AMENDED REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, HOUSE DELEGATION TO JAPAN, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN NOV. 27 AND DEC. 7, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Hastert........................... 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Boehlert.......................... 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Pryce............................. 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Largent........................... 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Coburn............................ 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Wamp.............................. 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Doyle............................. 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Sanford........................... 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Stupak............................ 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Cramer............................ 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Blunt............................. 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Isakson........................... 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Scott Palmer........................... 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
John Feehery........................... 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
David Hobbs............................ 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Bill Inglee............................ 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Sam Lancaster.......................... 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Martha Morrison........................ 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Shanti Ochs............................ 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Chris Scheve........................... 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Dwight Comedy.......................... 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Bill Livingood......................... 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Dr. John Eisold........................ 11/28 11/30 Japan.................... ........... 333.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Hastert........................... 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Hon. Boehlert.......................... 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Hon. Pryce............................. 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Hon. Largent........................... 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... \3\ 461.20 ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Hon. Coburn............................ 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... \3\ 461.20 ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Hon. Wamp.............................. 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... \3\ 461.20 ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Hon. Doyle............................. 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... \3\ 461.20 ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Hon. Sanford........................... 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Hon. Stupak............................ 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... \3\ 461.20 ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Hon. Cramer............................ 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Hon. Blunt............................. 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Hon. Isakson........................... 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Scott Palmer........................... 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
John Feehery........................... 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
David Hobbs............................ 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Bill Inglec............................ 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Sam Lancaster.......................... 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Martha Morrison........................ 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Shanti Ochs............................ 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Chris Scheve........................... 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Dwight Comedy.......................... 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Bill Livingood......................... 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Dr. John Eisold........................ 11/30 12/4 Australia................ ........... 992.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 992.00
Hon. Hastert........................... 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Hon. Boehlert.......................... 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Hon. Pryce............................. 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Hon. Largent........................... 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Hon. Coburn............................ 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Hon. Wamp.............................. 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Hon. Doyle............................. 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Hon. Sanford........................... 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Hon. Stupak............................ 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... \4\ 2,933.2 ........... ........... ........... 826.00
5
Hon. Cramer............................ 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Hon. Blunt............................. 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Hon. Isakson........................... 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Scott Palmer........................... 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
John Feehery........................... 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
David Hobbs............................ 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Bill Inglee............................ 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Sam Lancaster.......................... 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Martha Morrison........................ 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Shanti Ochs............................ 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Chris Scheve........................... 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Dwight Comedy.......................... 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Bill Livingood......................... 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
Dr. John Eisold........................ 12/4 12/7 New Zealand.............. ........... 826.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 826.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 49,473 ........... \3\ 5,239.2 ........... ........... ........... 54,712.25
5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Airfare from Darwin to Sydney.
\4\ Flight back to U.S. on Dec. 5, 1999.
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Jan. 20, 2000.

[[Page 9219]]

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, HOUSE DELEGATION TO BOSNIA, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN MAR. 6 AND MAR. 7, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
John M. McHugh, M.C.................... 3/6 3/7 Bosnia................... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
Cary R. Brick.......................... 3/6 3/7 Bosnia................... ........... ........... ........... (\4\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
\4\ Unknown.
JOHN M. McHUGH, Chairman, Mar. 10,
2000.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY TO BELGIUM, FRANCE, ITALY AND SPAIN, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN FEB. 19 AND FEB. 27, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Doug Bereuter..................... 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/26 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Hon. Tom Bliley........................ 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/26 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Hon Herb Bateman....................... 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/26 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Hon. Paul Gillmor...................... 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/26 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Hon. Porter Goss....................... 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/26 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Hon. Michael Bilirakis................. 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/26 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Hon. Joel Hefley....................... 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/26 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Hon. Scott McInnis..................... 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/26 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Hon. Robert Borski..................... 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/26 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Hon. John Tanner....................... 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/26 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Hon. Owen Pickett...................... 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... 2,408.97 ........... ........... ........... 3,946.97
Hon. Nick Lampson...................... 2/20 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 510.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... 944.20 ........... ........... ........... 2,494.20
Susan Olson............................ 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/16 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Josephine Weber........................ 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/16 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
John Herzberg.......................... 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/16 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Jason Gross............................ 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 742.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 596.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 344.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/16 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,792.00
Roberta Evans.......................... 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/16 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Ronald Lasch........................... 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/16 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
Linda Pedigo........................... 2/19 2/22 Belgium.................. ........... 892.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/22 2/24 France................... ........... 646.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/24 2/26 Italy.................... ........... 394.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/16 2/27 Spain.................... ........... 110.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,042.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 37,552.00 ........... 3,353.17 ........... ........... ........... 40,905.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
\4\ Military air transportation plus.
DOUG BEREUTER, Chairman, May 9, 2000.

____________________

[[Page 9220]]

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

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

7807. A letter from the Acting Executive Director,
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--Commodity Pool Operators; Exclusion
for Certain Otherwise Regulated Persons from the Definition
of the Term ``Commodity Pool Operator'' (RIN: 3038-AB34)
received April 25, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Agriculture.
7808. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fenopropathrin;
Pesticide Tolerance [OPP-300992; FRL-6554-4] (RIN: 2070-AB78)
received April 18, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Agriculture.
7809. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Thiabendazole;
Extension of Tolerance for Emergency Exemptions [OPP-300993;
FRL-6554-6] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received April 18, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
7810. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--List
of Communities Eligible for the Sale of Flood Insurance
[Docket No. FEMA-7730] received April 25, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
7811. A letter from the Acting Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Services, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, Department of Education, transmitting the
Department's final rule--National Awards Program for
Effective Teacher Preparation--received April 12, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
7812. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Office of Procurement and Assistance
Management, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Acquisition Regulations: Mentor-
Protege Program (RIN: 1991-AB45) received April 28, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
7813. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Management Staff, FDA, Department of Health and Human
Services, transmitting the Department's final rule--Indirect
Food Additives: Adhesives and Components of Coatings [Docket
No. 98F-0675] received April 25, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7814. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Management Staff, FDA, Department of Health and Human
Services, transmitting the Department's final rule--Medical
Devices; Reclassification and Codification of the
Nonabsorbable Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene Surgical
Suture [Docket No. 94P-0347] received April 24, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
7815. A letter from the Deputy Executive Secretary, FDA,
Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the
Department's final rule-- Revisions to the Requirements
Applicable to Blood, Blood Components, and Source Plasma
[Docket No. 98N-0673] received April 18, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7816. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Managment and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories
[AD-FRL-6582-3] received April 18, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7817. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Hazardous Waste
Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Final Exclusion [SW-FRL-6583-6] received April 18,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
7818. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of State Plans For Designated Facilities and
Pollutants: Oregon; Negative Declaration [Docket No. OR-03-
0001; FRL-6580-9] received April 18, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7819. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana;
Emergency Episode Plan, Columbia Falls, Butte and Missoula
Particulate Matter State Implementation Plans, Missoula
Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan; Correction [SIP
Nos. MT-001-0012; MT-001-0013; MT-001-0014; MT-001-0015]
(FRL-6582-4) received April 18, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7820. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional
Affairs, Office of Enforcement, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule--
Revision of the NRC Enforcement Policy [NUREG-1600] received
April 28, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Commerce.
7821. A letter from the Chairman, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, transmitting the Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Program
Performance Report; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7822. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting the Annual Performance Report for
Fiscal Year 1999; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7823. A letter from the Acting Deputy Associate
Administrator, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, transmitting the
Administration's final rule--Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Progress Payments and Related Financing Polices [FAC 97-16;
FAR Case 1998-400 (98-400); Item II] (RIN: 9000-AI27)
received April 27, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Government Reform.
7824. A letter from the Director, National Science
Foundation, transmitting the FY 2000 GPRA Performance Plan;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
7825. A letter from the Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the
Administration's final rule--Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species Fisheries; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna [I.D. 033100D]
received April 25, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Resources.
7826. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting
the Administration's final rule--Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska, Pacific Cod in the Gulf of Alaska
[Docket No. 000211039-0039-01; I.D. 041200A] received April
25, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Resources.
7827. A letter from the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the
Administration's final rule--Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species; Bluefin Tuna Landings Reporting [Docket No.
000328086-0086-01; I.D. 012800H] (RIN: 0648-AN56) received
April 24, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Resources.
7828. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, and 800
Series Airplanes [Docket No. 2000-NM-84-AD; Amendment 39-
11663; AD 2000-07-09] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 28,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7829. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C,
-300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes [Docket No. 99-NM-81-
AD; Amendment 39-11660; AD 2000-07-06] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received April 28, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7830. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes
[Docket No. 99-NM-72-AD; Amendment 39-11659; AD 2000-07-05]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 28, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
7831. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model SA-366G1
Helicopters [Docket No. 99-SW-14-AD; Amendment 39-11692; AD
2000-08-06] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 28, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7832. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company Model
R44 Helicopters [Docket No. 99-SW-70-AD; Amendment 39-11690;
AD 2000-08-04] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 28, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7833. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series Airplanes
[Docket No. 99-NM-304-AD; Amendment 39-11682; AD 2000-07-26]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 28, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
7834. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Tay

[[Page 9221]]

650-15 Series Turbofan Engines [Docket No. 99-NE-61-AD;
Amendment 39-11687; AD 2000-08-01] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
April 28, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7835. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Model L-1011-385 Series
Airplanes [Docket No. 99-NM-252-AD; Amendment 39-11677; AD
99-13-08 R1] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 28, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7836. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300, A310, and A300-
600 Series Airplanes [Docket No. 99-NM-07-AD; Amendment 39-
11685; AD 2000-07-29] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 28,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7837. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Agusta Model A109A, A109AII, and
A109C Helicopters [Docket No. 99-SW-47-AD; Amendment 39-
11688; AD 2000-08-02] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 28,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7838. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Model G-IV Series
Airplanes [Docket No. 2000-NM-82-AD; Amendment 39-11680; AD
2000-07-25] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 28, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7839. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-100 Series
Airplanes [Docket No. 99-NM-321-AD; Amendment 39-11678; AD
2000-07-23] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 28, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:

Mr. COMBEST: Committee of Conference. Conference report on H.R. 2559.
A bill to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety
net for agricultural producers by providing greater access to more
affordable risk management tools and improved protection from
production and income loss, to improve the efficiency and integrity of
the Federal crop insurance program, and for other purposes (Rept. 106-
639). Ordered to be printed.

[May 25 (Legislative day of May 24), 2000]

Mr. REYNOLDS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 512. Resolution
waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2559) to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen
the safety net for agricultural producers by providing greater access
to more affordable risk management tools and improved protection from
production and income loss, to improve the efficiency and integrity of
the Federal crop insurance program, and for other purposes (Rept. 106-
640). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 513. Resolution
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4461) making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes (Rept. 106-641).
Referred to the House Calendar.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. GILMAN (for himself and Mr. Hinchey):
H.R. 4528. A bill to establish an undergraduate grant
program of the Department of State to assist students of
limited financial means from the United States to pursue
studies at foreign institutions of higher education; to the
Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. DUNCAN (for himself, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Oberstar,
Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. LaHood,
Mr. Cooksey, and Mr. Gary Miller of California):
H.R. 4529. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
prohibit the employment of certain individuals in positions
affecting air transportation security; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Ms. VELAZQUEZ (for herself, Mr. Talent, Mr. King,
Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Mr. English, Mrs. McCarthy of New York,
Mrs. Bono, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Hinojosa,
Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Moore, Mrs. Jones of Ohio,
Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Baird,
Ms. Berkley, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Ms. Stabenow, Mr.
Kanjorski, and Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin):
H.R. 4530. A bill to amend the Small Business Investment
Act of 1958 to direct the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration to establish a New Market Venture Capital
Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small
Business.
By Mr. GARY MILLER of California (for himself and Mr.
Calvert):
H.R. 4531. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to particpate in the Inland Empire
regional water recycling project, to authorize the Secretary
to carry out a program to assist agencies in projects to
construct regional brine lines in California, and to
authorize the Secretary to participate in the Lower Chino
Dairy Area desalination demonstration and reclamation
project; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 4532. A bill to assure equitable treatment of
fertility and impotence in health care coverage under group
health plans, health insurance coverage, and health plans
under the Federal employees' health benefits program; to the
Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on
Education and the Workforce, and Government Reform, 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. BACA:
H.R. 4533. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to participate in the design, planning, and
construction of the Inland Empire regional water recycling
project, and to authorize the Secretary to carry out a
program under the Federal reclamation laws to assist agencies
in projects to construct regional brine lines in California;
to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. BURR of North Carolina (for himself, Mr.
Ballenger, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina,
Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Coble,
Mr. Hayes, Mr. Watt of North Carolina, Mr. Jones of
North Carolina, Mrs. Clayton, and Mr. Etheridge):
H.R. 4534. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 114 Ridge Street in Lenoir,
North Carolina, as the ``James T. Broyhill Post Office
Building''; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mrs. CLAYTON:
H.R. 4535. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act to improve the agricultural credit programs
of the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Agriculture.
By Mr. CROWLEY (for himself, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Engel,
Mr. Pastor, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, Mr. John, Mr. Lewis
of Georgia, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Evans, Mr.
Maloney of Connecticut, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Hinchey, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr.
Wise, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Rangel, and Mr. Frost):
H.R. 4536. A bill to provide grants to local educational
agencies to initiate, expand, or improve physical education
programs for students; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. DIAZ-BALART (for himself, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Watts of
Oklahoma, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Goss, Mr. Burton
of Indiana, Mr. Archer, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mrs.
Fowler, Mr. Lantos, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Shaw,
Mr. McCollum, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Foley, Mr.
Andrews, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Bonilla, Mr.
Burr of North Carolina, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr.
Cannon, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Cunningham, Mr.
Engel, Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Fossella, Mr.
Goodling, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Jones of
North Carolina, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr.
Hunter, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island,
Mr. King, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Lazio, Mr. Linder, Mr.
Manzullo, Mr. McInnis, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Miller of
Florida, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Ney, Mr. Pallone, Mr.

[[Page 9222]]

Pascrell, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Ms. Pryce of
Ohio, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
Rothman, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Sherman,
Mr. Souder, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Weldon of
Florida, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Hansen,
Mr. Thomas, Mr. Cox, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mr.
Doolittle, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Shadegg, and Mr.
Frelinghuysen):
H.R. 4537. A bill to assist the internal opposition in
Cuba, and to further help the Cuban people to regain their
freedom; to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. MOORE:
H.R. 4538. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to improve the teacher loan forgiveness program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. SAXTON (for himself and Mr. Andrews):
H.R. 4539. A bill to direct the Secretary of Education to
provide grants to promote Holocaust education and awareness;
to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Berman,
and Mr. Cox):
H. Con. Res. 334. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that normal trade relations treatment for
products of the People's Republic of China should be revoked
if that country attacks, invades, or imposes a blockade on
Taiwan; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Berman,
and Mr. Cox):
H. Con. Res. 335. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that if the People's Republic of China
attacks, invades, or imposes a blockade on Taiwan, the United
States will respond vigorously, including but not limited to
revoking normal trade relations; to the Committee on Ways and
Means, and in addition to the Committee on International
Relations, 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.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

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

H.R. 306: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 347: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky.
H.R. 353: Mr. Portman, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Sununu, Mr.
Gillmor, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Bonilla, and Mr. Coburn.
H.R. 483: Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
H.R. 531: Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 534: Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, and
Mr. Clement.
H.R. 632: Mrs. Biggert.
H.R. 828: Mr. Quinn.
H.R. 979: Mr. Rush, Ms. Kaptur, and Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 1020: Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 1092: Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage.
H.R. 1102: Ms. Stabenow and Mr. Hutchinson.
H.R. 1168: Mr. Pombo.
H.R. 1248: Mr. Stark, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Engel, and Mr.
Kleczka.
H.R. 1322: Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Blunt, Mr.
Boucher, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr.
Rahall, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Ms. Berkley,
Mr. Ney, and Mr. Watts of Oklahoma.
H.R. 1387: Mr. Meehan.
H.R. 1525: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 2000: Mr. Snyder, Mrs. Roukema, and Mr. Condit.
H.R. 2059: Mrs. Mink of Hawaii.
H.R. 2317: Mr. Fattah and Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 2321: Mr. Lantos and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 2457: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr.
Gonzalez, and Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H.R. 2544: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky.
H.R. 2569: Mr. Holt, Mr. Rothman, and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 2594: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 2631: Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
H.R. 2722: Mr. Foley.
H.R. 2749: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 2768: Mr. Lazio.
H.R. 2784: Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 2831: Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 2856: Mrs. Bono.
H.R. 2892: Mr. Taylor of Mississippi.
H.R. 2915: Mrs. Jones of Ohio.
H.R. 2947: Ms. Lee, Ms. Slaughter, Mrs. Napolitano, and Mr.
Dooley of California.
H.R. 2956: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2962: Mr. Baca.
H.R. 2987: Mr. Baird, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Terry, and Mrs.
Emerson.
H.R. 3032: Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 3142: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 3144: Mr. Strickland.
H.R. 3235: Mr. Holt.
H.R. 3256: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 3300: Mr. Frost.
H.R. 3484: Mr. Buyer.
H.R. 3485: Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 3580: Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms.
Brown of Florida, Mr. Baird, Mr. Holt, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Wu,
Mr. Towns, and Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin.
H.R. 3590: Mr. Hunter and Mr. Hastings of Washington.
H.R. 3688: Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. King, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Cardin, Mr. George Miller of
California, Ms. Carson, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Christensen, and
Ms. Stabenow.
H.R. 3766: Mr. Gordon, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 3809: Mr. Frelinghuysen.
H.R. 3836: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 3842: Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Ehrlich, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Sununu, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota, and Mr. Leach.
H.R. 3880: Mr. Baker.
H.R. 3891: Mr. Towns, Ms. McKinney, and Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 4011: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 4049: Mr. Thune.
H.R. 4064: Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. Ose, Mr. Hall of Texas,
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Turner.
H.R. 4066: Mr. Markey.
H.R. 4082: Mr. Snyder, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Shows.
H.R. 4094: Mr. Moore and Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 4165: Ms. Eshoo, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Mr. Wynn,
and Mr. Deutsch.
H.R. 4168: Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Clement, and Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 4207: Mr. Cook, Mr. Nadler, and Mr. Weygand.
H.R. 4210: Mr. Doolittle and Mr. Bilirakis.
H.R. 4211: Mr. Waxman, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Gejdenson, and
Mrs. Mink of Hawaii.
H.R. 4213: Ms. Dunn and Mr. Aderholt.
H.R. 4242: Mr. Wicker.
H.R. 4257: Mr. Hayworth, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Vitter, Mr.
Chabot, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Smith of
Michigan, Mr. Largent, Mr. Shadegg, and Mr. Sam Johnson of
Texas.
H.R. 4259: Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Istook, Mr.
Schaffer, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Filner, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode
Island, Mrs. Christensen, and Mr. Skeen.
H.R. 4271: Mr. Gutknecht and Mr. Barton of Texas.
H.R. 4272: Mr. Barton of Texas.
H.R. 4273: Mr. Barton of Texas.
H.R. 4290: Mr. Strickland.
H.R. 4299: Mr. Duncan and Mr. Taylor of North Carolina.
H.R. 4391: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 4441: Mr. Ney.
H.R. 4442: Mr. Pallone and Mr. Bateman.
H.R. 4467: Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Deal of Georgia,
Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Boswell, and Mr. Goode.
H.R. 4481: Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin.
H.R. 4483: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 4492: Mr. Coble, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr.
Condit, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Berman, Mr. Wolf, Ms. Pelosi, Mr.
Dixon, Mr. Matsui, Mr. George Miller of California. Mr.
Blumenauer, Mr. Roemer, Mr. Farr of California, Ms. Jackson-
Lee of Texas, Mr. Rothman, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Skelton, Mr.
Sandlin, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Crane, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. McCrery,
Mr. Rangel, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Boswell, Ms.
Danner, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr.
Luther, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr.
Hastings of Florida, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. King, Mr.
Sherman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kleczka, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Stark, Ms.
DeGette, Mrs. Tauscher, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. LaFalce,
Mr. Oberstar, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Watts of
Oklahoma, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Baker, Mr. Tancredo,
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Goode, Mr. Dreier, Mr.
Hayworth, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Ford, and Mrs.
Clayton.
H.J. Res. 15: Mr. Terry.
H. Con. Res. 297: Ms. DeLauro.
H. Con. Res. 318: Mr. Blumenauer.
H. Con. Res. 331: Mr. Condit, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr.
Crowley, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. King, Mr.
Rothman, Mrs. Roukema, Mrs. Tauscher, and Mr. Horn.
H. Res. 147: Mr. Lampson.
H. Res. 420: Mr. LaHood.
H. Res. 437: Ms. Schakowsky.
H. Res. 479: Mr. Abercrombie.

____________________

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. 3688: Mr. Davis of Virginia.

____________________

AMENDMENTS

Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as
follows:

H.R. 4461

Offered By: Mr. Goodling

Amendment No. 16: Page 84, after line 10, insert the
following new subsection (and redesignate subsequent
subsections accordingly):
(c) Response to Plum Pox Virus.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture may use the
funds,

[[Page 9223]]

facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to administer and make payments to compensate
growers in relation to the Secretary's ``Declaration of
Extraordinary Emergency'' on March 2, 2000, regarding the
plum pox virus in Adams County, Pennsylvania, except that the
total amount of the payments may not exceed the amounts
specified by the Secretary in the declaration.

H.R. 4461

Offered By: Mr. Miller of Florida

Amendment No. 17: Page 31, after line 5, insert the
following:

purchases of raw or refined sugar

For fiscal year 2001, the Commodity Credit Corporation
shall not expend more than $50,000,000 for purchases of raw
or refined sugar from sugarcane or sugar beets.

H.R. 4461

Offered By: Mr. Ney

Amendment No. 18: Page 6, line 16, insert ``(reduced by
$34,000)'' after ``$34,708,000''.
Page 8, line 3, insert ``(reduced by $33,000)'' after
``$8,138,000''.
Page 8, line 14, insert ``(reduced by $33,000)'' after
``$65,097,000''.
Page 10, line 23, insert ``(increased by $100,000)'' after
``$850,384,000''.

H.R. 4516

Offered By: Mr. Ney

Amendment No. 3: Page 8, line 22, insert after the first
dollar figure the following: ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
Page 8, line 22, insert after the second dollar figure the
following: ``(increased by $3,290,000)''.
Page 8, line 25, insert after the dollar figure the
following: ``(increased by $3,710,000)''.
Page 22, line 6, insert after the first dollar figure the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 23, line 9, insert after the first dollar figure the
following: ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
Page 24, line 11, insert after the dollar figure the
following: ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
Page 28, line 11, insert after the dollar figure the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

H.R. 4516

Offered By: Mr. Ney

Amendment No. 4: Page 22, line 6, insert after the first
dollar figure the following: ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
Page 23, line 9, insert after the first dollar figure the
following: ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
Page 23, line 21, insert after the dollar figure the
following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 24, line 11, insert after the dollar figure the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 11, insert after the dollar figure the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

May 24, 2000

[[Page 9224]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

COLORADO STATE SENATOR ELSIE LACY

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this moment to recognize
the career of one of Colorado's leading statesmen, Senator Elsie Lacy.
In doing so, I would like to honor this individual who, for so many
years, has exemplified the notion of public service and civic duty. It
is clear that Senator Lacy's dynamic leadership will be greatly missed
and difficult to replace.
Elected to the State Senate in 1992, Elsie was the chairwoman of the
Appropriations Committee and the chairwoman of the Joint Budget
Committee. Her main focus was on transportation, health and education
issues. Before being elected to State Senate, Elsie was elected to the
Aurora City Council, where she served for four years.
Senator Lacy is very involved in the community. She is a member of
the Aurora Chamber of Commerce, a member of the Village East
Neighborhood Association, and Boy Scouts of America Merit Badge
Counselor and Troop 630 committee chair, just to name a few.
This year marked the end of Senator Lacy's tenure in elected office.
Her career embodied the citizen-legislator ideal and was a model that
every official in elected office should seek to emulate. The citizens
of Colorado owe Senator Lacy a debt of gratitude and I wish her well.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. MAJOR R. OWENS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, I was unavoidably absent on a
matter of critical importance and missed the following votes:
On the amendment to H.R. 4475, to prohibit use of funds for
engineering work related to an additional runway at New Orleans
International Airport, introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Vitter, I would have voted ``nay.''
On passage of the bill, H.R. 4475, the transportation appropriations
for fiscal year 2001, introduced by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Wolf, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

______

speech of

HON. DANNY K. DAVIS

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, May 18, 2000

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4205) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military
activities of the Department of Defense and for military
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, for many years my colleagues and
I have expressed opposition to the U.S. School of Americas. This year's
defense authorization measure includes provisions that close the U.S.
Army School of Americas and establish the Defense Institute for
Hemispheric Security Cooperation. This supposedly new school for
international military education will still train most of the third
world's military tyrants.
Mr. Chairman this is only a cosmetic change. A name change with no
attempt to address the growing public outcry and congressional concern
over the SOA's link to human rights atrocities in Latin America.
The people in my district are well aware of the brutal inhuman
products of this school. The members of the death school have horribly
executed human rights activists in El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Pakistan.
Mr. Chairman there is no reason to continue funding this macabre
institution. That is why I support the Moakley amendment. The Moakley
amendment will evaluate the effect of United States military training
on the human rights performance of Latin American soldiers. Commando
and combat courses have long been core curricula at the SOA and I
believe that the training contributes to human rights atrocities.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman I strongly urge all Members to vote against
any legislation supporting the School of Americas and urge all Members
to vote for the Moakley amendment.

____________________

COLORADO STATE SENATOR TOM BLICKENSDERFER

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this moment to recognize
the career of one of Colorado's leading statesmen, Senator Tom
Blickensderfer. In doing so, I would like to honor this individual who,
for so many years, has exemplified the notion of public service and
civic duty. It is clear that Senator Blickensderfer's dynamic
leadership will be greatly missed and difficult to replace.
Elected to the State Senate in 1992, he served as a Senate majority
leader. Tom distinguished himself by focusing on water issues and other
issues that are important in rural communities. He is a strong leader
and is recognized throughout the State of Colorado for his
contributions to the Republican party.
Senator Blickensderfer received many honors. In 1992, he was honored
by CACI as the Business Legislator of the Year. He has also received
honors from the Colorado Mental Health Association, and the NFIB
Guardian of Small Business award, as well as, citations by Colorado
Psychological Association and Health Ethics Lobby.
This year marked the end of Senator Blickensderfer's tenure in
elected office. His career embodied the citizen-legislator ideal and
was a model that every official in elected office should seek to
emulate. The citizens of Colorado owe Senator Blickensderfer a debt of
gratitude and I wish him well.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO YOSHI HONKAWA

______

HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a dear friend, Yoshi
Honkawa, who is retiring after a thirty-six year career as a health
care advocate in Los Angeles County. Yoshi's name has become synonymous
with health care policy and advocacy for the residents of Los Angeles
County. Over the years he has been an indispensable resource to me, my
office, and the many institutions he has worked with. His wisdom and
insight will certainly be missed as he enters his much-deserved
retirement.
Yoshi began his impressive health care career in 1964 at the Los
Angeles County-University of Southern California (LAC-USC) Medical
Center. He served as the medical center's comptroller and assistant
administrator for five years. His talent did not go unnoticed, and he
was promoted to associate administrator in 1969.
Later that year, Yoshi became affiliated with the Los Angeles County
Department of Hospitals and served as director of fiscal and hospital
program planning until 1972. He then joined the Los Angeles County
Department of Health Services where he was the deputy director of
finance and legislative services.
In 1975, Yoshi became the director of finance at Cedars-Sinai Medical
Center, where he remained to serve in various capacities. He was the
vice president for government and industry relations from 1978 through
1993. In

[[Page 9225]]

1994, he was promoted to the position of consultant for health care
advocacy.
Yoshi's contributions in the health care field have always gone far
beyond his employment. First and foremost, he knows and counts as
friends virtually every major player in the health care arena, both in
California and in Washington, DC. He has access everywhere. Second, he
has contributed his time and experience to serve as a mentor to many,
many young people entering the health care field. Truly, his legacy
continues through them. Finally, he has made it his special mission to
increase the diversity of people making health care management their
career, serving as a founding board member of the Institute for
Diversity in Health Care Management, and serving tirelessly in many
capacities in that organization.
He has been a long-time advocate and friend for graduate medical
education, both through his activities at Cedars-Sinai and his
membership of the Government Relations Steering Committee at the
Association of American Medical Colleges. At the national level, he was
also an active member of the National Health Planning and Development
Council.
In addition, Yoshi has been actively involved in health care policy
development and implementation for Los Angeles and California. He was a
Commissioner on the California Health Policy and Data Advisory
Commission for ten years from 1987 through 1997. While serving on the
commission, he was instrumental in shaping California's health policy,
and he has been appointed to countless other posts, sharing his
experience and knowledge with pivotal commissions and committees.
Yoshi's tremendous contributions have been recognized many times
through the awards and honors he has received. He has been honored by
the American Hospital Association, the USC Alumni Association, the
California Healthcare Association, and the USC Health Services
Administration Alumni Association, to name a few.
The citizens of Los Angeles and our health care institutions owe
Yoshi a great debt of gratitude, as do all of his friends and
associates who have relied for so long on his guidance and help.
We know that his retirement may be beginning, but his involvement and
influence in the field of health care will continue. I ask my
colleagues to join me today in wishing all the best to Yoshi and his
wife May.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, during the consideration of the Department
of Defense authorization legislation (H.R. 4205) last week, I
inadvertently voted yes when I intended to vote no on rollcall vote
203. I have consistently voted in support of life.

____________________

LEGISLATION COMMENDING ISRAEL'S WITHDRAWAL FROM LEBANON, H. CON. RES.
331

______

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to alert my colleagues to the
introduction of H. Con. Res. 331, by our distinguished Majority Leader,
Representative Armey of Texas, which commends Israel's decision to
withdraw its forces from Southern Lebanon. I am more than pleased to
lend my cosponsorship and strong support to this resolution, which also
calls on the U.N. Security Council to recognize Israel's fulfillment of
Resolution 425, and to insist that all foreign forces be withdrawn from
Lebanon. Also cosponsoring H. Con. Res. 331 are the distinguished
minority leader, Mr. Gephardt of Missouri, as well as the ranking
minority member of our House International Relations Committee, Mr.
Gejdenson of Connecticut.
Israel's courageous decision to pull out of Lebanon demonstrates its
strong commitment to a peaceful resolution to the conflicts that
trouble the region. I hope that Israel's courage is reciprocated by
Syria and Iran in their dealings with Lebanon. By withdrawing from
Lebanon, Israel will be in full compliance with United Nations Security
Council Resolution 425.
Mr. Speaker, given the prior use of Southern Lebanon as a launching
pad for attacks on Israel, the United Nations and the government of
Lebanon must provide the necessary resources for UNIFIL and the
Lebanese Armed Forces to stabilize Southern Lebanon. A major priority
must also be to affirm Israel's right, as noted in Chapter 7, Article
51 of the United Nations Charter, to defend itself and its civilians
from attack. I'm pleased that H. Con. Res. 331 sends a strong,
bipartisan message of peace and stability to the region, and I urge our
colleagues to cosponsor this important, timely resolution.

____________________

COLORADO STATE SENATOR DOROTHY ``DOTTIE'' WHAM

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this moment to recognize
the career of one of Colorado's leading statesmen, State Senator Dottie
Wham. In doing so, I would like to honor this individual who, for so
many years, has exemplified the notion of public service and civic
duty. It is clear that Senator Wham's dynamic leadership will be
greatly missed and difficult to replace.
Appointed to the Colorado Senate in 1987 and then elected from 1988
until present, she worked hard on juvenile justice and on the
children's code of Colorado. She also dedicated a lot of energy on AIDS
legislation, proposed adoption, and the salaries of elected county
officials. Dottie served as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
vice chair of Capital Development and chairman of the Criminal Justice
Commission.
This year marked the end of Senator Wham's tenure in elected office.
Her career embodied the citizen-legislator ideal and was a model that
every official in elected office should seek to emulate. The citizens
of Colorado owe Senator Wham a debt of gratitude and I wish her well.

____________________

HOW TO DISCOVER NEW PHARMACEUTICAL CURES AT AFFORDABLE PRICES TO THE
PUBLIC? THE BRITISH ADMIRALTY'S 1714 SOLUTION AND INTRODUCTION OF
LEGISLATION TO SPEED THE CURE FOR DISEASES

______

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation based on
the highly successful Act of Parliament of 1714 which established a
prize for the invention of an absolutely essential tool: the modern
sextant necessary to prevent shipwrecks.
My legislation would establish a series of prizes for the discovery
of cures to many of the major diseases and illnesses that plague
mankind. The prizes would be appropriate to the horror of the illness--
$10 billion tax free for a cure or prevention for Alzheimer's; $10
billion for MS, $10 billion for AIDS, etc.
The condition--the quid pro quo--is that the prize would go to an
inventor/company (and cooperative consultation would be encouraged) in
exchange for making the medical breakthrough available to the world at
the cost of production.
An unusual bill? Yes.
But it worked before. And we desperately need to find a way to bring
disease-curing, break-through drugs to market faster, but at a price
that is affordable to the people who need them.
I'm including in the Record a description of how the British
Admiralty, quite tired of its fleets ramming into land unexpectedly and
sinking with massive loss of life, offered the huge sum of
20,000 in 1714 for the person who could ``discover longitude.'' The
Library of Congress tells me that 20,000 Pounds Sterling in 1750 would
be worth $401.4 million today. I assume that if the data allowed a
conversion of Pounds to Dollars back to 1714, the amount would be about
half a billion dollars. This huge prize led to a flurry of research and
invention that produced the sextant and other devices and modernized
the world of commerce and travel.
To cure Alzheimer's, or MS, or AIDS, or Cancer, or the other major
diseases is, I believe, worth more than half a billion dollars, and I
would propose a tax free $10 billion prize per major disease. On just
Alzheimer's, for example, by 2025 with the aging of the Baby Boomers,
it is expected that 14 million Americans will have Alzheimer's.
Conservatively assuming $50,000 a year in current dollars for the
various costs to ``manage'' an

[[Page 9226]]

Alzheimer's patient, the cost to society will be about $700 billion a
year for this one disease! Clearly, a $10 billion prize would be a
bargain. The NIH could guide us on the size of prizes for other
designated diseases.
Why not rely on the current private sector process of finding cures?
First, a lot of current private industry research is wasted in the
research on ``me too'' drugs, vanity drugs, and marginal improvements
in existing products. The U.S. pharmaceutical companies profit levels
are about 50 percent higher than their R&D budgets, and their overhead,
sales, and lobbying expenses are twice as high. We need to focus the
companies and the scientific community on major breakthroughs, not me
toos.
Second, when a major breakthrough is invented, it is priced--at least
in the United States--at such sky-high levels that access to life-
saving drugs has become the major source of inflation in the economy
and is unaffordable to the poor and sick. The industrialized world's
drug companies resist allowing low cost production in the world's
poorest nations, thus leaving millions to suffer and die needlessly,
and even in America, the poor find their pharmaceutical care severely
rationed.
The tax-free prize I am proposing would give any company or scientist
the appropriate honor and monetary reward in exchange for ensuring the
life-saving invention is available to society at a reasonable price.
Following is an excerpt from ``Evolution of the Sextant'' by Rod
Cardoza of the Sea West Company.

Until the very early years of the 18th century a mariner's
navigation consisted of sunshots to determine the latitude
and dead reckoning, coupled with piloting, to estimate the
longitude. Latitude, the distance north or south of the
equator, is the horizontal component of the imaginary grid
system encircling the earth, unaffected by the earth's
rotation relative to the stars. Longitude, the distance east
or west on the earth's surface, is the vertical component of
these lines of position. It changes constantly, with respect
to the heavens, as the earth rotates. Thus a key element in
most methods of determining longitude is precise time
keeping.
The onset of the 18th century saw new methods and
instruments innovated for finding the elusive longitude.
Among these, the lunar distance method found favor with the
English, culminating in the perfection of the reflecting
circle by Mayer, Borda, and Troughton toward the end of the
century. Another method, longitude by change in compass
variation, promised an easy solution in theory, but was not
precise enough to be of any value in practice.
The search for the longitude generated some bizarre
proposals. In one case Sir Kenelm Digby claimed that he had
caused one of his medical patients to jump with a start, even
though the two were separated by a great distance. This was
accomplished by placing some specially invented ``powder of
sympathy'' into a bucket of water and then adding a bandage
taken from the patient's wound. This ``fact'' led to the
suggestion that every ship should be equipped with a wounded
dog. On shore, a diligent individual equipped with a standard
pendulum clock and a powdered bandage from the dog's wound,
would dip the bandage into water at the stroke of each hour
causing the dog aboard the ship to yelp at the appropriate
instant!
The impractical application of all these systems was
becoming tragically obvious. Several instances of entire
squadrons of British ships being lost due to imprecise
navigation occurred in 1691, 1707, and again in 1711. These
losses provided a final impetus to the British Admiralty to
pass a bill ``for providing a publick reward for such person
or persons as shall discover the Longitude,'' in 1714. The
amount of the reward was K20,000--a phenomenal sum at the
time--indicative of the importance placed upon perfecting an
accurate means of navigating.
Finally in 1735, John Harrison, a Yorkshire carpenter,
successfully constructed the first marine chronometer having
some components of wood and weighing 125 pounds! Because of
its precise timekeeping ability, the chronometer, in
perfected form, was later to become an indispensable addition
to nearly every ocean-going vessel afloat. As a result of his
successful contribution Harrison eventually received the
reward. In the interim, the modern era in navigation had
begun.
The increased activity in ``the search for the longitude''
also spurred innovative interest in other areas of
navigation. In 1731 John Hadley demonstrated his new
reflecting quadrant to fellow members of the Royal Society in
London. His quadrant was based on the principle of light
reflection and angles of incidence described by Robert Hooke,
Issac Newton, and Edmund Halley nearly a century earlier.

____________________

PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA

______

HON. DOUG BEREUTER

of nebraska

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday this body is scheduled to
consider H.R. 4444, the legislation that would provide the People's
Republic of China with Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status
in the context of China's accession to the World Trade Organization.
This Member believes that Sino-American relations are increasingly
problematic and uncertain. China is not our enemy, though certain
forces in the U.S. and China want it to be. China is certainly not our
strategic partner, either. China is a strategic competitor with whom
responsible engagement and cooperation is necessary to ensure peace and
stability in the East Asia region.
This Member believes that the forthcoming vote on PNTR will have
significant ramifications for Sino-American relations and how
successfully we manage the challenges posed by China. It is in this
regard that this Member recommends the following article from the
Financial Times, a respected international newspaper, which provides an
insightful analysis of the impact of the PNTR vote.

[From the Financial Times, May 18, 2000]

Trade Status May Hold the Key to End of Roller-Coaster Ride in US-China
Relationship

(By James Kynge)

The last 21 years of US-China relations have been a roller
coaster ride. Periods of bright optimism have swiftly
subsided into mutual acrimony and, in 1996, a military stand-
off in the Taiwan strait. But rarely, if ever, has a
potential tear in the fraying fabric of bilateral ties been
so visible--and avoidable--as now.
The decisive test will come next week, when the US House of
Representatives votes on President Bill Clinton's proposal to
safeguard China's US exports against possible discrimination
by giving it permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status.
The proposal, which would abolish Congress's annual review of
China's trade status, is prompted by the country's imminent
admission to the World Trade Organization.
If Congress rejected PNTR, China could still enter the WTO
but foreign diplomats and Chinese officials say rejection
could cause a rupture in relations with the US more enduring
and perilous than that which followed NATO's bombing of
China's Belgrade embassy last year.
The most obvious impact would be felt by US corporations
exporting to and operating in the world's most populous
country. Beijing would be likely to exercise its right, under
WTO rules, to deny them the unprecedented trade
liberalisation and market access concessions that it has
promised to make once it joins the WTO.
Adding insult to injury, the European and other companies
that compete so intensely with US companies in China would
enjoy the full benefits of the WTO package. ``[It] would be
absolutely disastrous for US companies. There is no other
word for it. Disastrous,'' said a US executive.
US multinationals are not the only potential victims. For a
Chinese leadership facing crucial challenges at home and in
foreign policy, a congressional ``no'' would deal a harsh
blow to the very people seen as relatively pro-US, reformist
and supportive of a faster integration into the wider world.
Zhu Rongji, the premier, has already endured the opprobrium
that flows from being seen as too pro-American. His political
career languished for several months last year after he
returned from Washington having failed to clinch a WTO deal
despite offering concessions so deep that many Chinese saw
them as ``traitorous''.
This time, Mr. Zhu, President Jiang Zemin and hundreds of
other lower level officials who have displayed their
reformist colours are potentially vulnerable.
This is mainly because one of the main arguments that
reformers in China employed last year to persuade
conservatives of the wisdom of WTO accession was that it
would mean the end of an annual review of Beijing's human
rights record in the U.S. Congress. If PNTR is not awarded,
the review--an annual humiliation for Beijing--would stay.
Sandra Kristoff, a former White House staff member and now
senior vice-president of New York Life, said after meetings
in Beijing this week that there was potential for the whole
U.S.-China relationship to become unhinged. ``[If there is a
no vote] there would be no way that we could convince them
that this does not mean that the U.S. wants to contain
them,'' she said.
A resurgence of resentful nationalism, evident in Beijing
after the Chinese embassy bombing, could add to the already
unstable mix of emotions that conditions China's responses on
Taiwan, diplomats said. Beijing has sworn to prevent Taiwan
independence, by using force if necessary.
To many Chinese officials, U.S. hostility towards Beijing
and Taiwan's steady drift towards independence are two sides
of the same coin. Thus any hopes of the U.S. acting as an
honest facilitator for talks between Taipei and Beijing would
be undermined if PNTR was rejected.

[[Page 9227]]

From the perspective of China's economic reforms, however,
the effects of a decision not to award PNTR are less clear. A
recent acceleration in free market reform is being driven by
the prospect of WTO accession and by the objective
requirements of an economy in urgent need of restructuring.
Neither of these two factors would, in theory, be affected
by a refusal to normalise trade relations with the U.S. But
in practice, there are distinct risks.
One is that conservatives and military hawks, empowered by
a rupture in relations with the U.S. could convince Mr. Jiang
to stall WTO accession and defer some of the more painful and
controversial aspects of reform.
Such a scenario is far from unthinkable. Mr. Jiang is a
master of compromise politics, and there is already some
internal opposition to crucial reforms that appear to be
whittling away the economic power base of the Communist
party.
Perhaps that is one reason why Chinese dissidents such as
Dai Qing are so in favour of PNTR. ``Permanent normal trade
relations would send the Chinese people a powerful message:
the most powerful industrialised nation today will work with
the Chinese people to build a new world order,'' said Mr.
Dai.

____________________

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2001

______

speech of

HON. BRUCE F. VENTO

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Friday, May 19, 2000

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4475) making
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns regarding the
FY 2001 Transportation Appropriation rider, which would continue to
freeze the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards at current
levels.
The CAFE standards passed by Congress in 1975 comprise one of the
most successful environmental policies enacted in the past thirty
years. Fuel efficiency standards save consumers millions of dollars at
the gas pump while decreasing pollution and U.S. dependence on fossil
fuels and foreign oil. Current CAFE standards save more than 3 million
barrels of oil per day, and more than $40 billion at the gas pump each
year.
While the current provisions have been effective, the increase in the
number of light trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) on the road
warrants a revision of CAFE emission standards. Light trucks and SUVs
now account for 47.5% of vehicles sold in the United States. Yet, they
are held to a lower fuel efficiency standard than passenger
automobiles. The result is that the fuel efficiency of vehicles sold in
the United States has hit its lowest point since 1980. This is in
itself circumvention of the policy path, as these vehicles are
certainly a substitute for the family automobile. When you add the
freeze of CAFE standards, it compounds the energy inefficiency of our
present policy and law.
The environmental benefits of reducing emissions cannot be
underestimated. Holding SUVs to the same standards as passenger cars
would reduce emission of carbon dioxide by 30 tons over the life of the
automobile. Increasing CAFE standards for light trucks would reduce
urban smog and the buildup of greenhouse gases, an important step in
the battle against global warming. Furthermore, increasing CAFE
standards would bring the United States closer to a 7% reduction from
1990 carbon dioxide levels, as required by the Kyoto Agreement.
The recent spike in oil prices highlights anew the need to reduce
U.S. dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil supplies. The United
States has the technological capability to produce clean and efficient
energy. It is essential that Congress support these goals, and stop
prohibiting revision of CAFE standards. I urge my colleagues to work
today to preserve the environment for tomorrow. Oppose the CAFE-freeze
rider attached to the FY 2001 Transportation Appropriation bill.

____________________

RECOGNIZING TINA TAHMASSEBI OF DAVIE, FLORIDA

______

HON. PETER DEUTSCH

of florida

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the efforts of
Tina Tahmassebi, of Davie, Florida. Tina was recently honored by the
Third Annual Seventeen/Cover Girl Volunteerism Awards as a first place
prize winner in the 18-21 age category. Indeed, Tina is very deserving
of recognition for her role in founding the Universal Aid for Children
REACH OUT program.
The Seventeen/Cover Girl Volunteerism Award rewards and honors teens
and young women who have made extraordinary achievements in the fields
of volunteerism and public service. In concert with the Volunteerism
Awards, Seventeen Magazine and Cover Girl Cosmetics Company have
awarded more than $90,000 in scholarship money, U.S. Savings Bonds and
charitable donations. After examining Tina's extraordinary work, it is
clear that her story exemplifies the tenets espoused by the
Volunteerism Awards.
Tina founded the REACH OUT program while only a junior in high
school. This student-run organization assists an orphanage and a
vocational school in El Salvador by supplying medical supplies, office
supplies, and clothing while simultaneously attending to the
educational needs of the children involved in these programs. To
purchase these much needed supplies, Tina and her group have held bake
sales, car washes, and other fundraising events. Shipping more than
$40,000 in relief to El Salvador to this date, Tina's efforts have
undoubtedly made a lasting impression on those in the community.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Tina Tahmassebi for her
exemplary achievements in volunteering and public service. Tina has
made a remarkable impact on the lives of the children in El Salvador,
and her hard work is something that both she and the entire community
can be proud of.

____________________

COLORADO STATE HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE DOROTHY GOTLIEB

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this moment to recognize
the career of one of Colorado's leading statesmen, Colorado
Representative, Dorothy Gotlieb. In doing so, I would like to honor
this individual who, for so many years, has exemplified the notion of
public service and civic duty. It is clear that Representative
Gotlieb's dynamic leadership will be greatly missed and difficult to
replace.
Elected to the State House of Representatives in 1992, she has served
on the Education, Transportation and the Energy Committees. Dorothy
distinguished herself by working on issues concerning the budget.
Dorothy pushes hard to make children the top priority in the
legislature
The number of honors and distinctions that Representative Gotlieb
earned during her years of outstanding service are too numerous to
list, too few to do justice to her contributions to the State of
Colorado.
2000 marked the end of Representative Gotlieb's tenure in the State
House of Representatives. Her tenure embodied the citizen-legislator
ideal and was a model that every official in elected office should seek
to emulate. The citizens of Colorado owe Representative Gotlieb a debt
of gratitude and I wish her well.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO JOHN C. SAWHILL

______

HON. ROB PORTMAN

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, May 18, our nation and our
world lost a remarkable leader with the passing of John C. Sawhill, the
president and chief executive officer of The Nature Conservancy.
I had the good fortune to work with John and his staff over the last
three years as we developed the Tropical Forest Conservation Act--
legislation designed to protect the world's most threatened tropical
forests. Under John's leadership, the Conservancy provided us with the
technical expertise, research and political savvy to help ensure that
the TFCA was enacted into law.
During John's long and distinguished career in public service,
academia, and the private sector, he held senior positions in the
Nixon, Ford, and Carter administration; served as president of New York
University; and was a partner in the international consulting firm of
McKinsey and Company.
John joined The Nature Conservancy in January 1990. Under his
leadership, the Conservancy grew into the world's largest private

[[Page 9228]]

conservation group and the nation's 14th largest nonprofit institution,
with annual revenues of $780 million, over one million members, and a
network of 1300 private nature reserves. Its mission is to preserve
biodiversity by protecting wildlife habitat.
Samuel C. Johnson, the chairman of The Conservancy's National Board
of Governors, noted that John's passing is sad news not only for the
Nature Conservancy family, but also for the cause of conservation. I
could not agree more. The Conservancy's remarkable record of
achievement over the past decade is an eloquent testimony to John's
energy, vision, intellect, and commitment to the mission of
conservation.
During John's tenure, The Conservancy protected more than 7 million
acres of land in the United States alone, including such landmark
purchases as the 502-square-mile Gray Ranch in New Mexico in 1990 and
the $37 million acquisition of Palmyra Atoll in the Pacific, announced
only two weeks ago. His stewardship of the organization also saw the
number of staff triple to the current level of 3,000 employees; total
assets triple to $2.3 billion; and membership more than double.
Born in Cleveland, Ohio, on June 12, 1936, John was raised in
Baltimore, Maryland. At the time of his death, he resided in
Washington, D.C. and Washington, Virginia. He graduated cum laude from
Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs in 1958 and received his Ph.D. in economics from
New York University in 1963. From 1960 to 1963, he was assistant dean
and assistant professor in the department of economics at NYU.
John served as a director of a number of major American corporations,
including Consolidated Edison, RCA, Philip Morris, Crane Corporation,
General American Investors, American International Group, Automatic
Data Processing, and North American Coal. At the time of his death, he
was serving as a director of the Procter and Gamble Company, Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, and the Vanguard Group of Mutual Funds.
He was involved with a number of nonprofit organizations. He was
chairman of the board of the H. John Heinz III Center for Science,
Economics and the Environment. He served as a member of the President's
Council on Sustainable Development and the Environment for the Americas
Board, the group that oversees debt-for-nature swaps and the
establishment of conservation trust funds in several Latin American
countries.
In addition, he served on the Commission on the Future of the
Smithsonian and chaired the task force on governance, management and
financial resources. He also served as a trustee of Princeton
University and was chairman emeritus of the Whitehead Institute for
Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
In September 1997, John became senior lecturer of business
administration at the Harvard Business School where he taught and
conducted research on not-for-profit institutions. John also published
a number of books, articles, and reports about energy and energy-
related subjects.
John is survived by his wife, Isabel V. Sawhill, a senior fellow at
the Brookings Institution and president of the National Campaign to
Prevent Teen Pregnancy; his son, James W. Sawhill, a senior vice
president at Wells Fargo Bank in San Francisco; a grandson, John C.
Sawhill II; a brother, James M. Sawhill, of Newport News, Virginia, and
two sisters, Sally Supplee of Palo Alto, California and Monroe Hodder
of London, England.
John was an inspiration to me personally. I considered him not only a
colleague but a friend. He will be greatly missed.

____________________

CONGRATULATING UMPQUA TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT, INC.

______

HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO

of oregon

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations
to Umpqua Training and Employment, Inc. (UT&E), which celebrates its
25th anniversary on June 11, 2000. UT&E has been a pillar in the
community, offering employment training, guidance, and aid to the
citizens of Douglas County.
On June 11, 1975, the State of Oregon's Corporation Division of the
Department of Commerce issued a certificate of incorporation to the
District 6 Manpower Program. The non-profit corporation was organized
by a group of Douglas County residents who believed that federal
employment and training programs should be administered by a private
corporation governed by local directors. In 1981, the corporation began
doing business under the name Umpqua Training and Employment, Inc.
Although UT&E's original focus was training the structurally
unemployed--those who have difficulty getting and keeping jobs under
any economic circumstances--they saw an increase in business during the
recession of the 1980's. The unemployment rate shot past the 20 percent
mark, and residents increasingly began to utilize UT&E services, which
include labor market information, testing and assessment, job search
training, career counseling, work experience opportunities, and
occupational training both in the classroom and on-the-job.
In the mid-1980's Alcan Cable moved to Douglas County and established
a unique partnership with UT&E by locating their human resource
department in UT&E's offices. Applicants who may never have been
considered for employment,found good jobs with an excellent local
company, and UT&E began to actively participate in industrial
recruitment efforts. They have assisted virtually every new employer
who has located in Douglas County since 1987, including WinCo Foods,
which is currently establishing their food distribution center, and
Roseburg Forest Products which is building their new LVL and I-Joist
plant.
In the early 1990's as the timber industry downsized, UT&E, the local
office of the Employment Department, and Umpqua Community College
formed a ``rapid response unit'' to assist workers displaced by plant
closures and large lay-offs. With federal funds granted to especially
hard-hit areas like Douglas County, UT&E helped almost 1,500 residents
acquire new skills and new jobs.
UT&E has been recognized for its excellence by the Board of Douglas
County Commissioners, the State of Oregon, and the Oregon Consortium. I
join my colleagues in offering my personal congratulations to all those
involved with Umpqua Training and Employment, Inc. on its 25th
anniversary. Their tireless work in the community has provided
countless jobs for the citizens of Douglas County, and I wish the
members and beneficiaries of UT&E continue success in their future
endeavors.

____________________

STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM

______

HON. RUBEN HINOJOSA

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce that for the first
time, a Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, is available in
South Texas. CHIP is low-cost health coverage provided under a state-
subsidized insurance program. Any Texas uninsured child, newborns
through age 18, are eligible. All costs are flexible, and based on
family income. For example, a family of four qualifies if the household
income is $34,000 or less. If you make more than that, you can qualify
for greatly-reduced insurance through another program, Texas
HealthyKids.
The CHIP operates like a Health Maintenance Organization, or MHO. It
is run by the TexCare Partnership which partners with all 254 Texas
counties to sponsor services through one of three different plans:
CHIP, Medicaid, or Texas HealthyKids. CHIP provides services such as
hospital care, surgery, x-rays, therapies, prescription drugs, mental
health and substance abuse treatment, emergency services, eye tests and
glasses, dental care, and regular health check-ups and vaccinations.
For Texas, CHIP is funded from the proceeds of our tobacco settlement
with the tobacco companies a couple of years ago. It is critically
important in our state because Texas has the highest rate of uninsured
in the country. And unfortunately, Texas has the nation's second-
highest number of uninsured children. The worst problem we have is that
not enough parents are using this great program.
South Texas, in particular, has carried the burden of uninsured
children for many years. About 1.4 million of Texas' 5.8 million
children lack health insurance, but 470,000 of them are now eligible
for coverage under CHIP. Almost one-fourth--109,000--of the newly-
eligible kids live on the Texas-Mexico border. When children don't have
health insurance, they have to rely on costly medical treatment at the
last minute. This threatens the child's future well-being. But now we
have a true opportunity to change that. CHIP will give a lot of
children the opportunity to lead healthy lives, without the fear of
getting sick.
Let me share a quote with you from a parent from my district who
recently went through the enrollment process: ``My husband and I are
hardworking middle-income people who were disqualified from Medicaid
because I became employed. We have two incomes and

[[Page 9229]]

* * * can't afford (insurance). Now we are told by TexCare Partnership
we will have insurance for our children with low premiums and low co-
payments that we can afford. My children have health care when they
need it.''
CHIP was first implemented in 1998 to address a national crisis--
almost 12 million children that were without insurance. In Texas, we
are now able to offer insurance to approximately 1.8 million children
that otherwise would have none.
While we can make this offer, it is up to each parent or guardian to
enroll, or at least inquire about getting, their children in this
program. Believe it or not, the hardest part of the CHIP program is
getting parents to enroll their children. More parents need to take
advantage of this genuinely great program. I want to stress that even
if a parent has never qualified for health insurance for their child
before, now they can.
CHIP solves the cost problem for many Texas families. In CHIP, many
families will only pay an annual fee of $15 to cover all their children
in the plan. Some higher-income families will pay monthly premiums of
$15 or 418, which covers all children in the family. Most families will
also have co-payments for doctor/dental visits, prescription drugs, and
emergency care. And families must re-enroll their children once a year.
Children can only get this insurance if their parents apply, and I hope
all parents will take the initiative and make certain your children are
enrolled.
The application process is simple and straight-forward--any Texan can
call 1-800-647-6558 between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. Monday through Friday,
and 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday. If parents want local assistance or
information in my congressional district, they can call the
organization ``ADVANCE'' at 956-618-1642, or visit any public library
in Hidalgo County to pick up a bilingual brochure and application.

____________________

COLORADO STATE REPRESENTATIVE STEVE TOOL

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this moment to recognize
the career of one of Colorado's leading statesmen, Colorado
Representative, Steve Tool. In doing so, I would like to honor this
individual who, for so many years, has exemplified the notion of public
service and civic duty. It is clear that Representative Tool's dynamic
leadership will be greatly missed and difficult to replace.
Elected to the State House of Representatives in 1992, Steve served
on the Finance, Judiciary, and the Health Environment and Welfare and
Institutions Committees. He has sponsored legislation regarding the
penalty one might receive for child abuse resulting in death. Steve has
also worked very aggressively in regards to school finance and trying
to balance school finance in the State of Colorado so that there is
equal distribution of funds to all communities.
The number of honors and distinctions that Representative Tool earned
during her years of outstanding service are too numerous to list, too
few to do justice to his contributions to the State of Colorado.
2000 marked the end of Representative Tool's tenure in elected
office. His career embodied the citizen-legislator ideal and was a
model that every official in elected office should seek to emulate. The
citizens of Colorado owe Representative Tool a debt of gratitude and I
wish him well.

____________________

IN HONOR OF ESTHER KIM AND KAY POE ON THE OCCASION OF THE 2000 U.S.
OLYMPIC TAEKWONDO TRIALS

______

HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize
Esther Kim and Kay Poe of the US Taekwondo team, who recently
participated in the U.S. Olympic Taekwondo Trials in Colorado Springs,
Colorado. Ms. Kim and Ms. Poe deserve this body's special recognition
for their outstanding display of courage and sportsmanship.
Ms. Poe was set to fight her best friend Esther Kim, whom she has
known for thirteen years, in the final match of the tournament, when
Ms. Kim then made a most monumental decision, which will undoubtedly
affect the lives of both taekwondo stars forever. Knowing that Ms. Poe
was injured and unable to fight competitively, Ms. Kim forfeited the
women's flyweight championship match and title in honor of her best
friend.
Ms. Kim's ``bow down'' ended her chances of competing for the U.S. in
Sidney this September at the Olympic Games. Mr. Speaker, this action
clearly demonstrates Ms. Kim's courage and conviction, as well as her
indescribable admiration and love for a friend.
Ms. Kim believed that Ms. Poe had worked harder at the sport and
deserved the opportunity to represent her country. Poe was seeded
number one in the world, while Ms. Kim was ranked tenth.
Rather then dishonoring her best friend by defeating an injured
opponent, Ms. Kim chose to respect not only Ms. Poe's ability in the
sport, but her determination in defeating her semi-final opponent after
suffering an injury.
The Olympic Games are a pillar for international unity, as a plethora
of athletic ambassadors compete for a chance to bring back a medal of
outstanding athletic achievement for their respective nations. The U.S.
teams' goals are very similar, in that our athletes make great
sacrifices, with the hope that their efforts will be rewarded with a
medal that can be brought back to our grateful nation.
Ms. Kim's father, Mr. Jin, who trained both Ms. Poe and Ms. Kim was
honored by his daughter's decision. He believed that both athletes
emerged victorious, as they worked together in honoring the team's
final Olympic berth.
I salute Ms. Poe and Ms. Kim for their dedication and sacrifice and I
ask my colleagues to join me in commending both Esther Kim and Kay Poe
for their efforts at the U.S. Olympic Taekwondo Trials in Colorado
Springs, Colorado.

____________________

HONORING JOHN CIFICHIELLO

______

HON. JOSEPH CROWLEY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor John Cifichiello from
the Bronx. This Thursday, Mr. Cifichiello will be honored by Community
Board #11 in the Bronx for his lifetime of service to God, country, and
family.
Mr. Cifichiello is a lifelong rsident of New York City. He was born
on August 24th, 1906 to Italian immigrants Vito and Rosa in their
Greenwich Village apartment.
At a young age, his family moved to the Fordham section of the Bronx.
Vito and Rosa, along with their daughter Josephine, sons John, Neal,
and Fred worked hard and eventually bought their own home on Crotona
Avenue. John worked in the printing trade and married Caroline Ciani of
Pelham Parkway.
During World War II, he served in the Navy in Ireland and England and
upon his discharge began a career in the Postal Service while helping
to raise a son John, and a daughter, Carolyn.
Since the end of the war, Mr. Cifichiello has been a community and
church activist. He is a past Commander of the Catholic War Veterans
and, he has escorted veterans to mass each Sunday at the Kingsbridge
Veterans Hospital. He has also been active in Mount Carmel's Holy Name
Society and St. Vincent De Paul Society.
Mr. Cifichiello continues to serve as a member of Community Board #11
and is a past president of St. Lucy's Senior Citizens Association. He
was a long term member of the Red Cross, participating in numerous
blood drives for St. Lucy's and is also a past member of the Catholic
Guild for the Blind. He served with the Pelham Parkway Little League
for over twenty years, first as a coach and then as president.
Upon retiring from the Post Office in 1975, he began as a volunteer
at the New York Botanical Gardens where he continues to serve. He
continues to march in the Bronx annual Columbus Day Parade.
Mr. Cifichiello is also the proud grandfather of Peter, Matthew,
Michael, John Melissa, and Carolyn.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending this volunteer and family
man for his many years of service to his church, family, and his
nation.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. JIM RYUN

of kansas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. RYUN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, May 22, I was unavoidably detained
and was not present for rollcall vote Nos. 211, 212, and 213. Had I
been present, I would have voted

[[Page 9230]]

``yes'' on the rollcall No. 211, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 212, and
``yes'' on rollcall No. 213.

____________________

COLORADO STATE HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE ANDY McELHANY

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this moment to recognize
the career of one of Colorado's leading statesmen, Colorado
Representative, Andy McElhany. In doing so, I would like to honor this
individual who, for so many years, has exemplified the notion of public
service and civic duty. It is clear that Representative McElhany's
dynamic leadership will be greatly missed and difficult to replace.
Elected to the State House of Representatives in 1992, Andy served as
chairman of the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committees. He was
the sponsor of the `Deadbeat Parent' bill and worked hard on the issues
of health care reform, transportation, government efficiencies and tax
reform.
Representative McElhany received many honors. One of his many honors
was the the Colorado Library Association Legislator of the Year award.
2000 marked the end of Representative McElhany's tenure in the State
House of Representatives. His career embodied the citizen-legislator
ideal and was a model that every official in elected office should seek
to emulate. The citizens of Colorado owe Representative McElhany a debt
of gratitude and I wish him well.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was unavoidably absent from
the House floor when the following votes were taken: rollcall vote No.
211, rollcall vote No. 212, and rollcall vote No. 213. Had I been
present in this Chamber when these votes were cast, I would have voted
``yes'' on each of the votes.

____________________

HONORING THE SERVICE OF WALTER W. SHERVINGTON TO THE MEDICAL PROFESSION
AND HEALTH CARE

______

HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN

of the virgin islands

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Walter W.
Shervington, a noted psychiatrist and a hero of health care, for
dedicating his life to the needs of both the communities in which he
lived and worked and the Nation.
Dr. Shervington received his undergraduate degree from the University
of Pennsylvania and his medical degree from the University of Maryland
School of Medicine. His distinctive medical career involved active
participation in numerous professional associations, which included the
Black Psychiatrists of America, the National Association of State
Mental Health Program Directors, the American Psychiatric Association
and the American College of Psychiatrists. In February of this year, he
was appointed to the Board of Directors of a new U.S. Olympic
Committee, with oversight of drug screening for U.S. athletes
participating in the Olympics.
In August of 1999 he was sworn into office as the 99th President of
the National Medical Association (NMA). The NMA is a professional,
scientific and educational organization that represents the interests
of more than Twenty Five Thousand (25,000) African American physicians
and the patients that they serve. It is an organization that is
dedicated to establishing parity in medicine and the elimination of
health disparities.
Dr. Shervington's three decade tenure with the NMA is a legacy of
service, dedicated commitment, accomplishment and reflects the multiple
and diverse positions that he held. He served as Chairman of the
Section on Psychiatry and Behavioral Science; Delegate, Secretary, Vice
Speaker and Speaker of the House of Delegates; Chairman of the Board,
Vice President and President-Elect, before being sworn into office as
President during the Association's 104th Annual Convention and
Scientific Assembly.
His term as President brought national attention to the negative
impact of Managed Care on African Americans, issues of parity and the
access of African American patients to HIV/AIDS treatment. His
expertise in the field of psychiatry enabled him to write and lecture
extensively on mental health and the impact of HIV/AIDS on the African
American community. He served as principal investigator and co-
principal investigator on several HIV/AIDS projects and participated in
the New Orleans Regional AIDS Planning Council, while being a member of
the National AIDS Advisory Committee of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
Until his death he served as Chief Executive Officer of the New
Orleans Adolescent Hospital, a psychiatric hospital for children and
adolescents serving the Greater New Orleans area. He formerly served as
Medical Regional Director for the Office of Mental Health in the
Louisiana Department of health and Hospitals. In 1992 he was appointed
Assistant Secretary, Office of Mental Health, by Governor Edwin Edwards
of Louisiana and was also an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at
Louisiana State University School of Medicine. His death on April 15,
2000, ended the illustrious performance of an individual's
contributions to various communities and the field of medicine.
On behalf of the Congress of the United States of America, I salute
Dr. Walter W. Shervington for his dedicated service to his country, his
profession and especially the African American community. I thank his
wife Denise and daughters Shanga and Iman for sharing him with us.

____________________

HONORING LAURIE SPRACKLIN-NOEL

______

HON. KENNY C. HULSHOF

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, the word courage is used to describe many
things. President John F. Kennedy wrote the best selling book
``Profiles In Courage,'' and we in the House of Representatives are
often asked to vote the courage of our convictions. Courage is often
associated with our national war heroes. To a lesser degree, the word
``courage'' is used to describe athletes who persevere despite injury.
Winston Churchill defined courage as the first human quality because
it is the quality which guarantees all others. While Sir Winston did
not know Laurie Spracklin-Noel, his words surely describe her.
Laurie, a constituent, was recently diagnosed with stage-three
cancer. As a wife, a mother of four, an OB/GYN nurse, an award winning
actress and speaker, Laurie has shown her ability to succeed in many
areas. At the same time, her most important accomplishment is yet to
come. When this event happens Laurie will add the distinction of cancer
survivor to her list! Laurie is determined to overcome her cancer
through the combination of chemotherapy, the strong support of her
family and friends in Moberly, Missouri, and her positive attitude and
yes, her undaunted courage. In fact, Laurie has said, ``even if this
cancer were in stage four, I'm going to beat it.''
While Laurie knows she is in the fight of her life, her attitude,
disposition, and faith make this fight winnable.
Napoleon said, ``Courage is like love; it must have hope to nourish
it.'' Laurie is an inspiration to her family and community. They have
hope that through her courageous efforts Laurie will win her battle.
Mr. Speaker, the thoughts and prayers of my colleagues and I go out
to Laurie and her family and we wish them well for the future.

____________________

RUSSELL GEORGE, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COLORADO

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this moment to recognize
the career of one of Colorado's leading statesmen, and my very dear
friend, Colorado Speaker of the House, Russell George. In doing so, I
would like to honor this individual who, for so many years, has
exemplified the notion of public service and civic duty. It is clear
that Speaker George's dynamic leadership will be greatly missed and
difficult to replace.
Elected to the State House of Representatives in 1992, he served on
the Agriculture, Judiciary, Joint Legislative Sunrise/Sunset, UMTRA
Oversight, Children's Code Oversight, Capital Development, and G.A.
Board of Ethics Committees. In 1996, he sponsored numerous legislation,
including, revision of Child

[[Page 9231]]

Welfare Laws, water augmentation, right to farm, Colorado Children's
Trust Funds.

Speaker George received many honors. He has received honors from the
Colorado Association of School Boards, Colorado Bankers Association,
Colorado Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Colorado Restaurant
Association, Colorado Rehabilitation Coalition, Colorado Crime
Stoppers, CCI Domestic Violence Coalition, Colorado Academy of
Audiologists. In 1994 and 1996, he was the recipient of the AP
Legislator of the Year award.

This year marked the end of Speaker George's tenure in elected
office. His career embodied the citizen-legislator ideal and was a
model that every official in elected office should seek to emulate. The
citizens of Colorado owe Speaker George a debt of gratitude and I wish
him well.

____________________

HONORING BOBBY W. BEASLEY

______

HON. BOB ETHERIDGE

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to one of my
constituents, Bobby W. Beasley, the superintendent of Harnett County
Schools. Mr. Beasley is retiring on June 30, 200, after 36 years of
dedicated service to the children of North Carolina. He has served the
people well, and his leadership will be sorely missed in my home
county.

Bobby Beasley, like many of those educators who have moved North
Carolina to the forefront of education reform over the past 20 years,
was born in one of our rural counties, Union County near Charlotte, and
grew to manhood in Laurinburg, a small town in the Sandhills of the
state. After graduation from Laurinburg High School, he enrolled at
East Carolina University in Greenville intent on becoming a teacher.
Four years later, he began his career as a math teacher and coach at
Stokes-Pactolus School in Pitt County.

After only 3 years as a teacher, Mr. Beasley was appointed principal
of Bethel Elementary and Bethel Middle School, also in Pitt County, and
he remained a school administrator for the rest of his career. Along
the way, he also continued his formal education, obtaining the master's
degree from East Carolina University and, later the six-year
certification in school administration.

Mr. Beasley came to Harnett County in 1974, recruited by
Superintendent R.L. Gray to be principal of Angier High School. Those
were momentous times in Harnett County, a largely rural tobacco county
about to be caught up in a tremendous school consolidation effort
designed to make its schools the equal of those just north of it in
Wake County, home of the state's Capital City. Mr. Beasley was a key
advisor at this consolidation took place, moving in a principal of one
of the new schools, Western Harnett High School, when it opened in
1977.

Quiet, well liked by students, and a curriculum and instruction
specialist, Mr. Beasley ran Western Harnett High School for 10 eventful
years before being appointed assistant superintendent for curriculum
and instruction in the Central Office in 1987. His focus began
countywide as the school system evolved from rural to urban. With the
retirement of Superintendent Ivo Wortman in 1994, Mr. Beasley was
handed the reins of leadership for the Harnett County system.

Mr. Beasley's terms as assistant superintendent and superintendent
coincided with a decided push for education excellence on the part of
North Carolina and its school systems. A testing and accountability
system that has made the state an education leader in the nation was
instituted in 1990 after the state dropped to the bottom of the nation
in the SAT rankings in 1989. SAT average scores began a run upward in
1990 and have led the Nation in improvement. In addition, the state's
scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress have been
among the nation's best.

Harnett County schools have responded well to this accountability
demand. Under Mr. Beasley's direction, the average SAT scores have
improved dramatically, this year topping the state's average. Writing
scores of 4th graders are above the state average, and test scores
across the board show that Harnett County students have responded to
the need to work harder, score higher, and prepare themselves better
for the technologically complex world in which they will live.

Harnett County has invested more than $77 million in new schools and
school improvements during Mr. Beasley's tenure as superintendent. He
has shown himself to be an effective voice for school improvement, to
be a public servant our leaders trust and admire, and to be a visionary
man who knows what our county can and should become.

It has been said that an elementary teacher may touch up to 1,000
students over a lifetime of teaching, that a high school teacher may
influence 3,000, that a high school principal may impact perhaps 10,000
individuals. Bobby Beasley has served in each of these capacities--one
after the other. He has gone on to take the awesome responsibility of
running an entire system at a critical time in the life of Harnett
County and been intimately successful.

It has been said that a man and his times must coincide if great
progress is to result. This quiet man who believed in the students he
taught and those who attended the schools he administered was in
harmony with what was needed.

And Harnett County was better in the past--and will be eminently
better in the future--because of Bobby Beasley's efforts.

____________________

HONORING FATHER PHILIP J. CASCIA OF PROSPECT, CONNECTICUT

______

HON. JAMES H. MALONEY

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I honor the remarkable
contributions made by Father Philip J. Cascia of Prospect, CT, in the
important cause of world peace. In setting up Intersport USA, a non-
profit sports exchange program, he has for over a decade played a
prominent role in promoting friendly relations between the people of
the United States and those of other nations around the globe.

Father Philip J. Cascia was born in Springfield, MA, in 1951, later
moving to Connecticut where he graduated from St. Thomas High School in
Bloomfield. After his college education and theological training in
Maryland, Father Cascia returned to Connecticut where in 1977, he was
ordained as a Catholic priest for the Archdiocese of Hartford. His
early assignments took him to Waterbury and Prospect, and in 1985
Father Cascia became the spiritual director at Sacred Heart High School
in Waterbury. During this period Father Cascia's dedication to his
local communities led to the establishment of a soup kitchen, a
homeless shelter, a thrift store, and an affordable housing program. It
is a mark of his leadership that all of these community services remain
active to this day.

It was during his time at Sacred Heart that Father Cascia took the
wrestling team that he had established for inner-city children at the
school to the former Soviet Union. As the first trip of its kind, the
initiative earned national recognition in both America and the USSR, as
well as the attention of President Reagan, whose encouragement inspired
Father Cascia to establish Intersport USA. Expanding the program,
Father Cascia has taken his youth athlete exchange programs to China,
Vietnam, South Africa, and Cuba, and is now working to organize
programs with Libya, North Korea, and Japan. Many of Intersport's
programs have evolved into regular exchange visits.

Intersport USA has profoundly shaped the experiences of young
athletes, allowing them to mingle freely with their counterparts from
other countries, both competitively and socially. Father Cascia
continues to be at the forefront of this work, fostering mutual respect
among all participants, and allowing goodwill to replace ignorance and
hostility.

Through this sports-based diplomacy, Father Cascia has acted as a
tireless ambassador for peace, laying the foundations for friendlier
relations between America and the countries in which he has visited.
One example was his visit in 1990 to Hanoi, where at the entrance to
the sports arena, the Vietnamese Government raised the American flag
for the first time ever in that city. He has not only met his stated
goal of ``plant(ing) the seed of peace and understanding in the minds
and hearts of young athletes,'' but has also helped secure a more
peaceful future for America's citizens. Mr. Speaker, I welcome you and
the House of Representatives joining with me today in commending Father
Cascia on his work and on his success in promoting greater
understanding between nations around the world.

____________________

[[Page 9232]]

SUSAN KLINE NAMED RECIPIENT OF THE 18TH ANNUAL KODIMOH BROTHERHOOD
HUMANITARIAN AWARD

______

HON. RICHARD E. NEAL

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity today to honor my constituent, Ms. Susan Kline, who on
Tuesday, June 20th will be named the recipient of the Kodimoh
Brotherhood Humanitarian Award by Congregation Kodimoh in Springfield,
Massachusetts.
It was 18 years ago when Max Gruber, Kodimoh past president,
established the Kodimoh Brotherhood Humanitarian award. The purpose of
this award is to honor persons in the community who have distinguished
themselves for their outstanding commitment and service to worthy
causes.
This year, Susan Kline, past president of Kodimoh and long-time
member of the Executive Board, has been selected to receive this
distinguished honor.
Ms. Kline is an active volunteer and lifetime member of the Kodimoh
Sisterhood. She is a trustee of the Harold Grinspoon Supporting
Foundation and is president of the board of the Resource Center for
Jewish Education. Ms. Kline also serves on the board of the Greater
Springfield Jewish Federation and is a member of its Community Planning
Committee.
Susan Kline serves as a board member of Spectrum Home Health Care,
and is involved in Hadassah and other women's organizations. She is an
avid tennis player and is president of the Field Club of Longmeadow.
A native of Auburn, Maine, Susan Kline was educated at Harvard
University where she earned a Bachelor of Arts in modern European
History and Literature and a Master of Arts in Teaching. She and her
husband Edward live in Longmeadow. They have two grown daughters,
Judith and Elinor.
I would like to take this opportunity today to congratulate both
Susan Kline upon receiving this honor and Congregation Kodimoh for one
more year of honoring and instilling the ever so important notion of
community and national service.

____________________

COLORADO STATE SENATOR DAVID WATTENBERG

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this moment to recognize
the career of one of Colorado's leading statesmen, State Senator Dave
Wattenberg. In doing so, I would like to honor this individual who, for
so many years, has exemplified the notion of public service and civic
duty. It is clear that Senator Wattenberg's dynamic leadership will be
greatly missed and difficult to replace.
Elected to the Colorado Senate in 1984, he served as the chairman of
the Agriculture, Natural Resources, Energy Committee. Dave also served
on the Business Affairs and the Labor Committees. He sponsored bills on
things such as, horse racing, water issues, mining, transportation and
tort reform. His main focus was on agriculture, water, ranching issues
and banking issues.
Senator Wattenberg received many honors. In 1989 and 1990, he
received the Legislator of the Year from CACI. In 1988 he received
awards from Colorado Ski Country USA, and the Consulting Engineers
Council. He was also honored with the NFIB Guardian of Small Business
award.
This year marked the end of Senator Wattenberg's tenure in elected
office. His career embodied the citizen-legislator ideal and was a
model that every official in elected office should seek to emulate. The
citizens of Colorado owe Senator Wattenberg a debt of gratitude and I
wish him well.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, due to a previously scheduled family event,
I missed rollcall votes Nos. 207-210. Had I been present, I would have
voted: Rollcall No. 207--``yea''; rollcall No. 208--``no''; rollcall
No. 209--``no''; rollcall No. 210--``yea.''

____________________

INTRODUCING A HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE PLACEMENT
OF THE CHIEF WASHAKIE STATUE IN STATUARY HALL LOCATED IN THE UNITED
STATES CAPITOL

______

HON. BARBARA CUBIN

of wyoming

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to present to the Members
of the U.S. House of Representatives a concurrent resolution providing
for the placement of the Chief Washakie statue in Statuary Hall located
in the U.S. Capitol.
As the resolution states, Chief Washakie, leader of the Eastern
Shoshone Tribe, contributed greatly to the settlement of the west by
allowing the Oregon and Mormon trails to pass through Shoshone lands.
Chief Washakie was well known as a distinguished leader and a stately
warrior who bravely defended the Shoshone and their allies.
Additionally, Chief Washakie was the only chief to be awarded a full
military funeral.
On behalf of the people of Wyoming I am proud to put forth this
legislation providing this commemoration of one of the State's most
celebrated names.

____________________

REMEMBERING THE PRICE OF FREEDOM

______

HON. MICHAEL BILIRAKIS

of florida

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, on this Memorial Day, as on similar days
in years past, we remember the contributions of the millions of men and
women who served in our Armed Forces. It is also a day to instill in
younger Americans the tradition of honoring those who died in service
to their country.
This year we commemorate two important events--the 50th anniversary
of the Korean war and the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam
war. These anniversaries remind us of how important it is to remember
our history and to honor those who died to protect our future.
Memorial Day is a time for new generations to learn about the price
America has paid to preserve freedom and lead other nations to
democracy. Those of us who lived through the cold war have a
responsibility to educate our children and grandchildren about the
dangers still present in the world--and the need to maintain defenses
strong enough to deter potential adversaries.
The words ``freedom'' and ``democracy'' are most often used to
explain why members of our Armed Forces gave their lives to defend our
country. And in far-off places such as Bosnia and South Korea, American
men and women are still fighting for these principles.
There are no words to adequately describe the supreme sacrifice made
by brave Americans who died in service to this Nation. But we can
demonstrate our deep respect for them--and their families--by
remembering their struggle.
Each of us has an obligation to honor the sacrifices of those who
have worn the uniform of our Armed Forces. On Memorial Day, take time
to remember that our freedom was paid for in blood on battlefields
around the world.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on rollcall votes 211, 212,
and 213. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 3852, a
bill extending the deadline for commencement of construction of a
hydroelectric project in Alabama; ``aye'' on S. 1236, a bill extending
the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric
project in Idaho; and ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 302, which provides for a
national moment of remembrance to honor men and women who died in
pursuit of freedom and peace.

____________________

[[Page 9233]]

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. CASS BALLENGER

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 22, 2000, I missed
rollcall votes 211 (H.R. 3852) and 212 (S. 1236). Had I been present I
would have voted ``yea'' on both.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE LATE JOSEPHINE BARNETT LACKEY

______

HON. CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING

of mississippi

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, my heart is heavy and saddened today at
the passing of Mrs. Josephine Barnett Lackey, affectionately known as
``Miss Jo'', who passed away unexpectedly on Sunday May 14, 2000, at
the St. Thomas Hospital in Nashville, TN, after suffering cardiac
arrest. ``Miss Jo'', a constituent of mine from Forest, Mississippi,
was the wife of Jimmy Lackey, owner of Lackey Home Center in Forest,
and one of the more prominent Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders, and
Exhibitors in our state. Her death was untimely, and has certainly
shocked and devastated the Forest community.
``Miss Jo'' grew up in the Standing Pine community in Leake County,
and graduated from Walnut Grove High School. She graduated from Delta
State University with a degree in Elementary Education in the spring of
1950, and shortly thereafter moved to Forest where she taught in the
Forest School System. She and Mr. Lackey were married in 1953, and on
July 12, 2000, they would have celebrated their 47th wedding
anniversary. For more than 50 years, she was a resident of Forest.
``Miss Jo'' delighted in meeting, greeting and helping people. That
was her hallmark. That is why the Gift and Bridal Registery Shop she
operated in the Lackey Home Center was such a fascination and delight
to her. She loved being with people, and offering suggestions that
would make their life happier and enjoyable. Sid Salter, editor-
publisher of the Scott County Times, summed it up real well when he
said in his May 17, 2000, editorial, Josephine Lackey, ``there are few
homes in Forest that don't have a piece of fine crystal or china hand
chosen by Jo Lackey as a gift. For rich and poor alike, she gave her
best advice and treated every customer at Lackey Home Center as a
friend.''
``Miss Jo'' was president of the Forest Garden Club, and was a member
of the Hontokalo Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of
the American Revolution. She was a member of the Forest Baptist Church
and was a substitute Sunday School teacher. Her love and faith in God,
and the Lord Jesus Christ, was most evident in the two scripture
passages that were used by her Pastor Reverend Gordon Sansing, and her
former Pastor Sonny Adkins as the text for their remarks at her
funeral. The passages were: Psalms 71:17-18 ``O God, thou has taught me
from my youth; and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works. Now
that I am old and greyheaded, O God forsake me not, until I have shewed
thy strength unto this generation, and thy power to every one that is
to come'', and Proverbs 3:5-6 ``Trust in the Lord with all thine heart,
and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge
Him, and He will direct thy paths.''
Again, quoting Sid Salter, ``Josephine Barnett Lackey was--by every
rational measure of mind, body and spirit--a beautiful, elegant woman.
Blessed with the beauty nature gave her as a young woman, Josephine
Lackey merited the still beautiful face of a faithful wife, devoted
mother and grandmother, hard-working business woman and dependable
friend she had earned at the age of 70 when her great heart finally
failed her.
Our community is diminished by her passing and we will--with her
family--sorely miss her.''
``Miss Jo'' had a deep love for her family that included husband,
Jimmy, son Jim, daughters Julie and Jenny along with their husbands,
and five grandchildren. Another daughter, Joy, preceded her in death in
1996.
Without a doubt, the legacy that ``Miss Jo'' would want us to
remember her by is the love she had for her Lord, her Family, her
Church, her Friends, her Country, her State, and by all means her love
for Forest and Scott County. She was truly a dedicated Christian lady,
and a great American. I extend my heartfelt sympathy to her family.
Also, I want to express my appreciation, and that of all citizens of
the 3rd district for her life of service, and contributions to the
betterment of our world.

____________________

TRENDS CONCERNING THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

______

HON. SPENCER BACHUS

of alabama

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, May 24, 2000

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues about
several recent disturbing trends at the Asian Development Bank [ADB].
The Bank recently concluded its annual meeting in Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Two of my Banking Committee staff recently attended the annual meeting
at the invitation of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
By way of general background, the Asian Development Bank [ADB] was
established in 1966. The Bank also operates a concessional, below
market rate, lending facility; the Asian Development Fund [ADF] created
in 1974. There are 58 member countries, 42 of which are based in the
Asia-Pacific region and 16 are non-regional. The United States and
Japan are the largest shareholders in the Bank, each with a 16 percent
ownership share.
The purpose of the ADB is to promote sustainable development in the
poorer countries of the Asia-Pacific region through project investment
lending, policy reform lending and advice, and technical assistance.
Through 1999, the United States has received over $4.6 billion in
business procurement from the Asian Bank Group.
By tradition, Japan nominates the president who also serves as
chairman of the board. In many ways, the ADB is a very Japanese
institution. The president selects board committee members and
committee chairs. He appoints Japanese nationals from the Ministry of
Finance in Tokyo to serve as the treasurer, and the head of the
important Budget and Personnel Department. Japanese staff occupies
other key management positions, notably the head of the Strategy and
Policy Department and at least one of the two powerful programming
department directorates.
Under the leadership of the Bank's previous president, Mitsuo Sato,
the ADB established an enviable track record as one of the most
progressive and reform-minded of any of the multilateral development
banks. President Sato worked closely with the United States and other
shareholders to inaugurate a series of sweeping and forward-leaning
policy changes designed to increase substantially the institution's
development effectiveness.
Among these reforms was a decision to invest more in basic human
capital (for example, basic education, health and sanitation), an
effort to strengthen project quality, increase the transparency and
accountability of its own operations, establish an information policy
based on the presumption of disclosure, the creation of an inspection
panel, the formulation of an explicit governance and anti-corruption
policy, a coordinated effort together with UNICEF to improve child
nutrition and early childhood development, a proactive policy for
outreach to non-governmental organizations [NGOs], as well as a gender
and development policy.
But President Sato stepped down in early 1999. He was succeeded by
Tadao Chino, a former Vice Minister of Finance for International
Affairs. In style, outlook, and temperament, he appears quite different
from his predecessor. More consequential, he appears to be taking the
institution in the wrong direction--a direction that is far less
multilateral and less inclusive.
From the outset of his tenure, the ADB has become notably less open
to the views of others, including the United States. Indeed, Bank
management has aggressively advanced its own agenda over the concerns
and even strong objections of the United States and other shareholders.
Examples of the high-handed management style of the Bank's new
leadership includes unilateral exclusion of the United States from
chairing the Board's Budget Review Committee even after repeated
protest from the Treasury Department; programming excessively high
lending levels in order to accelerate discussion of a general capital
increase; and resistance to formalized cooperation with the World Bank.
More broadly, key policy and operational issues are advanced quickly
over the objection of major donor shareholders when it suits Bank
management, and capriciously stalled when it does not.
The United States during the 1999 annual meeting raised many of these
internal governance and management issues. But it would appear that
precious little progress has been made. Whereas the Bank was once a
reform leader, it now lags not only the World Bank

[[Page 9234]]

but every other regional multilateral development bank [MDB] in
embracing needed reforms and has been resisting calls for more
substantive change in the Asian Development Fund negotiations [ADF-8].

To be fair, the Bank under President Chino has embraced poverty
reduction as its overarching mandate. But this occurred only after
repeated calls from the United States and other major shareholders that
a poverty reduction policy paper be presented to the board by the time
the ADF-8 replenishment negotiation began in October 1999. The Bank
remains far behind in turning this policy commitment into operational
practice.

Most recently, President Chino is resisting the United States nominee
for the Bank's American vice president. By tradition, there has always
been a U.S. national as vice president, a European vice president, and
a vice president representing a non-borrowing regional. The current
U.S. vice president, Peter Sullivan, will retire this summer. Chino is
mounting an unprecedented challenge to Treasury's candidate. Never
before has a Japanese Bank president challenged the right of the United
States to name its candidate for vice president. Why the resistance? I
have no first hand knowledge, but would note that a recent issue of
Emerging Markets speculates that if the strong-minded, experienced
candidate were appointed to a vice-presidential slot at the Bank, ``she
could begin chipping away at the power exercised from `behind the
throne' by the small clique of Japanese `advisors' to the president.''
Whatever the case, it is incumbent on the United States to support its
nominee and insist that U.S. prerogatives be respected.
Moreover, I understand that President Chino has literally created a
fourth vice president with wide-ranging powers without consulting the
board. He disregarded concerns repeatedly raised by the U.S. Executive
Director's office that the reorganization of the functions of the
Strategic Policy Department should not be undertaken without consulting
the board. The department director is a Japanese national.

More broadly, President Chino's pattern of stonewalling the United
States and other member donors has been repeatedly in his non-
responsiveness to the concerns of interested parties outside the Bank.
It has been reported that he refused to receive representatives of
student and NGO protesters at the annual meeting in Thailand. He may
even have been less than courteous to his Thai hosts at an important
official function involving members of the royal family.

In addition to numerous internal governance and the above personnel
issues, there is also a growing concern that Bank management is trying
to turn the ADB into a defacto secretariat for a future ``Asian
Monetary Fund.'' As Members may recall, Japan earlier proposed to
create an ``Asian IMF'' during the worst of the global financial crisis
of 1997-1998--an idea that had only tepid support within the region and
which was opposed by the United States.
However, elements of this approach have begun to insinuate themselves
into the organizational structure of the ADB. First, in March 1999 the
Bank approved the ``Asian Currency Crisis Support Facility.'' This $3
billion fund, financed entirely by Japan but administered by the Bank,
was established to provide guarantees to Asian crisis countries on
sovereign bond issues, in conjunction with ADB loans. Among other
issues, this mechanism inappropriately would allow obligations under
the facilities to be accorded preferred creditor status.

In addition, the Finance Ministers of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations [ASEAN] asked in 1999 that the Bank temporarily house its
economic monitoring secretariat. Over U.S. resistance, the ADB
established and expanded this surveillance unit, in possible
competition with the IMF. Contrary to view of some United States
economists, like Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, I suspect few Asian
countries would want to participate in a Japan-led regional monetary
fund, in large measure because of what is perceived by many in the
region as Japan's ongoing failure to confront and deal with its
militarist past. On the other hand, many of these countries are
borrowers from both the ADB and Japan. They may be persuaded to go
along with Tokyo in a desire not to disadvantage themselves when they
request the Japanese Government at the ADB for loans and to position
themselves to receive additional foreign aid credits from Japan.

Mr. Speaker, it sadly appears that the Asian Development Bank is at a
crossroads. Confidence is eroding in the capacity of the institution to
pursue effective development strategies in a manner that is
accountable, participatory, and transparent.

At the risk of presumption, it would appear high time that the
administration make clear in no uncertain terms its deep concern over
the present leadership at the Bank. As the chairman of the authorizing
subcommittee with jurisdiction over the international financial
institutions, I would simply note that both Treasury and the ADB should
be on notice that an institution that pursues the narrow objectives of
a few, adopts a haughty and intolerant management style, and now lags
all other regional MDBs in key reforms is unlikely to command broad
congressional support.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, wise leaders on both sides of the Pacific
understand that, despite our occasional differences, the two major
shareholders of the ADB--Japan and the United States--must work
together if the Bank is to effectively address poverty reduction as
well as help meet the many other needs and challenges of the Asia-
Pacific region in the 21st century. I hope and expect our two great
countries can work hand in hand at the ADB, as we have so often in the
past, to uplift the lives of people throughout the region and reach our
common goals to foster sustainable development.

____________________

A SPECIAL TRIBUTE TO WILLIAM N. MORGAN ON THE OCCASION OF HIS
RETIREMENT FROM THE OHIO BANKERS ASSOCIATION AND IN CELEBRATION OF HIS
PUBLIC SERVICE TO THE STATE OF OHIO

______

HON. PAUL E. GILLMOR

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, May 24, 2000

Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today
to pay special tribute to an outstanding individual and a devoted
public servant from the State of Ohio. Later this summer, William N.
Morgan will retire from his position as senior vice president of the
Ohio Bankers Association after more than 25 years of dedicated service.
Bill Morgan's call to duty and service began as he enlisted in the
U.S. Army in 1957. After three years of work with the Military Police
Criminal Investigation branch in Germany, Bill left the military and
prepared for his future taking a position as chief deputy sheriff in
Perry County. Bill also served as chief probation officer with the New
Lexington Juvenile Court.
With a keen interest in government and politics, Bill was elected
mayor of the city of Shawnee in 1966. Bill's commitment to public
service continued when he was named deputy director of the Tax
Collection Department within the Ohio Treasurer's Office. Four years
later, in 1970, Bill assumed the role of director of public affairs for
the Ohio Association of Insurance Agents. Then, in 1974, Bill began his
distinguished tenure with the Ohio Bankers Association.
Mr. Speaker, I have known Bill Morgan for many years and have had the
opportunity to work with Bill on a variety of issues during my tenure
in the U.S. Congress and as president of the Ohio Senate. I am not
alone in saying that Bill Morgan is a man of honor and integrity and
has given freely of his time and talents to further public policy. Bill
has been a good friend and his public service to the State of Ohio will
be sorley missed.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues in the 106th
Congress to rise and join me in paying special tribute to Bill Morgan
on the occasion of his retirement. We wish him, his wife, Virginia, and
his entire family the very best now and in the future.

____________________

HONORING VELUPPILLAI SIVAPALASINGAM

______

HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, May 24, 2000

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am joining Montefiore Medical Center, a
keystone of health care for the Bronx community, in honoring
Veluppillai Sivapalasingam for his quarter century of conscientious and
compassionate service to the citizens of the Bronx, especially those
from the Norwood neighborhood.
He joined Montefiore's Radiation Oncology Department 25 years ago and
began a career

[[Page 9235]]

of helping his professional, administrative and support staff, his
students, and most especially, his patients.
When he joined Montefiore he was the first Clinical Instructor for
the School of Radiation Therapy Technology and in the ensuing 25 years
he has taught all of the graduates as well as the current students the
clinical skills required to use a Linear Accelerator for patients
diagnosed with cancer. He has dedicated his time and talents to the
technical and medical staff and has served as a tireless advocate for
patients.
His devotion to family, friends, colleagues and patients over his
quarter century with Montefiore has earned him the honored sobriquet of
a true gentleman. Mr. Sivapalasingam has given much to this community.
I congratulate him for all of his good work and wish him many more
years with us.

____________________

165TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF ROME, GEORGIA

______

HON. BOB BARR

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, May 24, 2000

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the history of the Seventh District
of Georgia is rich in the accomplishments of its citizens and
institutions. Today I recognize the celebration of the 165th
anniversary of Georgia's Rome First Baptist Church. The Church has
played a historic role in Rome and Floyd County in northwest Georgia.
The ``Rome Baptist Church'' was organized on May 16, 1835, by six
charter members. The first church home was a frame building at the
corner of West Eighth Avenue and West First Street. In 1855, the second
sanctuary was constructed on the corner of East Fourth Avenue and East
First Street. This church was damaged during the course of the War
Between the States, and was closed from 1864 to 1865. The Church was
re-opened in the spring of 1867 after extensive repairs were made. In
October 1882, the church voted to ``take down the present building and
put up a new one in proper style; a house that would seat seven to
eight hundred persons and would be a credit to our denomination and
city and would probably cost $18,000 to $20,000.'' This new, bigger
building was dedicated in 1883. The name was changed in 1893 to ``First
Baptist Church.'' Later, in 1924, the Sunday School annex was added to
the Sanctuary, and in 1947 the new chapel was dedicated. The present
sanctuary was constructed in 1958. The First Baptist currently has
approximately 1,000 resident members.
The First Baptist Church of Rome has always been involved in
missions. Luther R. Gwaltney, pastor of First Baptist from 1869-1876,
was instrumental in founding Cherokee Baptist Female College (now
Shorter College) with the help of Alfred and Martha Shorter in 1873.
Several other churches in Rome grew out of First Baptist, including
Thankful Baptist Church, founded by many former slave members of Rome
Baptist Church in 1867; DeSoto Baptist Church (later called Fifth
Avenue Baptist Church) in 1882; Lindale First Baptist Church in 1898;
East Side Baptist (later called Second Avenue Baptist) in 1907; South
Broad Baptist in 1909; DeSoto Park Baptist in 1910; Lahaina Baptist
Church, Maui, Hawaii in 1973; Lebanon Valley Baptist Church,
Pennsylvania in 1979; and Towne View Baptist Church in Kennesaw,
Georgia in 1989.
The church has sponsored numerous members on mission trips to many
parts of the world, such as Liberia in 1986, and Honduras in 1988; a
youth mission trip to Lake Placid, New York; a mission trip to Panama;
a mission team to Prague in 1995; a mission trip to Spain in 1996;
mission trips to Romania, Czech Republic, Tennessee, and South Dakota
in 1997; a medical mission to Honduras in 1998; a mission trip to the
Middle East in 1998; and trips to England and Alaska in 1999. In
addition, the Koinonia Soup Kitchen was founded in 1982 by the downtown
churches and meals have been served the last week of each month in the
fellowship hall since that time.
The mission of the First Baptist Church is to be a community of
believers who seek to mold their lives after the heart of Jesus Christ,
and where they seek to be His hands in missions and ministry. ``Seeking
His heart . . . being His hands.''
When speaking of the South, the phrase ``the Bible Belt'' is often
used. The importance of family values and family worship is of profound
importance to the majority of the people in Georgia, and they are proud
of their religious beliefs and heritage. Congratulations to the staff
and congregation of the First Baptist Church of Rome, for their
devotion to God and their service to our community and fellow citizens.

____________________

IN HONOR OF THE TEACHERS, PARENTS, ADMINISTRATORS AND STUDENTS OF
VALLEY VIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL

______

HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, May 24, 2000

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the parents, students,
faculty, and staff whose dedication to excellence has earned Valley
View Middle School, in my hometown of Simi Valley, California,
recognition as a national Blue Ribbon School.
Valley View Middle School is a shining example of what can happen
when parents, teachers, and administrators collaborate on the best
approaches for providing a quality education. Each year the school
formulates a new motto. This school year it was ``Learn from the Past .
. . Look to the Future.'' That motto says a lot about how the school
has progressed over the past several years.
The Northridge earthquake hit in 1994. Valley View is six miles from
the epicenter. A month later, a student was stabbed to death at the
school. From that physical and emotional devastation grew a renewed
commitment to make the school safe for the students. It also inspired
the Valley View community--parents, students, educators, and staff--to
evaluate their situation and develop a vision for the future.
They did it through IDEALS: Independence, Diligence, Exploration,
Academics, Leadership, and Social Skills. In their words, IDEALS gave
the Valley View community ``a common focus that builds unity in our
efforts to provide the best possible learning opportunities for our
students.''
Valley View helps students understand the options available to them.
It instills in them a sense that choices have consequences, and good
choices lead to a good, productive life. Valley View strives for
academic excellence in a safe, secure, and stimulating environment.
Valley View's recognition as a Blue Ribbon School is but one small
measure of their success. The more important measure is the students
who leave the school with knowledge, confidence, and faith in their
futures.
Mr. Speaker, as our nation works in concert to better our education
system, it would serve us well to study the successes of our Blue
Ribbon Schools. They are the best of the best and a key to our future.
Their creativity and response to their communities' needs prove what
can be accomplished. I know my colleagues will join me in applauding
Valley View Principal Jan Britz, her entire staff, and the parents and
students of Valley View for striving for--and reaching--this level of
excellence.

____________________

ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH

______

HON. TOM LANTOS

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, May 24, 2000

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my
colleagues to a special remembrance during May of Asian/Pacific
American Heritage Month. I would especially like to express
appreciation and respect for Asian/Pacific Americans and their
invaluable contributions to our country. Asian/Pacific Americans are an
integral part of the diversity of this country. Mr. Speaker, the
greatness of this country rests upon all its members embracing both the
common bond of freedom and democracy, and equally, the fact that nearly
all Americans are either immigrants themselves or descendants of
immigrants, participating in a country and society of remarkable
history and myriad cultural traditions. The Asian American community
itself reflects the wonderful diversity of this country. Southeast
Asians, South Asians, East Asians, and Pacific Islanders are all groups
which have faced different obstacles and overcome different odds to
their lives as Americans.
The term Asian/Pacific American encompasses such a wide range of
categories that it is doubly ironic that they have faced so many
stereotypes, damaging assumptions, and injustices, in this country. Mr.
Speaker, our country witnessed the honorable service of those patriotic
Japanese American soldiers who fought in World War II, while their
family members and friends were forced into internment camps. We should
never forget the loyalty of Hmong veterans, Chinese-Americans

[[Page 9236]]

who gave their lives building railroads across this country, South-
Asian immigrants denied equal employment opportunities, and those
Asian/Pacific Americans who were the innocent victims of hate crimes.
Despite the struggle that Asian/Pacific Americans have faced in this
country, they have been among our nation's finest and greatest
contributors, scientifically, economically, artistically, and
politically. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely fortunate to work side-by-side
with such great Asian/Pacific-Islander contributors as Congressman
Faleomavaega, Robert Matsui, Patsy Mink, David Wu, and also, Mr.
Underwood. They are not the only Asian Pacific-Islander leaders of
note. I am especially privileged to work with such great humanitarians
as Bill Lann Lee, the Acting Assistant Attorney General of Civil Rights
and Harold Koh, the Assistant Secretary of Democracy, Labor, and Human
Rights. By appointing more Asian Pacific Americans than any former
President has, President Clinton has, I hope, only begun what will
become an increasing trend in political appointments.
Mr. Speaker, there is a long list of Asian/Pacific Americans who have
contributed intellectually and culturally to this country. Perhaps some
of the most inspired and famous of these contributors are Asian/Pacific
American women. ABC news correspondent Connie Chung has been a
respected media presence for years. Doris Matsui, who is the current
Deputy Assistant to the President has long been a prominent public
service figure. Architect Maya Lin has given America an unforgettable
monument to the Vietnam War. Writers Iris Chang, Jhumpa Lahiri, winner
of this year's Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, and Janice Mirikatani, the
current Poet Laureate of San Francisco have gained widespread critical
and popular recognition for their work. Two years ago, Kalpana Chawla
became the first Indian American astronaut in space. Mr. Speaker,
Asian/Pacific American women have truly taken the public spotlight with
their accomplishments and courage.
On a national level, we are all familiar with the scientific work of
Dr. David Ho, an innovative researcher who has battled to fight the
AIDS virus. Throughout the world, Mr. Speaker, we have the privilege of
being surrounded by breathtaking architecture, and among the most
amazing buildings are the exquisite structures which reflect the
visions of I.M. Pei--the magnificent East Wing of the National Gallery
of Art here in Washington, the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in
Boston, the entrance to the Louvre in Paris, and many others. Across
the United States, people have been moved by the thoughtful essays of
Ronald Takaki, the memoir-based fiction of Chang-Rae Lee, and the
musical inspiration of Zubin Mehta and Yo-Yo Ma. We are all awed by the
strength and grace of athletes such as Michelle Kwan, former 49er Jesse
Sapolu, and golfer Tiger Woods.
Mr. Speaker, I especially wanted to highlight three wonderful Asian/
Pacific American heroes in my home district of San Mateo/San Francisco.
They are Alice Bulos, an activist for Filipino-American issues, Ann
Ito, the co-founder of the League of Women Voters, and David Louie, a
premiere reporter seen on the local Channel 7 News. Mr. Speaker, these
local pioneers are incredible contributors to the cultural vitality of
the San Francisco Bay Area and an integral part of the active Asian/
Pacific American population which is a hallmark of the Bay Area.

Mr. Speaker, to individually recognize each of the Asian/Pacific
Americans who have made outstanding civic and social contributions to
this society would be an endless task. However, I believe that this
month we should take the time to understand and realize that every
Asian/Pacific American in this country has faced varying levels of
ignorance and harmful bias in this country. It is our duty as Members
of Congress to fight against any intolerance or prejudice in this
country and to congratulate the achievements of Asian/Pacific Americans
which are, in the light of the past and present injustices perpetrated
against them, especially triumphant. Mr. Speaker, I ask all my
colleagues to join with me in celebrating the stirring history and the
breath-taking diversity that Asian/Pacific Americans have given to this
country.

____________________

MUHAMMAD ALI BOXING REFORM ACT

______

speech of

HON. TOM BLILEY

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Monday, May 22, 2000

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1832, the Muhammad
Ali Boxing Reform Act, by my good colleague and friend Mr. Oxley from
Ohio.

Last year, the Commerce Committee received a letter signed by 19
bipartisan U.S. State Attorneys General asking that this legislation be
enacted. The Attorneys General wrote that ``this legislation will curb
anti-competitive and fraudulent business practices and prevent blatant
exploitation of professional boxers.''

The International Boxing Digest stated ``We support the new [boxing]
bill, and urge all honest people in professional boxing to do likewise.
Fighters need to be protected, and not simply from what happens in the
ring. This bill does it like it's never done before.'' Ring Magazine
said ``Imagine a world in which fighters are not taken advantage of
financially, title shots are awarded to legitimate contenders, and
bogus alphabet organizations slowly fade from existence. If the Ali Act
passes . . . that boxing heaven may just be located right here on
earth.''

H.R. 1832 would stop promoters from taking long term advantage of
boxers. It prohibits coercive contracts, and limits acceptable
conflicts of interests. H.R. 1832 also cleans up boxing's sanctioning
bodies. All boxing ranking must be done based on objective and
consistent written and published criteria, and sanctioning body
employees are prohibited from receiving bribes from boxers and
promoters. Under the philosophy that sunlight is the best disinfectant
for corruption, promoters, sanctioning bodies, and boxing judges and
ref-

erees are all required to disclose their sources of benefits and
compensation to prevent any backroom underhanded dealing.
Former heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali agreed to lend his name to
this bill because he believes that boxers need to be protected from the
``dishonest ways'' of some promoters and managers. Boxing News wrote
that ``Pure, unvarnished greed is killing the game . . . Boxing
desperately needs [a Federal] law . . . to cut down on the terrible
corruption.'' H.R. 1832 by Congressman Oxley cuts down on the
corruption and brings honesty and fair and open dealing back to the
sport of boxing.
I urge your support for this legislation.

____________________

SUPPORTING DAY OF HONOR FOR MINORITY WORLD WAR II VETERANS

______

speech of

HON. J.C. WATTS, JR.

of oklahoma

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House
Joint Resolution 98 to support Minority Veterans who fought in WW II.
I ask you to join me in commending a group of well deserving military
veterans. On April 12, this resolution was introduced with bipartisan
support, to recognize the extraordinary contribution of minority
veterans during World War II. Several U.S. Senators including military
veterans John McCain, John Warner, and Strom Thurmond have co-sponsored
an identical resolution in the U.S. Senate which passed with unanimous
consent on May 18, 2000.
During World War II more than 1.5 million minorities recognized that
the United States was an imperfect nation but also realized that it was
their nation. Even though there was racism and segregation present
throughout the country, like the famous Massachusetts 54th, these
individuals anted up to serve their country in the Armed Forces in the
belief that our nation could and would change. As a result of their
unselfish call to duty, many of them sacrificed their lives.
A ``Day of Honor'' in recognition of their courageous service is long
overdue. The Day of Honor 2000 Project is sponsored by a committed
group of individuals, including minority veterans, who truly understand
the importance of this effort. They are helping organize this
initiative in communities throughout the nation.
These veterans through their effectiveness in combat and their
devotion to duty helped destroy the color barrier within the Armed
Forces and in American society in general.

____________________

[[Page 9237]]

IN HONOR OF MR. AND MRS. CLAYTON PETTY, SR., ON THEIR 50TH WEDDING
ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, May 24, 2000

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Clayton and Marion Petty on
their Fiftieth Wedding Anniversary. This special celebration is a great
testament to their extraordinary dedication to each other and their
family.
Fifty years ago the world was a different place. President Truman was
in the White House and Europe was still trying to overcome the
destruction of World War II. And fifty years ago a young couple named
Clayton and Marion began their married life. Fifty years later, that
couple is surrounded by friends and loved ones celebrating a union more
lasting and meaningful than newspaper headlines and trivia found in
history books.
Today, with so much change in the world, traditional values and long
term commitments may at times seem lost and forgotten. However, on May
27, 2000 what will not be forgotten, but reaffirmed and celebrated, is
the marriage of Clayton and Marion Petty and their commitment to their
family and the community of Bayonne, New Jersey. They are an example
for us all.
Mr. and Mrs. Petty have contributed greatly to their community; and
an example of that community involvement is their recent induction into
the S.P.O.R.T. Bayonne High School Hall of Fame, an organization the
Pettys helped found for local kids who love to play soccer. The Pettys
are involved in many other organizations as well, including: Soccer
Bees; F.A. Mackenzie Post; the Mackenzie Post Auxiliary; United
Cerebral Palsy; Assumption Catholic War Vets; Korean War Vets; and the
Bayonne Youth Foundation.
Mr. and Mrs. Petty always place family first. They are the proud
parents of five children, Patrick, Kathleen, Lauren, Robert, and the
late Timothy. Their Children have brought them tremendous joy over the
years.
I extend my sincere congratulations and admiration to the Pettys. May
your life together continue to be full of love and family. I also ask
that my colleagues join me in honoring them on this very special
occasion.

____________________

SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Thursday, May 25, 2000 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.

____________________

MEETINGS SCHEDULED

MAY 26
10 a.m.
Governmental Affairs
To hold hearings to examine export control implementation
issues with respect to high performance computers.
SD-342

JUNE 6
10 a.m.
Environment and Public Works
To hold hearings on S. 1311, to direct the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish an
eleventh region of the Environmental Protection Agency,
comprised solely of the State of Alaska.
SD-406

JUNE 7
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold hearings on S. 2508, to amend the Colorado Ute
Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 to provide
for a final settlement of the claims of the Colorado
Ute Indian Tribes.
SR-485
Joint Economic Committee
To hold hearings on the High-Technology National Summit,
focusing on removing barriers to the new economy.
SH-216
11 a.m.
Foreign Relations
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SD-419
2:30 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee
To hold hearings on S. 2300, to amend the Mineral Leasing
Act to increase the maximum acreage of Federal leases
for coal that may be held by an entity in any 1 State;
S. 2069, to permit the conveyance of certain land in
Powell, Wyoming; and S. 1331, to give Lincoln County,
Nevada, the right to purchase at fair market value
certain public land in the county.
SD-366
Foreign Relations
International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion
Subcommittee
To hold oversight hearings to examine satellite export
controls.
SD-419

JUNE 8
2:30 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation
Subcommittee
To hold oversight hearings to review the final rules and
regulations issued by the National Park Service
relating to Title IV of the National Parks Omnibus
Management Act of 1998.
SD-366

JUNE 13
10 a.m.
Environment and Public Works
To hold hearings on the nomination of James V. Aidala, of
Virginia, to be Assistant Administrator for Toxic
Substances of the Environmental Protection Agency; the
nomination of Arthur C. Campbell, of Tennessee, to be
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic
Development; and the nomination of Ella Wong-Rusinko,
of Virginia, to be Alternate Federal Cochairman of the
Appalachian Regional Commission.
SD-406

JUNE 14
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold hearings on S. 2282, to encourage the efficient
use of existing resources and assets related to Indian
agricultural research, development and exports within
the United States Department of Agriculture.
SR-485

JUNE 21
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold hearings on certain Indian Trust Corporation
activities.
Room to be announced

JUNE 22
9:30 a.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings to examine issues dealing with aviation
and the internet, focusing on purchasing airline
tickets through the internet, and whether or not this
benefits the consumer.
SR-253

JUNE 28
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold hearings on S. 2283, to amend the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century to make certain
amendments with respect to Indian tribes.
SR-485

JULY 12
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold oversight hearings on risk management and tort
liability relating to Indian matters.
SR-485

JULY 19
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold oversight hearings on activities of the National
Indian Gaming Commission.
SR-485

[[Page 9238]]

JULY 26
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold hearings on S. 2526, to amend the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act to revise and extend such Act.
SR-485

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