[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Issue]
[Pages 6168-6295]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
April 25, 2001
[[Page 6168]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, April 25, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mrs. Biggert).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
April 25, 2001.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Judy Biggert to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
PRAYER
The Reverend John F. Baldwin, Captain, Chaplain Corps. U.S. Navy-
Retired, and priest, Archdioceses of Chicago, Illinois, offered the
following prayer:
Bless the Lord, all works of the Lord.
Praise to You, Creator God, for singularly blessing these United
States from the creative hopes and labors of our Founding Fathers until
this session of the 107th Congress.
We, the people, bless our forefathers' memory, their vision, their
passion for freedom, their acceptance of personal responsibility, their
recognition of Your grace and providence.
Life is God's gift to us. What we do with our lives is our gift to
God.
As we nourish and cherish our lives, so may we respect and nourish
the most fragile, the weakest, the most destitute among us.
Thanks be to the living God for placing a spirit of service in the
hearts of the men and women of this House. Through their work, create
unity without uniformity, justice that is blind, civility and respect
without retribution or revenge. Let their voices ring with truth, their
lives echo integrity.
So bless this day, Lord God, our country and this Congress to Your
service, a beacon of justice for all God's children. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas 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 without amendment a concurrent
resolution of the House of the following title:
H. Con. Res. 66. Concurrent resolution authorizing the
printing of a revised and updated version of the House
document entitled ``Women in Congress, 1917-1990''.
____________________
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE EMPLOYEES
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Dr. James
Billington and the employees of the Library of Congress, particularly
those working in the Congressional Research Service. On almost a daily
basis, my staff and I rely on the expertise and wealth of knowledge
that that staff provides.
Since CRS employees work across the street from us, over in the
Library, their dedication and work often go unnoticed. So thank you to
all of you at CRS.
In particular, I would like to thank a few individuals who have been
extremely helpful to my office: Mr. Wayne Riddle in education; Mr.
Christopher Bolkcom in National Defense; Ms. Kerry Dumbaugh in Foreign
Affairs; Mr. David Brumbaugh in Public Finance; Ms. Barbara Leitch
LePoer in Foreign Affairs; and yesterday, Mr. Len Krueger and Ms.
Angela Gilroy in Telecommunications.
Madam Speaker, I commend these individuals for their important and
tireless service to the Congress and to our Nation.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO HUGH McCOLL, CHAIRMAN AND CEO OF BANK OF AMERICA
(Mr. WATT of North Carolina asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay
tribute to Hugh McColl, who is retiring today as chairman and CEO of
Bank of America, which is headquartered in my congressional district in
Charlotte, North Carolina.
Under the leadership of Hugh McColl, Bank of America has grown into
the Nation's third largest bank and McColl has helped make Charlotte
the second largest banking center in the country, after New York.
In less than 20 years, McColl built the former North Carolina
National Bank from a company with $12 billion in assets and 7,600
employees to a national bank with $642 billion in assets and 140,000
employees. He has been a community leader in Charlotte, volunteering
his time and resources to make it a better place to live.
Last year, Bank of America received the National United Way Spirit of
America Award for the community service commitment shown by their
employees.
I wish all the best to Hugh McColl as he begins the next chapter of
his life. I count him as a real ally, mentor, and friend.
____________________
A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES BEGINS WITH A SINGLE STEP IN FINDING A
CURE FOR AUTISM
(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, my good friends Charles and Patience
Flick have two children, Bonnie and Willis, who have autism, a
developmental disorder that has robbed them of their ability to
communicate and to interact with their family and with their playmates.
Autism is a brain disorder that impacts an individual's ability to
respond appropriately to the environment and to form relationships. It
affects at least one in every 500 children in America and some suggest
that those numbers are actually one in 200.
Today, our Committee on Government Reform will investigate this
dramatic rise in autism. We need to fully fund research that will help
lead to better treatment options and, indeed, even a cure.
As a member of the House Autism Caucus, I am committed to work toward
an increase of $6 million for the National Institutes of Health and, in
[[Page 6169]]
addition, $5 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
for the cure for autism.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, Madam
Speaker; and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this increase
in research funding, which may lead to a cure to help thousands of
America's families.
____________________
HIV/AIDS, A DISEASE OF INTERNATIONAL SCOPE
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I want to take this first
opportunity, since the case against South Africa by the pharmaceutical
industry has been withdrawn, to applaud the recent agreement that has
been reached. The HIV/AIDS pandemic represents a major human disaster,
with Sub-Saharan Africa bearing the brunt of the devastation. More than
70 percent of the 35 million people infected lived in Sub-Saharan
Africa.
South Africa, with 4.2 million infected as of 1999, has the world's
largest number of HIV-infected individuals, with an estimated 250,000
AIDS deaths in that year. Last week, with this landmark agreement, a
major barrier to help and health has been removed. We can now and must
now move forward to address the multiplicity of issues that challenge
us, forge a better health care infrastructure, support government and
community-based programs, increase and improve prevention efforts and
make up-to-date and effective treatment available on the African
continent.
As we continue to struggle against this pandemic, we must not forget
that this is truly a disease of international scope and that people of
African descent in the United States and the Caribbean have rates of
HIV infection and AIDS that are similar in face and only slightly less
in proportional magnitude than that of our brothers and sisters on the
mother continent.
____________________
TIME AND MONEY COULD BE BETTER SPENT
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, about 10 days ago, millions of American
families made their annual trip to the post office to mail their
Federal income tax returns. The IRS estimates that 65.8 million Form
1040 filers spend an average of 13 hours and 1 minute getting that
return together; nearly two full working days.
That time could be much better spent with their families, and would
not American families that spend millions of dollars on professional
tax preparers, tax accountants and computer software be better off
spending that money elsewhere? Perhaps on their family, their
retirement, or investing in their children's education.
Unfortunately, working Americans have become slaves to the IRS. It is
time to give these American families their freedom.
Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support meaningful tax
relief as part of this year's and next year's national budget, and I
yield back the valuable time and money spent this year by hard-working
Americans not on their families but on preparing and filing tax forms.
____________________
HANDS OFF THE GUN BRA
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Speaker, it started with the training bra and
then it came to the push-up bra; the support bra, the Wonder bra, the
super bra. There is even a smart bra. Now, if that is not enough to
prop up your curiosity, there is now a new bra. It is called the
holster bra, the gun bra. That is right, a brassiere to conceal a
hidden handgun. Unbelievable. What is next? A maxi-girdle to conceal a
stinger missile? Beam me up.
I advise all men in America against taking women to drive-in movies
who may end up getting shot in a passionate embrace. I yield back all
those plain old Maidenform brassieres and chainlink pantyhose.
____________________
THE UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT
(Mr. RYUN of Kansas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill
that will protect the inalienable rights of pre-born children. This
week I will be voting to pass H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act. I urge my colleagues to join me on this vote.
Under current Federal law, when someone commits a crime in which a
woman and her pre-born baby are harmed, the accused can only be
prosecuted for harm to the mother. This sends a message that there is
only one victim in this situation. Nothing could be further from the
truth. There are two victims involved in this crime, the mother and her
pre-born child. Twenty-four States already have laws on the books
protecting unborn life from criminal acts. This bill would simply
extend the protection to the Federal level.
We must not ignore the fact that when a criminal harms a pregnant
woman, there is a small defenseless life that is also a victim. I urge
my colleagues to join me in voting to protect life, both born and
unborn.
____________________
WHO IS TAKING CARE OF OUR CHILDREN?
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I want to know who is taking care of our
children. This weekend will mark 100 days since President Bush
delivered his inaugural address. In that speech, he promised this
Nation that he would leave no child behind.
{time} 1015
Yet since then the President has focused almost all of his attention
on promoting his multi-billion dollar tax break.
This tax package would use up so much of our surplus that it actually
leaves millions of children behind; behind in terms of reduced funding
for child care, behind in terms of cuts to juvenile justice programs,
and behind in terms of education programming.
Madam Speaker, Americans do not want tax breaks for the wealthiest 1
percent of Americans; they want safe schools and a bright future for
our children. In the past 100 days, the President has shown us who is
taking care of billionaires; but, like me, the American people want to
know who is taking care of our children.
____________________
CONGRESS MUST PASS VICTIMS' RIGHTS AMENDMENT NOW
(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, this week is National Victims' Rights
Week. I would like to take this opportunity to ask my colleagues in
Congress to follow the lead of 32 States, including my State of Ohio,
and pass a Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment.
The amendment would allow crime victims to confront their assailants
in court, at sentencing and parole hearings, require that they be
notified about the release or escape of a perpetrator from custody, and
guarantee them the right to seek restitution from their attackers.
For far too long, victims of crime in this country have had to stand
on the courthouse steps with meaningful justice just beyond their
reach, not allowed to view proceedings in person, too often not
permitted to speak out on behalf of a murdered loved one, not even
notified when a violent abuser is turned loose.
Crime victims deserve to be treated better. They deserve to be
treated with
[[Page 6170]]
dignity in our criminal justice system. With the adoption of this
amendment, we will finally say loud and clear that victims have
inalienable rights too, which should be recognized by our Constitution.
____________________
INVESTIGATION DEMANDED IN PERUVIAN PLANE SHOOTING
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, though many of us recognize
the importance of the international drug war, enough is enough. A
mother, a baby, now dead; the CIA involved, suggesting that they gave
information and requested that the plane with the missionaries be
watched.
Well, I will say if the United States is collaborating with drug
fighters of another nation and you have no more power than to say
something and to be ignored, then you need to get the heck out of the
fight. It is a tragedy that occurred.
Madam Speaker, there are still questions as to whether or not these
kinds of border activities even do any good. Why do we not spend our
dollars on treatment and prevention? If nothing else, when we have a
collaborative effort with our neighbors to the South, why is it not a
real collaborative effort, where we work together? And if we raise
questions of concern about our own citizens or the possibility that it
is not a drug plane, why does not someone listen? This was an
unnecessary loss of life. An immediate investigation of all persons who
were involved is demanded now.
Let me close, Madam Speaker, by saying in addition, we have got our
young men back from China, but let us investigate the reason why they
are holding one of our young women, who has a 5-year-old son and a
husband here, and why are they holding religious leaders.
We have got to do a better job of demanding the kind of human rights
around the world that we beg for in this country. China needs to
acknowledge that it is important to be part of the world family and to
respect the human rights of our citizens and friends as well as their
own.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 41, TAX LIMITATION
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 118 ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 118
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 41) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States with respect to tax
limitations. The joint resolution shall be considered as read
for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the joint resolution and any amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two
hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 8 of
rule XVIII, if offered by the Minority Leader or his
designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be
separately debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and distinguished member of
the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 118 is a structured rule providing
for the consideration of H.J. Res. 41, proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitation.
The rule provides for 2 hours of debate in the House, equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. The rule provides for one amendment printed
in the Congressional Record if offered by the minority leader or his
designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately
debated for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit,
with or without instructions.
Madam Speaker, another April 15 tax day has come and gone, leaving
most Americans frustrated by the size and complexity of our tax system.
I, too, am one of those who is confused and dazed and frustrated by
this complexity of the system.
The humor columnist Dave Barry described this season in these words:
``It is income tax time again, Americans; time to gather up those
receipts, get those tax forms, sharpen up that pencil, and stab
yourself in the aorta.''
Today, the average American pays more in taxes than he or she does in
food, clothing, shelter, or transportation combined. For too long the
tax burden imposed by the government has been going up, not down.
The tax limitation amendment starts from this very simple premise: It
should be harder, not easier, for the government to raise taxes.
Raising taxes should be an absolute last resort, not an easy, quick fix
for excessive government spending.
Opponents may cynically dismiss this important legislation by saying
that we have debated the tax limitation amendment before. Madam
Speaker, we have indeed been here before; and we will hopefully
continue to debate this issue on the House floor until we see its
passage.
I have observed with great interest the spirited debate surrounding
the tax cut that now is taking place in the Halls of Congress. Over the
last few months, debate about tax cuts have evolved from whether we
should have a tax cut, to how much of a tax cut the American people
should be given.
No longer should we argue about whether or not reducing the tax
burden is good for individuals as well as America's economy, because it
is good. Instead, discussion is focused on the extent of a tax cut.
We have seen the people across this Nation overwhelmingly support tax
reduction. I am pleased that the consensus is finally being attained
within this Congress to reflect the sentiment of the American people.
In the same way a balanced budget took place years before the consensus
was achieved, so we are fighting that battle today.
I recall when I was running for Congress in 1994, people said we
would never have a balanced budget; and indeed in 1993, I recall a
Senator in the other body once stated that if we ever had a balanced
budget by the year 2002, he would take a high dive off the top of the
Capitol. Thank goodness 2002 is a year away, but, Madam Speaker, we
have now balanced the budget for 6 years.
The annual floor consideration of the tax limitation amendment gives
us the opportunity to take a stand on the side of the taxpayer. By
enacting the tax limitation amendment we protect the taxpayer and
pledge that we as a Congress will focus inward on cutting waste, fraud
and abuse, instead of immediately raiding the pockets of the American
taxpayer.
Passage of this rule today will allow the House to begin debate on
one of the most serious matters to be considered by the Congress, an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
When our Founding Fathers met more than 200 years ago to draft what
became the Constitution of the United States, there was an agreement on
potential problems our Nation faced. Our Constitution was drafted to
address those problems. In many instances they wrote specific language
protecting the people from what at times could be oppressive,
intrusive, or an overbearing Federal Government. They protected bedrock
foundations to our liberty and freedom, such as life, the pursuit of
happiness, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.
[[Page 6171]]
Our founding fathers were so insightful and ingenious in their
preparation of our Constitution that they provided within our system of
checks and balances a Constitution which would clearly enumerate
occasions where a supermajority would be appropriate as the guardian of
the people.
A vote of two-thirds of both Houses, for example, is required to
override a Presidential veto; a two-thirds vote of the Senate is
required to approve treaties and to convict and impeach a Federal
official; but a two-thirds vote of Congress is not yet required for
raising taxes.
In my view, our Founding Fathers would recognize that under the
current system there is an inherent bias towards raising taxes and
might support this constitutional provision.
There has long been a bias towards raising taxes under our current
system. The Federal budget is currently in balance in part due to the
spending constraints by Congress, as well as hard work and global
leading productivity of American workers. But short economic downturns
can be expected. Future Congresses may not be as fiscally responsible
and return to the ways of deficit spending and take the easy way out by
raising taxes.
Making it more difficult to raise taxes balances the options
available to Congress as it makes decisions on the size of government.
It is critical that this balance be achieved.
By requiring a supermajority to raise taxes, an incentive for
government agencies could be created to eliminate waste and create
efficiency, rather than simply turning to more deficit spending or
increased taxes.
It is important to remember that there was no Federal income tax when
our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution. Not until 1913 was the
16th amendment of the Constitution passed to allow Congress to tax the
American people. The first tax ranged from 1 to 7 percent and only
applied to the wealthiest Americans.
Medieval serfs gave 30 percent of their output to the lord of the
manor. Egyptian peasants gave 20 percent of their toils in the fields
to the Pharaoh. God required 10 percent from the people of Israel. Yet
in America, Federal, State and local taxes eat up 40 percent of the
average family income. Increasing further the burden on the taxpayer,
sometimes the taxes are passed retroactively, sometimes they are passed
from generation to generation, and sometimes they are forced upon us
even after death, all from the Federal Government.
So, today I stand before you with a bipartisan coalition to put forth
a question of liberty. Will we make it harder for Congress to raise
taxes on its own citizens? Will we require a two-thirds vote of both
houses of Congress to pass a tax increase on to the American families
and our children? Will we pass this amendment to the Constitution and
require a supermajority, not just a simple majority, to raise taxes?
{time} 1030
That is the question that we face today.
This amendment will apply to all tax increases from the Federal
Government, not just income tax hikes. The legislation recognizes that
there may be times of extenuating circumstances, such as during a time
of war or a national emergency, when taxes need to be raised. The tax
limitation amendment would allow Congress to raise taxes in those
circumstances. But, in the meantime, it would prevent the intrusive and
penalizing tax increases that have been enacted with recklessness to
fund unlimited government expansion over the last few decades.
Madam Speaker, it is time the Federal Government joined the States
and listened to the voice of the American people. It should be harder
to raise taxes. Had this amendment been adopted sooner, the four
largest tax increases since 1980, which have occurred in 1982, 1987,
1990, and 1993, all would have failed. These tax increases totaled $666
billion. The bottom line of this debate is that we must make it more
difficult to raise taxes.
Those that support this amendment will do so because they believe
that the American people deserve a right to also have it more difficult
to take money from them. Those that oppose it will do so because they
want to make it easier to raise taxes on the American people.
Madam Speaker, this is a defining issue. Make no mistake about it.
The Members who support this amendment are here to support hard-working
taxpayers of America. Those Members who oppose it are here to defend
the tax collectors of America. It is really that simple.
We will hear rhetoric from opponents of this legislation criticizing
jurisdiction procedures and a slew of other glossary terms, but nothing
can hide the reality that America supports a two-thirds tax limitation
constitutional amendment.
Madam Speaker, like many Members of this body, I not only oppose
raising taxes, I support making our Tax Code fairer, simpler, and
flatter. Albert Einstein was once quoted as saying that the hardest
thing to understand in the world is the income tax. The tax limitation
amendment allows for tax reform, provided that any tax reform is
revenue-neutral or provides a net tax cut. Also, any fundamental tax
reform which would have the overall effect of lowering taxes could
still pass with a simple majority. The tax limitation amendment allows
for a simple majority to eliminate tax loopholes. The de minimis
exemptions would allow nearly all loopholes to be closed without the
supermajority requirement.
Madam Speaker, we may hear from opponents that the government will be
unable to function if a supermajority vote is required. However, I
would encourage all Members to look at our States. Eleven States
require a supermajority to raise taxes. The millions of Americans
living in these States have shown that greater economic growth and
better job creation by the tax limitation can be brought to all
Americans, just the same as they have in those States. The amendment
protects the American people. It makes it harder for the Federal
Government to raise taxes on its own citizens, and that is why I am
here today.
Today, we can take one step closer to regaining liberty and ensuring
future generations the freedom our Founding Fathers intended for
America to enjoy. The debate is about liberty. This debate is about
requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes on America.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would remind my colleagues that this is
a fair rule that was adopted by the Committee on Rules yesterday. It is
a standard rule under which the proposal has been considered in years
past, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, almost every year since my Republican colleagues took
control of this body, Democrats on the Committee on Rules have had to
come to the floor to speak against consideration of this proposal to
amend the Constitution of the United States. Our feelings about the
misguided intentions of this proposal have not changed, Madam Speaker.
It appears that the Republicans in this body fear the will of the
majority, and, therefore, they have to impose a supermajority, because
they fear a simple majority.
Accordingly, I rise to oppose this rule. I also rise to oppose this
joint resolution which seeks to amend the Constitution to require a
two-thirds vote of Congress in order to pass a revenue increase.
Madam Speaker, this House has considered and defeated this ill-
conceived measure five times in the past 6 years. The idea that the
Constitution should be changed to accommodate this blatantly political
scheme to defund the Federal Government was not only a bad idea in the
104th Congress, it was also a bad idea in the 105th and the 106th
Congress when this body failed to pass this very same constitutional
amendment another four times. The House should reject it again today,
because this proposal is still a very bad idea.
Madam Speaker, over the past few months, this body has merrily gone
about passing tax reductions that will, in all likelihood, squeeze the
Federal
[[Page 6172]]
Treasury dry. By doing so, those tax cuts will take away the ability of
the Federal Government to live up to its basic responsibilities. If
this resolution were to become a part of the Constitution, it would
nail the coffin shut. While some on the other side of the aisle may
cheer at that prospect, there are many in this body who recognize the
importance of the government's ability to pay for such things like
Social Security, Medicare, education, and our military defense.
Madam Speaker, any Member who voted for those tax cuts should vote
against this joint resolution. Every Member who has voted to drain the
Federal Treasury dry should be required to stand up and take
responsibility for his or her actions when the future of Social
Security and Medicare are endangered, or when there is no money to make
the educational reforms the President has promised to the country, or
when there is no money for farm programs or improving our military or
providing real and meaningful prescription drug coverage for seniors.
This resolution should be rejected by every Member who takes seriously
his or her responsibility as a representative of the people of his
congressional district and as a Member of the United States House of
Representatives.
Madam Speaker, our Constitution has been amended only 27 times in the
212 years since it was adopted. Amending our Constitution is very
serious business and should be done only when absolutely necessary to
promote the well-being of our country and its citizens. Over the past 6
years, the Republican majority has used the Constitution as a political
plaything and that is, quite frankly, a shameful record for Republicans
to stand on. What we have before us today is no different.
Our Nation's Founding Fathers carefully designed and drafted our
Constitution, not to meet their own personal political agendas, but to
ensure the foundation of our republic could endure and meet the needs
of its citizens for centuries to come. The actions of the Republican
majority in the past few months, combined with the proposal now before
us, make a mockery of the intentions of our Founding Fathers.
I find it ironic that my Republican colleagues continue to
contemplate the imposition of a two-thirds supermajority requirement in
order to pass revenue bills. If my colleagues will recall, at the
beginning of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority changed
the Rules of the House to impose a three-fifths majority requirement
for any tax increase. Well, guess what? A funny thing happened on the
way to idealogical purity. Whenever a bill containing a tax increase
came along, the Republican majority conveniently used the Committee on
Rules to waive that three-fifths requirement.
The Republican majority waived this rule for the Contract with
America, for the Medicare Preservation Act, the Balanced Budget
Reconciliation Act, the Health Insurance Reform Act and, finally, the
Welfare Reform conference report. In short, Madam Speaker, during the
first Congress they were in the majority, Republicans waived their
three-fifths requirement every single time it applied.
In fact, the Republican majority found this rule change to be so
unworkable and unenforceable that it had to be fixed in the 105th
Congress rules package. If the Republican majority could not make that
provision work in the House rules, how can they possibly make a tougher
requirement work if it is embodied in the Constitution. The Committee
on Rules will not be there to bail them out. I certainly hope my
Republican friends understand that one cannot waive or rewrite a
constitutional amendment if it is not ``convenient.''
Furthermore, I wonder if Republicans need a lesson in basic civics.
It is an easily understood principle that when one requires a
supermajority vote for passage of a measure, control is effectively
turned over to a small minority and that will be the case even when an
idea is supported by the majority in Congress, and a majority of the
American people. Some, Madam Speaker, might call that flirting with
tyranny.
James Madison in The Federalist Papers wisely argued against
supermajority, stating ``the fundamental principle of free government
would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule:
the power would be transferred to the minority.''
This proposed constitutional amendment will seriously undermine
Congress' ability to pass major budgetary initiatives. It will allow a
small minority in either the House or the Senate to stop widely-
supported, meaningful legislation containing any revenue measure. It
would also lead to cuts and benefits in Social Security and Medicare,
an increase in the retirement age, and will close the door on any
possibility that a real and meaningful prescription drug benefit would
be made available to seniors in this country. This proposal will
sharply limit Congress' ability to close tax loopholes or enact tax
reform measures. It is pure and simply a bad idea with no merit.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
reject this rule and this ill-served, ill-advised constitutional
amendment. We do not need gimmicks, we need resolve. We do not need
political grandstanding, we need the Congress to face up to its
responsibilities as guardians of the people's trust. If the Republican
majority really wants to dismantle the Federal Government, then let us
do it honestly and aboveboard.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and this most ill-advised
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It is great to be back in Washington after a 2-week break and find
out that a lot of my colleagues view the inability to raise taxes
easily as kind of like what a vampire would feel about light. They just
do not like it. They do not like that threat of taking away the ability
to go to the American people and take and take and take and take. We
are trying to make it more difficult for that to happen. I am glad to
see that we are back in Washington and able to show our differences.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res.
118 and I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), as well as the chairman of the Committee on Rules and all
the other members of the Committee on Rules, for their hard work on
this fair rule.
As the sponsor of H.J. Res. 41, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) has played a leadership role on issues such as tax fairness
and simplification and deserves credit for his persistence and
leadership in advancing the proposed constitutional amendment that is
before the House today.
Madam Speaker, this rule is similar to past rules providing for the
consideration of proposed constitutional amendments. The rule provides
for 2 hours of thorough debate and an opportunity for the minority to
offer a substitute amendment. I believe this is a fair rule, which will
provide ample time for debate and amendment, and I urge Members to
support this rule.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is chairman of
the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) for his leadership on this very important constitutional
amendment.
Madam Speaker, the amendment of money taken out of the pockets of
Americans in taxes is simply too high, and it adds to the difficulties
many families face in making ends meet. Congress must reduce the tax
burden on every American right now, but at the very least, we must act
to protect hard-working families from future excessive taxation, which
has happened consistently over time. Congress has
[[Page 6173]]
increased taxes, unfortunately, many times in this body. By making it
more difficult to raise taxes, H.J. Res. 41 will do just that.
Specifically, the tax limitation amendment would require any
legislative measure changing the Internal Revenue laws to receive the
support of two-thirds of the Members of each House voting and present,
meaning that any tax increase would require a supermajority vote to
become law. The amendment would not apply to legislative measures that
are determined not to increase the Internal Revenue by more than a de
minimis amount.
This supermajority requirement could be waived when a declaration of
war is in effect or a majority of Congress adopts a joint resolution,
declaring that the United States is engaged in military conflict, which
causes an imminent serious threat to national security.
Additionally, in order to implement the amendment, Congress will
ultimately need to adopt legislation defining terms and flushing out
the necessary procedures. The tax limitation amendment will cover
personal and corporate income taxes, estate and gift taxes, employment
taxes, and excise taxes. The amendment would not apply to tariffs or
user fees or voluntary payments, or bills that do not change the
Internal Revenue laws, even if they have revenue implications.
{time} 1045
Madam Speaker, 14 States currently have tax limitation provisions for
tax increases. Out of those, 12 States require a supermajority for any
tax increase.
We need this amendment to help stem the tax-and-spend policies which
have too often ruled Washington. Much of what goes on in this town
involves the taking and spending of other people's money. Average
Americans now have to spend most of their time working just to cover
their tax burden; and, hopefully, have enough left over to maintain a
reasonable standard of living for themselves and for their families.
That is just inappropriate.
Madam Speaker, in the 1950s, the Federal Government took only about 5
percent of the average American family's money. That was after fighting
World War II and the Korean War. Since then in peacetime with a
generally strong economy, that figure has increased five-fold. Now 25
percent of what the average family earns comes here to Washington, D.C.
Today the Federal Government takes about a quarter of what we earn,
and I am not sure anyone around here with a straight face could even
suggest that government has gotten 500 percent better. Since 1992
alone, the Federal Government has raised taxes at the gas pump, on
working seniors receiving Social Security, and on mom-and-pop small
businesses. Yet the average family's real after-tax income has not
really increased over the years. At best, working families are just
treading water, and the Government keeps trying to soak them in order
to fund more and more, oftentimes very wasteful, programs which come
out of Washington.
The tax limitation amendment would require Congress to focus on
options other than raising taxes to manage the Federal budget, help to
impose fiscal discipline and to constrain the growth of government,
something we definitely need in this town. That is why I think H.J.
Res. 41 makes a worthy addition to the Nation's most sacred document.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support this proposed constitutional
amendment, and would urge my colleagues to support the rule. I want to
commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for putting forward
this constitutional amendment which is long overdue.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, part of the opportunity that we had to have this bill
on the floor today was that we had to go through the Committee on
Rules. The Committee on Rules is the body which deliberates on what is
on the floor.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I have to say that I strongly support this rule, but I
would be less than forthright if I were to come here and say that I am
an enthusiastic supporter of this measure. We have two gentlemen from
Dallas, so I can say that I agree with the gentleman from Dallas on
this one, and you can choose which one.
It is very painful for me to associate myself with the remarks of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), but frankly much of what the
gentleman has just said, I agree with. Not everything; but much of it.
Madam Speaker, the reason I say that is, when it comes to the issue
of reducing the tax burden on working families, I take a back seat to
no one. I have had the privilege of serving 10 terms in the House of
Representatives. I am now in my 11th term, and I have never voted for a
tax increase since I have been here.
One of the proudest votes that I cast was the first one in August
1981 when I was proud to join with a number of Democrats who helped
Ronald Reagan pass the Economic Recovery Tax Act, which brought about
marginal rate reduction, something we are seeking today. We want to
have a bipartisan compromise working with our friends in the other body
to make sure that we reduce that tax burden because, as the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has pointed out, and as the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has pointed out, and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) has pointed out, the tax burden is extraordinarily
high. We all know that we have not had such a burden since 1934 during
the Second World War, and we need to cut taxes.
I happen to believe that reducing taxes to stimulate economic growth
is very important. I want a capital gains tax reduction because we will
increase the flow of revenues to the Treasury if we can deal with that
lock-in effect.
I want marginal rate reduction because I believe that will encourage
savings, investment and productivity. I have said I have now completed
2 decades here and have never voted for a tax increase, and will
continue to vote for tax cuts, but that is not the issue that we are
debating here. The issue to me is are we going to be so arrogant that
we are going to say to the American people that we are going to protect
you from your future leaders. If you are going to select someone to
represent you in the House of Representatives, a body based on that
Madisonian model that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) was
referring to, was established as a majoritarian institution, we are
going to say that we are no longer going to be a majoritarian
institution, we are going to say that Members who serve in this
institution cannot rule by majority, that is basically what this
measure is saying.
Madam Speaker, I do not want to be so arrogant. I do not want to be
an elitist conservative standing here saying, you know, the people who
have selected me, giving me the honor of serving here, maybe will not
be so intelligent in the future to select somebody who wants to reduce
the tax burden on working Americans and make sure that we do everything
that we possibly can to make sure that we do not have any kind of tax
increases, that they cannot select somebody who believes that is the
right thing to do.
I think it is the wrong thing to do. I believe that a majority of
this institution believes that it is wrong to increase taxes, and I
believe the majority of the institution believes that it is the right
thing to do to cut the tax burden on working Americans. But I think it
is the wrong thing for us to say that we have to put into place a
supermajority.
To me this is part of the minority mentality. I think that the idea
of establishing supermajorities is something that, again, James Madison
spent a lot of time anguishing over; and we do have supermajorities for
a couple of
[[Page 6174]]
things that are very important: overriding a Presidential veto, dealing
with a constitutional amendment. A supermajority is required to do
those. I believe that we should limit supermajorities to that.
Madam Speaker, I support moving ahead with this debate. I will be
voting in favor of the rule when we consider it in just a few minutes.
But when it comes to a vote on this measure, I will continue to fight
hard to reduce the tax burden on working Americans. But I will also
continue to fight hard to support the U.S. Constitution as those very,
very inspired framers envisaged it. I will, therefore, be voting
against this measure when it comes to a vote.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for his fine
statement. We are in agreement that the majority should rule in this
country, not two-thirds.
Madam Speaker, I oppose this constitutional amendment for the same
reason that the chairman of the Committee on Rules will oppose it. We
should never be fearful of the majority.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I think the words which have been spoken today are
very true; and I, too, am not afraid of the majority. I am not afraid
of what we do. I am not afraid of how we act. I am not afraid of the
ideas that we present forward.
But just as we began talking about a balanced budget years ago, and
the need for a balanced budget and the need for us to create fairness
in our Tax Code and the need for us to talk about returning power from
Washington back to people, is all predicated on a balance, a desire of
the people to have balance. So we will have this debate every year
until we get it done. We will continue to provide a view and a vision
that if America and Members of Congress who come up talk about a
balance, that is we balance out, that we believe that people should be
more powerful than government, that we believe that people who get up
and go to work every day should have an equal right to keep their money
against an intrusive Federal government, then that means that we will
begin debating issues that decide how easy or how difficult it is to
raise taxes.
Part of this debate also means that we have Members who have been
here for a long time and some for a short time. One of the long-serving
Members, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), from the Fourth District
of Texas, he came to Washington also with a vision and view that he
respected the Constitution, but wants to make it more difficult based
upon what he sees today.
But the debate goes on and the ideas will always be presented. Today,
as our next speaker we are going to have a gentleman who is one of the
newest Members of Congress. He came from a State where he recognized
and saw where a balance and an opportunity to make it more difficult to
raise taxes was important. He has listened to the debate for years and
has become a leader in this endeavor as a message to America that we
must make it more difficult to raise taxes.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Culberson), who is the lead cosponsor of this bill.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Speaker, April 25, 2001, is a very important day
demonstrating to every American taxpayer who is tired of paying higher
taxes the immense importance and the tremendous achievements of the
Republican Congress, the importance of having a Republican President in
the White House.
I can testify from personal experience having served 14 years in the
Texas legislature that the Democrat majority in the legislature did not
even permit this important piece of legislation to come to the floor of
the Texas House. It is only because of the Republican majority in
Congress that today we stand within 10 years of paying off the national
debt, that today we have passed through the House and the Senate a
significant tax cut that all Americans will see in their paychecks
retroactively, whereas the previous President increased taxes
retroactively. A Republican President and a Republican Congress will
cut our taxes retroactively, which we will see in our paychecks through
our withholding. And the Republican Congress has brought forward today
for the American people to see firsthand what we as Republicans hold
near and dear as a core principle that the Congress should make as an
absolute last resort tax increases. Tax increases should only be done
as a last resort when it is absolutely necessary and all other options
are exhausted.
Madam Speaker, that is the core principle at work behind this
amendment, that a two-thirds supermajority would be required before the
Congress could raise taxes. A two-thirds majority of the House, a two-
thirds majority of the Senate. To me personally, I think it is a point
of great pride that our distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules, who has throughout his career opposed tax increases, has labored
long and hard to control Federal spending and worked hard to allow
individual Americans to keep more of their money that they earn in
their own pocketbooks, to invest and spend as they see fit, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) who respects and has such deep
roots in the history of this country and understands the Federalist
Papers and the works of James Madison. I share his admiration of James
Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the founders. It is a terrific day for
the country that we can debate this important amendment honestly, all
built around the core Republican principle that we share that taxes
should only be raised as a last resort, and we are debating simply the
mechanism, or the procedure, by which we would make it more difficult
or help ensure that this Congress and future Congresses only looks to
tax increases as a last resort.
{time} 1100
As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has pointed out, those
States which have adopted two-thirds supermajority requirements have
consistently seen an increase in economic growth, about 10 percent
higher than those States that do not have tax limitation amendments.
Job growth in those States that have the two-thirds supermajority
requirement typically see job growth about 20 percent higher.
Above all, it is important for every American listening to this
debate today to remember that it is the Republican Congress that has
presented this idea to us, consistent with our core Republican
philosophy that the power to tax is the power to destroy and should
only be exercised as a last resort. This is consistent with everything
we do in this Congress.
I am very proud to rise in support of the rule and of this amendment.
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for bringing it to us
today.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) has 15 seconds remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) has yielded back his time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As a result of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) yielding back his
time, it is intuitively obvious to me that I am out of time.
Madam Speaker, I ask for all Members to support this fair and open
rule. This is a rule that is good for America and good for American
taxpayers.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 41.
[[Page 6175]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
____________________
TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 118, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 41) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitations.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 118, the joint
resolution is considered read for amendment.
The text of House Joint Resolution 41 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 41
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States within seven years after
the date of its submission for ratification:
``Article --
``Section 1. Any bill, resolution, or other legislative
measure changing the internal revenue laws shall require for
final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of
the Members of that House voting and present, unless that
bill, resolution, or other legislative measure is determined
at the time of adoption, in a reasonable manner prescribed by
law, not to increase the internal revenue by more than a de
minimis amount. For the purposes of determining any increase
in the internal revenue under this section, there shall be
excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of an
effective rate of any tax. On any vote for which the
concurrence of two-thirds is required under this article, the
yeas and nays of the Members of either House shall be entered
on the Journal of that House.
``Section 2. The Congress may waive the requirements of
this article when a declaration of war is in effect. The
Congress may also waive this article when the United States
is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and
serious threat to national security and is so declared by a
joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number
of each House, which becomes law. Any increase in the
internal revenue enacted under such a waiver shall be
effective for not longer than two years.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will
control 60 minutes of debate on the joint resolution.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 41, the tax limitation
amendment, which was introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) and ordered reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on
April 4. This important legislation would amend the Constitution by
requiring a two-thirds majority vote by Congress for any bill that
increases the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount.
The effect of this amendment would not preclude Congress from
amending the internal revenue laws so long as the change in the law did
not increase revenue by more than a de minimis amount. For example, a
bill that both lowered and increased taxes, if it were revenue neutral
would not be subject to the two-thirds requirement, nor would it would
a bill intended to raise revenue by reducing taxes.
In addition, the two-thirds majority requirement would be waived when
a declaration of war is in effect or when both Houses of Congress pass
a resolution which becomes law stating that the United States is
engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious
threat to national security.
Mr. Speaker, 15 States have adopted similar tax limitation
amendments. According to statistics provided by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, these States have benefited from greater rates of increased
employment, greater economic growth, decreased government spending, and
decreased rates of tax growth.
Although similar amendments have been unsuccessfully considered by
the House over the past few years, the need for tax reform has never
been greater. According to the Congressional Budget Office, with the
exception of 1942, the overall amount of individual income tax revenues
is a higher percentage of our gross domestic product than any other
time in our history.
The bottom line is the taxes today are too high. Federal, State, and
local taxes consume about 40 percent of the income of the average
family. That is more than the average family spends on food, clothing,
and shelter combined.
As Congress debates meaningful tax relief for the American people, it
is also important to recognize that Congress's voracious appetite for
spending still endures. That is why I think it is more important than
ever for this Congress to reconsider and support a measure that will
make it more difficult for Congress to raise taxes in the future.
Inevitably, there will come a time when Congress wishes to spend more
but will not have budget surpluses to rely upon. There will be many who
will argue that, in order for Congress to spend more from here in
Washington, D.C., we will need to take more from the hard-working
citizens across our great Nation.
However, I believe this is the wrong approach, and there is another
way to meet our Nation's priorities. That is by taking our bill and
reducing wasteful spending, ferreting out fraud and eliminating
ineffective programs. Raising taxes should be a last-ditch option and
should occur only after careful consideration with broad consensus.
Mr. Speaker, a constitutional amendment is a big step; but I believe
our history of tax hikes illustrates that, in this case, it is
necessary and an important step that will bring needed discipline to
Congress and relief to America's people.
I urge the passage of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to the ladies and gentlemen of the House, I want to
begin by thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for requesting that this
measure pass through the committee of jurisdiction since this is a
constitutional subject. In many years passed, that has not been the
case. So we begin in a very important way on that point.
Now, I have to presume that the subject of a constitutional matter is
being done seriously, that this is a serious discussion about amending
the Constitution of the United States. If it is, then I think it is
important, that for all of the Members that may not have the seniority
that comes from being here for many years, that they understand that
this is the sixth time that we have taken up this measure which has
been soundly rejected on each prior occasion, not by the Senate, but by
ourselves.
So every year, this exercise is one that is brought to the floor and
that we have to deal with it in good faith and using up the time of the
House of Representatives to determine whether we want to put a tax
limitation constitutional amendment in the Constitution.
Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules, has coined a phrase that this proposal may be
nothing more than elitism gone conservative; that this is a
conservative elitist idea; that the Republicans, as a party, know
better than the Founding Fathers and the people's will as reflected by
the majority of the Congress. They have a better idea.
We go through this every year. But not even within our body do we
find that there is a serious enough amount of support to move it to the
other body where we think we could predict what would happen there as
well.
So I oppose the amendment because it is bad for democratic procedure,
but it is also horrific for tax policy. By requiring a two-thirds
amendment, a majority to adopt certain legislation, we undercut the
majority rule and diminish the vote of every single Member of the
Congress.
[[Page 6176]]
Now, this matter was taken up when our Founders were together. The
framers wisely rejected a rule requiring a supermajority for basic
government functions. James Madison argued that, under a supermajority
requirement, the fundamental principle of free government would be
reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule. The power
would instead have transferred to a minority.
It is on that basis that I apply the same logic now as James Madison
applied then in determining whether a supermajority would be
appropriate in the Constitution. The amendment is unsatisfactory
because it is an undemocratic one.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 41
and believe that this is actually a commonsense measure and one that
actually enforces some discipline on the Congress to reexamine
spending.
As we look at the budgets over recent history, Mr. Speaker, we see
that the spending has increased year to year to year by more than
inflation. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, it is increased by higher
than the average incomes of Pennsylvanians has increased and higher
than the incomes of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, it is only sensible for us as Members of Congress to
enforce some discipline on ourselves so that we do not drive Americans
to the poor house.
It is a sensible measure that should be supported by all the Members
to put this in place, but it is also sensible that to require a tax
increase we would have to have bipartisan agreement.
Clearly, Americans are of both parties and many other third parties.
Americans do not want to be forced to pay more taxes only because of
the decision of one-half plus one of the Congress. It only makes sense
for us to heed their wishes and be more careful with their dollars.
This measure would only enforce that discipline on us. It would make us
more responsive to Americans. It would also make them more sensitive to
their families' pocketbooks.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, apparently, Members of the Congress now all very
simplistically refute James Madison. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Hart), the previous speaker, a very important and valuable member
of the Committee on the Judiciary, just told us in effect, who cares
what Madison was thinking? I mean, that was then, and this is now.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. Of course I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I recall one of the compromises that
got the Constitution through the convention in the States was one that
permitted slaves to be imported for the first 20 years of the
Constitution and did not specifically omit slavery. Now, was Madison
enlightened at that time, or did we need to amend the Constitution to
get rid of something that my State fought to get rid of in the Civil
War?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is an interesting
question that the chairman poses. If he would entertain hearings on my
reparations bill, H.R. 40, which has been pending since 1989, I would
be delighted with other witnesses to go in to him with a discussion of
what the Members of States from the South who were all slave holding
States did.
Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to imply that James Madison or even
Thomas Jefferson, perish the thought, was right every time on every
issue. But I am referring to the question of whether a supermajority
requirement on this subject should be put into the Constitution.
Now, James Madison made many mistakes. By the way, so did all the
other Founding Fathers. I mean, do you want to start with George
Washington and come forward?
{time} 1115
The compromise to include slavery was only made, sir, because it was
the only way we could form a Nation. The southern leaders all said that
without that compromise they would not do it. What I am saying here is
that on the requirement for a supermajority James Madison was entirely
correct then and those who cite him, including myself, are entirely
correct now.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield further, with all due
respect to my good friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I
am certainly happy, Mr. Speaker, that he was not around to promote his
earlier argument about Madison's enlightenment at the time the Congress
debated the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments 140 years ago. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CONYERS. Could I just point out a little bit of history? I do not
think Madison was around when the 15th amendment was being debated,
sir. I do not think Madison was around when the 14th amendment was
being debated. I do not think he was around when the 13th amendment was
being debated. But let us take Madison out of the picture. Apparently
there is some problem with Madison. Let us go to the present day. I
never thought I would find myself on the floor defending James
Madison's positions, but let us talk about what would happen if this
amendment were to actually come into our Constitution. The amendment
would permanently enshrine some $450 billion of special corporate tax
favors into the Constitution, nearly three times as much as all the
means-tested entitlement programs combined, something we have been
trying to deal with for many years. Now, Madison does not have anything
to do with that. That is a present day, 21st century problem.
Another point that we may want to take into present consideration, it
would be impossible to change the law to require foreign corporations
to pay their fair share of taxes on income earned in this country or to
repeal the loopholes which encourage United States corporations to
relocate overseas. Now, Madison aside, do we really want to do that? Or
is this an example of conservative elitism carried to an extreme?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I am very interested in the argument of the gentleman from Michigan.
Under this constitutional amendment, we could repeal a tax loophole
that gave these outrageous benefits to the corporation he mentioned by
a majority vote as long as the revenue that was raised was distributed
to the American people. If there was just a flat out repeal, it would
take a two-thirds vote. This would make it easier to give tax relief to
the American people in repealing these loopholes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 41,
the tax limitation amendment. I spent Easter with my daughter and her
family out in San Francisco. While we were there, her husband was
filling out his tax return. This, remember, is a young family. They
have two children. They cannot afford to buy a home. They are renting a
home. They have a good job but they are starting out as a young family.
When he finished filling out his tax return, he said, you know, we
spent almost half of what we earned last year in taxes. That is what
the average American worker does, spends about half. Taxes are the
highest they have ever been. In January of 2000, the Census Bureau
reported that the average family paid more than $9,000 in Federal
income tax, twice what it paid 15 years ago. Americans pay more in
taxes than they spend on food, clothing and housing combined. Americans
work more than 4 months, almost 5 months, just to pay their tax bill.
A continuation of higher taxes should be better controlled. Congress
needs to protect the taxpayer from higher taxes. The trend of big
government and higher taxes to maintain it
[[Page 6177]]
must cease. The government does not have the right to take more than it
needs just because it has the power to do so. The requirement of a
clear consensus to ensure limited increases in taxes is needed. We need
to prohibit irresponsible tax hikes.
It should not be easy to take freedom away from people. When you tax
too much, you are taking freedom from people, freedom to earn money and
spend it as they want to and to educate their children and to save it
and do the things they want to with it. It should not be easy to do
that.
Fifteen States currently require some type of supermajority vote for
the legislature to raise taxes. In those States, citizens are protected
from higher State tax burdens. It is time for the government to follow
their example to benefit all taxpayers. The amendment would not prevent
raising taxes. Rather, it encourages Congress to look at alternatives
before implementing tax hikes. A consensus will force Congress to
consider genuine need.
For these reasons and more, I encourage my colleagues to support this
constitutional amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Here is a new piece of historic information just in about James
Madison that may appeal to my colleagues. Actually, they tried a
supermajority, and I think they will all find this very interesting.
Because under the Articles of Confederation in the 1780s, there was a
provision for a supermajority. Adopting a supermajority tax requirement
would repeat the very same mistakes made in the 1780s under the
Articles of Confederation between the Declaration of Independence and
the adoption of a constitution. Under these articles, it required a
vote of nine of the 13 States to raise revenue, a supermajority. It is
because the system worked so poorly that the Founding Fathers sought to
fashion a national government that could operate through majority rule.
So, Mr. Speaker, we would be ignoring a very important fundamental
part of our history if we were to give in this area James Madison too
hard a way to go. In fact, in the present circumstances, this amendment
would take more votes to close a tax loophole engineered by powerful
interest groups than to cut Social Security, Medicare and education
programs. The amendment would also make the major deficit reduction
measures much harder to pass when they are needed. Remember that five
of the six major deficit reduction acts that were enacted since 1982,
within the memory and experience of many Members here on the floor,
included a combination of revenue increases and program cuts. President
Reagan, Ronald Reagan, signed three of these measures into law.
Presidents George H. Bush and President William Jefferson Clinton
signed one each. None of these five measures received a two-thirds
majority in both Houses.
So, Mr. Speaker, had this proposed constitutional amendment been in
effect during this period, substantial budget deficits would still be
with us today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to tell the
rest of the story. The gentleman from Michigan is so right that the
Articles of Confederation did require a supermajority of nine of the 13
States to raise taxes. But the Constitution as originally ratified by
the States was even more severe. It prohibited direct taxes on the
people and required a constitutional amendment in the beginning of the
last century to allow the income tax to be constitutionally passed by
Congress.
So if we are looking at what Madison hath written, Madison put an
even greater straitjacket on the Congress' ability to raise taxes than
the Articles of Confederation had.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Gibbons).
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
resolution. I want to thank my colleague and good friend the chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for bringing this critical legislation before
this body.
Mr. Speaker, America needs this tax limitation amendment. Why?
Because this year thousands, or millions even, of hardworking Americans
are going to be suffering intaxication. What is intaxication? Let me
say that if the word were actually in the dictionary, intaxication
would be defined as the euphoric experience when one gets a refund and
then realizes that that refund is actually their own money.
This Congress has a duty to make it harder to raise taxes, while
ensuring a more responsible Federal budget. In 1994, Mr. Speaker, I
fought for Nevada's own tax limitation amendment. As a private citizen
I helped gather 85,000 signatures from residents across Nevada to place
a similar measure on the ballot before the voters. This legislation,
may I say, passed the Nevada vote test in two successive elections,
averaging about 75 percent of each vote count. This legislation
requires an amendment to the Nevada constitution saying that two-thirds
would be required to raise any new State taxes or fees.
The Federal Government needs to be put on the same fat-free diet that
my home State of Nevada has been on since 1996. We need to make it more
difficult to raise taxes on hardworking American men and women. We need
to shift congressional focus to the bloated Federal spending programs
in this Federal bureaucracy. Passage of this legislation would ensure
that Congress focuses its efforts to balance the budget, cut wasteful
spending and not raise taxes as an easier and unneeded Federal revenue
excuse.
States that currently limit taxes have experienced faster growing
economies, a more rapid increase in employment, lower taxes and reduced
growth in government spending. No additional financial burden should be
placed on the American working family without overwhelming
demonstration of need and support from their elected officials.
Let us stop intaxication plaguing Americans. I urge my colleagues to
support this tax limitation amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
resolution, in opposition to this amendment, and in opposition to
changing our most basic government document in this way.
The gentleman from Michigan has been doing an admirable job of
sparring on these issues, but I wanted to come over and stand up and be
counted against this thing, also, with him.
For the last couple of months, I have been putting together a Law
Review article on the congressional oath of office. It has been
interesting because I have gone back and read through some of the
statements of Madison and the Framers and Hamilton. These were serious
men that put together our most basic document. This very debate that we
are having today was a debate that the Framers had. This is the kind of
discussion that was contemplated by them, what level of vote count
should there be in our legislative bodies to make these kinds of
changes.
I not only have respect for the seriousness of their debate and their
discussions but also respect for their conclusion, and that once they
reached that conclusion, I think we would do well as a Nation not to
rekindle that debate every 2 years as we seem to have been doing here
for the last few years.
I think this amendment would be a mistake. I think it has very little
support around the country. Right now the thrust nationally is to lower
taxes, not to raise taxes. In the past when we have raised taxes, the
majority of the Members of the legislative body felt that was the way
to go. That is not the situation today.
{time} 1130
This is an amendment that is not necessary at this time in our
Nation's history. It was contemplated by the Framers. I think it would
be a mistake today to pass this amendment.
[[Page 6178]]
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is another problem that has not been discussed
about the amendment that we may want to take into consideration, and
that is the possibility that a constitutional amendment of the nature
under debate could lead to large cuts in Social Security and Medicare
and a return to deficit spending. No constitutional debate on this
subject could be concluded without some discussion about this.
These reductions, large ones, in Social Security and Medicare
benefits, have been observed by The Washington Post, in which they
noted that when baby boomers begin to retire not many years from now,
as a matter of fact some have already begun to retire, the country will
be in an era of constant fiscal strain. To avoid destructive deficits,
there will have to be tax increases or spending cuts or both. So by
making it harder to increase taxes, the amendment would compound the
pressure on major spending programs. As a matter of fact, that is what
is going on now. We are noticing that with the unprecedented large tax
cut we are squeezing many programs that are very valuable and dear to
many, if not most, of the people in the country.
What are these major spending programs? Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid and others.
Is this really what the Congress wants to do? The pressure on the
programs is great enough as it is.
Now Democratic members offered an amendment in the Committee on the
Judiciary to ensure that measures designed to secure the financial
solvency of Social Security would not be subject to the supermajority
requirement, but the Republicans defeated this measure on a party line
vote of 8 to 16. So we have on the record that they do not want to
exempt the Social Security and other valuable programs from the
possibility of financial insolvency by making an exemption to this
Draconian proposal that we have before us.
I think that that should deal a telling message to anybody whose mind
may not yet be made up.
Also, the proposed tax limitation would rule out measures to raise
Medicare premiums for higher individuals, high-income individuals, as
well as modest measures to shore up Social Security and Medicare. They
would all be caught by the supermajority requirement.
Example, if Congress attempted to make Social Security payroll taxes
more progressive by imposing higher tax cuts on higher-income
individuals, there would be an increase in the revenue laws and the
supermajority requirement would be triggered, no doubt about it.
Indeed, when the Republican budget reconciliation bill reached the
House floor in the fall of 1995, it became more than clear that its
proposed increase in Medicare premiums for those at higher income
levels constituted, guess what, a tax increase.
Similarly, legislation expanding Social Security to include State and
local government employees, which no less than the Advisory Council for
Social Security has already proposed, would result in a revenue
increase and would therefore be subject to the two-thirds requirement.
Do we really want to do that? Do we really want these kinds of
provisions caught in this supermajority requirement?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, it is the same old story. When all else fails, drop the
Social Security red herring. This constitutional amendment will not cut
Social Security. If there is a revenue pinch, it will force Congress
and the Nation to set priorities. Social Security has always been the
top priority, and it always will be the top priority, because it is the
principal part of our social safety net for senior citizens. So if the
shoe starts to pinch because of a revenue shortfall, or the baby boom
generation collecting the Social Security that they have earned, it
will force cuts in other programs. We all know that there are huge
wastes of money in the other programs, and this will provide the fiscal
discipline for Congress to set better priorities than it historically
has in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, for bringing this bill to the floor. Let me also thank the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for his sponsorship of this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important step and a step I believe we must
take. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of serving in this body
since 1985. For 10 years, I served in this body as a member of the
minority while the Democrats were in control of the House of
Representatives, and that was a privilege.
Mr. Speaker, in the last 6\1/2\ years, I have had the larger
privilege of serving in the majority with the Republicans in the
majority. Throughout all of that experience, Mr. Speaker, I have found
that there are a few things that are consistent whether the Democrats
are in the majority or the Republicans are in the majority. Call it the
disposition of the legislative body, whatever is the reason, it has
been consistently the case for so long as I have had the privilege of
observing us at work that the first easiest thing to do in this body is
to increase spending.
Lord have mercy. We must constrain ourselves with all the rigor we
can to even bring our increases down to a nominal level.
The second easiest thing to do in this body is to raise taxes. I
certainly have seen that done here enough, and with relative ease.
The hardest thing to do in this body, Mr. Speaker, is to cut taxes;
and the clearly most difficult thing to do is to cut spending.
All that boils down to one thing: we avail ourselves of nothing that
we can call a budget constraint. After all, Mr. Speaker, it is other
people's money. Easy come, easy go. We do not spend it all that wisely.
So what we are trying to do today is to give ourselves an
institutional leveler, a rule in this institution that levels the
playing field between raising spending and cutting taxes, just to
counter what must be the generic dispositions of a legislative body
given the extraordinary privilege of taxing and spending other people's
money.
A simple rule that would say that in this business of raising taxes
which facilitates the increased spending, for which we have this crying
disposition, that we should have a supermajority vote. It is a
constraint. It is a check, a check against our desires to always build
government larger.
Is the Federal Government large enough? Most people in America think
yes it is, indeed; that and more.
Do we have enough money? We are talking about surpluses,
extraordinary surpluses; surpluses that would not have come about
except for 2\1/2\ years of extraordinary rigor in the restraint on
spending that make these surpluses available; the surpluses that are
threatened, threatened not by a shortage of tax revenue from the
American people but threatened by the worst addiction one finds in this
town, the addiction to the spending of other people's money.
So we must put on the brakes. We must find a way to rein ourselves
in, to rein in the institution, the institution of the House of
Representatives. Indeed, the institution of Congress must be restrained
from the all-too-easy business of simply raising taxes whenever we feel
we have an insufficient supply of other people's money. If we cannot do
that, Mr. Speaker, during a time when the surpluses are running, we
cannot do it at any time.
I just noticed the disposition at work here a moment ago in the
discussion on this floor. The question was, what if there were a
recession and there would be a shortfall of revenues to the United
States? We would have an emergency need to raise taxes, it was argued,
to raise taxes. Why? What underlies that logic is the belief that the
object of our affection is the Government of the United States, not the
well-being and the health of the American economy.
[[Page 6179]]
Indeed, if there is a recession, Mr. Speaker, the correct thing to do
is to lower taxes; thus, solving the problem of the recession; thus,
solving the problem of deficiencies in revenue to the Government that
come from the recession.
So the logic is faulty because it is built on the false premise that
the object of our affection must be, first, the well-being of the
Government and then only secondarily the performance of the economy.
The correct logic is this: the well-being of the government, as is the
well-being of the Nation in things economic, depends upon the
performance of the economy.
We are left with very few tools to assure that this economy works at
its peak of performance, but the only one that really remains is the
lowering of taxes. So barring a volition in this body to ever change
our dispositions, we should use a rule, a rule that says that it is
relatively easy to lower taxes when those times arrive and it is most
rigorously difficult to raise taxes at all times. This rule will give
us that. It should be passed. It should be passed as a matter, Mr.
Speaker, of respect for the American people because, after all, it is
their money.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the majority leader of the Congress
has come to the floor. Unfortunately, he did not mention how many times
the majority, under his leadership, has waived their own House rules
requiring a supermajority vote to increase taxes. Maybe he forgot.
I would remind my colleagues that during the 104th Congress, we had
to suspend the House rules imposed by the Republican majority when we
dealt with H.R. 1215, the Contract with America Tax Relief Act.
{time} 1145
We then had the supermajority vote suspended, this is under the
leadership of the majority, under the leadership of the distinguished
majority leader that just left the well, in the Medicare Preservation
Act of 1994, H.R. 2425; in the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, H.R.
2491; in the Health Insurance Reform Act, H.R. 3103; and in H.R. 3734,
the Welfare Reform Conference Report. The majority, under the
Republican leadership, has frequently waived its own rules requiring a
supermajority vote to increase taxes.
The unworkability of House Joint Resolution 41 is illustrated by the
fact that they frequently ignore their own rule preventing tax rates
from taking increase, unless approved by three-fifths of the House, and
this was done in the 104th Congress, many times, on six separate
occasions. It led our distinguished colleague the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) to write, ``The final blow to any hope that the vote on
the supermajority tax requirement might be for real comes from the
dismal adherence Republicans have made to their own internal House rule
requiring a three-fifths vote to raise taxes.'' This is from the
leadership of the gentleman who just left the well.
After much fanfare during the organization of the 104th Congress, the
House leadership has waived its own effort to restrain itself in every
potential instance but one.
In an attempt to avoid these problems at the beginning of the 105th
Congress, the rule was significantly narrowed to limit its application
to increases in particular tax rates specified under the Internal
Revenue Code, rather than tax rate increases generally. Now, that
narrow application does not apply to the constitutional provision; it
only applies to what we do in the House of Representatives.
So, such experiences highlight the unworkability of setting forth
special procedural rules concerning tax laws and tax rates, and these
problems would be greatly compounded in the constitutional context that
we face in H.J. Res. 41.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the chairman of the Committee
on the Judiciary for this opportunity to speak on behalf of House Joint
Resolution 41.
Mr. Speaker, despite my belief that we ought to rarely trifle with
the work product of the founders of this country from that balmy summer
of 1787, where in the Philadelphia State House they crafted our
Constitution, I rise today in strong support of the Tax Limitation
Constitutional Amendment that we will vote on today.
I do so, Mr. Speaker, because it is my belief that we live in this
year 2001 in an age of reason about tax policy, different than other
times in American history. Today, most Americans oppose most tax
increases. But, Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that this too shall
pass; that some day soon, given the seemingly glacial growth of the
Federal Government, the day will come that once again tax increases are
no longer broadly objectionable.
So I believe that this Congress should seize upon this season of
sensibility to constrain future Congresses from reflexively raising
taxes to pay for that ever-growing Federal welfare state. It is a
growth in government, Mr. Speaker, that does ultimately erode our
economic freedoms and the balance of our liberties.
A tax increase constitutional amendment, if adopted today in the
Congress and sent to the States, would be an important restraint on the
Federal Government in years ahead, and it would give this Congress and
this government the same restraints that some 14 States live under who
have tax limitations in their Constitution and in their laws.
Mr. Speaker, tax increases should always be the last resort of this
Congress, and the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment ensures that
it will.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in opposition to H.J. Res. 41. H.J.
Res. 41 proposes a constitutional amendment that provides that changes
in Internal Revenue laws by more than a de minimis amount would require
a two-thirds majority to pass, rather than the simple majority now
required.
Let me just point out a couple of problems with that idea, Mr.
Speaker. The proposed constitutional amendment does not affect
spending; only paying for the spending. You can increase spending and
enact new programs with a simple majority. To pay for the new programs,
you require a two-thirds majority. The limitation that this bill
proposes is on whether we will pay for the spending or whether we will
resort to deficit spending.
Now, the same analysis applies to correcting mistakes. It would take
a two-thirds majority to close a corporate loophole, while it only took
a simple majority to create the loophole in the first place. If we
cannot come up with a two-thirds majority to close the corporate
loophole, then that loophole remains, possibly costing millions, or
even billions, of dollars that could be put to use elsewhere.
In fact, changing Internal Revenue laws that change the internal
revenue by more than a de minimis amount would also affect passing new
laws to enforce the laws that are already on the books if that action
would increase the internal revenues. You need a two-thirds vote to
pass that.
Now, if we really are being honest about reducing spending and
limiting spending, the constitutional amendment ought to require a two-
thirds vote not to increase taxes, but a two-thirds vote to increase
spending. Now, that would limit spending. The limitation on taxes only
limits your ability to pay for the spending that you have already
enacted.
Another problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill has the statutory
language involving de minimis. While two-thirds majority vote is
required to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis
amount, the term ``de minimis'' is not defined, so, we can debate
whether you need a two-thirds vote or not.
[[Page 6180]]
Some committee members have suggested that any increase in revenue
less than one-tenth of one percent of total revenues would be de
minimis. But I would remind you that our total revenues are in the
trillions of dollars. One-tenth of one percent of $1 trillion is $1
billion. I believe that most of us would consider $1 billion to be more
than just de minimis.
Mr. Speaker, amending the Constitution is serious business which
should not be taken lightly. This bill presents very difficult
questions that are not even close to being answered. It does nothing to
limit spending; and, therefore, ought to be rejected.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, if the House would read the constitutional amendment,
they would find that the gentleman from Virginia, with all due respect,
is misinterpreting what is in the amendment. The amendment says that a
loophole can be closed by a majority vote if the money that is raised
as a result of closing the loophole is used to provide tax relief for
the American people elsewhere. But where the two-thirds vote comes in
is if the loophole is closed and the money is raised and is used to
finance increased spending.
So what this Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment encourages is
using the money from closed loopholes to provide tax relief for the
American people, rather than financing a spending spree by the Congress
of the United States. I think that that is entirely logical. What the
amendment does is it says if you want to spend the money from the
loophole, it is two-thirds; if you want to give it in tax relief, it is
a majority.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the
floor, and I am not on the Committee on the Judiciary, as these fine
ladies and gentlemen, to discuss the technical aspects of this bill.
What I wanted to do was, Mr. Speaker, back in 1995, when I was sworn
in as a United States Congressman, a friend of mine from my district
brought to me this reprint of a political editorial from 1878. What it
is, Mr. Speaker, the Statue of Liberty is standing with a weight around
her neck, and her head is bent forward, and on the weight it says
``income tax.'' It further states at the bottom, ``the slave of
liberty.''
I believe sincerely that taxation, excessive taxation, makes the
American people slaves to the Federal Government. I think whenever we
can bring protection to the American people we should, and that is
exactly what H.J. Res. 41 does; it empowers the people through their
Representatives here in Washington, D.C.
I believe sincerely that today the American people are paying more
taxes than they have ever paid before. When I look at how too many
times I think those of us in Washington D.C., and I am one of those,
obviously, that many times we forget that the people are the
government.
The power should be with the people. The people should be able to say
to their representatives that you must have a supermajority to pass
taxes on us, and I think this legislation does that.
I compliment the chairman and his committee, because, quite frankly,
because every year for the 7 years I have been in the United States
Congress, whenever we brought this bill to the floor I have asked for 1
or 2 minutes to come to the floor, because, again, we need to give the
power back to the people when we can, and to give the people the
opportunity through the process to say whether they want the Congress
to have a two-thirds majority to pass taxes.
I think again we are doing the right thing, and I compliment the
chairman and each and everyone who has worked on this resolution, and
hope we will pass it shortly.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time to
respond to the chairman's remarks.
Mr. Speaker, if we passed a $1 million corporate loophole tax benefit
that ended up costing us $10 billion because we miscalculated the
impact, we could not close that loophole that passed on a simple
majority vote without a two-thirds vote unless we provided $10 billion
in tax relief somewhere just to close that loophole that we did not
intend to create to begin with.
Mr. Speaker, again, this amendment will do nothing to limit spending;
it just limits our ability to pay for that spending. You create a new
program, simple majority; to pay for it, it takes a two-thirds vote.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the tax limitation
amendment. I come from the great State of Arizona where we have had
similar legislation as the law for the past 10 years. What we did not
do that we should have is cut off the initiative route as we did,
because when we want to raise taxes in Arizona, instead of going to the
legislature, now it is done by initiative, that notwithstanding this
year, for the first year, because there is a lack of revenue. Finally,
this is holding government spending in check. You see the trepidation
on the part of the legislature to actually spend too much, because they
would be forced to come back and raise taxes and realize they cannot do
it because now it would require a two-thirds majority. It is great
legislation.
{time} 1200
Mr. Speaker, I am amused continually when we talk about how easy it
is to cut taxes and how difficult it is to raise taxes, when history
suggests otherwise. Over the past couple of decades, we have had
numerous tax increases and just a couple of significant incidences of
tax relief. Whenever we can do anything to actually put a lid on taxes,
to actually cut taxes and make it more difficult to raise taxes, then
we ought to do it.
For the record, it was mentioned that if we are doing this, then we
also ought to put a limitation on spending by making it more difficult
to spend. I am in favor of that. I would love to offer an amendment to
the amendment which would actually require a two-thirds majority to
increase spending, but this, as it stands, is a good piece of
legislation, and I support it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a senior member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing today is a declaration by
the Republican Party that they recognize that the majority of Americans
cannot be relied upon. One of the previous advocates to this amendment
said the power belongs to the people, but he misstates what this
amendment does. Power now under our Constitution belongs to the
representatives of the majority of the people, taking into account, of
course, the two Senators per State, which is nonmajoritarian, but
within that the majority rules. Well, apparently the Republicans do not
have much confidence in the majority, so they want to change the rules
so that this particular decision cannot be made by a majority.
The gentleman said the power belongs to the people. We used to have a
slogan, ``power to the people.'' Well, this amendment would change that
slogan to ``power to one-third plus one of the people.'' If the
majority of the people, as they are represented in Congress, decide
that they want to improve our ability to do environmental cleanup, or
if people thought that having the Social Security tax base cut off at
$75,000 so that if one makes $30,000 every penny one earns is taxed for
Social Security, but if one makes $300,000 the great majority of one's
income is exempt, we could not do that without two-thirds.
Not only are they declaring a lack of faith in the people, they are
repudiating the legacy of some past Republican presidents. For
instance, President George Bush raised taxes in conjunction with the
Congress, because he thought it was very important for the economy. We
all remember the President's famous slogan, ``Read my lips, no new
taxes.'' Well, any future President I guess would have to say, ``Read
[[Page 6181]]
two-thirds of my lips, no new taxes.'' George Bush asked us to raise
taxes. I do not think he was profligate and irresponsible. I think he
was responding to the particular needs of the particular time.
At this point, no one is advocating tax increases, but different
situations occur at different points.
Ronald Reagan. We have heard a lot about the legacy of Ronald Reagan,
but I was here when Ronald Reagan asked Congress to raise taxes on
several occasions. I did not always vote for the Reagan tax increases.
I thought the Reagan tax increase of 1982, which was to undo some of
the Reagan tax decrease of 1981, was not fairly constituted. I did not
like the Reagan tax increase for Social Security in 1983. But if we
read the history books and if we read the assessments of President
Reagan, one of the things they say is that President Reagan, Senator
Dole, Speaker O'Neill came together to save Social Security and extend
its solvency. They did it in part by reducing benefits in a way that I
did not agree with, but they also did it by raising taxes.
Indeed, some of the tax increases that were imposed under President
Reagan remain in effect. They not only remain in effect, they remain
untouched by the current President's tax reduction proposals. It was in
1983 at the request of Ronald Reagan, with the concurrence of a
Republican Senate and a Democratic House, that taxes were first levied
on part of a Social Security recipient's income. The taxation of part
of one's Social Security benefits for people making $25,000 in
addition, to be recycled into the Social Security system, was part of
President Reagan's attempt to extend the solvency of Social Security.
Now, if the Republican constitutional amendment had been in power, I
do not think President Reagan would have had the votes. I do not think
President Bush would have had the votes.
The point I am making is that despite partisan efforts to make it
look as if this is somehow an effort to prevent feckless decisions to
raise the revenues, it would have, had it been in effect, prevented the
last two Republican presidents from getting legislation through that
they thought was important to protect Social Security and to protect
the economy.
Now, I have noted a tendency on the part of my Republican colleagues
to implicitly acknowledge that the public is not thrilled with some
parts of their agenda, and I understand that. They have a right, I
suppose, when they are campaigning to kind of soft pedal some things;
you should tell them the truth, but you do not always volunteer things.
But changing the Constitution because they believe the public is not
likely to support their position is a totally inappropriate way to go.
I guess we have to explain why this happens, because if one believes
the rhetoric that says it is just the government taking people's money
for no good reason and the people have to be protected from that, one
has to ask the question, why would people let Members of Congress who,
by a majority, would vote to increase the taxes that they pay. The
answer is, as President Reagan knew and President Bush knew and
President Clinton knew, all three of whom asked that taxes be
increased, there are important purposes that the people want that may
require more revenue.
I want to go back to Social Security. The Social Security system now
is financed by taxes that are paid up to 70-some odd thousand dollars
worth of income. Many of us believe that is inequitable. Many of us
believe we ought to have a package in which we reduce the Social
Security bite on some people in the lower end, but increase it for
wealthier people. Maybe we want to have a little gap, but then at
$150,000 or more, start collecting some Social Security tax. Any effort
to do that would, by this amendment, require a two-thirds vote. Power
to one-third plus one of the people. One-third plus one of the people
could block that effort. If we decided that we needed more revenue for
other purposes, it is not there.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me a rational decision for the public to
make in a civilized society that at a time of great wealth they might
want to spend more on environmental cleanup. They might want to do more
for police. They might want to help people with prescription drugs. The
Republicans have said, well, we want a major tax cut, so here is what
we have to do. We have to end the program that allows public housing
authorities to hire police officers to combat drug-related crime. I
understand people who think cutting taxes, particularly for wealthy
people, is more important than fighting drug-related crime in public
housing. They do not live in public housing, they do not relate to the
people in public housing, and in a democracy that is a legitimate view
to put forward. But why do they need two-thirds? Are they not confident
they can win that one on the merits?
We have people who believe we ought to be increasing the amount we
spend on environmental cleanup. Unfortunately, there are people who
disagree. I am prepared to debate that. But if we decide that we have
these important public needs and the current revenues are not enough to
meet them without going into deficit, I do not understand why we should
take two-thirds.
Prescription drugs. We have a proposal from the Republican Party that
says, to get taxes at the level we think desirable, we cannot help any
elderly person needing prescription drugs whose income exceeds $17,000.
I think that is a very grave error. I think making sure that Bill Gates
pays no taxes when he dies, or his heirs do not; once one dies, they do
not pay any taxes, but the notion that Bill Gates' heirs should be able
to inherit billions of dollars, but we cannot afford to help someone
making $20,000 with prescription drugs at the age of 82, I think that
is wrong. But I am prepared to debate that without fixing it. I say
these things because they are directly relevant to this amendment.
This is why the Republicans feel that they have to change the rules.
They understand that there will be times when a majority of the
Americans will say, we would rather have more revenue. By the way,
while the Republicans claim to dislike taxes at certain times, they
come to love them, and that is the other thing I would say to my
Republican friends: do not underestimate your capacity to adapt.
For example, when President Clinton in 1993 asked Congress to raise
the gasoline taxes, there was a great deal of unhappiness on the
Republican side, at least it was expressed and I under the Rules of the
House of course take at face value everything said here, and when
President Clinton remained in office, time and again the Republicans
said, we have to get rid of this gasoline tax increase. Well, we now
have a Republican President and we have a Republican House and we have
a Republican Senate, and we have tax bills coming forward that would
reduce various taxes. Do we know what else we have? The same gasoline
tax increase that went into effect in 1993 unchallenged.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Yesterday I introduced a bill to suspend the Federal gasoline tax to
provide some relief to our motorists and our truck drivers. I would
invite the gentleman from Massachusetts and others who feel that way to
cosponsor this bill.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman is being
consistent. He is not only being consistent, he is being unique,
because while it is encouraging to some, I thought increasing the
gasoline tax was a useful thing to do to help us reduce the deficit in
a socially responsible way, the Committee on the Judiciary does not
have jurisdiction over it. I will say as I read the Republican program
for the year, with $1.6 trillion worth of tax reduction, they could not
find room in there to reduce the gasoline tax. So the Republicans did
not think it was a good idea to raise the gasoline tax in 1993, but now
that they have complete control over both Houses of Congress and the
White House, they are leaving it
[[Page 6182]]
alone. They have decided, apparently, on second thought, that it was
not such a bad idea after all.
Regarding the taxes that people pay on their Social Security
benefits, including those that Ronald Reagan asked us to pass in 1983,
Ronald Reagan said, if one is making $25,000 a year or more, we are
going to tax 50 percent of your Social Security benefits. That is not a
huge amount of money, but that is what Ronald Reagan said. I voted
against that bill. Many of my Republican colleagues who are still here
voted for it; some Democrats voted for it as well. I had heard that
denounced until the Republicans had the power to do something about it,
and that is another one which has grown on them.
This is not a debate as to what the level of taxation ought to be; it
is a debate about democratic procedures. The Senate, as we know, is not
majoritarian. The House is. By Supreme Court decision, the United
States House of Representatives represents population very, very
closely. What the Republicans are saying is this: we cannot trust the
people elected by a majority of the House of Representatives to make
this decision, because we do not think they will get it right.
Therefore, we will change the Constitution to make it a nonmajoritarian
decision as to what level of public expenditure there will be.
Yes, there are two competing sets of needs. There are private needs,
best settled by people having money in their own pocket; there are
public needs, environmental cleanup, public safety, some others which
can only be dealt with if we spend the money together. They are both
needs of the people. Some are best done individually, some done
together. What we have today is an effort to bias the decisionmaking
process, because the Republican Party does not have any confidence in
the people, apparently thinks that Ronald Reagan was wrong on the
several occasions when he asked for tax increases, George Bush was
wrong when he asked for tax increases.
The point is this: no one today, given our economy, no one is pushing
for tax increases. On the other hand, to say that for all time it
should not be a majority decision, but that this decision will have to
be made by an extraordinary majority so that a minority can block the
decision of a majority of the American people, 40 percent can stop 60
percent from going forward, is bad constitutional government and an
unfortunate expression of a lack of confidence in the American people.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts and his very articulate
self has kind of laid forth the Democratic platform on what they would
like the Congress to accomplish during the next 2 years. We are not
dealing with prescription drugs and all of the other issues that the
gentleman from Massachusetts is talking about. We are dealing with the
simple proposition of whether the Constitution should be amended to
make it harder for Congress to raise taxes. That is the proposal that
is before us, and that is the proposal that we are voting upon today.
Now, I would submit that the American people think that it should be
hard to raise taxes, and I would also submit that the American people
historically have not trusted Congress very much when the time comes to
deal with bills that raise taxes. So all this amendment proposes to do
is to force there to be a national consensus on raising taxes, which is
required in a two-thirds vote. It is really pretty simple.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I would say parenthetically I guess the
gentleman has decided to reciprocate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). The time of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has expired.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute,
and I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, apparently the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) wants to reciprocate the lack of confidence the American
people have in Congress by having a congressional expression of lack of
confidence in the majority of the people. But I want to talk about
prescription drugs.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I will reclaim my time then, because
we have a chance to talk about prescription drugs a little bit later on
when the prescription drug bill comes to the floor of the Congress. So
I think we really ought to defer that debate until when it is really
the question that is before us.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, but
let us debate prescription drugs at the time that the bill comes before
us.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is ignoring the fact that with
his amendment that he is putting forward today, and we will cut taxes
this year, I think by more than we should but we will, if we decide
next year that at the level of revenue available for Medicare we cannot
afford a prescription drug program, it will take two-thirds to put one
back. That is the flaw in the gentleman's reasoning.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is really
not true, because if we cut out other wasteful spending in other parts
of the government, we can put more money into prescription drugs, and
it is a matter of priority.
{time} 1215
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, why is the President not
putting adequate money into prescription drugs this year instead of
saying only $17,000 as an income cutoff?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the President
proposes and the Congress disposes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Defense, we have
480,000 bureaucrats that buy and sell. They charge 22 percent to the
military. Should Congress eliminate a lot of that bureaucracy, and
instead of having taxpayers cough up money for more defense, should we
just put more money into it without more reform?
In education, we get as little as 48 cents to the dollar because of
the bureaucracy in education. This morning the Secretary of Education,
Rod Paige, testified. The gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out that the
President's budget only puts in 6 percent increase. Six percent.
Traditionally we have been increasing it by over 12 percent. The
Secretary pointed out that there has been a flatlining; that we put
more money in education, but there has not been any change. Can
Congress work harder, can we do our job to eliminate Federal
bureaucracy and spending or can we afford to give the money back to the
American people? I pick on not just education, I pick on defense and
all government agencies.
Mr. Speaker, environmental cleanup was mentioned. Seventy percent of
Superfund went to trial lawyers. Do we look as a Congress and work with
the States on how to clean up the environment, or do we keep dumping in
money?
Many of my colleagues fought against welfare reform. Sixteen years
was the average. They want to dump more money. We have to raise taxes
to pay for that. Welfare reform put people back to work, and it helped
stimulate the economy.
Capital gains, my colleagues said it was only for the rich. Alan
Greenspan said it helped stimulate the economy. So we do not reduce
taxes? What I am saying is that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle always want to spend more money without reforms.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). Without objection, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr.
[[Page 6183]]
Watt) will control the time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers).
There was no objection.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I really wish we were gathered
here today to engage in serious legislation that confronts some of the
concerns that we have here in this country. As I left my district, I
noticed on the front page of the business section a number of
corporations that are in fact laying off workers. I would imagine that
you will see over the next couple of weeks and months, the necessity of
increasing compensation for those who are now laid off and cannot in
some areas, where there is not the appropriate number of jobs available
to provide for them, they will then stay unemployed. That means that
families will be without their breadwinners and will be without an
income.
Mr. Speaker, we stand here today addressing a situation which has
occurred on an annual basis. I believe it is almost going to get the
kind of standing like Christmas. We will have it every year. This is
the sixth annual year that our colleagues have wasted our time with a
constitutional amendment dealing with a two-thirds supermajority on a
tax increase.
We have listened to my colleagues suggest to you how confining this
kind of procedure would be; but more importantly, how it impacts the
Constitution where our Founding Fathers, as wise as they were,
suggested that a majority reflects the will of the American people.
When we begin to use the supermajority, we begin to get into a
desperate situation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentlewoman from Texas aware
that the Constitution written by the Founding Fathers prohibited
Congress from levying direct taxes on the American people, and it
required an amendment about 100 years ago in order to allow Congress to
even have the power to do what we are talking about?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware of that;
and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, it was a hundred years ago; and we have proceeded under
that legislation, and I believe we have done very well.
The idea now, of course, is to further diminish the responsibilities
of the Members of Congress in the majority vote by again putting over
us the supermajority which again eliminates the opportunity to provide
financing for issues that we are concerned about. The very fact that
this particular amendment has not passed six times in a row suggests
the wisdom of this Congress, both Senate and House. My colleagues know
that this is a wrong-headed way to go.
Mr. Speaker, here we stand again providing this kind of legislation;
and yet the amendment that I had intended to offer, an amendment that
would provide for a supermajority not to reduce benefits in Social
Security and Medicare, has not been accepted, or has been ruled out of
order as it relates to presenting it to the floor.
If it is as important to put a two-thirds supermajority on not
raising taxes, and by the way to my colleagues and friend, that means
that corporations with tax loopholes, that means that they will have a
field day. It means that the assessment by the American people that
this administration and this Congress is more business oriented or more
paying the piper of the corporate interest, it is true. It means that
tax loopholes cannot be closed under this supermajority, because it
means if you are suggesting that you raise the taxes of corporations,
you will have to have a supermajority. Of course that means that you
take away the one vote, one person.
When you talk about Medicare and you talk about Social Security for
people, and you say can we have an amendment to ensure that you have a
supermajority in order not to reduce the benefit, that has not been
accepted.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to my colleagues that we realize that
a supermajority has been imposed on certain aspects of the business of
this House. But I do believe that this idea of a supermajority on
taxation eliminates the very vital opportunity of suggesting that even
though we may have some prosperity, although I have noted there are
layoffs, while we have this prosperity, and the American people may
decide to invest in their national parks and their defense by providing
increased salaries for our men and women in the Armed Forces, to invest
in education, we now stand on the floor of the House to suggest a
supermajority so in fact the people of the United States will not have
the resources to ensure that their will be done.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that it is not necessary to have a
supermajority to railroad the $1.6 trillion tax cut that the President
wants. Why we stand for the seventh time on the floor of the House for
a two-thirds majority, I do not know. It seems that we want to make
this as annual as a Christmas holiday.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.J. Res. 41 and to introduce an
amendment that I believe will improve it.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment is germane. The underlying legislation,
H.J. Res. 41, is an attempt to help the most well to do Americans
through a constitutional amendment that limits the ability of Congress
to raise taxes and cut deficits. It is no secret that this legislation
is designed to disproportionately help the richest people in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment seeks to protect the average person, the
neediest, and our seniors by requiring the same two-thirds
supermajority as the sponsors of H.J. Res. 41 call for. However, my
amendment requires the two-thirds supermajority to cut Social Security
and Medicare which help the rest of us.
H.J. Res. 41 could make it difficult to maintain a balanced budget or
to develop a responsible plan to restore Medicare or Social Security to
long-term solvency. Both of these amendments deal with taxes. Both deal
with what we all know is a zero sum game. My amendment is germane
because if it is okay to help the rich, it is germane to help the poor
and average Americans.
H.J. Res. 41 is a resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America with respect to tax
limitations, that would require any bill, resolution, or other
legislative measure changing the internal revenue laws require for
final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of the
Members of that House voting and present, unless the bill is determined
at the time of adoption, in a reasonable manner prescribed by law, not
to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount.
H.J. Res. 41 also states that for purposes of determining any
increase, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the
lowering of an effective rate of any tax and permits the waiver of such
requirement, for up to 2 years, if there is a declaration of war or if
the United States is engaged in a military conflict which causes an
imminent and serious threat to national security and is so declared by
a joint resolution which becomes law.
Mr. Speaker, by requiring a two-thirds supermajority to adopt certain
legislation, H.J. Res. 41 diminishes the vote of every Member of the
House and Senate, denying the seminal concept of ``one person one
vote.'' This fundamental democratic principle insures that a small
minority may not prevent passage of important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation presents a real danger to future
balanced budgets and Medicare and Social Security. That's why I have
offered an amendment to H.J. Res. 41 that would add a new section to
H.J. Res. 41 requiring the same two-thirds supermajority when cutting
programs that protect Social Security and Medicare. Under H.J. Res. 41,
it would be incredibly difficult obtaining the requisite two-thirds
supermajority required to pass important, fiscally responsible deficit-
reducing packages. And at a time in our history when the Baby Boomers
are now retiring, H.J. Res. 41 could make it more difficult to increase
Medicare premiums for those most able to pay their fair share of the
bill, and could make it difficult balancing both Medicare and Social
Security payroll taxes in the long term.
H.J. Res. 41 would make it nearly impossible to plug tax loopholes
and eliminate corporate tax welfare, or even to increase tax
enforcement against foreign corporations. H.J. Res. 41 would also make
it nearly impossible
[[Page 6184]]
to balance the budget, or develop a responsible plan to restore
Medicare or Social Security to long-term financial solvency.
That's why my amendment would require a supermajority to further
challenge these important social programs that serve a great need in
this country.
Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 41 is the exact same bill that this committee
considered in the 105th Congress and my opposition is unchanged. In
fact, a phrase in the minority's dissenting views in the 105th Congress
stating that ``the Framers of the Constitution wisely rejected the
principle of requiring a supermajority for basic government functions''
still hold true today.
The minority in opposing this tax limitation amendment cited James
Madison who vehemently argued against requiring supermajorities,
stating that under such a requirement, ``the fundamental principle of
free government would be reversed.'' It would be no longer the majority
that would rule. Conversely, the power would be transferred to the
minority because a small minority could block the necessary
supermajority from passing any tax increases. In fact, it is
significant to note that because of population patterns, Senators
representing some 7.3 percent of the population could prevent a bill
from obtaining a two-thirds majority.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled by the concept of divesting a
Member of the full import of his or her vote. As Dean Sameual Thompson,
one of the Nation's leading tax law authorities, observed at a 1997
House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the same proposal: ``The core
problem with this proposed Constitutional amendment is that it would
give special interest groups the upper hand in the tax legislative
process.'' As such, the potential loss to the Treasury Department from
such loopholes is staggering. A Congressional Budget Office study found
that over half of the corporate subsidies the Federal Government
provides are delivered through ``tax expenditures'' that selectively
reduce the tax liability of particular individuals or businesses. Such
expenditures cost the Federal Government $455 billion in fiscal year
1996 alone--triple the deficit at that time.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply dilutes the vote of Members by
requiring a supermajority of them to do something as basic to
government as acquire the revenue to run government. It is a
diminution. It is a disparagement. It is a reduction of the impact, the
import, of one man, one vote.
Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 41 will also make it nearly impossible to
eliminate tax loopholes, thereby locking in the current tax system at
the time of ratification. The core problem with this proposed
constitutional amendment is that it would give special interest groups
the upper hand in the tax legislative process. Once a group of
taxpayers receives either a planned or unplanned tax benefit with a
simple majority vote of both Houses of Congress, the group will then be
able to preserve the tax benefit with just a 34 percent vote of one
House of Congress.
In addition, H.J. Res. 41 would make it inordinately difficult to
make foreign corporations pay their fare share of taxes on income
earned in this country. Congress would even be limited from changing
the law to increase penalties against foreign multinationals that avoid
U.S. taxes by claiming that profits earned in the U.S. were realized in
offshore tax havens. Estimates of the costs of such tax dodges are also
significant. A 1992 Internal Revenue Service study estimated that
foreign corporations cheated on their tax returns to the tune of $30
billion per year.
Another definitional problem arises from the fact that it is unclear
how and when the so-called ``de minimis'' increase is to be measured,
particularly in the context of a $1.5 trillion annual budget. Would we
look at a 1-, 5- or 10-year budget window? What if a bill resulted in
increased revenues in years 1 and 2, but lower revenues thereafter? It
is also unclear when the revenue impact is to be assessed--based on
estimates prior to the bill's effective date, or subsequent
determinations calculated many years out. Further, if a tax bill was
retroactively found to be unconstitutional, the tax refund issues could
present insuperable logistical and budget problems.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment to this legislation which I have offered
here today, takes this legislation in a different direction. It
requires the same two-thirds supermajority as does the underlying bill,
but ensures that we fulfill our promise too.
I hope that my colleagues take seriously the path H.J. Res. 41 would
lead us down were it to be adopted as is, and I urge my colleagues to
support my amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself.
Mr. Speaker, in response to the comment that I made, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) said that since the income tax amendment
was ratified in 1913, we have done very well. I would agree with her
100 percent. We have done too well. We have done too well having an
escalating cascade of taxes on the American people.
What has happened is that we went from the original Constitution that
seemed to serve us very well for 140 years prohibiting direct taxes on
the American people, to having the pendulum swing far too far in the
other direction so that now the Federal tax expressed as a percentage
of GDP is the highest in peacetime history of our country.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment pushes that pendulum back in the middle
by making it harder to raise taxes. I think the American people would
say hooray for that because Congress has been much too eager since 1913
to dip into the pockets of the American taxpayer deeper and deeper.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton).
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a strong supporter of
this constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote to raise
taxes on the American people. Until the last Congress, this was the
Barton tax limitation constitutional amendment. I was very pleased and
willing to let the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) become the original cosponsors in
this Congress.
As has been pointed out, when the Constitution was ratified in the
late 1700s, there was a supermajority required to raise taxes. It was
100 percent because you could not have a Federal income tax. The
Constitution did not allow it. As has been pointed out by the chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary, in 1913 we changed the Constitution
to say that income taxes were acceptable.
The first income tax levied on the American people after that income
tax was passed, about 99 percent of the American people paid no income
tax because you had to have an adjusted income of over $3,000 cash; and
most Americans in the early part of the 20th century did not have
$3,000 cash income. But if you did, if you did, you paid 1 percent; 1
percent of income over $3,000. And if you were super-rich, in other
words if you got up to where you had cash income over, I think it was,
$50,000, you paid an additional 1 percent.
Mr. Speaker, what does the American taxpayer pay today? The income
tax levied on the American people had gone up at one point in time
9,000 percent. We got up to a 90 percent tax bracket. Now how is that
possible? It is possible because it only requires 50 percent plus one
vote in the House and 50 percent plus one vote in the Senate to raise
your income taxes. That has been done repeatedly the last 100 years.
What does this constitutional amendment do? It does not say that you
cannot raise taxes; but it says if you are going to raise taxes, you
need more than a bare majority. You need more than 50 percent plus one;
you need two-thirds.
Now our Founding Fathers knew that there would be times when we
needed to do things that needed to be a superconsensus. To ratify
treaties and to change the Constitution requires a supermajority vote.
What is more important to require a consensus more than a bare majority
than raising income taxes? It is interesting when you look at the
opinion polls around the country, the States that have supermajority
requirements to raise taxes, their taxes are lower. They are lower.
States that do not have it, their taxes are higher.
Mr. Speaker, we have used the States as a laboratory; and we have
proven that it works at the State level. It would work here in
Washington. If you look at interest groups, do you know that the
interest group that most supports requiring a supermajority to raise
taxes, it is not rich, country club Republicans, it is not soccer moms,
it is male, head-of-household union members. Now they tend to vote for
our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, which is fine. Eighty
percent of them support a supermajority requirement to raise income
taxes. That is the highest number of any segment of our country, 80
percent.
[[Page 6185]]
So why is it that we cannot pass this in the House of
Representatives? We want it, but to amend the Constitution you have to
have a two-thirds vote. It is because some people in this body want to
raise taxes. They want to spend more money. We are only going to spend
$2 trillion this year. Let us vote for this tax amendment and send it
to the Senate and get them to pass it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt)
has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) has 29 minutes.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this time.
Mr. Speaker, it was helpful to have the original author of this bill
on the floor to discuss it. In this debate, we have begun to discuss it
with some platitude; that this is a bill about having two-thirds of the
House and the Senate decide before we raise taxes.
{time} 1230
Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that. See, it says that a
bill, a resolution or a legislative measure changing the internal
revenue laws shall require for final adoption in each House the
concurrence of two-thirds of all Members of that House voting and
present unless that bill, resolution, or other legislative measure is
determined at the time of adoption in a reasonable manner prescribed by
law not to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis
amount.
Well, I guess, then, what we have got to have is a certain amount of
litigation, I suppose, about what constitutes a de minimis amount. I
think that is really what we need. We need a process around here that
makes it even more difficult for us to come to a consensus about how it
is that we are going to tax and spend the money that we have to do here
each year.
I think it is going to be actually an extraordinary constitutional
battle if we pass a constitutional amendment that says it has to be
decided by the courts how much a de minimis amount is that we are
allowed to raise taxes in order to qualify under this constitutional
amendment. Because let us consider what the scenarios will be.
When we pass a budget, there will be a determination, well, it only
raises taxes a de minimis amount. Then every interest group under the
sun that has a problem with that budget will then have a standing to go
into court and say, well, that is not a de minimis amount, it is
actually more. Or some other group will come in and say, well, no, no,
no, that is less than a de minimis amount, so you should be permitted
to do it. We will have nothing but litigation over that point.
Secondly, I think it is interesting to note in all of this discussion
about whether or not we should have a higher burden to raise taxes, why
is it no one is proposing that we have a higher burden to spend the
money. To be intellectually honest about this debate, one should say,
well, we should have two-thirds to spend any dollar of the money coming
in, because both of those sides make the same argument that the
previous gentleman made, that we have been out of control spending,
taxing and building and everything else. If we are truly going to be
consistent and want to be sure that we have it right, it should be a
two-thirds majority to increase spending as well.
So if one wants to make a philosophical point here, I guess one
could. One does not like taxes or one likes taxes. From the point of
governance, this thing is a disaster. That is why no one is taking it
seriously perhaps outside those of us who get paid to debate these
things. It is really and truly a cumbersome way to do things.
I find it fascinating that my colleagues who rail against the overly
litigious way that often our society operates should now open the door
to a whole new area of constitutional law which is going to be defining
de minimis. I think that would indeed be folly.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, very plainly, on page 3, lines 4 and 5 of the
constitutional amendment, it says that Congress defines by law what a
de minimis amount is. So this does not require litigation.
But having said that, listening to the argument of the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Weiner) would have persuaded the Members of the first
Congress and the Congress that sat in 1863 to reject the 1st and 14th
amendments to the United States Constitution. Because if one looks at
the Constitution annotated, those amendments have been the subject of
countless court decisions by the Supreme Court as well as the appeals
courts and the district courts because they were not, quote, properly
drafted, and because they would have, quote, encouraged litigation.
I do not think, had the gentleman from New York been in the first
Congress or in the Civil War Congress he would have voted against the
1st amendment and the 14th amendment. But the argument that he used
which does not hold water with this amendment is that this amendment
does not encourage litigation because it says that Congress defines by
law what a de minimis amount is.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, here is the difference. This is not a question about
whether or not we are interpreting whether someone's speech is
abridged. This is taking an inherent constitutional congressional
obligation which is deciding these questions and having litigation over
what a specific term of art means.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall) to demonstrate the bipartisan support this
amendment has.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res.
41, the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment. I have been a
cosponsor of this legislation since we first started it back in 1995. I
have appeared before in front of post offices on April 15 and talked to
distraught taxpayers on that particular day. I will get the same answer
from all of them.
I am going to continue to support this as long as it takes to provide
a constitutional protection against tax increases for hard-working
Americans.
It would have a chance. This bill is going to pass sooner or later. I
am not sure when it is going to pass, but it will pass. I will tell my
colleagues when it could pass. It could pass when every Member of
Congress would take the time to walk out into the streets of their own
district and ask this simple question: Would you like to make it more
difficult for Congress to raise taxes? If my colleagues do not get a
yes answer from that 9 out of 10, then it will be different to the
various areas that I have made that same inquiry.
The tax increases that have been enacted since I have been in
Congress have passed by narrow margins, once I think by a single vote.
Legislation that hits everybody's pocketbook ought to require more than
a simple majority of passage. A two-thirds vote requirement would give
the taxpayers the protection they need and they are entitled to.
The amendment would do more than just provide tax protection. It will
help ensure that our efforts to maintain a balanced budget will focus
on eliminating wasteful and unnecessary programs and achieving cost
savings wherever we can, not raising taxes as a means of achieving this
goal.
Now, we are blessed with the projected budget surpluses over the next
few years. I do not know if it will last for 10 years. That is the
length of our budget. But I do not think anything this Congress can do
can screw it up in less than 3 or 4 or 5 years. So I think we have got
some real good years directly in front of us.
President Bush and the Congress have pledged to return a portion of
that surplus to the American citizens this year in the form of tax
relief, and Congress is working out the details on that. However,
should the economic environment change and the surplus begin to
dwindle, our first line of defense should not be to breach our
[[Page 6186]]
agreement with Americans by not lowering their taxes. Any serious
economic situation that might call for increased taxes has to be
addressed with the cooperation and understanding of all Americans and
with more than a simple majority.
If we ever have a balanced budget amendment, and I think there will
be a time when we will pass a balanced budget amendment, take two-
thirds to pass that amendment, but they could comply with it by simply
raising taxes with a majority vote. Now, that does not look right to
me.
I think that a lot of States have already moved forward on this
initiative and have enacted tax limitation measures of their own.
Congress ought to recognize their efforts and give the States and the
American citizens the opportunity to decide for themselves on this
amendment.
I urge my colleagues to join in the passage of this legislation in
the 107th Congress.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify one point. I did not have the
opportunity previously in response to the chairman. Unlike the 1st and
14th amendment, when one imagines the 1st and 14th amendments saying
thou shall not abridge speech except to a de minimis amount or everyone
has equal protection under the law except to a de minimis amount, one
would never find that language in the Constitution of the United States
because that is not the way constitutions are written, and thank
goodness this one will never be part of it.
I mean, the fact of the matter is, as litigious as a society as we
have, can anyone recall any time in history that there was a budget
resolution that was challenged on constitutional grounds around here? I
do not think I have ever seen that. Has there ever been an opportunity
where an increase in taxes was challenged on constitutional grounds?
Frankly put, we are going to have, any time we have any change to the
IRS budget, for example, if we have an increase in the number of people
that the IRS puts on in their ability to enforce the different laws
even, if it might increase the amount of tax collection, we are going
to have a lawsuit.
This notion that we are somehow are not going to have constitutional
conflicts, that we do not have constitutional conflicts in the 1st and
14th amendment, so therefore we should not have done it is absurd. This
is not language that goes into the Constitution, because it opens
ourselves up to all kinds of litigation.
But a second point is also important. The Framers of the Constitution
envisioned this body, Congress, having the ability to make certain
decisions about how monies are expended, about how taxes are raised,
lowered, either. Do we really want to turn that over to the courts? Is
that a desirable outcome to say, well, you think it is de minimis, fine
by us. We do not want to be in that circumstance. I am quite certain
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary does not
want to be in that position either.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the Framers of the Constitution have used terms of art
like due process of law and equal protection under the law and the
courts have interpreted it. If the argument of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Weiner) is that we should draft constitutional amendments so
tightly that the courts do not interpret it, then I think we probably
would have to rewrite the Constitution right from article I, section 1.
We do not want to do that. But we do want to give Congress the
authority to determine what de minimis is.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary for yielding me this time.
The temptation is here, Mr. Speaker, to directly address the curious
and clever arguments. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), for
example, he seems to be suggesting that we truncate the role of the
judiciary in our separate and co-equal branches from our constitutional
Republic.
He also seems to set up an interesting reinterpretation of what our
Founders meant in setting up this Constitution. Because, Mr. Speaker,
if it was so desirable to have direct taxation of personal income, why
did not our Founders include that in the original document called the
Constitution or in the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights.
They understood the powers that would be abridged,the rights of
citizens that would be abridged.
Ultimately, it came through the 16th amendment which required a
supermajority for ratification. So the balance we strike today in
adopting this constitutional amendment is to strike a balance to say,
if a supermajority was required for the amendment process, there should
be a supermajority required for raising taxes.
Now, under the realm of I have heard everything, I think it was
suggested earlier we have a supermajority for spending. Let us explore
that. But today let us vote yes on this amendment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests
for time and one final speaker. So if the gentleman from Wisconsin is
ready to close, then I will proceed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the gentleman from North
Carolina to recognize his final speaker, and then we can wrap this up.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is always interesting at this time of the
year. Every year, for the last 6 years, around April 15, this same or
some version of this proposed constitutional amendment has come to the
floor of the House, not as a serious legislative initiative, because I
think it has always been acknowledged that there is not sufficient
support for such a constitutional amendment. Instead, it comes to the
floor as a political vehicle to dramatize and have a discussion about
whether taxes are too high or whether the expenditures are out of
control.
We have a political discussion in the context of a proposed
constitutional amendment.
{time} 1245
I want to submit to my colleagues, however, that this is not a
discussion about whether taxes are too high or not. If you ask probably
10 out of 10 people on the street whether taxes are too high, all 10 of
them will tell you taxes are too high. It is not a discussion about
whether we spend too much money. I am sure there are people who will
have varying opinions about whether the Federal Government spends too
much money. My experience has been that they typically vary based on
whether the money is being spent for the benefit of the individual who
is taking a position or whether it is being spent for the benefit of
somebody else. If money is being spent for your benefit, then most
likely you are going to support that expenditure, and if it is not
being spent for something that you believe is beneficial to yourself or
to the country, then you are going to oppose that. So this is not a
debate about whether we spend too much either.
I think it is a debate about democratic rule and democracy and
majority rule, because there are only two instances in our Constitution
where a supermajority such as this is required. That is to declare war,
which we seldom use because the Presidents have decided that you do not
even need a supermajority to do that and that is not a good idea, so
there has been this constant struggle between the executive branch and
the legislative branch even in that area. And the other is to amend the
Constitution, which brings me to this point. I think our Founding
Fathers recognized that there needs to be something special to require
a two-thirds majority, because the idea of majority rule was almost
synonymous with the concept of democracy and they did not want to do
anything that was contrary to that principle.
[[Page 6187]]
Now, my colleagues who continue to profess to me that they are
conservatives seem to have forgotten that there is something
conservative about the concept of majority rule. They seem to have
forgotten that there is something conservative about maintaining the
integrity of our Constitution.
In 1994, when my Republican colleagues took over the majority in the
House in the 104th Congress, we had a total of 118 proposed
constitutional amendments. In the next term of Congress under their
control, we had a total of 86 proposed constitutional amendments. In
the last term of Congress, we had a total of 52 proposed constitutional
amendments. Now, these are the people who came in here telling me that
they believed in some conservative philosophy. These are the people who
are now telling me that somehow or another they have a better idea
about this than the historical founders have had. I am a little
confused by this. There is something else going on here.
I think this is about democracy. I think this is about democracy, and
I think it is about my ability to represent the constituents who have
sent me here on an equal footing with everybody else in this body. It
is not about winning and losing a vote. It is about every individual in
this country having the right to have an equal voice in the government.
That is why we redistrict and do a census and based on that census
redistrict the whole country every 10 years, to go out of our way to
provide every American an equal voice in our government. And when we
set up a system in our Constitution that on one subject, such as taxes
or spending or whatever else interrupts that balance, requires some
supermajority, then basically what we are saying is we are devaluing
the representation of some Members of this body, and we are overvaluing
the representation of other people.
Now, I am not going to argue with the notion of whether taxes are too
high, but I do not think that is what this debate is about. If you go
out on the street and you ask 10 people whether they believe that a
basic tenet of democracy is majority rule, I bet you 10 out of 10 of
them will tell you they believe in majority rule and they believe in
the democracy that we have put in place. That is what this debate is
about, my colleagues. That is what this debate is about, whether I am
going to give you more power in the government to make this decision or
whether I am going to have an equal place on behalf of the constituents
who sent me here to cast a vote that has equal value to yours.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. This amendment is very simple. It
makes it harder for Congress to raise taxes. It requires Congress to
put fiscal discipline on itself so that if there are loopholes closed,
the tax relief would be given to the American people rather than being
spent on some type of proposal that maybe the American people would not
approve of.
The original Constitution written by James Madison prohibited direct
taxes except ``in proportion to the census, or enumeration hereinbefore
directed to be taken.''
When the Congress attempted to pass an income tax in the late 1890s,
the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. On February 13, 1913,
the 16th amendment was ratified by the several States and became a part
of our Nation's Constitution which specifically gave the Congress the
power to lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived
without apportionment among the several States and without regard to
any census or enumeration. Since that time, boy, have those income
taxes taken off. With the constitutional amendment ratified in 1913,
the heavy hand of the Congress and of the Federal Government has dipped
deeper and deeper into the pockets of the people of the United States
of America, so that today Federal income taxes as expressed as a
percentage of gross domestic product are higher than at any time in the
peacetime history of our country, including during World War II in many
of the years.
So I guess the question is really simple. Given the track record of
Congress since 1913, do we want to continue making it easy for Congress
to raise taxes? Or do we want to force Congress to cut spending, to
have better priorities, and then to attempt to achieve a national
consensus to raise taxes as a last resort? Because a two-thirds vote
does require a national consensus to be formed.
I would hope that the Members of the House would approve this
constitutional amendment and send it to the other body, because it will
send a message that this Congress is serious about making it tough for
future Congresses to raise taxes and to force them to set priorities in
spending the public's money, not the Congress' money but the public's
money.
I ask for an aye vote.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, here it comes again.
I was a newly-elected Member of Congress the last time we debated
this proposed constitutional amendment--but I was told that the House
had already considered it more than once.
So, it was no surprise that the debate about it sounded very
rehearsed. I got the impression--and it has only been strengthened
today--that many Members have heard all the arguments before. And I am
pretty sure the debate will not change many minds about the proposal.
But, as I said last time, this resolution strikes me as one of the
oddest pieces of legislation that I've encountered--and I think it's
one of the worst.
For one thing, while I'm not a lawyer it seems clear to me that the
language of the proposal is an invitation to litigation--in other
words, to getting the courts involved even further in the law-making
process.
To say that Congress can define when a constitutional requirement
would apply, provided that the Congressional decision is
``reasonable,'' is to ask for lawsuits challenging whatever definition
might be adopted.
Aren't there enough lawsuits already over the tax laws? Do we need to
invite more?
But more important, I must oppose this proposal because it moves away
from the basic principle of democracy--majority rule.
If this were part of the Constitution, there would be another
category of bills that would require a two-thirds vote of both the
House and the Senate.
That's bad enough as it applies here in the House, but consider what
that means in the Senate. There, if any 34 Senators are opposed to
something that takes a two-thirds vote, it cannot be passed. And, of
course, each state has the same representation regardless of
population.
Consider what that means if the Senators in opposition are those from
the 17 States with the fewest residents.
Looking at the results of last year's census, the total population of
the 17 least-populous states is about 21 million people.
That's a respectable number, but remember that the population of the
country is more than 280 million.
So, what this resolution would do would be to give Senators
representing about 7 per cent of the American people the power to block
some kinds of legislation--even if that legislation has sweeping
support in the rest of the country, and even if it had passed the House
by an overwhelming margin.
Right now, that kind of supermajority is needed under the
Constitution to ratify treaties, propose constitutional amendments, and
to do a few other things.
But this resolution does not deal with things of that kind. It deals
only with certain tax bills--bills that under the Constitution have to
originate here, in the House. Those are the bills that would be covered
by this increase in the power of Senators who could represent such a
very small minority of the American people.
Why would we want to do that? Are the proponents of this
constitutional amendment so afraid of majority rule? Why else would
they be so eager to reduce the stature of this body, the House of
Representatives, as compared with our colleagues in the Senate?
Remember, that's what this is all about--``internal revenue,''
however that term might be defined by Congress or by the courts. When
Congress debates taxes, it is deciding what funds are to be raised
under Congress's Constitutional authority to ``pay the debts and
provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United
States.'' Those are serious and important decisions, to be sure, but
what is wrong with continuing to have them made under the principle of
majority rule--
[[Page 6188]]
meaning by the members of Congress who represent the majority of the
American people?
So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this proposed change in the
Constitution. Our country has gotten along well without it for two
centuries. It is not needed. I would not solve any problem--in fact, it
probably would create new ones--and it would weaken the basic principle
of democratic government, majority rule. It should not be approved.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, this bill will hamstring Congress in an
unprecedented manner.
Requiring a two-thirds majority essentially renders Congress unable
to increase revenues, as demonstrated by the five major deficit
reduction measures enacted between 1982 and 1993. None of these bills
passed by a two-thirds majority, yet a majority of this representative
body found them necessary to reduce the federal debt and balance the
federal budget.
This bill will hurt federal programs when the baby boom generation
begins to retire. This could lead to steep reductions in Medicare and
Social Security benefits, not to mention other needed federal programs.
Congress needs to impose balance in its budgets but this would be
made impossible by requiring a two-thirds majority. Everybody likes the
benefits that the federal government provides but nobody likes to pay
for them. So it's always easy for a Member of Congress to reduce taxes,
yet very difficult to increase taxes--even under a bill that requires a
simple majority vote.
A two-thirds majority would be required of any bill seeking to raise
federal tax revenues. This includes taxes on corporations that find
loopholes to lower their effective tax rates. This also includes
businesses that we find pollute the environment. Just last year, the
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that forty-one of
Fortune's top 250 U.S. companies paid less than zero in federal income
taxes at some point between 1996 and 1998. This means that rather than
paying the $9 billion in federal income tax, as required by the 35
percent statutory corporate tax rate, these companies generated so many
excess tax breaks that they received rebate checks from the U.S.
Treasury totaling $3.2 billion. One astute University of Miami Law
School professor accurately depicted today's bill as the ``Tax Loophole
Preservation Amendment to the Constitution.''
The legislation before us today would mean that corporate welfare
could continue to flourish at the expense of American seniors who risk
decreased Social Security and Medicare benefits with passage of this
devastating bill. This is too big a gift to give to corporate America
when we need more money for our children's education, and we need a
Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors. I urge my
colleagues to allow Congress to continue its prescribed work in
devising and enacting an annual budget that includes increasing
revenues in the same manner as it decreases revenues--by a simple
majority vote.
I urge a ``not'' vote on H.J. Res. 41.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wholeheartedly
support House Joint Resolution 41, the Tax Limitation Constitutional
Amendment of 2001. I am happy to be an original co-sponsor of this
legislation and hope that one day we can see this safeguard in place in
order to protect the wallets and pocketbooks of American taxpayers.
The biggest things in life are usually the hardest things to
accomplish. The same is true with law and government. Going to war.
Impeaching a president. Overriding a veto. So, too, should raising
taxes. It should be difficult to raise taxes. Our system of checks and
balances can look out for the average taxpayer if the tax limitation
amendment were indeed the law of the land.
Over one third of the population of this nation lives in states with
tax limitation amendments.
President Clinton's tax hike in 1993--the largest tax increase in
American history--would have died a miserable death if the tax
limitation amendment existed back then.
If we really need to raise taxes, if we really need to generate more
revenue than we are already collecting, then two-thirds of Congress
will do the will of the people. If there is a war, there is an
exception. But raising taxes ought to be the very last resort taken in
order to solve a fiscal problem.
We need to make it harder for Congress to raise taxes. We need to
pass the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint
Resolution 41. This joint resolution requires a two-thirds vote in both
the House and Senate for any bill that changes the internal revenue
laws by more than a de minimis amount. The resolution also allows
Congress to waive the supermajority requirement to pass a tax increase
(1) during a period of declared war between the U.S. and another
country, or (2) when Congress and the president enact a resolution
stating that the U.S. is engaged in a military conflict which threatens
national security. Tax legislation enacted under this waiver can be in
force for no longer than two years after its enactment.
Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 41 provides a simple mechanism to curb
wasteful and abusive government spending by restraining the
government's unquenchable appetite for taking the American people's
money. The more the government has, the more it spends. The more it
spends, the more it needs. The Tax Limitation Amendment will ensure
that when the government needs money, it will not simply look to the
American people to foot the bill.
A Constitutional amendment is the only way we can assure the American
people that Congress will only take from their pocketbooks that which
is truly needed. This Constitutional amendment will force Congress to
focus on options other than raising taxes to manage the Federal budget.
It will also force Congress to carefully consider how best to use
current resources before demanding that taxpayers dig deeper into their
hard-earned wages to pay for increased Federal spending.
Furthermore, if Congress has less to spend on programs, it will be
forced to act responsibly and choose what is truly important to the
American people, and it will be forced to make sure government programs
are run as effectively and efficiently as possible. Simply put, the
harder it is for Congress to tax the American people, the harder it
will be for Congress to spend their money.
Mr. Speaker, Once and for all, it is time for Washington to get off
the American people's backs and out of their pockets.
I thank my colleague, Mr. Sessions, and I urge my colleagues to
support House Joint Resolution 41.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 41, the
Tax Limitation Amendment to the United States Constitution. This
legislation will protect the American people from runaway government
spending and keep Uncle Sam out of America's pocketbook.
This Amendment demonstrates the respect this Congress has for the
states and taxpayers of the United States. Today, the United States
taxpayer faces the highest tax burden ever. I am pleased to have joined
a bi-partisan majority in passing President Bush's tax relief package a
few weeks ago. But the measure we take up today in the House is a
longer-term solution to keep our taxes in check. No longer will a
determined, razor-thin majority be able to force through tax increases
against the will of the people. In 1993 this country was subjected to
massive tax increases that passed each House by a single vote.
I believe that if Washington, D.C. really thinks a tax increase is
necessary, we should be able to convince the representatives of \2/3\
of the states. We require a \2/3\ vote of Congress to change the
constitution, we require a \2/3\ vote to overturn the President's veto,
we require \2/3\ votes for many important votes. Shouldn't we recognize
that to working Americans, how much Washington takes away is the most
important issue of all? I am proud to vote for this amendment, and I
will recommend its passage to the legislature of my home state of
Idaho.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the constitutional amendment before
us because it is flawed and fundamentally anti-democratic. As the
ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction over
constitutional amendments, I also want to register my strong objection
to the manner in which the majority has once again disregarded regular
order and proceeded without any hearings or subcommittee consideration.
I would hope that our fundamental governmental document would merit
more respect and care.
H.J. Res. 41 disregards the constitutional principle of majority
rule, requiring instead, a two-thirds ``super majority'' vote to raise
taxes. The only exceptions to the super majority requirement are: bills
that do not increase taxes by more than a ``de minimis amount''; when a
declaration of war is in effect; or when the United States is engaged
in a ``serious military conflict'' that causes an ``imminent and
serious threat to national security.''
James Madison, in The Federalist Papers No. 58, warned against such
super majorities, stating that, under such a requirement, ``the
fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be
no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred
to the minority.'' For example, based on data from a 1996 U.S. Census
report, Senators representing only 7.3% of the U.S. population could
prevent a tax bill from obtaining the two-thirds super majority
required to pass. And the bill would require a far larger vote count to
raise taxes than to lower taxes.
[[Page 6189]]
This ``one way ratchet'' mechanism dilutes a member's vote on tax
bills that are central and fundamental to the workings of our
government. Although the sponsors point out that it is not
unprecedented to provide in the Constitution for a two-thirds vote for
certain significant actions, such as overriding a presidential veto or
congressional impeachments, in the 104th Congress, the then Chairman of
this Committee stated ``I am troubled by the concept of divesting a
Member of the full import of his or her vote. You are diluting the vote
of Members by requiring a supermajority . . . it is a diminution. It is
a disparagement. It is a reduction of the impact, the import, of one
man, one vote.''
H.J. Res. 41 is designed to benefit the wealthy and powerful at the
expense of the average American family and the poor. This
constitutional amendment makes it difficult to close unfair tax
loopholes that benefit the powerful corporations and wealthiest
Americans, requiring a two-thirds supermajority to do so. For example,
the amendment makes it difficult to curb ``corporate welfare'' and cut
unproductive tax expenditures that grant subsidies to powerful special
interests. Yet, according to a recent editorial in the Washington Post,
``when the baby boomers begin to retire . . . the country will be in an
era of fiscal strain. To avoid destructive deficits, there will have to
be tax increases and/or spending cuts. By making it harder to increase
taxes, this amendment would compound the pressure on the major spending
programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the rest.'' This is
wrong, Mr. Speaker; and I think that we ought not to allow it.
This amendment would also endanger important excise taxes that fund
public safety and environmental programs whose extension would be
subject to a supermajority vote. Many such excise taxes are dedicated
to purposes such as transportation trust funds, Superfund, compensation
for health damages, taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and pensions, as well as
a variety of environmental taxes.
The amendment is also vague and runs the risk of transferring
authority from the Congress to the courts. For example, the amendment
fails to define the term ``internal revenue laws'' to which super
majority votes would apply, and also fails to define the term ``de
minimis'' to which super majorities do not apply. These vagaries would
empower the courts to divine the congressional intent on tax issues
that are not the province of the courts, and would bring the courts
into fundamental policy disputes that are strictly the province of the
Congress.
Finally, the majority has recognized just how unworkable a
supermajority requirement can be. On at least six separate occasions
waived its own House rules requiring such super majorities to increase
taxes where it suits their needs. For example, during consideration of
the Contract with America Tax Relief Act in 1995 the majority waived
the currently necessary three-fifths majority rule needed to raise
taxes. This is wrong.
This legislation would end the ability of the American people, acting
through their representatives in Congress, to decide how they want to
raise and spend their own money. The democratic principle of one
person, one vote is before us today. I believe that we must protect it
for this generation, and for generations to come.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in principled opposition
to House Joint Resolution 41, the so-called ``tax limitation''
constitutional amendment. Certainly it would be more politically
expedient to simply ``go along'' and vote in support of a
constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds approval by Congress for
any tax increases. However, as a matter of principle and conscience,
this Member cannot do that.
As this Member stated when a similar amendment was considered by the
House in the past, there is a great burden of proof to be borne for any
deviations from the basic principle of our democracy--the principle of
majority rule. Unfortunately, this Member does not believe the proposed
amendment to the U.S. Constitution is consistent or complementary to
this important principle.
There should be no question of this member's continued and
enthusiastic support for a balanced budget and a constitutional
amendment requiring such a balanced budget. In my judgment, tax
increases should not be employed to achieve a balanced budget; balanced
budgets should be achieved by economic growth and, as appropriate, tax
cuts. That is why this Member in the past has supported the inclusion
of a supermajority requirement for tax increases in the Rules of the
House. However, to go beyond that and amend the Constitution is, in
this Member's opinion, inappropriate and, therefore, the reason why
this Member will vote against House Joint Resolution 41.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). Under House Resolution 118, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, if printed in the
Congressional Record and if offered by the minority leader or his
designee, would be in order at this point. The Chair is aware of no
qualifying amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 118, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. 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 232,
nays 189, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 87]
YEAS--232
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
[[Page 6190]]
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--11
Capps
Cooksey
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
McHugh
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Roybal-Allard
Smith (TX)
Vitter
Watts (OK)
{time} 1322
Messrs. FORD of Tennessee, CUMMINGS, TURNER, ACKERMAN, and THOMAS
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. PORTMAN, BARTLETT of Maryland, and McKEON changed their vote
from ``nay'' to yea.''
So, two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the joint
resolution was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and
missed the vote on final passage of H.J. Res. 41, the Tax Limitation
Constitutional Amendment (recorded vote No. 87). If I had not been
detained, I would have voted ``aye'' on this important bill.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2001, and under a previous order of the House, the
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
A NEW CHINA POLICY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, President Bush deserves much credit for the
handling of the spy plane crisis. However, he has received significant
criticism from some of his own political supporters for saying he was
very sorry for the incident. This seems a very small price to pay for
the safe return of 24 American military personnel.
Trade with China, though, should be credited with helping to resolve
this crisis. President Bush in the diplomatic handling of this event
avoided overly strong language and military threats which would have
done nothing to save the lives of these 24 Americans.
This confrontation, however, provides an excellent opportunity for us
to reevaluate our policy toward China and other nations. Although trade
with China for economic reasons encourages both America and China to
work for a resolution of the spy plane crisis, our trading status with
China should be reconsidered.
Mr. Speaker, what today is called ``free trade'' is not exactly that.
Although we engage in trade with China, it is subsidized to the tune of
many billions of dollars through the Export-Import Bank, the most of
any country in the world.
We also have been careless over the last several years in allowing
our military secrets to find their way into the hands of the Chinese
government. At the same time we subsidize trade with China, including
sensitive military technology, we also build up the Taiwanese military,
while continuing to patrol the Chinese border with our spy planes. It
is a risky, inconsistent policy.
The question we must ask ourselves is how would we react if we had
Chinese airplanes flying up and down our coast and occupying the air
space of the Gulf of Mexico? We must realize that China is a long way
from the U.S. and is not capable nor is showing any signs of launching
an attack on any sovereign territory of the United States. Throughout
all of China's history, she has never pursued military adventurism far
from her own borders. That is something that we cannot say about our
own policy. China traditionally has only fought for secure borders,
predominantly with India, Russia, Japan, and in Korea against the
United States, and that was only when our troops approached the Yalu
River.
It should not go unnoticed that there was no vocal support from any
of our allies for our spy missions along the Chinese coast. None of our
allies bothered to condemn the action of the Chinese military aircraft,
although it technically was cause of the accident.
Do not forget that when a Russian aircraft landed in Japan in 1976,
it was only after many months we returned the plane to Russia, in
crates.
Although there is no doubt that we technically have legal grounds for
making these flights, the question really is whether or not it is wise
to do so or necessary for our national security. Actually, a strong
case can be made that our national security is more threatened by our
patrolling the Chinese coast than if we avoided such flights
altogether.
After a half century, it is time to reassess the need for such
flights. Satellite technology today gives us the ability to watch and
to listen to almost everyone on Earth. If there is a precise need for
this type of surveillance for the benefit of Taiwan, then the Taiwanese
ought to be involved in this activity, not American military personnel.
{time} 1330
We should not feel so insecure that we need to threaten and
intimidate other countries in order to achieve some vague psychological
reassurance that we are still the top military power in the world. This
is unnecessary and may well represent a weakness rather than a
strength.
The Taiwanese Relations Act essentially promises that we will defend
Taiwan at all costs and should be reevaluated. Morally and
constitutionally a treaty cannot be used to commit us to war at some
future date. One generation cannot declare war for another. Making an
open-ended commitment to go to war, promising troops, money and weapons
is not permitted by the Constitution.
It is clear that war can be declared only by a Congress currently in
office. Declaring war cannot be circumvented by a treaty or agreement
committing us towards some future date. If a previous treaty can commit
future generations to war, the House of Representatives, the body
closest to the people, would never have a say in the most important
issue of declaring war.
We must continue to believe and be confident that trading with China
is beneficial to America. Trade between Taiwan and China already exists
and should be encouraged. It is a fact that trade did help to resolve
this current conflict without a military confrontation.
Concern about our negative trade balance with the Chinese is
irrelevant. Balance of payments are always in balance. For every dollar
we spend in China, those dollars must come back to America. Maybe not
buying American goods as some would like, but they do come back as they
serve to finance our current account deficit.
Free trade, it should be argued, is beneficial even when done
unilaterally, providing a benefit to our consumers. But we should take
this opportunity to point out clearly and forcefully the
[[Page 6191]]
foolishness of providing subsidies to the Chinese through such vehicles
as the Export-Import Bank. We should be adamantly opposed to sending
military technology to such a nation or to any nation, for that matter.
It is interesting to note that recent reports reveal that missiles
coming from Israel and financed by American foreign aid were seen on
the fighter plane that caused the collision. It should be equally clear
that arming the enemies of our trading partners does not make a whole
lot of sense either. For American taxpayers to continue to finance the
weaponry of Taiwan and to maintain an open commitment to send troops if
the border dispute between Taiwan and China erupts into violence is
foolhardy and risky.
Don't forget that President Eisenhower once warned that there always
seems to be a need for a ``monster to slay'' in order to keep the
military industries busy and profitable. To continue the weapons
buildup, something we are always engaged in around the world, requires
excuses for such expenditures--some of these are planned, some
contrived, and some accidental.
When we follow only a military approach without trading in our
dealings with foreign nations, and in particular with China, we end up
at war, such as we did in the Korean War. Today, we are following a
policy where we have less military confrontation with the Chinese and
more trade, so relations are much better. A crisis like we have just
gone through is more likely to be peacefully resolved to the benefit of
both sides. But what we need is even less military involvement, with no
military technology going to China and no military weapons going to
Taiwan. We have a precise interest in increasing true free trade; that
is, trade that is not subsidized nor managed by some world government
organization like the WTO. Maintaining peace would then be much easier.
We cannot deny that China still has many internal moral, economic and
political problems that should be resolved. But so do we. Their
internal problems are their own. We cannot impose our views on them in
dealing with these issues, but we should be confident enough that
engaging in free trade with them and setting a good example are the
best ways for us to influence them in coming to grips with their
problems. We have enough of our own imperfections in this country in
dealing with civil liberties, and we ought not to pretend that we are
saintly enough to impose our will on others in dealing with their
problems. Needless to say we don't have the legal authority to do so
either.
During the Cuban missile crisis a resolution was achieved under very
dangerous circumstances. Quietly, President Kennedy had agreed to
remove the missiles from Turkey that we pointed at the Soviets, making
the point that American missiles on the Soviet borders was not unlike
the Soviets missiles on the American borders. A few months later,
quietly, the United States removed these missiles, and no one suffered.
The Cold War was eventually won by the United States, but our national
security was not threatened by the removal of those missiles. It could
be argued that the fact that our missiles were in Turkey and pointed at
the Soviets was more of a threat to our national security because that
motivated the Soviets to put their missiles in Cuba. It would do no
harm to our national security for us to quietly, in time, stop the
potentially dangerous and unnecessary spy missions that we have pursued
for over 50 years along the Chinese border.
James Bamford recently wrote in The New York Times of an episode that
occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower was president. On a similar spy
mission off the Chinese coast the Chinese Air Force shot down one of
our planes, killing 16 American crewmen. In commenting on the incident
President Eisenhower said, ``We seem to be conducting something that we
cannot control very well. If planes were flying 20 to 50 miles from our
shores we would be very likely to shoot them down if they came in
closer, whether through error or not.''
We have been pursuing these missions near China for over 50 years.
It's time to reconsider the wisdom and the necessity of such missions,
especially since we are now engaged in trade with this nation.
Bellicose and jingoistic demands for retaliation and retribution are
dangerous, and indeed are a greater threat to our national security
than relying on satellite technology for gathering the information that
we might need. A policy of peaceful, non-subsidized trade with China
would go a long way to promoting friendly and secure relations with the
Chinese people. By not building up the military arsenal of the
Taiwanese, Taiwan will be forced to pursue their trade policies and
investments with China, leading to the day where the conflict between
these two powers can be resolved peacefully.
Today, it looks like there's a much better chance of North and South
Korea getting together and solving their dispute than was the case in
the 1950s, when we sent hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of
bombs to resolve the conflict--which was unsuccessful.
We should have more confidence that peaceful trade is a much stronger
weapon than all the military force that we can provide. That same
argument can be made for our dealings with Vietnam today. We did not
win with weapons of war in the 1960s, yet we are now much more engaged
in a peaceful trade with the people of Vietnam. Our willingness over
the past hundred years to resort to weapons to impose our will on
others has generally caused a resentment of America rather than
respect.
It is now time to reassess our entire foreign policy of military
worldwide intervention. Staying neutral in world conflicts while
showing a willingness to trade with all nations anxious to trade with
us will do more to serve the cause of world peace than all the
unnecessary and provocative spy missions we pursue around the globe.
I recommend the following article by Orlando Sentinel columnist
Charley Reese for its sober analysis of the recent events of China.
[From the Orlando Sentinel, April 22, 2001]
So You Want To Go To War With China?
(By Charley Reese)
I've been intrigued by the responses to a column I wrote
suggesting that our China policy ought to be spelled out and
submitted to the American people for approval.
First, some people irately took issue with my calling the
airplane a ``spy plane.'' It is not, they stoutly contend,
because it is overtly intercepting electronic signals.
Let's suppose a clearly marked police van parked on the
public street in front of your house. Let's suppose the
officers began to intercept your telephone calls, whatever
information appeared on your computer screen and even your
verbal conversations. Now, would you feel spied upon or would
you say, ``Hey, that's only electronic intercepts, and they
are operating openly on a public street.''
Then there is the more logical argument that we need to spy
on the Chinese in case we have to fight them. My point
exactly. Why do we have to fight them?
We certainly should not fight them over Taiwan. Our own
beloved Jimmy Carter unilaterally abrogated the mutual-
defense treaty. Our own tough anti-Communist Richard Nixon
publicly agreed that Taiwan is part of China and, therefore,
falls under the category of China's internal affairs. What's
to fight about?
If Taiwan declares its independence, I would expect Chinese
leaders would emulate Abraham Lincoln and use force to
prevent it. For all my little old Southern life, I've heard
Yankees say Lincoln was right. What's good for Honest Abe is
good for Honest Jiang, right?
Then there is the argument that we must not lose our
position as a ``Pacific power.'' Geographically, since we
granted independence to the Philippines, we are not a Pacific
power.
I see no reason why we should wish to be a Pacific power in
a military sense. What's to be gained?
The two natural Pacific powers are Japan and China.
The funniest response has been alarm about China's
``military buildup.'' I would say that if China did not
engage in a military buildup after watching the United States
go bomb and missile crazy during the past 20 years that it
would be derelict in its duty. But let's keep this in
perspective. The Chinese have about 20 ICBMs; we have
hundreds. Their defense expenditures are somewhere around $50
billion; ours, in excess of $268 billion.
Furthermore, Chinese strategy, as discussed in their own
military journals, is to develop the ability to defeat us in
their immediate vicinity. That means clearly that if we keep
our nose out of their affairs, no military clashes are likely
to occur.
Civilians, too, need to be reminded that military forces
are about making war. We should never have changed from the
honest name, War Department, to the Newspeak name, Defense
Department. Armed forces are either fighting wars, training
to fight wars or planning to fight wars. That's what they do.
It's also what the military forces of every other country
do. Just because a country's military makes contingency plans
to fight some other country doesn't mean that they intend to
initiate a war.
Unfortunately America is full of jingoists, usually pot-
bellied gray-hairs or 4-F journalists and policy wonks. They
are always eager for the teens and twentysomethings to go
somewhere and get killed or maimed. In most cases, within
five years of their youthful deaths, nobody can remember why
they had to get killed.
Korea ended up divided exactly the same way after the war
as before the war. Vietnam
[[Page 6192]]
became communist, which it could have become without 57,000
Americans dying in it. We went to war presumably to preserve
the oil contracts with Kuwait Inc., and now Americans are
driving around with gasoline refined from Iraqi oil.
As for you ``love-it-or-leave-it'' blockheads, you leave it
and go fight instead of sending someone else if you are such
grand warriors. What I love are the people and the land, not
the government.
The lives of a nation's youth are its most precious
treasure, and I'm damned if I will stay silent while armchair
generals propose to risk that treasure in some stupid,
ignorant, corrupt or unnecessary war.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of partisan bickering that goes
on in Washington these days. Unfortunately, our constituents are often
caught in between us, between the Democrats and the Republicans. They
are literally caught in the ropes, strangled by our inability,
especially on health care.
An issue as important as quality, affordable and accessible health
care is not and should not be a political game played by the Democrats
or the Republicans. It ought to be about what is best for the American
people, the people who have placed their trust and confidence in us.
Over these past 19 days, I have participated in more than 60 events
in my district, as many of my colleagues did during the district work
period. All across Arkansas' Fourth District, my constituents told me
about the health care crisis they face each and every day in their
lives.
A health care issue about which I care deeply is providing a
voluntary, but guaranteed prescription drug benefit as a part of
Medicare. I believe it is time to modernize Medicare to include
medicine. Medicare is the only health insurance plan in America that I
know of that does not include medicine, yet it is the plan that nearly
every single senior citizen in America relies on day in and day out to
stay healthy and to get well.
Mr. Speaker, I own a pharmacy in a small town in south Arkansas, and
living in a small town and working with seniors there, I know firsthand
how seniors end up in the hospital running up a $10,000 Medicare bill,
or how diabetics eventually lose a leg or require perhaps as much as a
half a million dollars in Medicare payments for kidney dialysis. All of
these instances are real-life examples that I have seen in my hometown
in the small pharmacy that I own back there that I used to work at.
Every one of these could have been avoided if people had simply been
able to afford their medicine or if they had been able to afford to
take it properly.
I did a town hall meeting this past week in Hot Springs, Arkansas,
one of the more affluent counties and cities in my district. We had
more than 100 seniors at that meeting that I conducted in conjunction
with the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
At that meeting, we said, raise your hand if you have medicine
coverage. Less than 10 hands went up in that room.
This is America, and I believe we can do better than that by our
seniors, and that is why I will continue to fight to truly modernize
Medicare to include medicine, just like we include doctors' visits and
hospital visits. It should be voluntary, but guaranteed, and it should
be a part of Medicare.
That is why the first bill I introduced as a Member of the United
States Congress was a bill that basically tells the politicians in
Washington to keep their hands off the Social Security and Medicare
Trust Funds. It is the Social Security and Medicare Off-Budget Lockbox
Act of 2001, H.R. 560.
Also, during the district work period, I visited a Christian
charitable medical clinic in my district, again in Hot Springs, one of
the more affluent cities and counties in my district. At that facility,
they literally spend millions of dollars with over 500 volunteers
equaling millions of dollars in providing care for those who fall
through the cracks. They only see those who live below poverty. That is
all they see, people who live below poverty and yet do not qualify for
Medicaid or any of the other programs. By and large, we are talking
about the working uninsured, people that are trying to do the right
thing, people that are trying to stay off welfare, but they are working
the jobs that have no benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I relish the opportunity to fight against the unfair
inequities that have created an enormous uninsured population and fight
against the big drug companies who continue to price Americans out of
the market. It is wrong for the big drug manufacturers to invent drugs
in America, oftentimes with government-subsidized research. They are
invented in America, they are made in America, and then they send them
to Canada and Mexico and sell them for 10 cents on the dollar. That is
wrong. That is why I am proud to be cosponsoring legislation that tells
the big drug manufacturers that whatever the average price that they
sell to other countries is, they have to provide that price to our
seniors back in America, one of many first small steps that we must
take to finally have a voluntary guaranteed Medicare prescription drug
package for every single senior citizen in America.
____________________
APRIL IS CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that the
month of April is Child Abuse Prevention Month. I have been heartened
to see so many of my colleagues in Congress and members of my community
in Mississippi wear the blue ribbons. This simple act has solidified
support and raised attention across the United States to our national
concern of child abuse. I am proud to join this effort.
Today I would like to commend the Southwest Mississippi Children's
Advocacy Center located in McComb, Mississippi for its fine efforts
towards assisting children and families victimized by abuse. This
private, nonprofit center was just opened this past January under the
excellent leadership of Director Ben Hess, offers a comprehensive
program of services, working in conjunction with law enforcement, the
court system, schools, hospitals and parents. This center is a model
for the coordination of available community services.
One of the cruelest realities of child abuse is that children often
feel victimized again in their experience with the criminal justice
system. The Southwest Mississippi Children's Advocacy Center assists in
minimizing the chaos of this experience by centralizing many necessary
services at their center. Children may now have their initial
interview, court school preparation, referral for medical services and
therapy services all in the confines of this cheerfully decorated,
child-friendly center.
The Southwest Mississippi Children's Advocacy Center is also
proactive in implementing preventive programming in the 14 counties
they serve. Its staff regularly visits elementary schools to teach
children how to be better advocates for themselves through classes
teaching communication skills, body safety, positive assertiveness and
self-esteem. In addition, its positive parenting classes give parents
the opportunity to learn effective ways to control anger and handle
conflict.
The anger and sadness we all feel towards the insidious epidemic of
child abuse has motivated the Southwest Mississippi Children's Advocacy
Center into action. I am extremely proud to have such a fine center in
our district, and I call on all of my colleagues to rise with me in
recognition of its outstanding advocacy for children.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO RICHARD AUSTIN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a pioneer in
Michigan politics, Richard Austin.
[[Page 6193]]
Mr. Austin passed away this weekend at Henry Ford Hospital in
Detroit.
The story of Richard Austin's life is a story of the American dream.
It is certainly a story of many firsts and many accomplishments.
Born in 1913 in Alabama, Austin's coal miner father passed away when
he was only 11 years old. His family moved to Detroit.
He had to give up a scholarship to Wayne State University in order to
support his family.
But he continued to take night classes at the Detroit Institute of
Technology while working full time selling and repairing shoes.
In 1941, Austin became the first African-American certified public
accountant in Michigan. He made a point of hiring other African-
American accountants in his business.
In 1969, he was the first African-American to run for the office of
mayor of Detroit.
Although he lost that race for mayor, the next year, he ran
successfully to be Michigan's first African-American secretary of
state, and Michigan's first African-American state-wide elected
official.
As secretary of state from 1970 to 1994, Richard Austin fought to
make Michigan the first state in the Union to enact a mandatory seat
belt law.
He also pushed a motorcycle helmet law and simplified the process for
renewing driver licenses.
One of his greatest accomplishments was the passage of Michigan's
`motor-voter' law.
Once again, Michigan was the first state to put in place this system
which allows people to register to vote at the same time and place they
renewed their driver licenses.
The national motor voter law was not enacted until 18 years later.
Mr. Speaker, Richard Austin was more than a pioneer in Michigan
politics and a leader in national highway safety and voter
registration.
Above all, Mr. Speaker, what made Richard Austin such a special and
rare individual was his strong sense of decency, integrity and grace.
Our thoughts and our prayers are with his wife of 61 years, Ida, and
his daughter, Hazel.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO DOUG JAMERSON
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a
longtime friend of mine who passed away this weekend, Mr. Doug
Jamerson. He was a former Florida Education Commissioner, Secretary of
Labor, and State Representative. He was 53 when he died from cancer
this weekend.
Mr. Jamerson was a lively and forceful man. He was a true educator
and a great leader. In 1982, Mr. Jamerson and I were both elected to
the Florida House of Representatives, where we served together for 10
years. He was a wonderful family man and he is survived by his wife
Leatha and his son Cedric. Jamerson was a true Democrat who championed
the cause of quality education for all children. He was a close friend
of mine, a friendship that we developed when he was elected to the
Florida House of Representatives in 1982. For 11 years he represented
District 55, which covered South Pinellas County and a small part of
Manatee County.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) who
served with Mr. Jamerson along with myself.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding to me. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), Doug Jamerson
and myself served together in the Florida Legislature, and today he is
gone. Doug Jamerson was a patriot. He was a man who loved Florida and
who demonstrated it by serving as Labor Secretary and serving as
Commissioner of Education. He showed his true love for Florida.
He was instrumental and a driving force in Florida's Blueprint 2000,
Mr. Speaker, and that blueprint is what set Florida on the right track
in his educational programs. Doug wanted to see accountability in
Florida schools, and he fought very hard for that. He was an Air Force
veteran. He served from 1967 to 1971.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anyone in the State of Florida who
had respect for government and respect for love of the people did not
know and did not love Doug Jamerson. He is a known man in the State of
Florida. He was a loved man. He leaves a wife and a wonderful son to
mourn him and the rest of us who served with him. We loved him very
much. He will be remembered throughout our lives and throughout the
lifetime of Florida's history as a politician and as a public servant
who served both God and his people.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in closing, when I think of Doug,
I think of Paul and his great work. He has done great work for the
people of Florida, and we will truly miss him.
Jamerson won a national humanitarian award for helping St. Petersburg
recover from racial violence in 1996, when he walked the streets,
helping cool emotions. It was a natural extension of his years as a
school security guard in the early '70s when he spent hours counseling
teens going through desegregation at a Pinellas high school.
His parochial school education taught Jamerson the integrity of
discipline and one of his first acts as education commissioner was to
advocate the socially leveling effect of wearing uniforms in public
schools. The idea sank, but Jamerson's reputation rose as a public
servant not given to predictable solutions. He was against both
paddling and prayer in schools but said both had a place in a loving
home. He was a Democrat who oversaw reduction by 50 percent of the
state's education bureaucracy.
Jamerson will be remembered as a gifted man whose genial disposition
made it hard for even staunch opponents of his causes to dislike him.
He will be missed.
____________________
{time} 1345
THE BIPARTISAN SENIORS HEALTH CARE BILL OF RIGHTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, America's health care crisis affects
millions of people, and I rise today on behalf of the 50,000 senior
citizens on Long Island who have been kicked out of their Medicare
HMOs.
Just 3 years ago, seniors had choices in their medical care. In
September of 1999, 12 HMOs offered seniors health plans in my district
on Long Island. Now only two remain.
In 1998 and 1999, 700,000 seniors across America were left without
coverage when their HMOs decided not to renew their contracts.
This year, HCFA reports that 65 Medicare HMOs did not renew their
contracts, leaving an additional 160,000 senior citizens in America
with no Medicare HMO option. This is intolerable.
HMOs are choosing not to renew their 1-year contracts because of
inadequate and unfair reimbursement rates. They are putting profits
ahead of people. Health care should be a right, not a privilege.
Ensuring Long Island seniors receive quality care is not a partisan
issue; it is common sense. That is why I have been working with my
Republican colleague from Long Island on a solution. Our plan, the
Seniors' Health Care Bill of Rights, holds HMOs accountable and
provides seniors the care they deserve. We will do this by providing
carrots and sticks. Our Seniors' Health Care Bill of Rights includes
three provisions: first, increase the reimbursement levels to keep HMOs
operating in the senior market; second, our bill requires 3-year rather
than 1-year contracts. Finally, our bill provides penalties for
terminating senior coverage. If HMOs drop senior citizens in the middle
of their contract year, they are going to be banned from the very
lucrative Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.
Mr. Speaker, I promised my constituents my very first piece of
legislation would be this Seniors' Health Care Bill of Rights. This is
only the beginning of the fight for senior health care. Now I ask my
colleagues to join me in this fight.
Our senior citizens are the people who built our neighborhoods and
schools, paid their taxes, raised their families, and fought our wars.
Now it is time to restore the health care choice, access, and quality
that they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will cosponsor the bipartisan
Seniors' Health Care Bill of Rights.
[[Page 6194]]
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE RICHARD A. AUSTIN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, today I rise and will be joined later by
some of my colleagues to pay tribute to a man who was a mentor and a
very dear friend, a man who defined the words dignity and respect. I am
talking about Michigan's former Secretary of State, Richard A. Austin,
who died last Friday at the age of 87.
Dick Austin was a man of great vision and one of Michigan's most
distinguished and honored, accomplished statesman. He was Secretary of
State for 24 years, having been first elected in 1970 and reelected a
record five times. I had the great honor of nominating Dick Austin at
three of our party's State conventions, and each time I had to struggle
a little harder to try to squeeze it all in because Dick had
accomplished that much in the preceding 4 years.
Under Dick Austin's direction, Michigan became a leader in highway
safety and voting rights. He brought us one of America's first safety
belt laws, spearheaded the drive for child passenger safety
legislation, and won awards for his efforts to stop drunk driving.
Thousands of people are alive in Michigan today because of Dick
Austin's tireless dedication to safety.
Mr. Speaker, he helped to enact a landmark voter registration law
that served as a model for other States and paved the way for the
eventual passage of the national motor voter legislation. Millions of
people in Michigan found it easier to exercise the franchise because of
Dick Austin's determination to eliminate barriers to voting.
Dick was a great innovator. He automated the Department of State and
transformed a department that consumers were upset about for its
agonizing inefficiency. He did that, and made it into one to the best
run, best managed and most highly acclaimed departments in the Nation.
Dick Austin was a pioneer in many fields, breaking down barriers with
his intellect, self-confidence, and his dedication to hard work. He was
the first African American certified public accountant in Michigan. He
was the first African American candidate for mayor of Detroit, and the
longest serving African American elected to statewide office.
He was born in Stouts Mountain, Alabama, the son of a coal miner who
died when Dick was just 11 years old. His family moved to Detroit where
he worked his way through school, never letting hardship become an
obstacle to success. An academic and track star, he gave up a
scholarship to Wayne State University when his family faced hardship.
Undaunted, Dick sold and took night classes to earn his degree as a
CPA.
Dick Austin was the perfect combination of competence and decency. He
was full of charm, and he was as honest as the day is long. He was a
gentleman in the truest sense of the word. He served the people of
Michigan with grace and dignity. He lived by the values that he
preached. He was someone who took to heart the words of the prophet:
``To do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God.''
In good times and hard times, Richard A. Austin was always there. He
was calm, reassuring, standing strong.
Mr. Speaker, to his wife of over 60 years, Ida, and his daughter,
Hazel, we send our deep regrets and prayers.
All of us in Michigan will profoundly miss Dick Austin. His memory
and sense of justice will carry on for years to come, and the
accomplishments of his remarkable life will continue to pave the way.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO REVEREND LEON SULLIVAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I received some very
disturbing news about the passing of the Reverend Leon Sullivan,
founder and Chairman of OIC International.
Reverend Sullivan was a genuine example of civility and social
commitment. He was a leader of human rights, and a true humanitarian.
He is best known for his advocacy toward obtaining justice to end
Apartheid in South Africa. This feat gained him the respect of all of
us.
Through his steadfastness and determination, Reverend Sullivan
enlightened history and impacted the world with his grace. He came to
this earth with a bright inner glow and a spirit filled with light.
Reverend Sullivan had a powerful soul and a judicious conscience. His
desire to make a difference in the lives of others will be preserved
now in our many memories of him. He was a true example of a public
servant, and it was through his vision that many people became familiar
with his love for hope and compassion for the welfare of people in
underserved nations.
Reverend Sullivan was credited by President Clinton with The Eleanor
Roosevelt Human Rights Award, and was the author of the ``Sullivan
Principles'' which will serve as part of his stellar legacy. I have no
doubt that the Reverend will continue to work for the benefit of
humanity from his eternal state. His faith in humanity brought
inspiration to our society. As a poet once said ``Do not weep because
they are gone, smile because they lived''. Today we honor Reverend
Sullivan with our everlasting gratitude and admiration. For those who
have lived and not just existed, we must remember to carry on their
messages. Reverend Sullivan's words will linger beyond existence, for
time does not abandon immortals.
____________________
CONGRATULATING HAWAII'S 2ND DISTRICT PRUDENTIAL SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY
AWARD WINNERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate four
remarkable young women from Hawaii: Lauren Noelani Calhoun, age 16, of
Kapaa on the island of Kauai; Celinda Stanton, age 11, of Waimanalo on
the island of Oahu; Tessa Munekiyo of Wailuku on the island of Maui,
and Kauilani Ostrem of Kaawa on the island of Oahu.
Lauren and Celinda are Hawaii's top two youth volunteers for the year
2001 in the Prudential Spirit of Community Awards, a nationwide program
honoring young people for outstanding acts of volunteerism. They have
each been awarded an engraved silver medallion, a $1,000 award, and a
trip to Washington, DC for the program's national recognition event.
Hawaii's Distinguished Finalists--Tessa and Kauilani--have been awarded
engraved bronze medallions.
Lauren Noelani Calhoun, a junior at Kauai High School, led an effort
to establish a homework and learning center for children at a local
family abuse shelter. As a volunteer at the shelter, Lauren was
disturbed by its often hectic conditions and wondered how the children
who stayed there managed to do their schoolwork. She approached the
shelter's director with a plan to convert a storage area into a quiet
room for the kids to do their homework. After the plan was approved by
the director and the shelter's board, Lauren contacted businesses and
organizations for donations. She surpassed her goal and raised over
$1,500 in addition to many in-kind donations. Lauren purchased
furniture, a computer, a printer, software, books, and two sets of
encyclopedias for the homework center.
Celinda Stanton, a sixth-grader at St. Andrews, brightened the lives
of elderly residents of a long-term care facility by teaching them new
skills and providing them with recreational activities. After visiting
the facility, where her mother works, Celinda noticed that the
residents seemed to enjoy the presence of a young girl and realized she
could make a difference in their lives. During her volunteer time at
the facility, she entertains the seniors by performing Japanese and
Hawaiian dances and helps them play games. She also has taught an 80-
year-old woman how to use a computer and regularly assists the staff
with recreational activities and filing.
Tessa Munekiyo, age 16, a student at Baldwin High School on the
island of Maui assisted in conducting interviews with tsunami survivors
as part of a museum educational project.
[[Page 6195]]
Kauilani Ostrem, age 17, a senior at Kahuku High School, co-chaired
an effort in her community to reduce the number of deaths and accidents
on the roadways in her community.
I look forward to having the opportunity to meet Lauren and Celinda
and to welcome them to Washington when they come to the Capitol in May.
Lauren, Celina, Tessa, and Kauilani exemplify the very best of our
youth, of Hawaii, and of our nation.
____________________
REFORMS NEEDED IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I have organized my freshman
Democratic colleagues to speak out on an issue of great importance to
our country, that is, on the issue of health care. I understand that
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) has already spoken, and I
thank my colleague for his participation.
Mr. Speaker, many of us were elected in large part because we vowed
to reform our health care system, to make quality medical care and
prescription drugs affordable for all Americans.
Today nearly 44 million Americans under the age of 65, 11 million of
whom are children, do not have health insurance.
In the State of Rhode Island, my home, 1 out of 10 people lack health
insurance. As we all know, health insurance is critical to obtaining
necessary, affordable care. Those without insurance often pay two, even
three times more for medical care than an insured person pays for that
very same service. The uninsured are hospitalized at least 50 percent
more often than the insured for avoidable conditions. They are also
more likely to be diagnosed with later-stage cancer than those with
insurance. Even newborn infants born to uninsured mothers have a 31
percent greater risk for adverse health outcomes. This inequity in
access to medical care reflects the unfair disparity and health care
costs the uninsured face on a regular basis.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I plan to introduce legislation to require
the Department of Health and Human Services to make substantive
recommendations on how to eliminate this disparity and report to
Congress within 1 year on these findings.
Another facet of today's health insurance quagmire is the high cost
employees must pay for health insurance premiums, so high, in fact,
that many opt out of this vital benefit. Over one-third of the
uninsured are in families where employer-sponsored coverage is
declined, and Medicaid does not always cover these families, which is
why I plan to introduce legislation to help States subsidize employees
and some of the employers' health insurance premium costs. I want to
make sure employed workers are able to obtain the health care coverage
that they need and deserve.
A third aspect of health insurance I am deeply concerned about is the
lack of prescription drug coverage in Medicare; 13 million Medicare
recipients lack drug coverage at the present time. In Rhode Island
alone, almost 200,000 of our seniors have no drug coverage; and drugs
are not cheap. In 1999, prescription drugs accounted for almost 10
percent of individual health spending. In many cases these
prescriptions amount to $500 or more per month. To a senior on a fixed
income, this represents a greater share of their monthly check. A
disproportionate share, and this is wrong.
With 77 million baby boomers soon to retire, we must curb this trend
before it spirals out of control. By requiring drug companies to sell
prescription drugs in the United States for the same price they charge
in underdeveloped countries, I believe we can alleviate the burden on
people lacking drug coverage. I commend the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Allen), who has introduced H.R. 1400, of which I am a proud cosponsor,
the Prescription Drug Fairness Act for Seniors 2001. This legislation
ensures drug companies charge fair prices in the U.S., and it is
estimated to reduce prices for brand-name prescription medications on
average by 40 percent.
{time} 1400
All of these issues that I have mentioned address healthcare
affordability, and ensuring and guaranteeing a minimum standard of
quality is also important. After all, the health care we must pay for
is essential for everyone, and it must provide the care that people
need. The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001, otherwise known as
the Patients' Bill of Rights, would ensure patients obtain this quality
care and are granted greater control over their health care.
If enacted, this bill would provide access to emergency care,
specialty care, and clinical trials and allow external review for all
Americans who receive employer-sponsored health care. This bill
represents a critical step toward improving our health care system and
placing control of patient care firmly in the hands of patients and
their doctors.
Disparity in health care costs, lack of affordable health insurance,
a prescription drug plan for our seniors, and patients' rights to
control the quality of their own medical care are some of the most
pressing health care issues facing America today. I urge my colleagues
to work together to solve these problems.
Reforming our health care system is probably one of the most
complicated endeavors for Congress to undertake. But let us not lose
sight of it. It is a goal that we can and must achieve together. It
must happen. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to
make this a reality.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, RICHARD H. AUSTIN
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Thursday, April 26, the funeral
services will be held in Detroit for Richard H. Austin, who served six
terms as Secretary of State of Michigan.
As the longest serving Secretary of State in Michigan's history, Dick
Austin set the highest standard of service to the public. Whether it
was highway safety or citizen participation in the electoral process,
he was always ahead of his time.
It was my privilege to be a teammate with Dick Austin as I ran for
Governor and he began his first quest for statewide office, breaking
down barriers confronting candidates for elective office in Michigan.
He became the longest-serving black elected State official in the
history of Michigan, as he was Michigan's first black CPA and the first
black candidate for mayor.
I had the joy many times of campaigning with him, hearing him in his
quiet way spelling out his aspirations, and watching the magic worked
by his warm smile and his friendly handshake. That smile is now gone,
but the memories of it will always linger. His friendliness is now a
legacy not to be forgotten.
Dick Austin never let down the public trust, and the citizens of
Michigan responded time after time. He was an intrinsic part of the web
of public service in Michigan for many decades. He made Michigan a
better place, and he will be missed by many of us as a warm friend and
by all of us as an invaluable public servant.
Mr. Speaker, we here today join together to mourn the passing of
Richard H. Austin.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. COBLE. 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 the subject of my special order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
[[Page 6196]]
____________________
HONORING THE MEMORY OF RICHARDSON PREYER, FORMER MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. COBLE. This special order, Mr. Speaker, is to commemorate and
honor the memory of one of our distinguished former Members, the
Honorable Richardson Preyer.
Judge Preyer, Congressman Preyer, was my congressman for 12 years.
His family, Mr. Speaker, and this is probably known to the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) because he is a man of letters, and this
probably will not surprise him, his family was one of the frontiers in
the pharmaceutical industry. Vicks VapoRub, for example, was invented,
if you will, and the laboratory was actually probably make-shift,
probably a modest facility at the time, by his ancestors.
I shared this story with him one day. When I was a member of the
Coast Guard in Seattle, Washington, one of my first times out of North
Carolina as a young man, I came across a Vicks VapoRub package in a
drugstore in Seattle. I saw on that package, Mr. Speaker, Greensboro,
North Carolina. That is where it was manufactured. I felt a sense of
obvious pride, as my friend in the well is smiling approvingly.
I saw him much years afterward, and I told him that story. He too
beamed with pride because I could see in his face the pride of his
grandparents perhaps or uncles that preceded him in the development of
that drug that became, obviously, a household word.
Mr. Speaker, Richardson Preyer served as a State superior court
judge. He served as a United States district judge on the Federal
bench. He was a candidate in the Democratic gubernatorial primary for
the office of governor. Although he did not win that nomination, he
conducted a very credible campaign.
Then in 1968, Mr. Speaker, Richardson Preyer ran what was then an
open seat. I guess it was Congressman Kornegay had retired. Richardson
Preyer and Bill Osteen, a long-time friend of mine, who is now a United
States district court judge himself in the middle district of North
Carolina, Rich and Bill, Bill Osteen, paired off in a very spirited,
well-conducted campaign. Mr. Preyer, Congressman Preyer was declared
the winner; and he went on to serve six terms in the House of
Representatives.
Emily and Rich, those names became synonymous with political spousal
teamwork. I mean, oftentimes where there was one, there was the other.
Or if Rich would be in one part of the district, Emily would be in the
other part, carrying the political message. They were very adept
campaigners.
In fact, it has been said once that they felt perhaps Emily was,
maybe, more comfortable on the hustings than was Rich. I do not know
that that is true, but she did have that very natural gift of
backslapping. There is nothing wrong with that, because I have been
accused of being a backslapper myself. Rich was not a backslapper, but
he nonetheless represented our district very ably.
Someone once asked me, Mr. Speaker, ``You and Rich Preyer seem to get
along very well, and your voting records are probably light years
apart.'' They probably are. I think Rich Preyer's voting record and my
voting record would be very dissimilar. But I said, ``Just because one
does not agree with another on various and sundry political issues,
that does not mean that you cannot disagree agreeably.''
Rich Preyer, I think epitomized that in his life. He was a very
agreeable person although perhaps he did not agree oftentimes with
others and with me in particular. But we never drew our sword from our
sheaths because of that.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the Federal building, the old Federal courthouse
and post office in downtown Greensboro bears the name the Preyer
Building. That building, I say to the gentleman from Raleigh, North
Carolina (Mr. Price), he will remember that that building housed
congressional offices, by gosh, probably 30 years. I think Rich's
office was there. I know Gene Johnston's was there. Robin Britt's was
there. Ours was there.
We had to leave that building some recent months ago as a matter of
constituency friendliness. Many of the people who came to call upon me
were infirm and were not able to walk the two or three blocks that was
necessary to gain admittance to the Preyer Building because there was
virtually no on-street parking. So that was a constituency-friendly
move, one that I did not want to make. That old building was home to me
and to many constituents for that matter. But we did move.
But each time I go back in there, I have fond memories of visiting
with staff personnel there. I see that sign, the Preyer Federal
Building, and it brings back good memories.
I think that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), Speaker pro
tempore, is from the valley, the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. He
probably did not know Mr. Preyer, but he would have liked him. He had
many friends, some of whom still serve in this very body.
But I see two of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, have joined me on the
floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Charlotte, North Carolina
(Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Greensboro, North Carolina (Mr. Coble), from the adjoining district for
yielding to me. Of course they say most of the districts in North
Carolina adjoin mine in one way or another, so I have got a lot of
adjoining Congress people. This is the first time I have heard the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) yield to me so much time as I
may consume so I think that is a dangerous precedent. But I will try
not to make him regret that.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield very briefly?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
North Carolina.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Watt) do not get me in the doghouse with the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price). Do not use too much time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am going to leave plenty
of time.
I have been thinking about a way to personalize this. I never served
with Representative Rich Preyer. I met him for the first time in 1992
when I was running for Congress for the first time. Rich and his wife
Emily had heard about my candidacy. I, of course, had heard about Rich
Preyer for years and years and years; and that was the beginning of a
strong personal relationship that I started to develop with Rich Preyer
and with Emily Preyer.
{time} 1415
I was thinking on the way over here, though, when I was a little boy,
my mother used to treat us when we got sick with a big dose of castor
oil if we had a stomach virus, but if we were congested, and quite
often we were because we lived in kind of an airy house, she would
always whip out the Vicks VapoRub and rub it on our chest and heat a
heating pad and the smell of Vicks VapoRub would come up. Over time it
would release whatever congestion you had.
Now, you probably wonder, well, what in the world does that have to
do with Rich Preyer? Rich Preyer's grandfather was the person who
patented Vicks VapoRub. He turned it into quite a success story
financially for his family. So Rich was really born into a family of
privilege as a result of his parents' and foreparents' business
dealings and as a result of this innovative patent that people in my
age range probably knew as well as anything else for its medicinal
impact.
Rich never really worked in that business, but in a sense Rich took
over that releasing of congestion and took it to a broader public
plane. Because when I first heard about Rich Preyer, he was out there
on the cutting edge, paving the way, opening the way, so to
[[Page 6197]]
speak, for many people like myself, minorities in particular, who
viewed Rich Preyer as a real progressive, human, dignified person who
was willing to fight for principles that he believed in. In that sense,
he was a rare public official who took risk and stood up for his
beliefs. He was ahead of his time and did not sacrifice his principles
for political gain.
As a State judge in 1957, Rich Preyer upheld a ruling that enabled
five black children to attend the previously all-white Gillespie Park
School in Greensboro. This was 1957 in North Carolina. This was the
first integrated school in the City of Greensboro. It was 3 years
before the historic Greensboro sit-ins at the Woolworth lunch counters
that we have heard so much about and read so much about in our history.
So Rich Preyer was ahead of his time.
In 1961, Rich Preyer received a lifetime appointment to the Federal
bench from his Harvard Law School classmate, a man of privilege again.
His classmate happened to be President John F. Kennedy. So he could
have had a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. He was there. It
is a lifetime appointment. But 2 years later, he gave up that position
to run for governor of North Carolina. He hoped that he would follow in
the footsteps of the term-limited governor Terry Sanford, who was known
as the most progressive governor in the South.
For those Members who hear about North Carolina and wonder why it has
this kind of progressive image that is more progressive than some of
our other southern States, Governor Terry Sanford and people like Rich
Preyer were building that image. Even though this was almost 10 years
after Brown v. Board of Education, the State of North Carolina, like
all other southern States, was still basically segregated. Although
Governor Sanford had started steps toward integration efforts,
according to Preyer's former press aide, the Ku Klux Klan burned 50
crosses across the State of North Carolina in protest of Rich Preyer's
candidacy for governor of the State of North Carolina.
You talk about a man who was ahead of his time, you have not seen
anything until you met Rich Preyer. He led the Democratic primary, but
he did not get 50 percent of the vote and the law required at that time
in North Carolina that you have 50 percent plus 1 to avoid a runoff. So
he ended up in a runoff with a more conservative opponent, and the
conservative opponent won the election. A lot of people say that he won
the election because Rich Preyer refused to distance himself from the
principles that he thought were important. They called him an
integrationist and a lover of black people. Rich's response was, ``I
love all people. That is what I have been taught as part of my
religious beliefs.'' And he never made any overtures toward the
segregationists who were supporting the candidacy of his opponent. Rich
Preyer was ahead of his time.
Rich lost that governor's race and then ran for Congress in 1968, and
he was elected to Congress. Many considered him too liberal and out of
step with his district. He opposed the Vietnam War and was one of only
two Members of Congress from North Carolina to vote for legislation to
end the war. This was a guy ahead of his time. Rich's voting record
finally caught up with him again, because he was not going to
compromise his principles. It caught up with him in 1980, when he lost
in the Reagan landslide by about 3,500 votes. Let me tell you what a
class guy this Rich Preyer was. He saw it, the election results are
coming in, he could have picked up the phone, called his adversary, his
opponent and said, ``I concede defeat.'' Rich Preyer said, ``No, I'm
going over and I'm going to shake this man's hand.'' He went all the
way across town, into his opponent's headquarters, got heckled by his
opponent's supporters, and insisted on shaking his opponent's hand to
congratulate him.
In 1980, after he had lost that race, former Congressman Steve Neal
said of Rich Preyer, ``There is not a man or woman among us who
commands greater respect for intelligence, honesty, integrity and
courage of conviction.'' I think that is a fitting tribute to him and a
shining tribute to him.
I want to end by just expressing my condolences to the Preyer family
and thanking the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) again for coordinating this
special order. Rich Preyer and Emily Preyer were dear, dear people,
both ahead of their times in many, many ways that inured to my personal
benefit and to this country's benefit.
Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I say in response to my friend the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) about the heckling, I have
heard about that, that night, and I have been told that that was not
done by the gentleman who defeated Rich that night. That was not done
under his guise. I think maybe some spirited people were there.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield for a second,
I will clarify that, because I fully agree with him. Everything I have
heard about that incident suggests that his opponent quieted his
supporters and invited Rich Preyer to the podium with him and accepted
the congratulations.
Mr. COBLE. Reclaiming my time, I do not want to defend the hecklers,
but sometimes folks become very spirited on election night. I am
confident that if there were in fact hecklers, I do not think they
meant anything personally by that.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from the Fourth
District of North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding and
for coordinating this special order for us this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, on April 3, North Carolina and the Nation lost one of
our most distinguished citizens and public servants, L. Richardson
Preyer. It is a privilege today to join with my colleagues in paying
tribute to his life and his work, which were memorialized at a moving
and majestic service at Greensboro's First Presbyterian Church on April
5.
Rich Preyer served in this body with great dignity and effectiveness
for six terms, from 1969 to 1980. He was a senior member of what was
then called the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and he
chaired the Government Information and Individual Rights Subcommittee
of the Committee on Government Operations. The Almanac of American
Politics noted his reputation for ``great integrity and sound
judgment'' which led the House leadership to call upon him ``to serve
in some difficult and unpleasant assignments.'' These included the
committee investigating assassinations, where he headed the
subcommittee investigating the assassination of President Kennedy, and
the House Ethics Committee at the time of the so-called Korea-gate
scandal.
Rich Preyer was born in 1919, took his undergraduate degree at
Princeton, served as a Navy lieutenant in World War II and was awarded
the Bronze Star for action in Okinawa, and then earned his law degree
at Harvard University after the war. He became a city judge at age 34,
then a North Carolina superior court judge. In 1961 he was appointed
judge of the Federal Middle District Court of North Carolina by
President Kennedy. He resigned that lifetime appointment to undertake a
race for governor, a race that he narrowly lost but that engaged and
inspired thousands of North Carolinians, many of whom went on to
leadership positions within our State.
When the Sixth Congressional District seat came open in 1968, Rich
Preyer was such an obvious choice for that position that he was
nominated without opposition. Rich then won reelection year after year
by large margins and had an exemplary congressional career. This was
when I, having returned to North Carolina in 1973, first got to know
him. At first as an academic who studied Congress and the Commerce
Committee in particular, I admired Rich from afar. Then as I got more
involved in North Carolina politics myself, I was privileged to work
with him personally. Like many in my political generation, I admired
Rich tremendously as a man who brought conviction and courage, dignity
and
[[Page 6198]]
style to politics, a model of what a Member of this body should be and
a model of what political leadership at its best can be.
My admiration was deepened and given another dimension when Rich lost
his 1980 race for reelection and I observed how he handled that loss. I
remember as executive director of the State Democratic Party sitting
with Rich and his dear wife Emily in a television studio in Greensboro
waiting to be interviewed on election morning. He had a premonition of
what was to come. But he was at peace with the account he had given of
himself in his congressional service and in his campaign. He weathered
defeat with equanimity and a remarkable sense of humor. And he never
wavered in his political ideals and his expansive citizenship: the
years since 1980 have been filled with numerous local and State and
national involvements to which Rich Preyer brought remarkable gifts of
vision and leadership.
{time} 1430
Rich and Emily Preyer had a wonderful family, and their children have
carried on the Preyer family tradition of high spirits, love of nature
and of athletic competition, generous friendships, and faithful
stewardship of time and talent.
We express our sympathy to sons Rich, Jr., and Britt, and daughters
Mary Norris, Jane and Emily, and their families, in the hope that the
outpouring of affection and admiration that has followed their father's
death, and their mother's death not long before, will give them
strength and comfort in this time of sorrow.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the obituary from the Raleigh News and
Observer be included in the Record at this point, as well as the
reflections offered at the April 5 memorial service by Jane Preyer,
Richardson Preyer, Jr., and Tom Lambeth, Rich Preyer's chief of staff
during his time in the House, who recently retired as director of the
Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation.
[From the Raleigh News and Observer, April 4, 2001]
The Honorable Lunsford Richardson Preyer
Greensboro--The Honorable L. Richardson Preyer, 82, died
Tuesday at the Cone Memorial Hospital. A funeral service will
be held at 4 p.m. Thursday at the First Presbyterian Church.
Congressman Preyer was a native of Greensboro and attended
the public schools. He received his A.B. Degree from
Princeton University and his Law Degree from the Harvard Law
School.
At the First Presbyterian Church he was an elder, teacher/
member of the Young Men's Bible Class for over 40 years and a
Chairman of the Board of Trustees.
During World War II he was a Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy
served for four years as a Gunnery Officer and Executive
Officer on Destroyer duty in the Atlantic and South Pacific;
he received the Bronze Star for action in Okinawa.
Mr. Preyer was appointed as a City Judge, and North
Carolina Superior Court Judge. In 1961 he was appointed
Federal Judge of the Middle District Court by President John
F. Kennedy. In 1963 Judge Preyer resigned his Judgeship to
become a candidate for Governor of North Carolina. In 1964 he
became City Executive for Greensboro at the North Carolina
National Bank. In November 1968 he was elected to the United
States Congress, 6th District of North Carolina and served
until 1980.
The U.S. Federal Courthouse and Post Office are named in
his honor as the L. Richardson Preyer Federal Building in
Greensboro.
Among his many Congressional Committees he was most proud
of serving as Chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics
which drew up the Congressional Code of Ethics and Chairman
of the House Committee on Assassination of President Kennedy
and Martin Luther King.
The Honorable Mr. Preyer served in many other ways and was
honored as Chairman of the Board of the North Carolina
Outward Bound School; Commissioner, Greensboro Little League
and Pony Baseball programs; Honorary Chairman of the Greater
Greensboro Open (GGCC); Inter-Club Council's Outstanding
Civic Leader of the Year Award; Greensboro Chamber's ``Uncle
Joe Cannon'' Award for outstanding leadership; Distinguished
Service Award at the University of North Carolina School of
Medicine; and recipient of the Phillip Hart Memorial Award
for Conscience by ``Washingtonian Magazine.''
At the time of his death he was Co-chairman of the Guilford
Battleground Company; member of the Board for the National
Humanities Center; Chairman of Coastal Futures Committee
(appointed by Governor James B. Hunt); Trustee: Mary Reynolds
Babcock Foundation; H. Smith Richardson Foundation; NC
Institute of Political Leadership; Woodrow Wilson Center
(Smithsonian Institute); Uplift, Inc. (past president); and
the NC Institute of Medicine.
He had served as a Trustee of the National Nature
Conservancy; Hastings Institute of Medicine; Greensboro
National Bank; Director of Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.
and Piedmont Management, Inc. He also served on the Board of
Directors of Guildford College, Davidson College, UNC School
of Social Work; Robert Wood Johnson Fellows--UNC Medical
School; Community Self Help; The American Red Cross,
Salvation Army, NC Museum of Natural History; and UNC-G
Excellence Foundation.
He was preceded in death recently by his wife Emily Harris
Preyer and brother William Yost Preyer Jr. He is survived by
his sons and daughters-in-law, L. Richardson and Marilyn
Jacobs Preyer Jr. and Britt Armfield and Alice Dockery
Preyer; daughters and sons-in-law, Mary Norris Preyer and
Henry Patrick Oglesby, Jane Bethell Preyer, and Emily Harris
Preyer and Richard Tillman Fountain, III; brothers and
sisters-in-law, Dr. Robert Otto and Kitty Preyer, Dr. Norris
Watson and Catherine Preyer and Frederick Lynn and Margaret
Preyer; sister-in-law, Mrs. Russell H. Tucker and Mrs. Doris
Preyer; grandchildren, L. Richardson Preyer, III, Parker
Jacobs Preyer, Jane Elizabeth Preyer, Emily Preyer Oglesby,
Britt Armfield Preyer Jr., John Calder Preyer, William Harris
Preyer, Mary Norris Preyer Fountain, Richard Tillman
Fountain, IV, Janie Katherine Fountain, Preyer Harris
Fountain, and Peter Richardson Fountain.
The family will receive friends following the service in
the Church's Family Enrichment Center and request the
memorial contributions be made to one's favorite charity.
Hanes-Lineberry, N. Elm St., Funeral Home is assisting the
family.
____
Dad's Service, April 5, 2001--L. Richardson Preyer
(By Jane Preyer)
Thank you all so much for being here with us, bringing your
love and support, and helping us honor Dad's life. He was
such a good and great man. To his family, Dad was nothing
less than our hero. From the stories you've shared with us
about Dad, we know that to some of you he was a hero, too.
Many people knew him as a man of public service--his
children and grandchildren saw and knew him in that way, too,
and are very proud. But my hope today is to share a few
thoughts to celebrate Dad's life as the person that so many
people loved as a friend, a father, and a grandfather.
Dad loved music. Undoubtedly, some of his happiest times
were those hours when he stole away to the den or bedroom to
play his beloved saxophone. His mother had given the sax to
him, and he seemed truly blissful when listening or playing
along with the likes of Miles Davis and John Coltrane.
We were always amazed at the variety of music that Dad
loved--from Mozart to Bruce Springsteen to Benjamin Britten
to Charlie Parker.
He actually could not read a note of music, but he could
play anything on the saxophone. In fact, he was the first
white man that Count Basie asked to be in his band. It was
1941, and instead Dad chose to join the Navy and went to
WWII.
I will never really know the intensity of some of his
days--as a judge, congressman, all the different work he
did--but I came to understand that music was a tremendous
source of renewal for Dad. And he helped us to welcome music
into our own lives, enriching us from childhood onward.
Like music, books were a source of sustenance in Dad's life
which he instilled in all his children. Dad's style was to
read 3-4 books at a time, which I guess was a way of
satisfying his abundant, lifelong curiosity.
Dad's love of reading came in handy on more than one
occasion. When I was a young girl, we were invited on a deer
hunt in the coastal plain of NC. Hunting was the last thing
in the world I wanted to do, but I definitely wanted to go on
this adventure with Dad. Like the other hunters, the two of
us were dropped at our own spot in the woods. There, Dad
finally confided his true plan for ``our hunt''. He had
brought books and cigars in his jacket. . . . so we simply
put the gun aside, leaned up against a mighty tree to read--
and Dad told me, ``Jane, if we sit quietly enough, we may get
to see a deer'' And so we did.
How did this reserved and gentle man, who loved music and
books, who knew how to find serenity in the midst of
turmoil--how did he commit so much of his life to the very
public business of politics? How did he cope with all those
fish frys, barbecues, and all the other exhausting
practicalities of being a public figure?
I don't know the complete answer. But I do know that he was
always anchored by his core values and guided on a daily
basis by his own faith and personal conscience.
I remember in his re-election in the fall 1980, Dad was hit
by a series of negative campaign ads on TV, radio, the whole
works. All of us children and most of the campaign staff were
urging Dad to counterattack--this isn't fair, we would say.
You've got to strike back.
[[Page 6199]]
But he simply would not. I was mad at him. Later, I came to
understand how courageous he was . . . and that integrity is
exactly why we all believed in him.
Our family is thankful for the encouragement and support so
many of you gave to Dad. Your support made it possible for
Mom and Dad to be in politics. It made him willing to step
out there and do the right thing time after time.
And oh wow, what a wonderful sense of humor Dad had through
thick and thin! He was a great story teller. Many of you have
been treated to his favorite stories--maybe once too often!
He did have a mischievous side, too. A few years ago, the
pond on the golf course across from my parents' house was
drained and became quite a mud sink. After seeing an
unclaimed golf ball sitting about 3 feet out into the pond,
Mom could not resist venturing in to get that ``free'' ball.
GOOWOOSH. She was sucked into the mud midway up her thigh.
Completely stranded, she called out to Dad ``Rich, help
me!?'' He was laughing so hard, tears streaming down his
face, and buckled over the steering wheel of the golf cart.
Mom called out again ``Rich, come on and help me!''
I don't know--we sort of suspect that this fine gentleman
moved a bit slower than usual in making the rescue!
Dad loved the natural world of North Carolina--the piedmont
waters and forests, the mountains, the coast. Being in nature
was another way he sustained himself, and he taught us the
joy and wonder and beauty of this world and our state, that
sustains us as well.
Mom's idea of a vacation was to go to the Travel Lodge on
Elm Street in Greensboro to spend the night and swim in the
indoor pool.
Dad's idea of vacation was to be in the NC mountains or at
the coast or on a Piedmont lake--fishing, walking, noticing
everything out there--he would constantly say ``look at that
bird, look at that tree''. He never got quite the names of
the birds and trees right, but he always appreciated them!
And especially fishing. Dad taught each of us to love
fishing and to love the fish. From the earliest days, he was
a ``throw-it-back man'' . . . what we now call ``catch and
release''. He taught us to love the simplicity of a fishing
line with worms, the fun of a spinning rod throwing it way
out and reeling it in . . . and the pure thrill of casting a
fly rod and watching that fly land in close to the bank over
dark, clear water and floating there lightly.
Mind you, he was no expert fisherman, and his technique was
pretty questionable! Just ask my brothers and sisters
sometime for their imitation of Dad stumbling on slippery
rocks, getting his line hung up in trees--but still amazingly
he got that fly our there on the stream.
In the 1970s, in Congress, Dad became one of the authors of
the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act--He translated his love
of nature into creating in these pieces of legislation--and
they have transformed the way America treasures and protects
our natural resources.
I think it is only in this last year that I have begun to
more fully understand the deep, tender, steadfast, and
unbreakable bond between my Mom and Dad. They were so devoted
to each other . . . and so committed together to their shared
life of service as they felt led by God to do.
Growing up, Sunday afternoons at our house were my
favorite. Without fail, whether he'd been in DC or given
speeches that weekend in the far reaches of his district--he
would do something fun with us. Those times were filled with
sports and more sports, hikes, fishing, visits with our
grandparents, cousins, and aunts and uncles.
And how he delighted in being with his grandchildren! How
he enjoyed hearing about all their activities--whether it was
soccer, or violin, or tennis or lacrosse, be being in a play
or the choir. And he loved their drawings they brought him by
the dozens and which he cherished over the years.
Dad was also sustained by his friends, and he especially
loved being in Greensboro these last years, close to many of
you dear friends here today. And you have been so good to him
and us through this last year.
And so this day has come, a day that I did not ever want to
come. I feel like the world will never be the same without
Mom and Dad.
But even stronger that our grief today is our thankfulness
for Dad's life and all that we shared with him. We will go
forward beyond today's tears by of us every day of our lives.
We know very well his legacy to us:
His gentleness
His courage
His deep honesty and integrity
His wonderful sense of humor
His profound commitment to justice and mercy
His love and zest for life
His love of children
His determination
His true love and partnership with Mom
His steadfast kindness
And his trust in God that we can always find a new way to
serve, to learn, and to live fully.
Dad, you will always be our hero.
____
In Celebration of the Life of L. Richardson Preyer--Funeral April 5,
2001
(By L. Richardson Preyer, Jr.)
Dad would have been mighty surprised to see so many of you
here today--thinking about him and thanking him for his
inspiring life--celebrating his honest decency--his day-to-
day caring about his family and his friends and his
community. I believe Dad would have been surprised because he
just didn't think of himself as anything special. After Dad
was beaten in the Congressional election in 1980, I implored
him to write a book. Dad laughed it off and said, ``Who would
ever want to read a book by me?'' There are a few of us, Dad.
There ARE a few of us.
But--goodness gracious--Dad left us with so many speeches.
He spoke all over the state at every sort of gathering--
whether a church or synagogue, or college or high school or
elementary school--at political rallies, at non-profit
gatherings, at garden clubs, at the Kiwanis, at the Rotary--
Dad you were there. You had a message you wanted to deliver.
And Dad, you did so much teaching mixed in with a good bit
of preaching on both serving God and keeping vigilant about
freedom and the old beleaguered Republic. You taught the
Young Men's Bible Class in this church for 46 years. You
taught at UNC Greensboro and Duke and at Chapel Hill . . .
which shows you were pretty darn open-minded. You even taught
an ethics course in med school to the doctor who was on call
for you the last few days of your life.
And Dad, for all your gentleness, you were such a fighter.
You fought injustice in the Pacific--on a destroyer--the only
one of seven sister ships not to be sunk at Okinawa . . . you
kept the Bronze Star medal box in your dresser drawer for the
rest of your life. I saw it there, this morning.
You fought racism as a Superior Court Judge and Federal
Judge, challenging segregation in the fifties and early
sixties. And when the people called out for you to leave the
Federal Bench and run for governor in those tumultuous times
in 1964, you left a lifetime appointment and ran.
And when you crisscrossed the state on that last day of the
campaign--the Ku Klux Klan burned fires against you in fifty
different cities and towns . . . you gave a speech that night
and said, ``We will light the fires of knowledge and not the
fires of hate.''
Dad, you went on to serve and affect so much change for the
good of your district and your state. Your integrity and
sense of justice were so admired by your Washington
colleagues that midst the Watergate happenings, you were
called ``the conscience of the House.''
And when the Warren Commission's findings on the
assassination of John F. Kennedy were thrown in doubt--you
were called upon to head up the new commission--because Dad,
they knew they could count on you to be fair. All of us here
could have always told them that.
And your findings 25 years ago that Oswald did not act
alone--were recently--after exhausting technical
examinations--upheld. Dad, you always were in all of our
hearts, the best doggone Judge around.
And you've all heard Jane's wonderful stories. There is
really no one quite like you. As a father for my entire
life--you never raised your voice in anger--ever--at your
five children--something your oldest son has not been able to
master.
An incredibly calm, patient temperament combined with a
fierce tennis competitive streak--mix in the love of fishing
in a stream, as well as playing the alto and soprano sax--add
humor and a sweet disposition--take these qualities and
surround them with compassion for your fellow beings and an
unwavering love of the law--and you have my father.
Several years ago Dad gave me the complete works of Checkov
and along with it a handwritten note at Christmas. It said,
``We are proud of you for the things you have done, but we
are most proud of your greatest achievement--your marriage to
Marilyn and your three beautiful children. For all our
ambitions and plans and strategies, the truth is, no other
single thing is more precious than family and friends and the
sense of belonging to a community.''
Thank you, Dad, for writing us this message.
We're all hearing you now, Dad, about that. We're all here
for you now--your family--your friends--your vast and diverse
community--we're all here because we love you and believe in
you and to thank you for showing us the goodness of being
steadfast and true on our brief journey upon God's eternal
earth.
So Dad I want to thank you for taking us all fishing on
Sunday afternoons after church. I want to thank you for
taking my fingers in your hand and putting them down on the
blue jazz keys on the alto horn. I want to thank you for
teaching us to read the great books in the evening after our
daily jobs were done. I want to thank you for showing us a
way to live with laughter on our lips--what is it you used to
say, ``Let no good deed go unpunished.''
And I want to thank you for teaching us how to strike,
throw, pass, catch, bounce,
[[Page 6200]]
kick, and serve every manner and size of ball, because Dad
you could hit a golf ball farther than anyone your age--
period.
And thank you for watching your young grandchildren playing
in tennis tournaments for 2\1/2\ hours in 95 deg. heat--with
the ball going back and forth endlessly. Only a Saint could
stand such agony.
And thank you for holding the children on your lap in the
den while you read on--totally oblivious as our many young
ones sped all around you.
And Dad I want to thank you and Mom for being such a
fabulous team--the vitality--the joy--the adventurous attack
on life each day. How ya'll had us all on the move--and I
mean everyone--in motion--let's get going!
I really believe that with you and Mom gone--watching over
us--time has slowed down in Old General Greene's city.
And Dad your friends are going to miss you on the fairways
and tennis courts and classrooms and walkways--all around us.
And goodness knows, Dad, our family is going to miss you as
much as if a trusted nightly star had fallen from the sky.
But though we might not see you, Dad--you shall always be
with us.
Your spirit shall help guide us--to be a better human
family--through life's push and shove--learning again to use
a strong hand to lift a weak shoulder--rediscovering the
daily lessons of love. These are your strengths, Dad. These
are the strengths of family and community. These things shall
guide us and help us find a more open, goodly path.
That is what you would want, Dad. We'll all keep giving it
a try.
We promise.
____
Richardson Preyer Memorial Service--Greensboro, April 5, 2001
(Remarks by Tom Lambeth)
To share this special moment with Rich's children is not to
forget that there are all of you out there who pay tribute to
Rich by your presence and, indeed, by the example of your own
lives made richer because of friendship and love and
commitment inspired by his life. I cannot rightly claim to
speak for you; only to serve as a reminder of how far beyond
his own family he extended the simple eloquence of his
humanity.
In 1945 on the morning of the beginning of the battle for
Okinawa three destroyers stood in line to begin the pre-
landing bombardment. The torpedo officer on the third was a
young LtJG from North Carolina named Preyer. The second of
the ships ran aground and came under constant, deadly fire
from shore batteries. In a subsequent explosion and sinking
much of its crew was lost. Years later, telling of that
morning, Rich would say ``all of those young lives gone.''
Rich was not given to the dramatic so he never said that
those who survived lived for all of those who did not, but
that is the way he lived. In a public career and a private
life that defined the good man and the true patriot, he lived
for all of them and for their children and their children. He
lived for all of us and what a grand life it was, what a
splendid example it has been and will be.
We as individuals and as a society are strengthened, we are
enriched when we find those values that make us good and
great captured in the life of another. Loyalty, faith,
service, courage and honor are real to those of us here
because we saw them alive. We saw Rich Preyer.
His courage was tested by the torpedos of the North
Atlantic, the Kamikazees of the South Pacific and by the
attacks of political opponents and he did not falter. His
service as a judge at local, state and federal levels, as a
six term congressman constantly handed the toughest
assignments; his leadership in countless community efforts
and many statewide endeavors are his answer to those who
dispair of our ability to make democracy work. He loved that
work and his love for it said to all of us that public
service, that politics can be noble because the people are
worthy of the best that we have to give.
Rich was competitive and he did not always win (although he
would want us to remember that he won much more often than he
lost) but he knew that the scoreboard is only an incident in
the contest, that true victory is in the heart. In that
contest, he never lost.
Years ago I had the great satisfaction of sitting with him
when he received an honorary degree from my alma mater at
Chapel Hill. When he sat down, finally relieved of the burden
of earned degrees at Princeton and Harvard; I leaned over and
said to him ``Now you are as good as the rest of us.'' Yet, I
knew, as you do, that he was better than almost any of us. It
is a tribute to the grace which he carried his
accomplishments that realizing his excellence makes us feel
better about ourselves.
Now we gather for our moment of remembrance and of
celebration of a truly good life; but the most eloquent
tribute to Rich will be the way in which we seek to capture
for ourselves and our communities that consistency of
strength and truth and goodness that defined his life.
It is for those of us--all of you out there--who in some
way worked beside him over the years to say with new vigor
that simple farewell of so many remembered afternoons:
``Good night Rich. See you in the morning.''
Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from the
Fourth District of North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Coble) for yielding me this time. Let me also thank the
gentleman for putting together this Special Order today.
Madam Speaker, I want to echo my colleagues who have already spoken
and also thank them for their participation in this today, because I
rise today as they do to celebrate the life and career of a very unique
and outstanding human being who was a former Member of this body and
really a great North Carolinian. L. Richardson Preyer was a very
special individual. His death has saddened all of us in this North
Carolina delegation and North Carolinians in general because we have
lost one of our great native sons.
Today, as we gather to honor his life and works, not only as a North
Carolinian but as a great American, and to celebrate what he did to
really make our world a better place, it is my honor to participate in
that.
L. Richardson Preyer was a native of North Carolina, but he really
was a citizen of the world. He always said that he was lucky to have
been born on third base. By this he meant that he had the advantages
that most people did not have. His grandfather and namesake Lunsford
Richardson invented Vick's VapoRub and Vick's Cough Drops; and as a
result, the family had immense personal resources, some would say a
fortune, that built the Richardson Merrill Chemical Corporation.
As a result of that, he had an opportunity to attend the best
schools. He attended Princeton and the law school at Harvard, as we
have already heard; but his family resources allowed him to do that.
Instead of living a life in the private sector and taking advantages of
the wealth that he could have accumulated and his family already had,
he chose instead to make his life one of public service in changing the
lot, as we have already heard from my colleague the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Price), for those who did not have a voice in many cases.
After his graduation from Princeton, as we have heard, he served as a
lieutenant with the United States Navy and was on a destroyer in the
Atlantic and in the South Pacific and earned a Bronze Star for his
heroism and his valor at Okinawa. One did not hear a lot from him about
that. He did not talk about it.
Rich Preyer was a great lover of the arts. He used his family
resources to help the lot of many people, and he invested in the arts
and in music, which he loved a great deal, and in his church. After
serving for several years, as has been indicated earlier, as a State
superior court judge, he was appointed by his Harvard Law School
classmate, John F. Kennedy, to a position as a U.S. judge. As all of us
know, that is a lifetime appointment; but he resigned that post in 1964
to really make a difference in what he saw was an opportunity to change
our State. He did not win that election, as we have already heard, but
to his credit he continued to take on issues that were important to the
people of North Carolina, because that is what Rich Preyer was all
about.
For those 5 years he was out of public life, he worked with what was
then North Carolina National Bank and then came back in 1968 and ran
for and won a seat in this body, representing his hometown of
Greensboro and the Sixth Congressional District. He continued to make a
difference in this body for the 12 years of his career in the United
States Congress. He served as chairman of the Select Committee on
Ethics, which drafted the Congressional Code of Ethics that those of us
who serve here today live by.
Much of this was what Rich Preyer really believed. As we have heard,
he was a member of the Select Committee in this House that investigated
President Kennedy's assassination and the
[[Page 6201]]
Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., an indication of how he was respected
by this body; but also it said a lot about the integrity of an
individual who really, in my opinion, was a conscience of the United
States Congress.
Although his career ended in this body in 1981, his work on behalf of
the people of North Carolina did not end. As I have indicated, he was
involved in so many things in his community that one did not see on the
surface that dealt with the arts. The thing I want to talk about for
just a moment in some detail really is what Rich did for education in
North Carolina.
During my term as superintendent of the schools for the State of
North Carolina, in 1989 I had the occasion to appoint a statewide
commission of business, civic, community, and education leaders to take
a look at North Carolina's educational system; and we appointed a
commission called Excellence in Secondary Education. We started looking
across the State. Where do we find an individual to chair a commission
headed by people who are on this commission who are leaders in industry
and in banking and in education? Obviously, as we looked across the
State, the name of L. Richardson Preyer popped up. We asked him to
chair it. Without hesitation, he committed and accepted that challenge
and spent the next year providing the kind of leadership that was
needed to pull this diverse group together, along with all the data
from across the country.
As a result of his strong and visionary leadership, that became the
blueprint that I used for the next 8 years and that many of my
colleagues are still using in North Carolina to make a difference in
education. I thank his family for allowing him to have the time to do
that.
I charged him in that time with coming back with recommendations that
would not only make our schools better but would challenge them to have
the kind of assessment that we needed to have that would help every
child reach their full potential. He was instrumental in making that
happen.
As I said, we are grateful for him today; but children who do not
know him, did not know his family, are now benefiting from his work. He
was a well-rounded individual. Not only was he a model public servant,
but he was a father who loved his family and who lived out the ideals
of the family values that we hear so many people talk about today.
He and his wife, Emily, were a team; and together they raised five
outstanding children, and they truly enjoyed their grandchildren.
I always looked forward to, at Christmastime, receiving his Christmas
card because it was not only just his and Emily's, it was the whole
family with their grandchildren. On top of that, he was an elder and a
teacher in the First Presbyterian Church in Greensboro for more than 40
years. He did not talk a lot about his religion. He lived it.
Madam Speaker, L. Richardson Preyer is one of the greatest public
servants my State has ever produced, but he was great not because he
had the benefits of political connections and the wealth or because he
served for over a decade in this body. He was a remarkable human being
because he made the most of his God-given gifts, and he desired to make
a difference in the lives of every North Carolinian and the people of
this country, but especially in the lives of children.
It is important to point out that during his tenure as a State judge,
as has been pointed out today, he upheld rulings that allowed five
black children to attend an all-white school in Greensboro; thus,
integrating those schools for the first time and literally changing and
beginning to change the South and across this country. This was an act
of tremendous courage for that day and age. He was a man of unique
character and well ahead of his time in the arena of civil rights and,
it can be argued, probably cost him the governor's mansion in our
State. He was a patriot and a public servant of the highest order. He
was a friend and colleague of mine in the fight to improve education
for all children.
Many of his ideals have helped to and will help children everywhere
to grow up and realize the American dream.
Madam Speaker, the list of names of great men and women who have
served in this body is long. All of them used their lives and gifts to
serve their communities, States, and this great Nation. Today we honor
L. Richardson Preyer and add his name to that long list of great
Americans.
Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Hayes) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) expressed
interest in speaking on this Special Order, but they are at committee
meetings and it appears unlikely that they will be able to come to the
floor. So, Madam Speaker, let me conclude.
Much has been said during this Special Order about Emily Preyer, but
I do not believe it was mentioned that she pre-deceased her husband by
several months.
I recall, Madam Speaker, recently, several days ago, we were at a
full House Committee on the Judiciary meeting, and I looked into the
faces of several people in the crowded room, and I detected a man who
served as a former staffer to Rich Preyer. I called him forward. He
came to the podium where I was seated in the Committee on the Judiciary
hearing room, and I said to him, Ed, Rich Preyer is not in good health.
I said, I am told that he is failing and I thought you needed to know
that, because he was very close to Mr. Preyer.
He thanked me for having shared that with him. The next day, Rich
Preyer passed away; and that told me in glaring terms, Madam Speaker,
about the uncertainty, about the indefinite phase, of life. I am
talking to Ed one day. His staffer was going to call him the next day
to talk to him and it was too late.
I would extend our condolences and good wishes to the surviving
children and their families and conclude with this comment, Madam
Speaker. Jim Slosher, one of our well-known reporters at the Breezeberg
News and Record, called me for a quote shortly after Rich Preyer's
death. I thought for a moment, and I said when you saw Rich Preyer you
instinctively uttered or concluded there stands a gentleman. He was,
indeed, a rare gentleman.
I want to thank those who took part in this Special Order today,
Madam Speaker; and I want to urge those who wanted to be here who were
otherwise detained to feel free to submit their comments in a
subsequent edition of the Record.
Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my
colleagues in honoring the memory of the late L. Richardson Preyer who
served my home state of North Carolina and our country with
distinction. Richardson Preyer has an outstanding record of public
service dating back to his time in the U.S. Navy during World War II,
for which he was awarded the Bronze Star.
Through his years as a State Superior Court Judge, a United States
District Court Judge and then as a Member of the U.S. House of
Representatives for six terms, Richardson Preyer saw his responsibility
and fulfilled his duty when called upon. Serving with a quiet demeanor
but effective in getting the job done, he commanded the respect of his
constituents and his peers in the Congress.
Richardson Preyer was always concerned about the welfare of the
people and his desire to help those who were less fortunate was well
known. It was the hallmark of his unsuccessful campaign for Governor of
North Carolina in 1964 and then of his Congressional career from 1969
to 1981.
Richardson Preyer was never too busy to give of his time and his
considerable abilities when he was needed. When Congressman Preyer
passed away recently, North Carolina lost a valiant patriot who loved
his country, and who served us well.
I am honored to have the opportunity to pay tribute to Richardson
Preyer and I extend my sympathy to the Preyer family on their loss.
____________________
HEALTH CARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia). Under a
previous order of the House, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss an
issue that is a very important issue to my home State, Washington
State, and to the people in that State. That issue
[[Page 6202]]
is health care. As I traveled around my district during the Easter
recess meeting with health care consumers, physicians and hospitals,
again and again I heard of rising costs, declining reimbursements, and
general frustration with our system.
First, I would like to address the issue of prescription drugs. I
strongly support adding a prescription drug benefit for Medicare
beneficiaries. Today, many seniors are forced to purchase expensive
Medigap policies or join HMOs to try and avoid the high out-of-pocket
expenses for prescription drugs.
{time} 1445
Seniors should not be forced to choose between groceries and their
medicines.
In this time of government surpluses, I believe some of the surplus
must be used to provide a Medicare drug benefit; and using the surplus
for a drug benefit within the framework of reducing the national debt,
we can provide for a more prosperous and healthy Nation.
I also have great concerns about Medicare reimbursement, particularly
in my home State. Because of a flawed complex formula, the Federal
Government provides fewer Medicare dollars for seniors in Washington
State. Medicare reimbursements are based on the region's average cost
of living, rather than on an individual's personal income, so
Washington State senior citizens receive less Medicare support than
most other States. Medicare payments in Washington rank fifth from the
bottom nationally; and between 1998 and 1999, Medicare payments in
Washington experienced the sixth fastest decline of all States.
As a result of the low reimbursement rate in Washington State, many
health plans have opted to withdraw from Puget Sound area plans that
serve seniors. Last year, as many as 30,000 seniors in Washington State
received notice that their health plans would no longer serve them or
that they would increase the deductible for the same coverage. That is
wrong. I support access and affordability; but, above all, equity for
Washington State seniors and will work to rectify this unfair
provision.
In addition, according to the Washington State Medical Association
study, the average medical practice in Washington State lost $95,000 in
1999. Reduced Medicare payments have led to a white-coat flight, with
physicians leaving the State or retiring early. This is simply
unacceptable.
Local hospitals also continue to contact me about their deep
financial difficulties related to the cutbacks of the Balanced Budget
Act legislation of 1997. As we know, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
enacted some far-reaching changes in the way Medicare pays health care
providers. These changes were intended to both modernize Medicare and
save some $115 billion over 5 years.
Today we know that the actual savings are much larger than Congress
had anticipated and those changes are affecting services. Like many
Members, I have been hearing from health care providers in my district
regarding these cuts in the BBA and how they are affecting and may
affect in the future their ability to provide quality health care to
our seniors. I take these concerns very seriously.
For instance, Whidbey General Hospital on Whidbey Island has detailed
for me their hardship. Approximately 50 cents of every dollar they
receive goes to the cost of running their facilities and dealing with
insurance plan requirements, not to patient care. These skyrocketing
administrative burdens add cost, but little value, to the delivery of
health care. Patients must come first.
So, Madam Speaker, I have outlined many of the health care concerns
that are of the highest priority to patients and providers in
Washington State. I plan to work on these issues in a bipartisan
fashion in the 107th Congress so that we can get some much needed
relief at home in Western Washington for our seniors, for our
physicians, for our hospitals, but, most importantly, for patient care.
____________________
EVALUATING THE PRESIDENT'S FIRST 100 DAYS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of
the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin discussing today
the first 100 days of the Bush Administration. I know that over the
next week you will probably hear from both Democrats as well as from
the President about the first 100 days, because traditionally the first
100 days of a Presidency have been a sort of benchmark for judging the
President.
I believe the actual day when Mr. Bush, President Bush, will have
been in office for 100 days is next Monday, April 30th.
The first 100 days has been a useful yardstick for measuring new
Presidents since Franklin Roosevelt's first term. What I would like to
do is give my analysis of why where I think we are.
During the campaign, the President promised to be a compassionate
conservative. I am sure many remember that saying. He said he would
unite the country behind a common agenda. He said he would promote
prosperity with a purpose and be a reformer, that he would be a
reformer with results determined to leave no child behind.
I feel very strongly, Madam Speaker, that, to date, President Bush
has failed to back up this rhetoric that he used during the campaign
with any actions. This is an administration of, by and for the special
interests. I see the oil interests, I see the big mining interests, I
see them, the defense contractors, holding sway; not the average
person.
The President has made a string of decisions that, if you look at it,
are extremely partisan, and I think a payback to the special interests
who contributed to his campaign. I could go through a list of areas
where I could point what I am saying out and be more specific, but I
really wanted to focus, if I could, on two areas that are very
important to me and I think to the average American, and that is the
environment and, secondly, health care and health issues.
Perhaps in no area has the President during these first 100 days been
such a disappointment to me, and I think to the average American, than
on environmental issues. I think many of us knew that he was not a real
environmentalist and he was not going to be what we would like to see
in terms of a real environmental President, but the reality has been
much worse.
The reality has been that he has determined in the last 3 months or
so in these 100 days to roll back the clock on a lot of environmental
protection measures that were very important and that were certainly
the backbone for progressive legislation and improvements to the
environment that we have seen in the last 30 years since Earth Day. I
just want to give you an example, if I could, of why I say that, and I
will start, if I could, with some of the energy-related issues.
The Bush Administration in the first 100 days has signalled to the
rest of the world that it does not really care about global climate
change. We know that the President basically has said that he is not
going to adhere to the Kyoto climate treaty. There was a real question
about whether or not this administration would even participate in any
further talks on climate change. Although Mrs. Whitman, the EPA
Administrator, did say over the weekend that they would continue to
talk, it is clear that they have no intention of proceeding with the
Kyoto Treaty and basically have told all the signers to that treaty to
forget it.
The President has also told the Congress that emission controls will
not include carbon dioxide. During the course of his campaign, he said
that he would address air emission controls for a number of pollutants
to try to improve air quality, but we were told about a month ago that
that would not include carbon dioxide, which is certainly one of the
most important pollutants and one of the ones that has the most
negative impact on air quality.
[[Page 6203]]
President Bush has also made it quite clear to the general public
that his energy goals will stress more production of fossil fuels, most
notably drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and he will
not stress conservation, increased technological efficiency, or the use
of renewables. The budget that the President sent us a couple weeks ago
specifically cut research on renewables, solar power, wind power, in
half.
I mention these as just an example, because I think that the issue of
energy and source of energy and whether there is going to be enough
energy is certainly a crucial one. We know that the price of gasoline
continues to go up. We are told it might be, who knows, $2.00, $2.50 a
gallon possibly by the summer.
So we need to have an energy policy. But to suggest that sort of the
backbone of the energy policy is drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, and we are not going to address global climate change,
we are not going to address carbon dioxide, that the only answer is
more production rather than use of renewables and conservation, I think
is an egregious mistake.
Let me talk about some other environmental issues. I think personally
that one of the most important areas where we need to make progress is
by cleaning up hazardous waste sites and also by making sure that our
drinking water is safe. Yet we were told just a few weeks ago by this
administration that the standards for arsenic in water, which are very
high, meaning very weak, I should say, 50 parts per billion, would stay
in place, and that the new standards that had been suggested by the
Clinton Administration to reduce that 50 parts per billion down to 10
parts per billion would not be implemented, that we needed another year
or so to study the issue before we could possibly improve on the
standards.
That was a major, I think, disaster, because it affects drinking
water quality. It affects the water that we drink, one of the basic
proponents of life. I think it was also symptomatic of what we are
going to see from this administration with regard to environmental
concerns.
In my subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the
Subcommittee on Environmental and Hazardous Materials, we had the EPA
administrator, Mrs. Whitman, come in and testify a few weeks ago, the
day after the President indicated that he was not going to enact
stronger arsenic standards, and she talked about the fact that there
was a huge backlog of infrastructure needs for safe drinking water; in
other words, money that the Federal Government would need to give to
the States or to the towns to upgrade facilities so not only would you
have hopefully better standards for drinking water, but you would also
have good pipes and good process for bringing it to your house so that
you can drink it safely.
When we got the Bush budget proposal a couple weeks ago after that
hearing, lo and behold, we find that the amount of money set aside for
safe drinking water is level-funded. In other words, it does not even
meet the authorization level or any of the future needs that the EPA
administrator talked about.
So what we are seeing now is that not only is the President
implementing either through regulatory action or inaction methods that
would cut back on environmental protection, but he is not providing the
money in the budget to do anything significant about our energy needs
or about our environmental concerns.
Another example with regard to environmental concerns is the
Superfund. My state has more Superfund sites than any other state.
There is a great need around the country to continue cleanups pursuant
to the Superfund program of very severe hazardous waste conditions.
What does the President Bush's budget do? It suggests we are going to
provide the money to clean up about 65 sites this next fiscal year,
whereas in the last 4 years under the previous administration we had
targeted about 85 sites per year to clean up. So cutbacks in the money
for the Superfund program.
Nothing in the budget to provide the corporate tax that would fund
the Superfund program, so in another year or two there would not be any
money in the Superfund trust fund to continue to pay for cleanups.
The list goes on and on. We just passed last year in the last few
days of the Clinton administration the Beaches Act. This was a bill
that says that each State has to test their water quality before they
let anybody swim on the beach and they have to close the beach if it
does not meet certain standards and post signs saying you cannot use
the beach because the water is dirty and authorize $30 million annually
to pay for that program, to give grants to the States so they would be
able to use it to do the water quality monitoring. Very important.
The summer is almost here, another couple of months. People do not
want to swim in dirty water any more than they want to drink polluted
water. Lo and behold, the budget comes out, and instead of the $30
million that is authorized, we see $2 or $3 million appropriated for
the Beaches Act.
This is what we are seeing over and over again. We are seeing an
effort to cut back on environmental programs, to not provide the money
for environmental programs, to eliminate progressive regulations that
were put in place by the Clinton administration. And if I had to look
at environmental and energy issues alone, without looking at anything
else, I would say that this first 100 days of the Bush administration
has been a total failure and totally out of sync with what the American
people want and totally in tune with what the special interests want.
Because, after all, what average citizen or what good government group
or what citizens group would say that they do not want safer drinking
water or they do not want to spend up money to clean up hazardous waste
sites or do ocean water quality monitoring? Nobody. The only people
against these things are the mining interests, the oil interests, the
polluters, who obviously have the President's ear because they were the
major contributors to his campaign.
So when the President promised to be a compassionate conservative, I
do not think that that meant that he was going to cut back on
environmental protection. When he said that he would unite the country
behind a common agenda, I would assume that that common agenda would be
protecting the environment, because it is very important to most
people. But, no, that is not what we are seeing. Then he said he would
promote prosperity with a purpose and be a reformer with results and
leave no child behind. Frankly, I think a lot of children are going to
be left behind if they have to deal with some of these environmental
concerns.
{time} 1500
Now, I want to go to the next area that I think is just as important
in evaluating the President's 100 days, and that is health care. During
the course of the campaign, probably the number one issue that we heard
about from both President Bush and his Democratic opponent was health
care. The President said that when he was the governor of Texas, he let
a Patients' Bill of Rights for HMO reform become law. He actually did
not sign it, but he said that he supported the Texas Patients' Bill of
Rights to try to improve and reform HMOs. The President said he would
agree to have something like what they have in Texas, the Patients'
Bill of Rights HMO reform, enacted into Federal law, that he had no
problem with the Texas legislation, and if we could do that nationally,
that would be fine, he would support it.
President Bush also said during the course of the campaign that he
wanted to expand Medicare to include a prescription drug program for
seniors, because we know that seniors increasingly cannot afford the
price of drugs; the price of prescription drugs continue to go up. It
is a bigger part of their household budget, their weekly and daily
expense, and we need to do something about it. President Bush said
during the campaign, oh, yes, I recognize that we must address this
issue, and I would be in favor of expanding
[[Page 6204]]
Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit.
The President also recognized during the campaign that there were an
increasing number of Americans who had no health insurance, something
like 40 million, now maybe it is 45 million Americans who have no
health insurance, no health coverage. He said that he wanted to go
about improving the situation with regard to that as well and maybe
come up with some sort of tax credit or some kind of program through
community health clinics to improve the situation for those who have no
health insurance.
Now, again, I would maintain that that entire health care agenda has
not only fallen flat on its face in the last 100 days, but it has not
even been addressed effectively by President Bush in the first 100
days. It almost disappeared from the radar screen. We do not hear about
it any more.
Let me just develop that a little bit on the three health care issues
that I mentioned, first with regard to a Patients' Bill of Rights.
Within days of the inauguration of President Bush, a bipartisan group
of Senators and House Members, Democrats and Republicans, got together
and introduced a bill in both Houses, Senator McCain and Senator
Kennedy in the Senate, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell),
the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, and the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a Republican, introduced a new Patients' Bill of
Rights bill with a lot of cosponsors, including myself; both Houses,
within days of the inauguration, exactly the same as the Texas bill
that President Bush had talked about during the campaign. No
difference. I would defy anyone to suggest that it was any different in
any significant way from what exists now in the State of Texas and is
working very well.
What have we heard? We have heard statements from the White House
that they do not like that bill, it not acceptable. They do not really
say why. We have heard statements from the White House saying, we are
going to come up with our own proposal, but we have not seen it yet. We
have heard statements from the White House suggesting that maybe they
like some of the other proposals that have been put out there by those
who are not as oriented towards reforming HMOs, but not even any real
suggestion as to which of those bills they like.
So in this case, with the Patients' Bill of Rights, I would maintain
that basically, the President has taken it off the radar screen. A
Patients' Bill of Rights, HMO reform, was so crucial during the
campaign that this was one of the first things that President Bush was
going to address. But we are almost at the 100 days on Monday, and he
has not, to my knowledge, done anything significant to suggest that he
even wants to come to common ground on this issue, or even make some
suggestions about what we should do in an effective way.
This Patients' Bill of Rights, the bipartisan bill that was
introduced within the few days after his inauguration that was like the
Texas bill, should have moved in both of these Houses and been on the
President's desk already. The only reason it has not is because the
President has not signaled what he wants or what he wants to do about
it.
This is a very important issue for Americans. People are denied care
all the time by HMOs. People die, people have serious injuries, they
are denied care, they do not have a way of addressing their grievances,
they cannot go to court, they cannot go to an outside independent
agency that would review why the HMO denied a particular operation or a
particular medical device. I get these calls every day in my district
office in New Jersey. We are not addressing it, and the President has
not addressed it in a meaningful way during his first 100 days.
Let me go to the second health care issue. I see I am being joined by
some of my colleagues, which is great. Let me just go to the second
health care issue, and then I would like to yield some time to one of
my colleagues. Medicare prescription drugs. During the course of the
campaign, the President said over and over again, this was a high
priority, something that he wanted to address. He was not always clear
as to exactly what he wanted to do. Most of the time he talked about a
benefit primarily, if not exclusively, but primarily for low-income
seniors, not an expansion of Medicare that would provide a benefit to
all seniors, but just to low-income seniors.
Mr. Speaker, I will be honest that I have been very critical of that,
because I think that since Medicare has always been for everyone,
because we do not have an income test for Medicare; it does not matter
how poor or how wealthy one is, one still gets it, I felt very strongly
and continue to feel very strongly that a prescription drug benefit
should be universal for every Medicare recipient. It should be
affordable and it should be simply latched on to Medicare and handled
by Medicare in the way that we traditionally do.
But even if one disagrees with that, the fact of the matter is that I
have not seen anything significant coming from this administration
other than in a suggestion that in the budget there should be something
like $150 million to pay for a Medicare benefit, and we have already
been told by everyone, including our Republican colleagues, that that
is not sufficient. But leaving that aside, we do not see any movement
here. There has not been any movement to mark up a prescription drug
bill in the House, in the Senate, in any committee, and the President
is not pushing for it. It is not a priority. All we heard from this
President during the first 100 days is that he wants a big, fat tax cut
that is going to primarily benefit wealthy Americans, corporate
interests, and actually is at the expense of the middle class and the
little guy because it would take so much money away that we would be
dipping into the Medicare Trust Fund, into the Social Security Trust
Fund, and frankly, we would probably put ourselves back into a deficit
situation and hurt the economy.
So that is the legacy. I could go on and on, but I would like to
yield to some of my colleagues. The legacy of this first 100 days is no
attention to health care concerns, ripping apart environmental
protection, actually being negative in terms of the environmental
agenda, and just devoting all the time and the resources of the
President to a huge tax cut that I think will hurt the economy and
certainly not benefit the average American.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for yielding me time.
President Bush's 100 days, first 100 days. The President has hit that
traditional landmark of his first 100 days. These 100 days have seen a
charm offensive from the White House. He is able to pay lip service to
the people, organizations and ideas.
He can create a classic photo opportunity as evidenced with his
recent appearance at the Boys and Girls Clubs in Wilmington, Delaware
and other clubs throughout the country while a candidate. But as he
posed with those children at these clubs, he took a red pen to their
funding in the budget and completely eliminated Federal aid for the
Boys and Girls Clubs.
He bragged throughout the campaign about both his wife's and his
support for reading and libraries, and then he snatched 70 percent of
Reading Is Fundamental's budget.
Is this compassionate? It is surely conservative. And, it highlights
the hypocrisy of compassionate conservatism hidden behind a smirk
screen.
President Bush has assembled a cabinet of special interests. The
average personal worth of the members of the cabinet is $11 million. He
spent his first 100 days bowing to the special interests and
corporations in America that financed his run for the White House.
According to Democracy 21, President Bush received $35 million from 103
soft money donors during the election. He is paying those people back
with ambassadorships and placements to Federal posts and ignoring the
working people of America.
As President Bush pushes his huge tax cut for the wealthiest
Americans,
[[Page 6205]]
he is cutting social programs that people rely upon on a daily basis.
The other body limited the tax cut at about the same time the Texas
State Legislature was lobbying Health and Human Services Secretary
Tommy Thompson for aid because of the shortfall caused by the tax cut
Governor Bush gave to the people of Texas. We say ``no, thanks'' to the
shortfalls and deficits and demand funding for programs that make our
families and children safer, smarter and healthier.
Bush's budget cuts also cuts the unemployment administration and
benefit coverage at a time when both the general unemployment rate and
the unemployment rate of workers eligible for unemployment insurance
are expected to grow from 2001 to 2002.
He cuts work force training and employment programs 9.5 percent, or
$541 million, in training and employment services.
He cuts Section 8 housing assistance vouchers by more than half,
supported only 33,700 new vouchers across the country. The proposal
also cuts tenant protection by $62 million and completely cuts tenant
protection vouchers provided to disabled persons displaced from public
housing designated for the elderly.
The public housing construction and repairs are cut by $700 million,
or 23 percent, after HUD found $22.5 billion in unmet capital repair
needs in public housing. Let us get back to that again. Mr. Speaker,
$22.5 million in unmet capital repair needs, and that program was cut
by $700 million, or 23 percent.
The Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, which funds antidrug and
anticrime law enforcement and security in public housing. In 2001, this
program was funded at $309 million. Specifically in the 11th
Congressional District, I had a conversation with the head of the
Public Housing Authority and she said to me, the elimination of the
drug-elimination program funds from her budget was like eliminating the
entire Police Department from the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing
Authority budget.
He went on to cut the Digital Divide Program of the Commerce
Department, which provides computers and Internet connections to low-
income and underserved areas by 65 percent.
He froze the Ryan White AIDS program at the 2001 level at a time when
the drug cocktail and therapies has the number of people seeking AIDS
treatment more than doubling since 1996.
He cut the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by $109
million, or 2.6 percent below the 2001 freeze level. Areas specifically
cut are chronic disease and health promotion activities, such as
diabetes, cancer and arthritis.
He cut health professional training programs by $123 million, or 60.3
percent.
He cut Community Oriented Policing Services, the COPS program, which
has placed over 100,000 new police officers in communities, by $172
million.
He cut the small business budget by 43 percent.
Mr. Speaker, let me go on to just talk about a few other things that
he cut. He closed the AIDS office. He closed the Race Relations office.
He closed the Women's Bureau office. He provided for more arsenic in
water. He went on to talk about maybe salmonella in hamburger in school
systems is okay, and came back around and changed his mind. He changed
the Kyoto Treaty, where all countries across America had agreed to
CO2 levels. Then add to all of that naming some of the, in
my opinion, most unqualified people to head some of the departments
within the United States Government, those who are not sensitive to the
issues affecting all Americans.
So what I say is do not let the Bush smirk screen fool us. He eagerly
reverses programs that will keep our communities and families safe and
does it with a smile and a quip. We will have increasingly dangerous
streets without the safety programs the President has cut, more people
looking for housing assistance, a decreased ability to count on our
drinking water, and other environmental programs. He likes to disarm
his opponents with charm and allow his hatchet men to do the dirty
work, but we know who is sending those hatchet men and whose work they
are doing.
Mr. Speaker, do not be fooled by the Bush smirk screen.
{time} 1515
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Ohio.
If I can comment briefly, and then I would introduce another
colleague. I want my colleagues here, both Democrats and Republicans,
to understand that the reason that we are doing this today and pointing
to the first 100 days is not because we dislike the President
personally or because we are hoping that he fails. Just the opposite. I
hope that he succeeds, and I wish him the best.
Mr. Speaker, personally he seems like a very nice person. The problem
is that the policies that he is implementing are not policies or an
agenda that is helpful to the country, whether it is economic
development of the country or it is environmental or health concerns. I
think we have an obligation regardless of party affiliation to point
out these problems because we do not want it to continue.
My hope is that public pressure is brought against the administration
on environmental issues and health care issues so that the President
changes course and actually has an agenda and implements policies,
together with Congress, that are positive and that help the average
American.
I just think that it is necessary for us to speak out and point out
where the shortfalls are because otherwise it is going to continue. I
certainly do not want what I have seen for the first 100 days to
continue for the next 3\1/2\ years of this administration.
I yield to my colleague from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would note that we are having a Special
Order at 3:15 in the afternoon, and that seems to be typical in this
Congress. The Republican agenda is tax cuts, and then tax cuts and then
tax cuts, all of them directed and weighted to the wealthiest people of
the country. But other than that, there is not much of an agenda.
We have learned a couple of things in the first 100 days of the
George W. Bush administration. The first thing is that the word
``compassionate'' was a political slogan for use during the campaign.
You cannot find any compassion in the President's budget. Once he gets
to the point of putting down numbers, there is nothing compassionate
about his particular brand of conservatism.
Second, he came to Portland, Maine, in my district to pitch his tax
cut. As he has done all across this country, he said that in effect the
tax cut comes from leftover money. He says after we have funded our
priorities, there is a huge surplus in this country and it should go
back to the people because it is the people's money. In other words he
basically was saying this money is not needed to run the programs that
benefit people in their districts, in their States right now. That is
not true. It is absolutely not true, and once you have the budget you
can see that it is not true.
The tax cuts do not come from leftover money. What he gives back to
the American people in tax cuts, he takes from them in budget cuts. Let
us talk about a few of these that he is clearly going to try to get
through.
For example, let us take law enforcement. By and large Democrats and
Republicans have agreed that we need to fight crime in this country. We
need to help local communities fund law enforcement. That is why we
have had this program for a 100,000 police officers. That is why we
have tried to encourage community policing across the country. The
President's budget cuts the COPS program by 17 percent. All of these
cuts, some of which I am going to run through, there is not time to run
through them all, what they do is they will grow dramatically over time
because the tax cut grows dramatically in each successive year. That is
why the budget cuts have to be so severe.
The Bush budget cuts funding for land management programs by $2.6
billion including the Department of Interior, the EPA, the Army Corps
of Engineers; and these funds have helped parks and wildlife refuges in
Maine.
[[Page 6206]]
The Bush campaign said that he would leave no child behind. The Bush
budget leaves many of America's children behind. How does that happen?
On the one hand he says we are going to add $1 billion more for special
education. On the other hand he pulls back $1.2 billion for school
construction and renovation. In my State of Maine it means we get $4.5
million more in special education funds, whereas full funding would be
$60 million for the State of Maine. And he takes back $5.5 million. We
lose $1 million, and yet the President is saying education is one of
his top priorities.
This makes no sense. It makes no sense at all. This is the one chance
we have had in decades, in fact since the special education law was
passed, this is our one chance to pass special education. And if the
President's tax cut passes, that chance will be gone for a decade.
It is absolutely clear that the priority is tax cut first, tax cut
second, tax cut third; and education, prescription drugs for seniors,
Social Security and Medicare, the environment, they are so far down on
the agenda that you cannot even see them.
The President says we have an energy crisis. He favors more drilling
in ANWR, but his budget cuts funds for renewable energy resources
programs and energy conservation programs. What sense does that make?
Mr. Speaker, I think that certainly in my State it is clear that his
budget cuts are aimed directly at the heart of Maine municipalities.
The cuts in special education or the reduced fund for education
overall, the reduced funding for law enforcement, inadequate funding to
separate storm and sewer drains, all in all this tax cut is way too
large, way too weighted for the wealthiest people in this country; and
that is what he is asking the country to judge him by.
A tax cut of the size that the President has proposed will not allow
funding for special education. Half the size would allow us to make
dramatic progress in a variety of different areas. It would, for
example, help with some of those mandates that we really struggle with
all of the time. It would allow full funding of a Medicare prescription
drug benefit. I want to say something about that, an issue I have
worked on for some period of time.
When you look at what the Republicans are trying to do, both in the
House and in the other body, and when you look at what the President is
proposing, there is no way it works for rural States. I do not care
whether you are a Republican, Independent, Democrat, in rural America
the privatization of Medicare which is what the Breaux-Frist reform
plan is all about, will not work. We learned last August from the
Congressional Budget Office that traditional fee-for-service Medicare
is cheaper than the services provided to Medicare beneficiaries by
managed care companies, by HMOs. Yet the President continues his train
down a track that provides that we are going to make sure that at least
half, maybe more, of Medicare beneficiaries are served not by Medicare
but by Aetna or United or the private insurance companies that have
gone in and provided some HMO coverage to Medicare beneficiaries in
other parts of the country, not in Maine.
Mr. Speaker, I know this: Medicare does not pick up and leave a State
when it is not making money. Private insurance companies do. HMOs do.
They pick up and they leave States. Not only that, in any given year if
they are not making enough money, this will increase the premium. If
they are not making enough money, they will decrease the benefit. What
kind of system is the President laying before this Congress? We can
already see in this first 100 days what the President's agenda is. It
is easy to find. If you want to know his policies on energy or the
environment, just look at those policies advocated by the oil industry,
by the coal industry, by the gas industry. That is where you will find
perfect agreement.
If you want to know his policies on health care, look at the
pharmaceutical industry and the health insurance industry. They are the
same policies as the President has.
If you want to know his policy on privatizing Social Security, it is
the same policy that Wall Street brokerages have been advocating for
years because it will make them lots of money. This administration is
captured by the special interests of the country. The President talks
about running the government like a business. Well, at the rate we are
going, the government will be nothing more than a business. It will pay
no attention to those values that we deal with every day here because
in this Congress, in the people's House, our job is not just about
commercial values, it is about making sure that people have a chance to
get ahead. That is what this country is all about. In a wide variety of
areas, whether education, health care, the environment, we can only do,
we can only improve our collective well-being through the Federal
Government, the State governments, and the local governments. Abraham
Lincoln said in 1854, ``Governments exist to do those things which a
community of individuals cannot do, or cannot do so well by
themselves.'' That message has been lost on this administration. Lost
on this administration.
Mr. Speaker, we need to move in this country from thinking not just
about me, not just about our individual welfare, but to thinking about
the common good, an old-fashioned phrase, but one that still has
meaning and one that the people of America still understand. They know.
The people in my State know. Here is a headline from yesterday's paper:
``Local Advocates Rally Against Bush Budget Cut.'' People in Maine know
we have an interest in making sure that the young people growing up in
public housing projects have a chance for a better life.
The President has zeroed out a $60 million grant to the Boys and
Girls Clubs of this country. A small portion of that money goes into
Portland, Maine. Let me tell you what it does. It funds four study
centers, after-school study centers for kids. They come out of school,
they have a place to go. They have tutors, and materials to work on.
They can improve their education and do better in school.
Four different areas in Portland. It helps pay for a satellite Boys
and Girls Club, a peer leadership program through which young people
are able to develop leadership skills. It helps fund the Institute for
Practical Democracy, a place for girls; and a variety of other
programs. One woman who works with these children said if we eliminate
this, we eliminate opportunities for our kids. The truth about the Bush
tax cut is that it is taking money out of the hides of our kids. It is
taking money out of the hides of our seniors. It is taking money out of
the hides of the municipalities and communities all across this
country, and it is taking money away from our ability to protect and
preserve our environment.
Mr. Speaker, there is no free lunch in this country. Revenues are
related to expenditures, even though the administration would argue the
tax cut as if it were totally separate from the programs that American
people and American communities have come to depend on. We need to do a
better job, and we can.
A tax cut half this size protects and preserves the kinds of programs
which make a difference in the lives of Americans all across the
country. This budget and tax cut are bad for my State of Maine. They
are bad for the country. They are bad for working men and women all
across the country, and it is our hope that they will be rejected.
Mr. Speaker, we may not change the administration; but it is our hope
that in this Congress and in the other body we will be able to change
the direction to one that is more balanced, more sensible and fairer
for ordinary Americans.
{time} 1530
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Allen). If I could just comment a little on what the gentleman
from Maine said because there were certain points that I just feel were
so well articulated.
I am so pleased that the gentleman kept stressing that there is no
free
[[Page 6207]]
lunch. He started out that way and he concluded that way. Because I do
believe that, if we listen to the President in the first 100 days, he
is constantly giving the impression that there is this huge surplus and
there is all this money that we can spend for everything. The gentleman
from Maine and I know that is not the case. Most people know that is
not the case.
When the President's budget came out, it was vividly shown that, in
order to achieve this huge tax cut that was mostly going to the wealthy
and to corporate interest, that we had to make significant cuts and
even raid other programs, like Social Security and Medicare. So there
is no free lunch.
The other thing that I maintain is that, when we look at the
President's tax initiative, although it is geared toward the wealthy
and the corporate interests, it really does not help anyone ultimately,
because I am very concerned that if we actually put it in effect that
we would end up in a deficit situation again.
When I talk to wealthy Americans, of course, a lot of them do not
support his tax cut. Many of the wealthiest people in the country have
come out against it. I think the reason is that because they understand
that, if we go back into a deficit situation, it is going to hurt the
economy. We are going to end up with high interest rates. We are going
to have a situation where companies that want to start new production,
new techniques will not be able to borrow any money. That is what we
had for the period of time going back before the previous
administration. We do not want to go back to that. Nobody benefits from
that.
The last thing that I wanted to comment that I thought the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Allen) pointed out so well, a lot of times we talk
about programs, and we use that term ``program,'' and I worry that I do
not even want to use the term ``program'' because it almost has like a
bad connotation, Federal program. But the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Allen) talks about the COPS program, which I thought was so much on
point.
I mean, I had the same phenomenon that he pointed out where he had
the newspaper and there were local citizens' rallies. In Asbury Park,
which is one of my communities, one of the poorest communities that I
represent, the police and some of the local officials just
spontaneously, I did not know anything about it, had an event or press
conference. They were talking to the press about the COPS program and
how important it was to their city and how they had been able to hire
extra police and the money was coming from the Federal Government to
pay for it and this was helping with their fight against crime. They
could not imagine what was going to happen if this program effectively
ended.
Although there is some money in the budget for it, it has been cut so
much that there will be no new police hired.
So I just would like to point out that we are talking about real
things here. This has a real impact. We are not up here talking about
the 100 days in some abstract way because we dislike the President or
he is of the other party. We are just very concerned about what is
happening to the country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) for putting this special order together and bringing us
together to talk on this first 100 days of President Bush's presidency.
Actually, I am going to talk about energy. But it is clear to me,
when we look at the energy policies that have been brought forward or
not been brought forward since President Bush's election that in his
first 100 days in office, President Bush has made it very clear that
the only promise that he intends to keep is his commitment to leave no
special interests behind. Nowhere is that more clear than in his
actions and in his inactions surrounding energy and the environment.
In spite of all of his campaign promises and catchy speeches since
taking office in January, President Bush has made it clear that our
environment is not one of his priorities.
On the campaign trail, however, Bush vowed to strengthen carbon
dioxide regulations to keep factories from polluting our air further.
Within 2 months of taking the oath of office, he went back on his word,
refusing to toughen carbon dioxide standards, making it easier and more
effective for big industry to pollute.
Shortly after breaking his word on CO2s, President Bush
repealed tough new regulations that would have reduced the arsenic in
our drinking water. Instead of acting to protect the water that our
children drink, the President acted to protect mining companies from
having to clean up their act and keep our water clean.
In these first 100 days, the President also unilaterally withdrew
U.S. support from the Kyoto Treaty, seriously undermining our role as a
world leader in environmental protection.
Most alarming to me as a Californian and as the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science is the President's
lack of commitment to environmentally smart solutions for our energy
crisis.
All Americans want and deserve reliable, affordable energy.
Increasing our reliance on fossil fuels is not the way to solve our
energy crisis or protect us from future problems. A serious Federal
commitment to renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, and
conservation is the only real solution.
But let us face it. The President and his Vice President are oilmen.
Enron and other power companies were among Bush's campaign's biggest
donors. The bottom line is that Bush-Cheney and their campaign
contributors have a lot to gain from maintaining the stranglehold
fossil fuels have on our power supply.
Despite the fact that the President stood before this country and
said in his State of the Union Address that he was committed to
renewable energy research, he has done nothing in his first 100 days
except move to further increase our reliance on fossil fuels.
In fact, in his budget, President Bush slashed the funding for
renewable energy research by $200 million. Under the President's plan,
50 percent of the geothermal technology development funding would be
cut, 54 percent of the solar energy budget would be cut, and 61 million
dollars would be cut from energy efficiency research funding.
Once more, the President's budget ties future funding for renewables
to Federal dollars raised from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. That is an outrage. Destroying one of the most pristine
expansions of wilderness in our country for a limited supply of oil is
not a solution to the California or our Nation's energy crisis. It is
one more environmental problem. It is a problem that he would leave for
the future generations to solve.
So while Californians suffer through more blackouts and the Nation
struggles to pay skyrocketing energy bills, President Bush has his
billionaire oilman Vice President meeting in secret to craft a national
energy policy. If it is anything like the Bush budget, and one can be
sure it will be, it will be heavy on oil and nuclear energy and light
on safe, sustainable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) knows as
well as I do that 100 days may be a good benchmark for politicians and
pundits to assess new presidencies. But it is only a fraction of the
time that our President actually spends in office. If President Bush
continues this pattern for the rest of his term, big business may be
smiling, but the American people will not be.
Over the next 3\1/2\ years, President Bush may make good on his
commitment to leave no special interests behind. But after 4 years of
his antienvironment pro oil company stance, the American people will be
ready to leave President Bush behind.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), and I know how important the energy issue is
obviously in California and around the country.
The gentlewoman mentioned the issue of renewables. I know that, in
the budget, the research on renewables was
[[Page 6208]]
cut about half. I think she mentioned that. It is so unfortunate
because a lot of new technology is out there that is already being
tried. The United States is the leader in these new technologies. If we
think about it, here we are, the country that could take the leadership
role, whether it is global climate change or whatever, and export a lot
of these technologies, actually make money and create jobs; and this
administration does not want to attend to it. It is just so unfortunate
because it is so backward looking.
There are just ways of doing things that could create more jobs,
solve the energy crisis over the long-term and at the same time make
for a better quality environment, and he just does not listen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) very much for yielding to me.
Let me first of all just congratulate the gentleman on his leadership
in the environmental area. I know that the State of New Jersey cares a
lot about the environment, too. He has been a real leader when it comes
to renewables and coastal resources and protecting them. So I just want
to congratulate the gentleman for all his hard work in that area and
thank him for participating today.
I wanted to talk about the 100-day period and talk a little bit about
budget priorities. It seems to me that, as President, one puts in one's
budget the thing that one cares about, and one cuts the things that one
does not care about. Looking at a budget is a real test of where the
country is going to head under this President.
So I think the budget speaks louder than words more than anything. I
think one can have a lot of talk and one can have action, but the
budget reflects where one wants to take the country. That is where I
think this budget that has just come out, and by the way, I think it is
very interesting that we had all of these votes on tax cuts and overall
budget resolutions without ever seeing a budget. I mean, that is the
most devastating thing is to not even be able to see a budget before
one votes on the revenue side of the picture.
So let us take a look at what this budget reflects on environmental
issues. First of all, we have cuts across the board in various agencies
that deal with the environment. Let us take the Environmental
Protection Agency. This is an agency that enforces the law, that works
very hard to make sure that air quality and water quality and toxic
waste standards are all met. Those things are very, very important to
Americans. Cut EPA 8 percent in the President's budget.
Now, my understanding from talking to some of our members on the
Committee on the Budget is these cuts this year even get more severe in
succeeding years. So we are talking about serious deep cuts to a very
important agency like the Environmental Protection Agency.
Now, in my home State, we have a couple of national laboratories and
they are real jewels and they do a lot of great research. But in the
past, many, many years ago, they had nuclear waste which they disposed
of in improper ways. So there has been a 10-year program to try to get
that cleaned up.
Well, basically in this budget what the President is telling places
like Los Alamos is we are going to slow that cleanup down because they
cut the nuclear waste cleanup budget for the Department of Energy.
One of the other big items in this budget that I think is a very,
very important issue is research on alternative and renewable forms of
energy. If one looks in that Department of Energy budget for solar,
wind, other alternative and renewable sources of energy, big cuts in
those budgets. To me, that just does not make any sense.
Now, let us jump to the campaign trail for a minute, because
President Bush talked a lot on the campaign trail about how he was for
full funding of the land and water conservation fund. This is a fund
that helps the Federal Government, States, localities, cities try to do
everything they can to protect parks and to expand parks and to
refurbish recreation areas. That is what the land and water
conservation funds.
President Bush said in his campaign full funding of land and water
conservation fund. The Congress passed by a very, very big margin a
bill that, over the next 10 years, put significant monies; and there
was another big huge cut to the tune of $260 million in land and water
conservation fund monies going into parks, going in to help people with
recreation areas.
{time} 1545
This is a shared relationship. This is something that the Federal
Government does with a city and a county. They put up half the money,
we put up half the money, we go into it together to create a park and a
community.
One other department I want to mention because it is very important
in the West is the Department of Interior. The President's budget once
again has big cuts in the Department of Interior. What we have here,
and I think it is a very sad situation, we have a lot of talk about how
we are going to take care of the environment. We are going to move
towards clean air and clean water. Yet when we look at this budget
blueprint, we end up finding out that this President wants to cut in
all of these crucial areas, from the Environmental Protection Agency to
nuclear waste cleanup in DOE, to research on alternative and renewable
forms of energy, to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the
Department of Interior. I find it deplorable that this administration
would cut so deeply into those vital environmental programs.
I again applaud the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his
efforts on this issue.
Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from New Mexico. I just
want to mention to my other colleagues, I think we only have another
minute or two but they can do 5 minutes after this. I appreciate them
coming down and joining us.
I just wanted to comment briefly on what the gentleman from New
Mexico said because he talked about open space, which again is so
important in the State of New Jersey. Essentially he is right. What the
President has proposed for the budget, you could not possibly even fund
existing open space and land and water conservation programs, let alone
anything new. We have a lot of needs. We had a bus trip last week. We
went around the State. I was with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell) at the Great Falls in Paterson which he is trying to get
designated as a national park. There is no way that you can do that or
provide the funding for the Great Falls or any other new area for open
space or historical preservation with this budget. We need to point
this out.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the 100 days is over on Monday. Obviously
there is going to be a lot more talk about it over the next few days
before we get to Monday. The bottom line is that if you look at the
first 100 days of this administration, it has been a failure on so many
fronts. It is also not in tune with what the President said during his
campaign. We are not pointing this out because we want him to be a
failure. We are pointing it out because we want the agenda to change
and be more proactive and helpful to the average American. We feel that
there is a broad bipartisan consensus on a number of these
environmental and health care and education initiatives.
There is no reason why we cannot move forward in a positive way. The
President in his first 100 days has basically, I think, failed to carry
forth with the agenda that he promised in the campaign, which would be
good for the average American. Whether it is CO2 emissions
or open space or education, there is a lot of rhetoric but there is not
much action and certainly no indication of funding in the budget to
carry out what he promised. We will continue to point this out because
we want it to change and we think that this country can move in a
forward fashion on a bipartisan basis.
[[Page 6209]]
____________________
FIRST 100 DAYS OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for holding forth for an hour on what I
think is a very important discussion. I think it is also important as
we debate this issue that we clarify the reason why we rise to the
floor, Mr. Speaker, for some might think that it is clearly to make a
very bland or a very superficial analysis of 100 days of an
administration.
Might I say as a Member of the United States Congress, I am willing
to look at our 100 days as well because frankly what I am concerned
about is the future of this Nation, the good future of the Nation, the
improved quality of life. As I look to the 100 days, what I say to the
American people is we can analyze 100 days because we have certain
documents and certain actions that we can determine whether or not
there is a vision for the future of this Nation or whether in fact we
are going backward.
What I would say to the administration is of course there are
analyses that suggest that it has been an okay 100 days, it has been a
good 100 days, there is nothing that has been disturbed in the 100
days. That may be the case, but the question is who have we helped,
what vision have we set forward in order to improve the quality of life
of so many Americans? What have we done to be bold in our leadership?
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor of the House and cite
several aspects of concern that I have. I have not seen the bold
leadership that is necessary. When we left the last Congress, the 106th
Congress, we knew that we had a problem with uninsured children in
America. We know that in the last Congress and in the Congress before,
we put aside $24 billion to ensure that children around the Nation
could be insured. Yet that has not been fulfilled. And so it would be
important that a bold vision for America be a commitment to insure
every uninsured child. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that surpasses any
need to give a $1.6 trillion tax cut on a surplus that is unsteady.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we had bipartisan support on smaller class
sizes for our Nation's schools. Not only smaller class sizes but to
rebuild our crumbling schools. Not in someone's district but in
America, whether it is rural, suburban or whether or not it is an urban
area. There is not one of us who can go to our districts that cannot
find a 50-year-old school, a 60-year-old school. Certainly there is
great history and many of the old graduates are glad that their
building is still standing, but, Mr. Speaker, this is a circumstance
where windows have to be opened, where bathrooms are not working, where
stairwells are crumbling and our children are going to these schools.
Bold leadership, Mr. Speaker, would have meant that in the 100 days of
the administration that we are assessing and in this Congress we would
have already brought to the floor of the House legislation to rebuild
America's schools, collaborating with our local jurisdictions, talking
about smaller class sizes.
As a member of the Committee on Science, let me say that I have spent
some 6 years dealing with technology, research and development. My
colleague from New Mexico spoke about Los Alamos. I went to Los Alamos
and visited and saw the needs there. They have hardworking
professionals but I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, we need resources in
the Nation's labs. We need to rebuild them. We need to ensure that they
are safe. And can you believe that we in the Committee on Science have
oversight over a proposed budget by the administration that cuts this
kind of research and development. In fact, what we are finding out is
that there is more money for defense research and less money for
civilian research. That means that NASA, the Department of Energy,
NOAA, all of these entities that deal with the quality of life of
Americans, improving the quality of life of Americans, helping to clean
up nuclear waste, are now being proposed to be cut. That is not bold
leadership. It falls on the backs of this Congress and it falls on the
back of the administration.
Let me just quickly say, Mr. Speaker, why I am concerned. Both
bodies, if you will, both segments have not functioned with the
majority in the Senate and in the House that are Republican and this
administration. One of the first things we did that now is being
muffled over, if you will, in the 100 days is after 10 long years of
work, we thought it was important to repeal the ergonomics work safety
rule which was helping Americans with skeletal injuries because
Workmen's Compensation did not pay. The administration thought that
that was a big victory to repeal that long, hard work, starting under
Secretary Dole of the Department of Labor and now we are repealing
that.
Let me close by saying to you arsenic in the water, lowering
emissions, lack of dollars for affordable housing and homelessness. Mr.
Speaker, I would hope that we will strike a vision for the American
people, come together with some leadership, and respond to what
everyday, average Americans need in the 21st century.
____________________
FIRST 100 DAYS OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, we have come to the floor today to offer a
critique of the President's first 100 days in office. I think it is
only fair that before we offer some of our valid criticisms, that we
recognize where praise is due. I think before you give a new person on
the job a critique, you always start with something positive. I want to
start with something positive for the President. President Bush's FEMA
director, Joe Albaugh, has done a good job responding to the Seattle
earthquake, Mr. Speaker. We had this earthquake out in Seattle. He sent
Mr. Albaugh out there and they have done a crackerjack job responding
to my constituents' problems and we have appreciated it out there in
Puget Sound country.
But, Mr. Speaker, there has been another earthquake of longer
ramifications in my State and that is the earthquake of these
incredibly high energy prices, electrical rates that are going up 30,
50, 100 percent, people who are charging wholesale electrical rates
five, 10, 20 times higher than were just charged last year. Wholesale
electrical generators, many of whom happen to be from the President's
home State, who were charging $20 a megawatt-hour last year are now
charging $250, $500 a megawatt-hour, 10 to 20 times what they charged
last year.
Mr. Speaker, you can imagine what that is doing to the economy of my
State. We have had 400 people laid off from a pulp and paper mill that
has shut down. We have got small business owners that are curtailing
hours. We have got the prospect of 40,000 jobs lost as a result of
these incredible price hikes.
What has this President offered the people of the West Coast,
Washington, Oregon and California, in the face of this crisis? Nothing.
We have come to this President and offered meaningful price mitigation
legislation. We have asked him to urge FERC to ask for a meeting in the
next hour or so to potentially consider a response to do something
about these incredibly obscene prices that are not justified by cost,
not justified by new generating capability but are only occurring due
to folks who are gaming the system.
What has he said? ``Let them eat cake.'' He said this is just a
California problem. It is a Marie Antoinette energy policy and my
constituents are suffering because of it. We are continuing to urge
this President to give up this sort of mantra that this is just a
California problem. California is still attached to the rest of the
country. The earthquake has not caused it to be separated. My
constituents in the
[[Page 6210]]
State of Washington are suffering just as badly as the constituents, if
not worse, in California. We need this President to recognize he is the
President for all the people, not just those in Texas, not just for the
generators in Texas but he has got a responsibility to the people I
represent. We need him to work with us to design a price mitigation
strategy. If he will do that, he will win the applause of the folks on
the West Coast. Until that happens, Mr. Speaker, he is getting a D-
minus when it comes to this energy crisis on the West Coast. We need
his help and we are here to ask for it.
The second issue, Mr. Speaker, is on the environment. The President's
first days, first 100 days, have been tremendously inspirational. They
are inspiring people to come up to me in bus stops, in grocery stores,
on the ferry boat and they are saying, Jay, can you stop him? Can you
fight him? Can you fight him when he is trying to cut the Hanford
nuclear cleanup budget? Can you fight him when he is trying to loosen
arsenic rules? Can you fight him when he is trying to allow drilling in
the Arctic refuge? Can you fight him when he wants to loosen the
roadless area policies so that they can do clear-cutting in our
roadless areas, the last remaining nonclear-cutted areas in the
country? He has been an inspirational figure. He has inspired people
who have never before lifted a political finger to get out there and
get active to try to resist this environmental jihad that is going on
right now.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that when the votes come up on the floor of
this House, those inspirational messages will be heard and we will
defeat this President in his effort to drill in the Arctic and we will
have an opportunity to defeat this attack on the roadless area policy,
because what my constituents are telling me, Mr. Speaker, is that in
the first 100 days of this President's administration, his
environmental message has been, ``Leave no special interest behind.''
We are going to continue this fight.
____________________
A NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about an issue
that I know is going to become a very serious issue in this session of
Congress, and that is a national energy policy. This administration is
going to unveil in the coming weeks their plan for a national energy
policy and I thought it was important to talk a little bit about what I
think should be in that national energy policy and how we ought to look
forward. Energy and energy issues are not just about today. I think the
people of this country pay us to look out to the future, 25, 50 years,
and put this Nation on a very strong basis where we can be energy
efficient.
Are we in that condition today? I do not think so. I think
increasingly in recent years, we have gone up and up with imports. We
have increased our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, in the 1960s we
imported about 20 percent of our oil. We are approaching today about 60
percent of our oil.
{time} 1600
So we are getting heavily dependent on imports. Where is the foreign
oil coming from that we are importing? Over 55 percent of that oil is
coming from seven countries. They are in the Middle East, a volatile
region, a region where there is always something going to happen that
might impact the oil supply. So we need to look ahead.
I wanted to talk a little bit about what are the components of a
national energy policy.
First of all, we have to look at having a strong domestic industry.
Many States out in the West, New Mexico is one of them, have strong,
vital domestic oil industries. We have to make sure that those
industries stay strong and that we give the incentive so that they can
develop.
Secondly, we have to look at fuel efficiency. In the last end of this
administration, the Clinton administration, we talked about energy
efficiency and the Clinton administration, through Secretary
Richardson, who is from my home State and a colleague of mine, he put
in a requirement that air conditioners in the future have 30 percent
energy efficiency. I find it very unfortunate that this administration
has rolled that back. Rather than get more energy-efficient air
conditioners which use up huge amounts of energy in the summer, that
has been rolled back.
We need to look at fuel efficiency. If we just increased our
automobile efficiency 3 miles per gallon, that would equal all of the
oil that is in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So fuel efficiency
on automobiles is another important component, and I hope that this
administration recommends that.
In addition to air conditioners, there are a number of other
appliances which could be more energy efficient. We need to look at
every one of those, and I hope there are some major recommendations in
that area.
Then we need to look at conservation. Since 1900 until today, we have
used up enormous sums of oil. Some estimates are that we have used up
half of what all there is out there. That, to me, is deplorable. The
amount of time that people have been on this earth and just a couple of
generations here are using it all. A good conservation ethic says that
we should leave the world in a better place for our children. So we
should not be using such a vital resource at such a rapid pace. So we
need to apply a conservation ethic. I hope this President speaks out
and says, in terms of a national energy policy, we need conservation
and we need it to be a big part of government and private sector and
throughout the economy.
The last area that I think needs to be emphasized here is alternative
and renewable forms of energy. If we focus on fuel cells, solar, wind,
biomass, do the research, bring down the costs, we can be a country
that is energy independent; and we will not be so dependent on this
foreign oil. When it comes to those areas, I really do not understand
this President cutting solar and wind and some of the other renewable
forms.
So in sum, Mr. Speaker, let us look at a true national energy policy
in the coming weeks.
____________________
EDUCATION, AN IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE STATE OF UTAH
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, the House is going to be taking up the
issue of education over the next couple of weeks, and I thought it
would be important to communicate some of the thoughts that I have
learned, having spent a significant amount of time in my district over
the Easter recess talking to teachers and superintendents, talking to
students, and talking to parents. I can say, I come from a State that
is unique. Utah's needs are not often represented in national
discussions on education, and I think it is important to point out some
of the unique characteristics in my State and how national policy may
affect that.
I represent the State with the lowest per-pupil expenditure in the
United States. I represent the State with the largest student-teacher
ratio in the United States. Utah schools are struggling to keep up. The
State Office of Education estimates Utah will add over 100,000 new
students over the next 10 years. It is going to require 124 new schools
to be built in my State.
These challenges that I mention, these challenges we face in the
State of Utah, make the Federal-State relationship very critical. We
believe in Utah, and I firmly believe, that education is fundamentally
a State and local issue. So as we talk about education policy here in
Congress, I want to make sure that we talk about it in the context
where we are not creating Federal programs with a number of strings
attached. It is important that we maintain local control.
Let me talk about five quick issues that we should consider during
our education discussion. The first is class-size reduction. The
Federal class-size
[[Page 6211]]
reduction program has been a great success in my State. That program
takes Federal dollars and puts it directly in local school districts. I
have talked to all the school districts in my congressional district.
They have talked about what a positive program it is, that they have
the flexibility to decide what to best do with that money. Some schools
hire teachers to create new classes. Other schools hire a reading
specialist to move from class to class. But that flexibility has been
very important in my State.
The second issue I would mention is the issue of teacher development.
As I meet with teachers, they think it is important that they have the
opportunity to improve themselves throughout their careers. That is
something a lot of people do in the private sector. We should make sure
our teachers have that opportunity. We should make sure that the
Eisenhower Professional Development Program is maintained and
strengthened in the future.
The third issue I want to talk about is the notion of accountability.
We all think accountability is a good idea. We just need to be careful
that we do not enforce a one-size-fits-all solution at the Federal
level. Every State, every community has their own circumstances; and we
ought to make sure that those local circumstances can be accommodated
in whatever accountability measures that we have.
I can say that in Utah, we have already created a new State testing
program. We are in the process of implementing that, and Utah teachers
are not afraid of accountability; but we want to make sure that
accountability is measured in the broadest sense possible that
accommodates all the variables that affect student performance.
Finally, I would like to talk about the notion of decreased
bureaucracy. I have met with so many teachers and administrators, and
they talk about the problems with special education in terms of the
paperwork. The paperwork is such a burden on our teachers and our
administrators; and while it is clearly also important that we fully
fund the Federal commitment to special education, I think it is also
important that in the context of looking at funding for special ed we
also ought to look at trying to reform special ed to reduce the
paperwork. That is a view from my own home district, and I think it is
important that we put that in the Record, these issues and concerns
about educators in the State of Utah as we discuss education.
____________________
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. Shows) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Davis of Illinois, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Langevin, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Ross, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Shows, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Bonior, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Kildee, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Levin, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Stupak, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Brown of Florida, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Sherman, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Smith of Washington, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Matheson, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Blumenauer, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Millender-McDonald, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Israel, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Larsen of Washington, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Inslee, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Clayton, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Kingston) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mrs. Kelly, for 5 minutes, May 2.
Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, for 5 minutes, May 2.
Mr. Rohrabacher, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Smith of Michigan, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at their own request) to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 7 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 26, 2001, at
10 a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
1591. A letter from the Acting Administrator, Farm Services
Agency, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Diary Price Support, Diary Recourse
Loan, Livestock Assistance, American Indian Livestock Feed,
and Pasture Recovery Programs (RIN: 0560-AG32) received April
10, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Agriculture.
1592. A letter from the Acting Administrator, Farm Services
Agency, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's final rule--2000 Crop Disaster Program (RIN:
0560-AG36) received April 10, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
1593. A letter from the Acting Administrator, Farm Service
Agency, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Dairy and Cranberry Market Loss
Assistance Programs, Honey Marketing Assistance Loan and LDP
Program, Sugar Nonrecourse Loan Program, and Payment
Limitations for Marketing Loan Gains and Loan Deficiency
Payments (RIN: 0560-AG34) received April 10, 2001, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
1594. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Propiconazole; Time-Limited Pesticide Tolerances
[OPP-301115; FRL-6778-1] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received April 11,
2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
1595. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Metolachlor; Extension of Tolerance for Emergency
Exemptions [OPP-301118; FRL-6778-6] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received
April 11, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
1596. A letter from the Chief, General and International
Law Division, Department of Transportation, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Audit Appeals; Policy and Procedure
[Docket No. MARAD-2000-8284] (RIN: 2133-AB42) received April
12, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Armed Services.
1597. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Gasoline
Volatility Requirements for Allegheny County [PA160-4107a;
FRL-6962-3] received April 11, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1598. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--EPA International ``Green'' Buildings
Initiative--received April 11, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1599. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Export Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Implementation of the Wassennar
Arrangement List of Dual-Use Items: Revisions to
Microprocessors, Grapic Accelerators, and External
Interconnects Equipment [Docket No. 010108008-1008-01] (RIN:
0694-AC39) received April 9, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on International Relations.
1600. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Export Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Revisions to the Export
Administration Regulations as a result of the addition of
Brazil, Latvia, and Ukraine to the Nuclear Suppliers Group,
and other revisions [Docket No. 001212346-0346-01] (RIN:
0694-AB50) received April 9, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on International Relations.
1601. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a
[[Page 6212]]
copy of D.C. ACT 14-43, ``Closing of a Portion of South
Avenue, N.E., S.O. 00-91 Act of 2001'' received April 24,
2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1--233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
1602. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 13-576,
``Brownfield Revitalization Amendment Act of 2000'' received
April 24, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1--233(c)(1);
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1603. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General for
Administration, Department of Justice, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Privacy Act of 1974;
Implementation--received April 9, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
1604. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western
Pacific; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Adjustments
From Cape Falcon, OR to Humbug Mountain, OR [Docket No.
000501119-0119-01; I.D. 031501B] received April 9, 2001,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
1605. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pollock Within the Shelikof Strait Conservation Area in the
Gulf of Alaska [Docket No. 010112013-1013-01; I.D. 032901B]
received April 9, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Resources.
1606. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Safety Zone; Gulf
of Alaska, southeast of Narrow Cape, Kodiak Island, AK [COTP
Western Alaska-01-001] (RIN: 2115-AA97) received April 12,
2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
1607. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Drawbridge
Operation Regulations: Shaw Cove, CT [CGD01-01-018] (RIN:
2115-AE47) received April 12, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
1608. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Drawbridge
Operating Regulations: Hackensack River, NJ [CGD01-01-010]
received April 12, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
1609. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Drawbridge
Operation Regulations: Crescent Beach Bridge (SR 206),
Crescent Beach, FL [CGD07-01-019] (RIN: 2115-AE47) received
April 12, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
1610. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Qualified Lessee Construction Allowances For Short-Term
Leases [Rev. Rul. 2001-20] received April 10, 2001, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. CHAMBLISS:
H.R. 1580. A bill to provide that Commodity Futures Trading
Commission employees may be paid on a par with employees of
other government financial institutions; to the Committee on
Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on 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 Ms. DUNN (for herself, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Allen, Mr.
Baird, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr.
Blumenauer, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Camp, Mr.
Collins, Mr. Cooksey, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. English, Mr.
Herger, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Isakson,
Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr.
Green of Wisconsin, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Thompson of
California, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr.
Oberstar, Mr. Otter, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Ross, Mr.
Schaffer, Mr. Shows, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Stupak, Mr.
Smith of Washington, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Walden of
Oregon, and Mr. Wicker):
H.R. 1581. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to modify certain provisions relating to the treatment
of forestry activities; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. GUTIERREZ:
H.R. 1582. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to adjust the status of certain long-staying alien
children, to lower high school drop out rates for certain
immigrant children, and to restore the right of State and
local governments to decide whom they will admit to their
State and local colleges and universities; to the Committee
on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. HILL (for himself, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Pence, Mr.
Roemer, Mr. Souder, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Burton of Indiana,
Mr. Kerns, Mr. Hostettler, and Ms. Carson of
Indiana):
H.R. 1583. A bill to designate the Federal building and
United States courthouse located at 121 West Spring Street in
New Albany, Indiana, as the ``Lee H. Hamilton Federal
Building and United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. HOEKSTRA (for himself, Mr. Tancredo, Mr.
Sessions, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Weldon of
Florida, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Baker, Mr. Armey, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Kolbe, and Mr. Schaffer):
H.R. 1584. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to require that each employer show on the W-2 form of
each employee the employer's share of taxes for old-age,
survivors, and disability insurance and for hospital
insurance for the employee as well as the total amount of
such taxes for such employee; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas:
H.R. 1585. A bill to provide for a study regarding the
proximity of federally assisted housing to hazardous waste
sites; to the Committee on Financial Services, and in
addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. KANJORSKI (for himself, Mr. Shays, Mr. Sessions,
Mr. Evans, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mrs. Mink of
Hawaii, Mr. Tierney, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Frank, and Mr.
Delahunt):
H.R. 1586. A bill to amend chapter 84 of title 5, United
States Code, to make certain temporary Federal service
performed for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
creditable for retirement purposes; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
By Ms. McKINNEY (for herself, Mr. Evans, Mr. Reyes, and
Ms. Brown of Florida):
H.R. 1587. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
repeal the 30-year manifestation period for a presumption of
service-connection for respiratory cancers occurring in
veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the
period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7,
1975; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mrs. MINK of Hawaii (for herself and Mr.
Abercrombie):
H.R. 1588. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide tax relief for the conversion of cooperative
housing corporations into condominiums; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mrs. MYRICK:
H.R. 1589. A bill to amend the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act to provide trade benefits for socks and hosiery;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. RAMSTAD:
H.R. 1590. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow up to $500 of health benefits and dependent
care assistance in flexible spending accounts and similar
arrangements to be carried forward to the succeeding taxable
year or to be included in gross income upon termination of
such accounts and arrangements; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Ms. McKinney, and Mr.
McGovern):
H.R. 1591. A bill to prohibit the United States Government
from providing financing for nongovernmental organizations or
individuals to carry out military, law enforcement, armed
rescue, or other related operations in the countries of the
Andean region, including any operations relating to narcotics
control efforts; to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. THORNBERRY (for himself, Mr. Jones of North
Carolina, Mr. Graves, Mr. DeLay, and Mr. Otter):
H.R. 1592. A bill to amend the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act of 1965 to provide greater protection of private
property rights; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. PAUL:
H.J. Res. 45. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing
personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the
Untied States Government from engaging in the business in
competition with its citizens; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. SKELTON:
H. Con. Res. 106. Concurrent resolution commending the crew
of the United States Navy EP-3 Aries II reconnaissance
aircraft that on April 1, 2001, while flying in international
airspace off the coast of China, was
[[Page 6213]]
involved in a mid-air collision with a Chinese fighter
aircraft for their outstanding performance of duty and
exemplary conduct and expressing the sense of Congress
concerning continued United States reconnaissance and
surveillance flights in the area; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Mr. WELDON of Florida (for himself and Mr. Cramer):
H. Con. Res. 107. Concurrent resolution expressing a
declaration of space leadership; to the Committee on Science,
and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SMITH of Michigan:
H. Con. Res. 108. Concurrent resolution honoring the
National Science Foundation for 50 years of service to the
Nation; to the Committee on Science.
By Mr. LaTOURETTE:
H. Con. Res. 109. Concurrent resolution honoring the
services and sacrifices of the United States merchant marine;
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in
addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Toomey, Mr.
Sessions, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Otter, Mrs. Myrick, Mr.
Tancredo, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Doolittle,
Mr. Ryun of Kansas, and Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin):
H. Res. 123. A resolution amending the rules of the House
of Representatives to prohibit the inclusion in any
legislation of any provision which makes a decrease in
Federal income taxes contingent upon another event or
circumstance; to the Committee on Rules.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
Mrs. TAUSCHER introduced A bill (H.R. 1593) for the
relief of Bruce Watson Pairman and Daniele Paule
Pairman; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 10: Mr. Pitts, Mr. DeLay, Mrs. Cubin, and Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 21: Mr. LoBiondo and Mrs. Northup.
H.R. 61: Mrs. Biggert.
H.R. 68: Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 99: Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 123: Mr. Buyer and Mr. Kolbe.
H.R. 128: Mr. Olver, Mr. Oberstar, Ms. McKinney, Mrs.
Capps, Mr. George Miller of California, and Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 169: Mr. Cummings, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Coyne,
Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Kucinich, Ms.
McKinney, Mr. Weldon of Florida, and Mr. Armey.
H.R. 220: Mr. Skeen and Mr. Rehberg.
H.R. 270: Mr. Bonior and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 325: Mr. George Miller of California, Ms. Kilpatrick,
Ms. Norton, Mr. Gilchrest, and Mr. Maloney of Connecticut.
H.R. 353: Mr. Tiahrt.
H.R. 389: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 397: Mr. Schiff, Ms. Solis, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Hobson,
and Mr. Clement.
H.R. 435: Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 436: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky and Mr. Green of Texas.
H.R. 458: Mr. Greenwood.
H.R. 460: Mr. DeFazio and Ms. Lee.
H.R. 490: Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Kildee,
Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Rehberg, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Frank, Mrs.
Davis of California, Mr. Pickering, and Mr. Olver.
H.R. 499: Mr. Payne, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Gonzalez, Ms.
Kilpatrick, and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 500: Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 521: Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 525: Mr. Costello.
H.R. 527: Mr. Everett and Mr. Riley.
H.R. 531: Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 555: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi and Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 579: Mr. Langevin.
H.R. 594: Mr. Faleomavaega.
H.R. 611: Ms. DeGette, Mr. English, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky,
Mr. Olver, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Ross, Mr.
Murtha, Mr. Engel, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Doyle, Mrs. Mink
of Hawaii, Mr. Etheridge, Ms. McCollum, and Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 619: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 622: Mr. Watt of North Carolina, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr.
Maloney of Connecticut, Mrs. Tauscher, and Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H.R. 641: Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. John, Mr. Shows, Mr.
Owens, Mr. Dooley of California, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr.
Jefferson, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Hansen,
and Mr. McInnis.
H.R. 648: Mr. Ryun of Kansas and Mr. Boehlert.
H.R. 662: Mr. Wicker, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Rodriguez, Mr. Terry, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota,
Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Lucas of
Kentucky, Mr. Clement, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Schaffer, Mr.
Hilleary, Mr. Foley, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mrs. Kelly, Ms.
Kaptur, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Berry, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Hilliard,
Mr. Condit, and Mr. Putnam.
H.R. 663: Mr. Isakson, Mr. Cunningham, and Ms. McCollum.
H.R. 678: Mr. Levin and Mr. Israel.
H.R. 712: Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 717: Mr. Engel, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Rogers of
Kentucky, Mr. Owens, Mr. Castle, Mr. Holt, Mr. Reyes, Mr.
Berry, Mr. Simmons, and Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 730: Mr. Smith of New Jersey and Mr. Holt.
H.R. 739: Mr. Farr of California.
H.R. 744: Mr. Langevin and Mr. Bentsen.
H.R. 773: Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 781: Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 786: Mr. Hoeffel.
H.R. 793: Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 818: Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 827: Mr. Weller.
H.R. 864: Mr. Ryun of Kansas.
H.R. 868: Mr. Everett, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Turner,
Mr. Boucher, and Mr. Walden of Oregon.
H.R. 911: Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 913: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 966: Mr. Flake and Mr. Ryun of Kansas.
H.R. 997: Mr. Paul.
H.R. 1014: Mr. Clay, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Underwood,
Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Towns, Mr. McGovern, Ms. DeGette, Ms.
Schakowsky, Ms. Lee, Ms. Waters, Mr. Berman, Mrs. Napolitano,
Mr. Cummings, and Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 1024: Mr. Becerra, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Armey, Mr. Lewis
of Kentucky, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Sessions, Ms.
Dunn, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Camp.
H.R. 1032: Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. LaTourette.
H.R. 1073: Ms. Solis, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Udall of Colorado,
Mr. Payne, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Leach, Mr.
Boucher, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. Velazquez, and Mr. Meeks of New
York.
H.R. 1089: Mr. Boucher, Ms. Lofgren, and Ms. Hart.
H.R. 1090: Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
H.R. 1117: Mr. Sabo, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms. Carson of
Indiana, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, and
Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 1139: Ms. McKinney, Mr. Gallegly, and Mr. Bass.
H.R. 1146: Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Hall of Texas, and
Mr. Everett.
H.R. 1174: Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Sununu, and Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 1177: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 1195: Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Owens, Mrs. McCarthy of New
York, Mr. Towns, Mr. Nadler, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Meeks of New
York, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Capuano, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr.
Abercrombie, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Rush, Ms. Pelosi,
Ms. McCollum, Ms. Velazquez, Ms. Solis, and Mr. Frank.
H.R. 1198: Mr. Skeen, Mr. Baker, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Hyde, Mr.
Ehrlich, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Blagojevich,
and Mr. Goode.
H.R. 1201: Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1230: Mr. Stupak, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Kaptur, Mr.
Boehlert, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 1266: Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Baldacci, Ms. Baldwin, Mr.
Blumenauer, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Coyne, Mr. English, Mr. Evans,
Mr. Flake, Mr. Frank, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Holt, Ms.
Kilpatrick, Mr. King, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Lee, Mr. Meeks of New
York, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Moore, Mr. Rahall,
Ms. Rivers, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Udall of Colorado,
and Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 1291: Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Frost, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky,
and Mr. Rogers of Kentucky.
H.R. 1308: Mr. Ryun of Kansas.
H.R. 1328: Ms. Pryce of Ohio.
H.R. 1330: Mr. Rodriguez.
H.R. 1331: Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, and Mr.
Hoeffel.
H.R. 1342: Mr. Flake.
H.R. 1358: Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 1363: Ms. Hart.
H.R. 1405: Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 1407: Mr. Bereuter.
H.R. 1408: Mr. Shows and Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 1413: Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Reyes,
Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Ford, Mr. Rahall, and Mr. Smith of
Washington.
H.R. 1429: Ms. Millender-McDonald and Mr. Blagojevich.
H.R. 1441: Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr.
Culberson, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Flake, Mr. Hayworth, Mr.
Hefley, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Istook, Mr. Largent, Mr. McCrery,
Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Otter, Mr. Paul, Mr. Pitts, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Shadegg,
Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Terry, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Vitter,
and Mr. Wicker.
H.R. 1443: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Maloney of
Connecticut, Ms. Slaughter, and Ms. Kilpatrick.
H.R. 1459: Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Shimkus, Mrs. Johnson of
Connecticut, Mr. Crane, Mr.
[[Page 6214]]
Ramstad, Mr. Petri, Mr. Boucher, and Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 1462: Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H.R. 1464: Mr. Towns.
H.R. 1485: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 1486: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 1487: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Issa, Mr. Cox,
and Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H.R. 1494: Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr.
Schiff, Mr. McNulty, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms. Velazquez,
Mr. Engel, Mr. Rangel, and Mr. Coyne.
H.R. 1498: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 1524: Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Ryun
of Kansas, Mr. Toomey, and Mr. Ganske.
H.R. 1531: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 1541: Mr. Sanders, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Faleomavaega, and Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 1542: Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Grucci, and Mr. Turner.
H.R. 1567: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Christensen,
Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Brown of Florida, and Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.J. Res. 36: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.J. Res. 38: Mr. Stump, Mr. Goode, Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland, and Mr. Flake.
H. Con. Res. 26: Mrs. Capps.
H. Con. Res. 52: Mrs. Capps.
H. Con. Res. 58: Mr. Hastings of Florida, and Mr. Schiff.
H. Con. Res. 61: Mr. Bonior, Mr. Simmons, and Mrs. Johnson
of Connecticut.
H. Con. Res. 81: Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Frost, Mr. Rangel, Mr.
McHugh, Mr. Evans, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Hilliard,
Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Clement, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Waxman, Ms.
Kilpatrick, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Lantos, and Ms. Pelosi.
H. Con. Res. 91: Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Moore, Mr. Turner,
Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mrs. Kelly, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Frank, Mr.
LaFalce, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Horn, Mr. Gilman, Mr. King, Mr.
Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Frost, Ms. Jackson-Lee
of Texas, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, Mr. Platts, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, and Ms. Rivers.
H. Con. Res. 98: Mrs. Maloney of New York and Mr. Lipinski.
H. Con. Res. 101: Mr. Schiff, Mr. Filner, Ms. Berkley, Mr.
Berman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Wexler, and Mrs. Lowey.
H. Con. Res. 103: Mr. Shays, Mr. Evans, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Doyle, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Frank, Mrs. Morella, Ms. Kaptur, Mr.
Costello, Mr. Stark, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Simmons, Ms. Rivers,
Mr. Lipinski, and Mr. Kucinich.
H. Res. 23: Ms. Sanchez.
H. Res. 120: Mr. Weller.
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.
April 25, 2001
April 25, 2001
[[Page 6215]]
SENATE--Wednesday, April 25, 2001
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
George Allen, a Senator from the State of Virginia.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Today, continuing Jewish Heritage Week, our prayer is taken from the
Jewish Book of Service, Daily Prayers. Let us pray.
We gratefully acknowledge that You are the Eternal One, our God, and
the God of our fathers evermore; the Rock of our life and the Shield of
our salvation. You are He who exists to all ages. We will therefore
render thanks unto You and declare Your praise for our lives, which are
delivered into Your hand and for our souls, which are confided in Your
care; for Your goodness, which is displayed to us daily; for Your
wonders, and Your bounty, which are at all times given unto us. You are
the most gracious, for Your mercies never fail. Evermore do we hope in
You, O Lord our God. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable George Allen 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.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Thurmond).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, April, 25, 2001.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
George Allen, a Senator from the State of Virginia, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Strom Thurmond,
President pro tempore.
Mr. ALLEN thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order there will
now be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend
beyond the hour of 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein
for up to 10 minutes each.
Under the previous order, the time until 10:15 a.m. shall be under
the control of the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, or his designee.
The Senator from Nevada.
____________________
BROWNFIELDS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today is a very joyous occasion in the Reid
family. At 6:30 this morning, approximately, eastern time--3:30 Reno,
NV, time--my tenth grandchild was born. Everyone is doing well. The
little baby is 18 inches long--kind of short, really--and weighs 6
pounds 12 ounces. We are very happy for this little boy. He is the
third son that my son has had.
I rise today thinking of my new grandson, and I want to discuss Earth
Day and what having a good, clean environment means to my
grandchildren. I am very concerned, having seen, even in my lifetime,
the Earth change--and many times not for the better.
Earth Day is a time for reflecting on the progress of the last
century and acting to protect our environment for generations and
centuries to come. It is good that at least 1 day a year we focus on
the Earth. We take it for granted. In the last 30 years, the country
has taken major steps to achieve clean water, clean air, safe drinking
water, hazardous waste cleanup, and reducing pollution across the
board.
Take just one thing, clean water. Why do we have a Clean Water Act?
We have a Clean Water Act because, for instance, in Ohio the Cuyahoga
River kept catching fire. Mr. Nixon was President of the United States
at that time. In a bipartisan effort to do something about the polluted
waterways in America, Congress joined with the President to pass a
Clean Water Act to prevent rivers catching fire.
We have made progress. We still have a lot of polluted water, but at
the time that President Nixon recognized the need to do something,
probably about 80 percent of our waterways were polluted. Now these
many years later probably only about 30 percent of our waterways are
polluted. If you fish the rivers and lakes around the United States,
now you can actually eat the fish you catch. That is progress. But we
have a lot more to do.
We need to clean up that extra 20 percent or 30 percent of the
waterways that are polluted. We need to make sure we have safe drinking
water so someone can pick up a glass of water and drink it and know
they are not going to get sick.
It is not that way around much of our country. And when we travel
overseas, we usually take lots of water with us because in many parts
of the world we cannot drink the water because it is polluted. In the
United States, we are finding much more polluted water. There is lots
of polluted water.
In my State of Nevada, we have naturally occurring arsenic in the
water and we know that arsenic causes cancer. We need to do something
about that.
Even though we have a long way to go, we should be justifiably proud
of the progress we have made. We cannot afford to rest on past
successes because millions of people are still breathing unhealthy air,
drinking unsafe water, and are unable to swim or fish in many of our
Nation's waterways.
As I have said before, there is still much that needs to be done. As
the new century dawns, we face even more complex environmental and
public health problems. These problems include persistent toxics. We
have a new phenomenon and that is, because of our development of
nuclear power and nuclear weapons, now we have areas that are polluted
with things nuclear. On the Colorado River, we have 13,000 tons of
uranium tailings. We need to clean those up because, of course, the
Colorado River is a very important waterway in the western part of the
United States. We have not provided money to do that. We need to do
that. But that is a new threat to our environment.
We have new problems in addition to nuclear issues. We have global
warming. We have the dangers of invasive species. For example, in the
State of Nevada, we have very little water. It is arid. It is a desert.
You could count the rivers in Nevada on the fingers of one hand. Some
of those rivers are being very seriously threatened as a result of
something called salt cedar or tamarisk, a plant brought in from Iran
100 years ago to stabilize the banks of streams, and it has just taken
over everything. They are, frankly, very ugly. They use huge amounts of
water. You cannot get rid of them. You can't burn them; you can't
poison them; you can't snag them and pull them out. The only thing we
found that might work is an insect that eats them, and we are working
on that. The Department of Agriculture is working on a program to see
if we can get rid of them that way. But these invasive species are all
over America and we need to work on their eradication.
[[Page 6216]]
Fine air particles from fossil fuel use, land use changes, the need
for thoughtful use of our land for housing, recreation, and
transportation: these challenges require the energy and enthusiasm that
marked the first Earth Day 30 years ago. But also we need a new level
of sophistication and commitment.
I like President Bush. I think he is a very good man. I think he
means well. From what has happened during the first 100 days of this
administration dealing with the environment, I think he is getting bad
advice from somebody.
I can't imagine a good man doing such things in the first few months
of his administration. His Administrator of EPA gave a speech about the
importance and dangers of global warming and about needing to do
something about it and referred to the CO2 contamination.
Four days later, the administration cuts her legs out from under her
and says they are going to delay implementation.
Greenhouse gas emission is a problem. This would have been the first
tangible U.S. effort to address global warming, and we backed away from
it.
Next, the administration proposed drilling on all public lands,
including national wildlife refuges, national forests, national
monuments, and other public lands. This was followed closely by a delay
of the rules designed to protect 60 million acres of national forest
from logging and roadbuilding. This ``roadless rule'' had been
published after more than 600 public hearings and consideration of 1.6
million comments. It is not as if it was done in the dead of night.
Soon after that, the administration pulled back a long-awaited
regulation lowering the standard of arsenic, a known human carcinogen,
in our drinking water supplies. As early as 1962, the US Public Health
Service recommended that the standard be lowered to 10 ppb. EPA held an
extensive comment period on this rule, including more than 180 days of
comment and holding stakeholder meetings beginning as early as 1997.
There was a study by the National Science Foundation. Now the
administration wants to re-study this issue and further delay the
process of getting arsenic out of our drinking water. That is
absolutely wrong.
Then, without any apparent regard for the economic, environmental or
foreign relations consequences, the administration walked away from
international climate change negotiations that were being conducted
under a U.S.-ratified treaty. The administration also suspended the
rule which requires companies getting federal dollars to be in
compliance with federal laws, including environmental laws.
I was in a meeting with Senator Byrd and Senator Hagel. We agreed, if
we are going to do something about this Kyoto treaty, on making sure
the Third World nations are also brought into the picture. Senator Byrd
said he had the intention of going forward with the discussion. We need
to do something about global warming. He said that he is going on 84
years of age and he has been able to see in his lifetime the changes
that have taken place in the environment.
This was not good for us. We walked away from this treaty.
And, without explanation, the administration withdrew draft plans for
public access to information on potential catastrophic chemical
accidents in neighborhoods around the country. These plans are more
than a year late and their withdrawal suggests that the administration
doesn't want the public to know about these dangers.
In April, the Bush administration weakened the new energy efficiency
standards for water heaters and central aid conditioners. Over the next
30 years, this change equals the total electricity used by all American
households in one year. When electricity supplies are drastically low
and high priced, as in California, does it make sense to increase
electricity consumption rather than conserving? The answer is no.
Similarly, does it make sense to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge for oil that will arrive years too late to address high gasoline
prices this summer when fuel efficiency improvements would be quicker
and longer lasting?
The budget proposal by the administration represents yet more bad
news for the environment. The budget resolution which passed the Senate
on a party line vote eliminates or underfunds environmental programs
across a range of agencies, including cuts at EPA in clean water state
revolving funds, estuary protection, beach protection, scientific
research on clean air, and law enforcement personnel. These cuts would
greatly undercut environmental protections, and the protection of
public health.
The budget document, which was submitted to us later, among other
things, calls for a 30-percent cut in alternative energy research on
solar, geothermal, and wind. That is the wrong way to go. These cuts
will greatly hurt environmental protection and the protection of public
health. It also cuts vital environmental programs at the Department of
the Interior, Department of Agriculture, and renewable energy programs
at the Department of Energy. We can do better.
Mr. President, I repeat what I said on Monday and Tuesday. We did
nothing here Monday. We did nothing yesterday. It appears we are going
to do nothing today.
We have a bipartisan bill, the brownfields legislation, S. 350,
entitled ``The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration
Act of 2001.'' We need to consider this bill. This is a bill that has
68 cosponsors. It is supported by the National Governors' Conference,
realtors, environmentalists, businesses, and local governments. It is
supported by a broad array of outside groups. I cannot imagine why we
are not considering this bill. It was reported out of committee 15 to
3.
In addition to that, the problems that three Members had we resolved.
I can't speak for all three, but I know Senator Voinovich had some
problems. We worked those out.
This legislation is so important. We have 500,000 contaminated or
abandoned sites in the United States waiting to be cleaned up. Private
parties and communities need to be involved. We believe that these
sites will create about 600,000 jobs nationally and increase annual tax
revenues by $2.4 billion. We need to move forward on this legislation.
It will be good for urban America and rural America. I just can't
imagine why we are not doing it.
The testimony on the bill supports moving quickly. Witnesses have
called for the bill to move quickly.
For example, the witness for the Conference of Mayors testified,
``the Nation's mayors believe that the time has come for bipartisan
action on brownfields. We have waited a long time for final
congressional action on brownfields legislation.''
Another witness put it even more strongly: ``Time is of the essence .
. . We look forward to working with you toward timely, expeditious,
hopefully almost immediate enactment.''
I agree with these sentiments. Let us take up this bill and do what
we were elected to do--pass good bills into law. This bill is good for
the environment and good for jobs and there is neither need nor
justification for any further delay.
We need to find a ``green path'' forward. We need to make sure we
take the steps to protect the earth for our grandchildren, steps which
include finalizing the numerous rules and enforcement cases which have
been stopped mid-stream, rules which were developed over years and
which provide critical protections for our environment.
We need to ensure that the public is informed about threats to their
health and their environment. We need a safe and sustainable energy
policy. We need steps to address the very real problem of climate
change, we need a vision for conserving game and non-game species and
their habitat, we need a commitment to reclaiming polluted industrial,
agricultural and military sites and we need to make a fundamental
investment in conservation that recognizes that we do not inherit the
planet from our ancestors, but borrow it from our children.
[[Page 6217]]
These measures would be truly planting a tree to honor the Earth.
It is bipartisan. I really can't imagine why we are not considering
this bill. We agreed to 2 hours on this side. I hope the majority will
allow us to take the bill up immediately. It is good environmental
legislation. It speaks for what Earth Day is all about.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana is
recognized.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for his
inspirational work this morning. There is no one who cares more about
the quality of the environment than Senator Harry Reid. I join with him
in calling for taking up a brownfields bill. It would be good for my
State and for all States in this Union. I very much appreciate his
leadership on that critical subject.
____________________
QUALITY EDUCATION
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise this morning to address what I
believe to be most important issue facing our country today; that is,
improving the quality of education received by every child across this
country. It will affect not only our future prosperity but the kind of
Nation in which we live and the vibrancy of our very democracy.
I thank all colleagues who helped bring us to this historic point,
starting with my friend and colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, with whom
I have enjoyed working on this issue for the last several years; our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Senator Gregg, Senator
Frist, Senator Jeffords, and others; and the Democratic members on the
HELP Committee, Senator Dodd and others, but principally Senator
Kennedy.
I want to say a special word about Senator Kennedy this morning. His
dedication to improving the quality of America's educational system is
truly remarkable. He has proven himself to be not only principled but
pragmatic. He fights for what he believes in, but he is not willing to
sacrifice real progress for America's schoolchildren for the older
ideological ideas. Without his hard work and dedication, we would not
be where we are today.
I thank all of these leaders for bringing us to where we are. It has
been a long road for me personally and a long road for many of us in
this Chamber.
My thoughts go back to 1989, my first year as Governor, when
President Bush called us to a national summit in the city of
Charlottesville.
For only the third time in our Nation's history, all 50 Governors had
gathered together to focus on a single subject. The first time was
Teddy Roosevelt's focus on the issue of the environment. In this case,
it was President Bush's first focus on the subject of education. We
came out of that summit dedicated to the standards and accountability
movement, and we established the National Education Goals Panel, of
which I was an initial member. I had the privilege of serving, in later
years, as chairman.
From there I went on and had the privilege of serving as the chairman
of the Education Commission of the States, a collection of State and
local officials who work to improve the quality of our schools at the
State and local levels.
Finally, I had the privilege of serving on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress Board, the NAEP Board, trying to devise the very
best assessments for our children, authentic assessments, that tell us
more than if they can memorize rote knowledge, but instead whether they
can think and reason and express themselves intelligently.
It has also been a long road for this Senate. I, again, thank Senator
Lieberman and my colleagues at the Progressive Policy Institute, who
helped fashion the principles that lie at the heart of the bill we will
soon take up. We stand on the precipice of historic progress saying
that the status quo that leaves too many of our children behind is no
longer good enough. The consequences of failure today are greater than
ever before. We must do better. I believe we can.
During the campaign last year, I was very pleased when President Bush
adopted many of the principles that lay at the heart of our bill. That
was an important step in the right direction. I give him credit for
that. I am proud that the thinking in my own caucus has evolved on many
of these critical issues. So there has been a convergence of thought,
and now a consensus exists on the part of most of us of what needs to
be done to improve the quality of our local schools. The principles and
the values are the same, even if occasionally we have differences of
opinion about how to embrace those principles and give them full
meaning in the context of education today.
We stand on the threshold of great progress, the most significant
educational progress in a generation. Accountability lies at the heart
of our agenda. We redefine the definition of ``success.'' No longer
will we define success for America's schoolchildren merely in terms of
how much we spend, but instead we will define success in terms of how
much our children learn.
There will be high academic standards and assessments to determine
how every child is doing toward meeting those standards. Everyone in
the process will be held responsible for making progress--every school,
every school district, every State--each and every year.
For the first time, there will be real consequences--real
consequences--for academic failure. In relation to some of the new
money dedicated to new administrative funding, if progress is not made,
it will be reduced, because it only makes sense that if the funding is
not achieving the progress for which it was intended, it should be
redirected into ways which will achieve real progress.
For the first time, America's parents will be given an important
choice. If your local school is not doing well enough for several
successive years, you will be allowed to send your child to a better
performing public school. You will begin to have an option of receiving
supplemental services, additional instruction on top of that provided
in your local school, to give your child the reading, writing, and
scientific knowledge that your child will need to be successful in
meeting the challenges of the 21st century.
We inject competition--true competition--into the system, embracing
market forces for the innovation and additional accountability they can
bring. We seek to achieve the best of both worlds, with charter
schools, magnet schools, robust public school choice, but not
withdrawing the important resources necessary to making our public
schools flourish.
We avoid the false choices of those who say that the only way to
improve the quality of education is to abandon our public schools, on
the one hand, and, on the other hand, those who say the status quo is
good enough and that the answer to the challenges facing America's
schools is simply to add more money.
We embrace the notion of additional flexibility for our local schools
and States. We cut through the redtape that too often has bogged us
down at the Federal level. We only ask in return that our local schools
and school districts give us additional progress for the flexibility
that we provide.
We invest in professional development. Every study I have ever seen--
I know the Presiding Officer has labored in these vineyards as a
Governor, as did I--every study I have ever seen indicates the two most
important variables in determining a child's academic success is,
first, whether a parent is involved or engaged in that child's
educational activities, making it a priority at the home; and,
secondly, whether there is a well-prepared and highly motivated
classroom professional teacher in that classroom, helping to provide
the individual instruction every one of our children needs and every
one of our children deserves.
These are the principles that lie at the heart of our bill: increased
accountability for everyone; more competition in parental choice within
the context of public education; more flexibility for our States and
local school districts; and investing in professional development, to
ensure that every classroom has a motivated, highly
[[Page 6218]]
trained teacher that every child deserves.
But now, my friends, we come to the critical moment. Now we face the
acid test which will determine whether our actions will truly live up
to our words. We are all for reform. We are all for accountability. But
will we do what it takes in a practical sense to make reform and
accountability work? I believe we must. We are all for holding everyone
else responsible--the classroom teachers, school principals, district
superintendents, Governors; everyone else in this process--but will we
hold ourselves, this institution, accountable? Will we hold this
President and this administration accountable to doing what it takes to
give meaning to the words that we speak? I believe we must.
Last week I visited schools across my State, in Evansville, in South
Bend, in Fort Wayne, in Indianapolis, in Floyd County. I saw the
difference the Title I dollars are making in the lives of our children
and in the quality of instruction taking place in our classrooms. It
was a wonderful thing to behold. I compliment those teachers and
principals and school superintendents who are using those dollars to
give those children hope and educational opportunity.
But as I visited those schools and saw what was working and making a
difference, I was also saddened to remember that 6.8 million children--
6.8 million of our young people--who are qualified to receive that
assistance are instead receiving none. What about them? Will they be
left behind? If we do not rise to this challenge, I am afraid they
will.
President Bush, during the campaign last year, pledged to leave no
child behind. I commend him for that pledge. Now it is up to us and to
him to redeem it. And so we must. We will enact a system of standards
adopted by the States, assessments to determine how each and every one
of our children are doing. We will insist upon results.
But what do we do with the results of those assessments when they
tell us so many of our children need to do better? Do we simply pat
them on the head, wish them good luck, and say: Now you are on your
own? Of course we must do better than that.
Throwing dollars at our schools without accountability is a waste;
but accountability without the means to truly improve the quality of
instruction our children are receiving is nothing but a cruel hoax.
I call upon my colleagues in this Chamber and our new President to
join with us, to join with us in a historic effort of improving the
quality of instruction for our children who need it most, to join with
us in embracing reform, but also what it means in a tangible, practical
dollars-and-cents way of making reform work.
Our actions in this great Chamber must be more than a facade of
reform. The bill that we enact and that the President signs must offer
more than an illusion of progress. We must not individually or
collectively participate in perpetuating a hoax upon America's
schoolchildren. It is important for me to acknowledge that from time to
time on this side of the aisle there has been a diversity of thought on
this subject. But when it comes to the commitment of resources to make
the reform work, to make progress become a reality, we stand united and
determined.
This debate is not about accountability versus spending. We are all
for accountability. We are all for reform. This debate is a question of
priorities and whether we will do what the American people have been
asking of us for so very long now; and that is, to make the quality of
our children's education our No. 1 priority. I believe we must.
The President's tax package this next year calls for devoting $68
billion to the cause of tax relief.
That is a cause which I embrace, as do many of my colleagues. We
believe some tax relief for the hard-working taxpayers of America is in
order for a variety of reasons, but it is not our only priority.
The President's proposal, as it currently stands, calls for investing
$2.6 billion in improving the quality of education, 25 times more for
reducing taxes than investing in the quality of our children's
education. I support tax cuts. I support tax relief, but it is not 25
times more important than our children's education. We can and should
have both. We should not be forced to make this unnecessary choice
between two alternatives, both of which can be accommodated if the
administration will be more forthcoming with resources.
In conclusion, this debate is about education reform, and it is about
the resources to make education reform work. More important than that,
it is about the credibility of this institution and those of us who are
privileged to comprise it. Will we do more than read the polls and put
together a construct to satisfy our constituents, to make them believe
we are doing something about improving the quality of education for our
children, when, in fact, we are not; or will we make the difficult
decision and allocate the resources that are necessary to live up to
the challenge we face, to fulfill the expectations they have a right to
expect of us? I believe we should.
I call upon the Members of the Senate and the administration and this
President to join with us to redeem the pledge he made in the campaign,
the pledge that all of us embrace of leaving no child behind and to
devote the resources to our schools to make accountability, reform, and
progress be more than empty words but a reality in the daily lives of
our schools.
I am privileged to be in the Chamber with my colleague from
California with whom I have worked on this issue and so many others. I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the junior Senator
from Indiana for those remarks. He stands in the leadership of this
body in terms of his views on education. I, for one, am very
appreciative of them.
____________________
ENERGY CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will use my time in morning business
to update the Senate on the status of the electricity crisis in
California.
April is typically the best time of year for California when it comes
to meeting its energy needs. Winter has ended in northern California,
and the southern part of the State has not yet begun to get hot. Thus,
the demand for energy is low throughout the State, and California has
always had more than enough power to meet its needs. As a result,
electricity is usually very cheap. So this is as good a time as any to
provide an update of where the State is and to see how this year is
different from all other years. The last ten months provide a gloomy
picture of what may well happen this summer.
The average cost of electricity for California this month has been
about $300 a megawatt hour. This is more than 10 times higher than the
average for last April, right before the crisis began. The average
price for electricity in the States of Washington and Oregon is even
higher, and the price for electricity bought in the futures market for
this summer is now averaging more than $750 a single megawatt hour.
The State Department of Water Resources, which since January has been
purchasing all of California's power needs, has now spent $5.2 billion
purchasing power just in the first months of this year. It is spending
at a rate of $73 million a day. This is having a serious financial
impact on the State's credit standing. Yesterday's Standard & Poor's
downgraded the State's credit rating two notches from AA to A-plus.
It is important to point out that the money the State is spending to
buy electricity is gone. It does not buy a textbook or a computer for a
school. It won't repair a bridge or road. It will not build a highway.
It doesn't go for law enforcement. It is money that simply disappears.
As a result, the State could well be out of money.
At the same time, the Northwest is experiencing what may well be its
driest year on record. Consequently, California will not be able to
rely on the 7,000 to 8,000 megawatts of power it typically imports from
the Northwest in the summer--usually enough for 7 to 8 million homes.
There will not be enough power in the Northwest to even meet its own
energy needs this summer.
[[Page 6219]]
Meanwhile, natural gas prices in most of the United States are about
three times higher than their historic average, and in southern
California they are eight times higher. Independent analysts, such as
the Brattle Group, have raised significant questions about malfeasance
on the part of the few companies that have an oligopoly on the natural
gas pipelines. Meanwhile, it has been more than 5 months since the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the FERC, found that electricity
rates were ``unjust and unreasonable'', and still they have not acted
to fulfill the mandate of the Federal Power Act which directs the FERC
to set reasonable rates when the market is not functioning properly.
Allow me to read from the language of the Federal Power Act.
Whenever the Commission, after a hearing had upon its own
motion or upon complaint, shall find that any rate, charge,
or classification, demanded, observed, charged, or collected
by any public utility for any transmission or sale subject to
jurisdiction of the Commission, or that any rule, regulation,
practice, or contract affected such rate, charge, or
classification is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory
or preferential, the Commission shall determine the just and
reasonable rate, charge, classification, rule, regulation,
practice, or contract to be thereafter observed and in force,
and shall fix the same by order.
That is the Federal Power Act. The Federal Power Act very clearly
says: FERC, once you find that rates are unjust and unreasonable, you
must then fix reasonable rates or charges.
The FERC has not done its duty.
The problems in California began in 1996, when the State became the
first to pass a comprehensive energy deregulation bill. That bill was
known as AB 1890. The bill passed very quickly at the end of the
legislative session. It enjoyed nearly unanimous bipartisan support.
AB 1890 was supposed to increase supplies of energy and decrease
prices for consumers, but the exact opposite happened. The bill assumed
that increases in energy supply, competition, and efficiency would
drive down energy prices. This assumption turned out to be badly
flawed, and as a result the State was burned by several provisions of
the bill.
First, the bill forced the utilities to purchase at least 95 percent
of their electricity in the day-ahead and spot market and did not
permit utilities to hedge their bets with long-term, bilateral
contracts. That is a huge problem because if 95 percent of the power is
bought on the spot market, and those spot market prices go up, the
State is in the pickle that it is in today.
Second, the State forced its investor-owned utilities to sell off
their generating assets, allowing out-of-State energy generators to
purchase the plants and sell the electricity back to the utilities at
market rates.
Let me give you an example of that. For Southern California Edison,
when it divested of a generating facility, at the time Southern
California Edison was selling its power at $30 a megawatt hour. As soon
as it sold it to a generating facility, the out-of-State generating
facility turned around to sell the power back to Southern California
Edison at $300 a megawatt hour. That is part of the problem.
Third, the bill immediately deregulated wholesale prices, but left
retail rates regulated until March of 2002, or until a utility has sold
off all of its generating units, creating a half-regulated, half-
deregulated system. So the free market that we heard so much about
can't function as a market should because it is broken. The price on
the wholesale end is deregulated. The utility cannot pass that price
through to the consumer--or has not been able to.
Incidentally, that is going to change because the State will pass
more than a 30-percent rate increase that should go into play in either
May or June of this year. So some of that will be corrected.
Fourth, the State set up a power exchange as a product of that bill
that aimed to attract sellers by promising the highest clearing price
of energy to all bidders. So no matter what you bid your power in for,
you are guaranteed the highest price paid to any other bidder. That
proved to be fatal.
Energy suppliers realized that simply withholding power from the
power exchange and from the California energy market would drastically
drive up the prices. And they did.
Spot prices increased dramatically. The costs could not be passed on
to consumers. The State's largest investor-owned utility filed for
bankruptcy, and the State's second largest investor-owned utility,
Southern California Edison, remains on the brink of bankruptcy. The
result has been this crisis, and this crisis could well become an
economic disaster not only for California, but for the entire West.
Now, what has the State done? I am the first to admit that California
has been slow to address the crisis. I think part of this was an actual
disbelief that the situation could have gotten this bad this fast. Let
me speak about supply because there had not been much supply--very
little supply, less than 2,000 megawatts actually--added to the State's
power supply in the last decade. But since the first of the year, the
State has licensed and approved 14 new gas-fired plants and 8 new
peaker plants, which will all be on line within the next 2 years. The
State expects to add 9,810 megawatts--that is enough power for 9.810
million households--and have that power on line by the summer of 2003.
And the State, in total, will add 20,000 megawatts, enough to power 20
million homes, and have that on line by the end of 2004.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart which
lists the plants that have been approved, plant by plant, by the State,
and the expected dates they will come on line.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
CALIFORNIA POWER PLANTS COMING ONLINE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant name Capacity Location--(Peaker?) Online by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the end of this summer:
1. Alliance Century Substation........ 40 MW................. Colton (peaker)........... ....................
2. Alliance Drews Substation.......... 40 MW................. Colton (peaker)........... ....................
3. Indigo Energy Facility*............ 135 MW................ Palm Springs (peaker)..... ....................
4. Larkspur Energy Facility*.......... 90 MW................. San Diego County (peaker). ....................
5. Ramco Chula Vista.................. 57 MW................. San Diego County (peaker). ....................
6. Calpine King City.................. 50 MW................. Monterey County (peaker).. ....................
7. Hanford Energy Park................ 95 MW................. Kings County (peaker)..... ....................
8. Sutter Power*...................... 500 MW................ Sutter County............. ....................
9. Los Medanos*....................... 559 MW................ Contra Costa County....... ....................
10. Sunrise Cogeneration*............. 550 MW................ Kern County............... ....................
11. United Golden Gate*............... 51 MW................. San Mateo................. ....................
------------------------
Subtotal........................ 2,167 MW.............. ....................
========================
From November 2001 to June 2003:
12. La Paloma*........................ 1,048 MW.............. Kern County............... Nov. 2001
13. Moss Landing*..................... 1,060 MW.............. Monterey.................. June 2002
14. Delta Energy Center*.............. 880 MW................ Pittsburg................. July 2002
15. Elk Hills*........................ 500 MW................ Kern County............... July 2002
16. High Desert*...................... 720 MW................ Victorville............... Winter 2002
17. Western Midway-Sunset*............ 500 MW................ Kern County............... March 2003
18. Blythe Energy*.................... 520 MW................ Riverside County.......... March 2003
19. Mountainview*..................... 1,056 MW.............. San Bernardino............ April 2003
20. Hanford*.......................... 99 MW................. Kings County.............. April 2003
21. Otay Mesa*........................ 510 MW................ San Diego County.......... April 2003
[[Page 6220]]
22. Pastoria*......................... 750 MW................ Kern County............... June 2003
------------------------
Subtotal........................ 7,643 MW.............. ....................
========================
Total........................... 9,810 MW.............. ....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Approved by the California Energy Commission.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I tell you that because the problem is
in this initial period; the problem is going to be for the next 2
years. After that, it is expected that the State will have adequate
power supply to begin to create a functioning free market.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for another 10
minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, not desiring to object, I just want to
make sure that I follow that time and that there is time for me. I was
scheduled at 10:15 was my understanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time from 10:15
to 11 was under the control of Senator Thomas.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
California so long as 10 minutes is added to our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized
for an additional 10 minutes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his
generosity.
Mr. President, the State is adding additional power. The problem
comes in the next 2 years. What can be done and what is the appropriate
Federal role in the next 2 years? I submit that the appropriate Federal
role is to provide a period for liability and stability until the State
has brought on line enough additional power to have a functioning free
market where supply and demand functions in an appropriate manner.
The State has also planned an $850 million conservation package that
will aim to reduce energy demand across the board by 10 percent or
more. So in the immediate future, conservation is the best way for
California to avoid days of rolling blackouts this summer. But, in my
opinion, it is going to be impossible to achieve enough conservation to
avoid all blackouts.
Additionally, the Governor of California has issued a series of
executive orders authorizing increased output at existing facilities
and ensuring that environmental regulations are not posing any barriers
to maximum energy production.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this time a
letter from Winston Hickox, the Secretary of the California
Environmental Protection Agency, asserting that there are no energy
plants idling in the State because of environmental reasons, with the
exception of those State plants that are being retrofitted so that they
can operate cleaner, more efficiently, and more often this summer.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
State of California,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Sacramento, CA, March 28, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: It has been alleged that air
quality regulations are a major contributor to California's
current power shortage crisis and are constraining energy
supplies. In his March 22, 2001, testimony before the House
Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee (enclosed), Dr. Alan
Lloyd, Chairman of the California Environmental Protection
Agency's Air Resources Board (ARB), refuted those statements.
The situation in California has not changed. No essential
power generation is off-line due to air quality constraints.
As you know, on February 8, 2001, Governor Gray Davis
issued a series of Executive Orders to comprehensively
address power generation. The Orders boosted generating
capacity by authorizing increased output at existing
facilities, accelerated power plant construction, streamlined
the review process for new facilities, and provided
incentives for distributed and renewable generation.
California regulatory agencies are quickly and successfully
expediting permits for new generating units. Since April
1999, nine major power projects (including one expansion)
totaling an additional 6,300 megawatts (MW) have been
approved. Six plants are under construction with four
expected to be on-line this year between July and November.
Another 14 projects (new sitings and expansions) are under
review for an additional 7,700 MW of capacity. All of these
projects include the necessary environmental offsets and
required emission controls. The State has also realized the
need for short-term supply and is expediting permits for
smaller peaking plants. These peakers will be on-line for the
2001 summer peak season.
With regard to existing capacity, the ARB is continuing its
coordination with the California Independent System Operator
(Cal-ISO), local air districts, California Energy Commission
(CEC), and plant personnel to identify generating units that
may be constrained by air permit limitations and to remove
barriers to summer time operation. Governor Davis' Executive
Orders dealt with this matter as well, authorizing additional
compliance mechanisms to keep both power generation and
environmental protection on track. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, is working closely with
California regulatory agencies and has indicated support for
this approach.
This spring, a number of generating units are off-line for
routine maintenance. Many of them are taking advantage of
this downtime--and available labor--to install air pollution
controls. Please note, these installations have been
carefully coordinated with Cal-ISO. They were only authorized
upon a finding that sufficient supplies and reliability of
the power grid system would be maintained.
In summary, air quality agencies realize the seriousness of
the State's energy situation and have been working
diligently, and effectively, to site new power plants and
increase existing capacity while still addressing air quality
concerns. Existing state and federal laws provide significant
flexibility to make these adjustments. Governor Davis'
Executive Orders provide additional means and flexibility to
keep generation on-line and quickly permit new power plants.
The air quality regulatory system works. We believe that
California can increase energy supply while, at the same
time, protecting public health and the environment.
California citizens expect nothing less.
Sincerely,
Winston H. Hickox,
Agency Secretary.
Enclosure.
Testimony of Dr. Alan C. Lloyd, Chairman, California Air Resources
Board, Before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, March
22, 2001
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Alan Lloyd, and I serve as Chairman of the California
Air Resources Board (ARB). I welcome the opportunity to
provide an overview of California's electricity challenge
with respect to air quality issues.
Over the past several months, Governor Davis has embarked
on a comprehensive strategy to address the electricity
situation in California. One of the major components of the
State's plan centers around increasing energy supplies by
expediting the construction of power plants and other sources
of generation. Specifically, we are in the midst of an
aggressive effort to bring 5,000 megawatts on line by this
summer and 20,000 megawatts by 2004 in order to meet
anticipated energy demand this summer and beyond.
Mr. Chairman, my main message is this: We can accomplish
this goal within the existing framework of California's air
quality regulations. Furthermore, environmental laws do not
pose a barrier in terms of our ability to bring new
generation on line and ensure that existing power plants can
operate at maximum capacity. In short, we can increase energy
supply in an expedited manner while at the same time
maintaining our commitment to the environment.
Air pollution controls have been identified as a major
contributor to California's current energy challenge. That
perception is not accurate. Air quality issues are a very
small part of the State's overall power production problem.
Where air quality rules have affected or might have
potentially affected the ability to create essential power,
state and local regulators have moved swiftly and
successfully to keep needed plants on line. Simply put, no
essential electricity generation has been curtailed due to
air emission limitations. California's programs to protect
public health are not a major factor in the electricity
shortages experienced to date.
[[Page 6221]]
No single factor can explain the current energy crisis. The
matter is far too complex. However, it can be said with
certainty that environmental laws are not to blame. Under
existing environmental programs and the policy direction of
Governor Davis, state and local air regulators have had, have
used, and will continue to use, the considerable flexibility
included in California's regulatory programs to ensure that
power generating sources remain in operation under
environmentally sound conditions. While the review process
and decision making timelines have been streamlined,
substantive environmental standards and mitigation
requirements have not been compromised.
Over the last several months, there has been an increasing
focus on environmental laws as contributors to the energy
crisis. This concern has taken two distinct forms:
1. The charge that environmental laws have prevented
maximum utilization of existing electrical generation
facilities; and
2. The allegation that environmental laws have prevented
bringing new electrical generation facilities online.
There have also been charges that the State of California
has not be responsive enough in addressing the power issues,
and has not been willing to take the extraordinary actions
needed to deal with how environmental requirements have
affected electricity production.
Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that these statements have
diverted attention from the true and complex causes of the
current energy situation. As a result, they have not
contributed to productive efforts to resolve it. I would like
to briefly address each of these issues.
Although existing laws and regulations provide mechanisms
for addressing our power needs, they can also require
substantial time and process. Governor Davis, through the
exercise of his emergency powers under state law, has
significantly expanded state and local agencies' ability to
apply flexibility and common sense to act quickly to ensure
that power generation will continue.
By using his emergency powers and issuing Executive Orders,
Governor Davis has added substantially to the state's ability
to deal with our current energy situation. Executive Orders
D-24-01, D-26-01, and D-28-01 ensure that where statutory and
regulatory impediments exist--related to either the continued
operation of an existing plant or the construction of a new
clean facility--they will be swiftly addressed and resolved.
The Executive Orders also provide that these actions will be
accomplished without sacrificing needed air quality
protections.
State and local agencies now have both the direction the
authority they need to expeditiously review and approve
permits. Under the Governor's Executive Orders, they are:
Allowing the continued operation of existing facilities
that might otherwise face limits on hours of operation.
Expediting the review and permit approval for new peaking
facilities that have acquired the needed control technology
and mitigation, but need rapid processing to come on line
quickly.
Enabling new peaking plants to obtain emission credits
needed for permitting through the state, rather than
arranging for them through private transactions.
Completing permit reviews and approvals for new large
facilities in as little as four months to enable new capacity
to begin construction expeditiously.
The Governor's Executive Orders maintain all substantive
environmental protections. For example, existing units must
continue to utilize all of the required emission control
equipment, and must provide funds to mitigate the impact of
their increased hours of operation. Similarly, new units must
utilize the best available control equipment and must
continue to provide emission reduction credits to mitigate
their emission increases. Permitting will take less time, but
will not be less protective.
All central station electrical generating facilities are
permitted by local air pollution control districts under
rules incorporated in the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
These permits reflect operator-provided information,
including factors such as intended hours of operation and
fuel type. This information has a direct bearing on the
facility's anticipated emissions. Based on operator-provided
data, emission limits are established through the air
permits. It is these operator-defined limits that have been
at issue. In many cases, these facilities are now in a
position of having, or wanting to generate additional
electrical power in excess of the time periods assumed in the
original permitting process.
Despite this unanticipated high level of operation, through
the joint efforts of local air districts, the Air Resources
board (ARB), and the California Energy Conservation and
Development Commission (CEC), as well as the assistance of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), needed
electrical generation has not been interrupted. State law and
local regulations provide several means to address permit
limitations without disruption of electrical generation or
unmitigated damage to air quality.
The ARB has assisted local air districts in addressing any
potential issues arising out of their efforts to maintain
power generation. ARB has maintained close coordination with
the U.S. EPA to ensure that state and local response to the
energy situation does not raise concerns at the federal
level. We have approached the electricity shortage with an
environmentally sound balance of need awareness and impact
concern. U.S. EPA has indicated its understanding of the
complexities California is facing and has indicated a
continued willingness to assist.
At the Governor's direction, the ARB and air districts have
been able to balance the State's energy needs with the
public's right to clean air. Existing air quality regulations
have provided the flexibility to address expeditiously the
unexpected power demands of the State without material harm
to air quality. These accommodations have been completed in
very short time frames and have ensured continued power
generation. This flexibility has been used numerous times
over the last six months to enable continued power
production. These have affected both large and small plants
are summarized in Attachment 1.
The additional grants of authority to the Governor under
the Emergency Services Act augments existing statutes and
increases the ability of state and local agencies to work
together in significantly reduced time frames. Whether it is
providing for an existing source to operate beyond its
permitted hours of operation of streamlining certification of
new peaking sources, the Governor's emergency Executive
Orders provide even greater flexibility in responding to
source specific generation issues than previously existed.
All new proposed power plants must be constructed and
operated in compliance with applicable federal, state, and
local air pollution requirements. Within California, the 35
local air districts are responsible for regulating emissions
from stationary sources, including power plants. At the state
level, ARB is the agency charged with coordinating efforts to
attain and maintain federal and state ambient air quality
standards and comply with the requirements of the federal
Clean Air Act. To this end, ARB coordinates the activities of
all the districts in order to comply with the Clean Air Act.
Some have cited California's environmental laws as the
reason new power generation has not been built in recent
years. However, a review of CEC data demonstrates otherwise.
Since April 1999, CEC has approved 13 major power projects
(including one expansion) totaling over 8,400 MW of
additional capacity. Six of these plants are under
construction and four of those six are expected to be on line
this year, with start dates spanning from July through
November. Another 15 projects (new sitings and expansions)
are currently under review for an additional 6,700 MW of
capacity. Lastly, there is still an additional 7,960 MW of
capacity that has been publicly announced and for which the
CEC anticipates receiving applications this year.
Some have also argued that costs of compliance with air
quality regulations are too substantial and must be relaxed
to achieve needed power generation. This argument is also
flawed. Today, approximately 15,000 MW of new electrical
generation has either been approved or is in the licensing
process. All of these projects have included the necessary
environmental offset packages and have incorporated all
required emission controls. Compliance with these
requirements has proven to be both technically and
economically feasible.
To bring new, additional peaking facilities on line,
Governor Davis has created both a streamlined review process
and an ARB-operated emission offset bank. These actions will
ensure that all necessary peaking facilities can also be
sited.
The CEC's siting process is designed to take 12 months.
However, a number of factors, other than environmental
regulations, have recently influenced individual project
timelines. Over the last two to three years, the actions of
local activists, businesses, and others have slowed the pace
of some projects. In fact, power generators themselves have
utilized the siting process to hold up the licensing of a
competitor.
Since 1997, competing companies have intervened in 12 of
the 21 projects proposed for licensing. Their participation
has slowed the process in at least four cases.
Constraints on electrical generation capacity from central
station powerplants have caused increased interest in the use
of distributed generation (DG). DG is electrical generation
at or near the place of use. Governor Davis supports
legislation action that will provide incentives for
distributed generation. Last September, the Governor signed
Senate Bill 1298, which directs ARB to establish a
certification program and adopt uniform emissions standards
and general air quality guidelines for DG technologies. By
law, this program must be in effect by January 1, 2003. ARB
is on a fast track and expects to complete this December--
over a year ahead of schedule.
As the foregoing demonstrates, it is not environmental
regulation that has prevented the creation of additional
power generation. Rather, many factors have contributed to
the current crisis. Among those is also the fact that market
participants can and do manipulate the electrical power
market by
[[Page 6222]]
withholding capacity in order to maximize their price of
electricity.
Even the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
agrees. Although it found insufficient evidence of market
manipulation by any individual market participant: ``. . .
there was clear evidence that the California market structure
and rules provide the opportunity for sellers to exercise
market power when supply is tight and can result in unjust
and unreasonable rates under the FPA . . . we reaffirm our
findings that unjust and unreasonable rates were charged and
could continue to be charged unless remedies are
implemented.''
The Air Resources Board is continuing its efforts to ensure
that California has the maximum electrical power output
possible, while still protecting public health and mitigating
any adverse effects of increased electrical output. This is
being done within the confines of existing law as recently
expanded through the Governor's Executive Orders. To quote
Governor Davis, California is demonstrating that we can cut
red tape, build more power plants and continue to protect the
environment.
Our State's history reflects a pattern of success even in
the face of unparalleled challenges. California, the most
populous state in the nation, has made incredible strides in
improving air quality and protecting public health. At the
same time, the State has enjoyed immense population and
business growth. During this current energy situation,
California will maintain its record of achieving a balance
among all the issues to ensure that a reasonable and
successful solution is achieved.
In sum, the air quality regulatory system works. The
Governor's utilization of his emergency powers to expedite
the process of power siting while maintaining environmental
standards confirms that California can maintain its
environmental and economic objectives.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify
this morning.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the point I am trying to make is that
there is no environmental law that is holding up either the approval or
the functioning of any generation facility in the State of California.
Also, I have written the CEOs of all of the energy generators that sell
power to California and I have confirmation of this. I have not heard
of one single example that contradicts Secretary Hickox's statement. So
I believe that California is really doing all it can right now to
maximize energy supply, to reduce its demand, but it is still not
likely to be enough for the summer.
Now, this summer we are projected to have a shortfall on a warm day,
with all plants operating, of 2,000 megawatts. On a hot day, with some
plants down, the shortfall is estimated to be 10,000 megawatts. That
could well be a serious disaster. Because hydropower in the Northwest
is also low, there will also be shortages in other Western States as
well. Our State has already experienced several days of rolling
blackouts, and when a blackout hits, it means traffic lights go out,
elevators stop, fuel pumps are down, food begins to rot, and production
stops. The economic losses are measured in billions, and there well
could be loss of life.
Let me put price on the table. This chart shows that in 1999 the
total cost for energy in the State of California was $7 billion. In the
year 2000, those costs became $32 billion. The cost predicted for
energy to the State of California in 2001 is $65 billion.
Look at this cost jump in 3 years. This is the problem--this
deregulated wholesale market has run amok, and there are no controls.
If the FERC has found these prices to be unjust and unreasonable and
refuses to regulate, what happens this year with these prices and no
regulation? So the situation we are in is inordinately serious.
I want to make a couple of points about natural gas. Natural gas
stocks are low everywhere, and the price for natural gas for most of
the country is averaging about 3 times more than the historic average.
However, in Southern California, the prices are 8 to 9 times higher.
CN&H Sugar, a refiner in Crockett, CA, generally pays about $450,000 a
month for its steam generated through natural gas.
During the peaks of this past year, $450,000 a month has risen to $2
million a month. That plant can employ 1,000 to 1,200 people. That
plant cannot continue to operate under these conditions.
There is a real problem in the transportation costs of natural gas
because they are not transparent and because profits are hidden. The
transportation of natural gas, the cost of moving gas from, let's say,
San Juan, New Mexico, to San Diego has always been regulated. When it
was, that cost was about 70 cents per decatherm.
If natural gas is selling for $5 in San Juan and it costs 70 cents to
transport it to southern California, when it gets to southern
California it should be selling for no more than $5.70.
The price of natural gas today in San Juan, NM, is $4.80. However,
the price in southern California today is $14.71. In northern
California it is $9.59. Something is clearly wrong. This price need be
no more than $6 per decatherm, not $14.71.
In February of 2000, the FERC decided to experiment, and it removed
the cap on the transportation of natural gas for 2\1/2\ years,
believing the market would actually drive down the price. Clearly, the
opposite happened. The absence of transparency allowed companies to
withhold parts of that natural gas transportation pipeline just for the
purpose of increasing prices, and prices have risen.
Senator Gordon Smith and I, along with Senator Bingaman, Senator
Cantwell, Senator Murray, and Senator Lieberman, introduced legislation
yesterday directing FERC to do its job. The legislation says that since
you, FERC, have found the prices to be unjust and unreasonable, you
must now do your job and you must set either cost-based rates on a
temporary basis or a rate cap on a temporary basis for the western grid
within 60 days.
It requires that those costs must be passed on to the consumer in a
manner that the State believes just. The cost can be staggered over
years and passed on through real-time pricing, tiered pricing, or by
setting a baseline, but it must be passed on, again, to create a
functioning marketplace.
The bill also requires that all future orders to sell natural gas or
electricity to an affected State must include a reasonable assurance of
payment.
We believe this is a bill that must be passed by this body. The
Energy Committee has had two hearings on the subject, and I am hopeful
this body will pass this bill in a timely manner. The inability or
failure to do so I think is going to create a human and an economic
disaster in the Western States come summer because these costs, not
only of natural gas but electricity, in the hot months are going to be
serious and extraordinarily high.
I thank the Chair for the opportunity to give this status report. I
end by particularly thanking Senator Smith of Oregon. He has worked
with me in a bipartisan way. He has gone with me to see members of the
committees on the House side. He has stood very solid and steady in
support of this legislation. I am very proud to have him as a major
cosponsor. I also thank the Senators from the great State of Washington
and the Senator from Connecticut who also recognize what this problem
is and are determined to do something about it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:10
a.m. shall be under the control of the Senator from Wyoming, Mr.
Thomas, or his designee.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as a designee, I ask that I be permitted
to speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EDUCATION
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about education.
Since we are going to seriously consider education reform in this
Chamber during the ensuing days, I thought it might be appropriate for
me to talk about it before I, and many others, offer amendments.
New Mexicans and Americans agree, from everything I can tell, that
improving the educational opportunities available to our children
should be our top priority. The issue is whether or not we can reform
the school system such that our children will perform better as they
are educated in our public school systems in ensuing years.
[[Page 6223]]
There is ample evidence that it is absolutely imperative the public
school systems do better, that more and more of our schools be held
accountable, and that an accountability requirement be part of the
reform measures the Senate will be considering in the next few days or
weeks.
For starters, going back to the days of our origin, I quote a very
distinguished American who talked about investing resources. Benjamin
Franklin said:
An investment in knowledge always pays the highest
interest.
Obviously, that is a very simple way of talking about our priorities
and where we put our resources and where we might expect the best
benefits for society. This great American in our founding days said:
You will always get the best interest when you invest in knowledge.
Later in the discussions there will be ample opportunity for Senators
to assess the performance of the school systems across America and what
is happening to our children--not everywhere but some places; not to
all children but to substantial numbers by way of our desire to give
them the basic skills with which to perform as students, as growing
Americans, and ultimately as adults in our society, which is requiring
more and more that people be skilled of mind, their cognitive skills be
developed to the highest extent possible.
The President of the United States, in suggesting reform of the
educational system, also suggested with that reform there should be a
substantial increase in the level of funding by the Federal Government.
The President suggested we spend $44.5 billion for the Department of
Education. That is an 11.5-percent increase over last year, but it is
also $1 billion in new funding for a new reading program for young
children, tied into the reform measures that we will talk about as the
bill proceeds.
It increases special education funding to a Federal share of 17
percent. That is 17 of the 40 percent we have committed. It is the
highest proportional share by the Federal Government in the history of
the program. It doesn't do justice to our original commitment of 40,
but for a 1-year add-on to the program, it is substantial. It provides
$2.6 billion in the area of teacher quality funds. That is a 17-percent
increase. It provides a $\1/2\ billion increase for title I grants to
serve disadvantaged children.
There is already bipartisan discussion between the committee members
and the President. There will be a lot of discussion as to how to
change the underlying laws we have had on the books for a long time,
the bill that provides most of the funding for education and how that
will be changed.
The Senate will begin debate on a new act which is going to be called
the Better Education For Students and Teachers Act. I will take a few
moments to talk about my specific input which I will offer to the
Senate.
Americans and New Mexicans are concerned. Their highest priority is
education. Second, most Americans and most New Mexicans are worried
about what is happening to the character and the morals of our society,
of our culture. That seems to be almost the second most important issue
around. I will be offering on the floor what will be called the Strong
Character for Strong Schools Act.
It is important to note that reform does not only apply to math,
science, and reading. While the current debate is centered on reform,
our bill simply encourages the creation of character education programs
at the State and local level by providing grants to eligible entities.
The bill builds upon a highly successful demonstration program to
increase character education contained in last year's ESEA bill.
Since 1994, the Department of Education has granted seed money to
some of our school systems to develop character education programs.
Currently, there are 36 States that have either received some Federal
funding or on their own have enacted laws encouraging or mandating
character education. Thus, the time is now to ensure that there will be
a permanent and dedicated funding source made available for character
education programs.
When we first look at character education, questions are asked. What
is it? Will it work? Will teachers want to do it? I will cite an
example of how it is being done in my State under a program called the
Six Pillars of Good Character. I will read the words that equate to the
six pillars and discuss it. The words are trustworthiness, respect,
responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. These were developed
a few years ago when a large group of Americans, under the leadership
of a foundation in the United States that brought them together to talk
about good character, the Josephsen Institute for Ethics, essentially a
foundation that promoted ethics, was specific in coming up with six
pillars of character.
In my State, we have the largest number of public schools at the
grade school level, junior high level, of any State in the Union that
has incorporated these six pillars into the daily education of our
children. The teachers love it. It empowers them to do some things they
have always wanted to do. There are lesson plans that help them get
across these six pillars as part of the normal education of our
children.
It is a joy to go to a school and see what is occurring in the
hallways of the school. They chose one of the pillars of character for
each month. If you go to the school when they chose ``responsibility,''
you will see the hallways laden with posters that contain ideas and
events about responsibility. At the end of the month, they get together
and talk about that pillar. You will see the most enthusiastic group of
teachers and young people discussing what happened during that month
with respect to encouraging responsibility and understanding of it and
actions based upon it.
Without telling the Senate how that got started, it is a glimpse of
what can happen across America if we continue to encourage this kind of
character education and ask more and more of our States to get involved
and encourage them but not order them to do this.
I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership. Since the departure of
Senator Nunn, he has joined with me in promoting the encouraging
startup funding for character education in the United States.
In addition to that measure, Senator Kennedy will join me in a bill
which will address itself to mental health needs in our schools.
Essentially, it will say the mental health resources not in the school
but which are in the community and are public should be used in
collaboration with the schools for the counselors and for the young
people. I think that bill will find general acceptance in the Senate
and is something we ought to encourage.
The third amendment I will introduce with a number of cosponsors has
to do with the recruitment and retention of teachers. Rather than
detailing this, I will do so when I introduce the amendment. It is
obvious we need teacher recruitment and teacher development. We will
promote this idea by advocating teacher recruitment and development
retention centers within our States for the exchange of names to
provide a program in the country on a purely voluntary grant basis
where there would be internships by budding teachers with senior
teachers known for their quality and competency, thus permitting a
number of young Americans to have a half year or year service as an
intern with an educator before they are placed in the classroom.
I think it is going to be a worthwhile debate. There are many
participating from the committee in the Senate. I do not happen to be
on that committee, but I will participate to the maximum extent so
these three amendments and ideas will be incorporated in amendments
that will be offered on the floor.
I know Senator Smith is waiting and I have exceeded my time, so I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, under the time allotted to
Senator Thomas I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
[[Page 6224]]
____________________
HONORING THOSE LOST IN THE JOINT TASK FORCE FOR FULL ACCOUNTING
HELICOPTER CRASH
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in early April, April 6 to
be exact, the Senate recessed. The following day, April 7, a Saturday,
a helicopter, in the fog, crashed into the side of a mountain in
Vietnam. In that crash, seven American military personnel were killed
as were nine Vietnamese. It is a grim yet a vivid reminder of the fact
that every day American servicemen throughout the world are serving
their country in harm's way. Even though the Nation is not at war, we
sometimes forget these men and women put their lives on the line for
us.
I want to share with the Senate what these men were doing. These men
were searching for the remains of American missing personnel, MIAs from
the Vietnam war. These young men volunteered for this job and put their
lives on the line to find answers for the families of those who are
missing.
In a statement issued April 7 by the National Alliance of Families
expressing their sympathy to the families, the National Alliance of
Families said:
We extend our sincere condolences to the families of these
service members and hope they will be comforted by the fact
that their loved ones will always be remembered for their
commitment to finding our loved ones.
I just came back about 45 minutes ago from a memorial service at Fort
Myer for those seven Americans and their nine Vietnamese counterparts.
To sit there with some of the families of those missing was difficult.
But, again, it is a reminder of what these men and women in uniform do,
all across the world. I honor them today in the Senate by letting the
American people know who they are. These are not anonymous people;
these are real people with, now, real grieving widows, real grieving
mothers and fathers.
The members on board were members of the Army, the Air Force, and the
Navy. To be specific, there were three members of the U.S. Army, three
members of the U.S. Air Force, and one Navy personnel. They were black,
they were Hispanic, they were Caucasian--they were Americans. They were
American military. They were: Army LTC Rennie Melville Cory, Jr., of
Oklahoma City, OK; LTC George D. Martin III of Hopkins, SC; and SFC
Tommy James Murphy of Georgia--hometown not available; they were Air
Force MAJ Charles E. Lewis of Las Cruces, NM; MSG Steven L. Moser of
San Diego, CA; and TSgt Robert M. Flynn of Huntsville, AL; they were
Navy CPO Pedro Juan Gonzalez of Buckeye, AZ--real people, real
Americans.
I used to teach high school, and oftentimes I would be amazed at the
heroes some of our young people sought out--many in the athletic world,
some in the world of entertainment, some whom I might not have picked
as heroes. But if you are looking for heroes to admire, here they are,
seven of them, who sacrificed their lives in the line of duty to search
for the remains of American men and women missing from the Vietnam war.
What an honor to serve your country in that capacity.
At least five times that I can recall, I as a Member of either the
Congress or the Senate had the opportunity to visit Vietnam--indeed,
fly on maybe the same helicopter, but certainly similar helicopters
with Vietnamese pilots. We flew all over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia,
flying these missions, trying to find answers for POWs and MIAs. These
wonderful people who make these sacrifices--long days, weeks away from
their families, on the ground, sifting through dirt, trying to find
remains, looking at wreckage, digging into the files and the archives--
whatever it takes, they are out there doing it day in and day out with
very few accolades.
I honor them today by simply saying thank you. Thank you for caring
enough to search for your colleagues and comrades in arms who are
missing. Thank you for serving your country. Thank you for making the
ultimate sacrifice doing it. I also thank the families, those who
survive, who will now endure this pain.
It is special with me because I have also endured it. When I was 3
years old my father, who served in World War II, died in the service of
his country in a military aircraft accident. My mother, as a widow,
raised me and my brother for all those years.
These are heroes. These were members of what is called the Joint Task
Force--Full Accounting. I ask all of us, my colleagues in the Senate
and the American people who are listening, tonight, when you put your
head down, you might just remember these men in your prayers and say
thank you from a grateful nation for your service.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
THE EDUCATION BILL
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know there have been a number, more or
less, of opening statements or statements with regard to education in
America in the hope that we can move forward on a very important
education reform bill that has been requested by President Bush and has
been worked on in our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
The bill was reported out overwhelmingly some months ago.
At that point, negotiations began between Republicans on the
committee, Democrats on the committee, and the administration. I had
the impression that good progress had been made. That is as it should
be. Education is a very high priority in America with the President and
with the Congress but, most importantly, with the American people.
I have stated in this Chamber many times before how importantly I
view education. In my State of Mississippi, we are struggling mightily
to improve the quality of our education to make sure that quality
education is available to all of our students. We are truly working on
the idea that no child should be left behind.
We had a $100 million contribution from Jim and Sally Barkesdale for
fourth grade reading only in my State.
We are now at a point where we have 50 schools that have been
approved for the Power-Up Program where students from the fifth grade
to the eighth grade have access to privately donated computers with
specifically trained teachers on how to teach these children to use
them to learn to read. This program allows them to become computer
literate and improve their reading skills.
Now we have unique programs in my State for fourth graders, and fifth
through the eighth grade for reading alone. We are focusing on where
there is a tremendous need. That story can be replicated all across
America.
In addition to that, I am a son of a schoolteacher. She taught for 19
years before she got into bookkeeping and eventually into radio
announcing. So I care a lot about education.
I worked for the University of Mississippi in placement and in the
financial office for the alumni association and for the law school
placement bureau. I have been involved in working with guidance
counselors and teachers and promoting education generally. I care
mightily about this.
As a Member of Congress for 29 years, I have watched us try to have a
constructive role from the Federal level with the States and local
school officials. We have put billions of dollars into trying to be
helpful from the Federal level. The number is well over $130-plus
billion for title I since I think 1965.
As we poured more and more money from the Federal level into local
education, the test scores have continued to slide downward. There is
something missing. Money alone is not the answer. Money is part of the
answer. We need to put more funds at the local, State, and Federal
level into education, but we need more than that. We need fundamental
reform. We need flexibility. We need accountability. We need to make
sure the children are
[[Page 6225]]
learning to read and to do math. We need to know we are getting results
for the efforts that are put into this important area of education.
We need to make sure teachers have the training they need to do the
job, and that there are more and better programs to make sure we have
teachers who have been taught how to teach the use of computers. We
have computers in backs of classrooms and in hallways that aren't being
used because they do not have teachers who are trained or qualified to
teach their usage. We need more progress for our teachers. We need
accountability for teachers.
Testing is something I have struggled with a little bit. We need to
have a way to know how our students are doing. I worry about a national
testing system. But the President has convinced me that there must be
some sort of testing mechanism with a lot of local discretion, and it
must occur regularly, not just sporadically.
There is much we can do in this area. I had been prepared to and have
been under the impression that we were going to be able to move on the
education reform package on Monday of this week. But there was an
objection to the motion to proceed. My attitude was, fine, we will
begin talking about the issue and emphasize its importance, and surely
we can go to the bill on Tuesday. Tuesday came and went. Even though
great progress was made on negotiations and reform and movement on the
money issue, there was still no agreement to go forward on the bill.
Now here we are on Wednesday. Each time I have called and talked to the
Democratic leader, I have had the impression that he would like to move
forward, but, he was just not quite ready yet.
I understand what is occurring. Leverage is being applied on the
President to try to get more money, and to get a commitment to spend
more and more money. It is obvious what is happening. But I don't think
that is the responsible thing to do.
I think we should go forward with the bill. In the past I have been
criticized because I wouldn't move to a bill and just said let's let
the Senate work its will. Let's have amendments. Let's have votes. Some
amendments win; some lose. In the end, you have a product, and then you
vote and go forward.
I am being told until a total agreement is reached, we cannot go
forward. I do not understand. Education is the highest priority in
America with the President, the legislative branch, the States, the
Governors, local school officials--everybody--and here we are. We
stand, and we wait.
We are ready to go to the bill. Let's take it up. Let's have a free-
flowing debate. Let's have amendments. Let's have votes. Let's do our
job. Yet I am told we cannot even proceed to the bill.
Well, I am going to be patient. I am hoping that by this afternoon we
can at least proceed to this bill. It was reported unanimously out of
committee. Let's go to the underlying bill. We can have some amendments
offered. Then, if there is agreement between all the parties, the
manager can offer an amendment, and we can amend that.
So I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's begin.
Let's do our job on education. We have had enough time. We should have
done the bill in February. But I was told by the committee it was not
ready. Then I was told we were making progress. And then it was
reported out overwhelmingly. Everybody was happy. We are ready to go,
and yet here we are and we cannot go forward.
So rather than just at this point mark time, I thought it was
important that we go forward and try to take up another bill while we
hope that some agreement can be reached and we can move forward on the
education bill.
I talked to the chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over
the brownfields legislation. I had thought maybe there would be a need
to go to this legislation as we were getting ready to go home for the
Easter period. I indicated to the chairman I thought it would be
necessary for him to be prepared to go forward. He is ready to do so.
So I think I am going to ask for an agreement I believe the
Democratic leadership is agreeable to this that we would go forward
with this legislation which affects all of our States, a lot of
communities. This is some reform legislation that hopefully will allow
more of these brownfields to actually be cleaned up and not just be a
lawyers' enhancement act. This will be a plus for the institution and
it will get us some results. I believe we can do this in a couple hours
and we would be prepared to have a vote at about 2 o'clock or so.
I inquire of the chairman of the committee, is your counterpart
ready?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes.
Mr. LOTT. I see the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. We are ready.
Mr. LOTT. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the work
they have already done and for being ready to go to this bill on short
notice.
____________________
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 350
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:15 today
the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 19, S. 350, the
brownfields legislation, and it be considered under the following
limitation: There be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two
managers, and no amendments be in order to the bill other than a
managers' amendment.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding
back of time, the managers' amendment be agreed to, the committee
substitute be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, and the bill
then be temporarily set aside with a vote occurring on passage at 2
p.m. today, with no intervening action or debate.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Nevada is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
The Senator from West Virginia has an important statement to give
regarding one of our valued employees in the Senate. The Senator from
West Virginia, I understand, wants to speak for 10 or 15 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Fifteen at the most.
Mr. REID. Maybe we could start this at 11:25.
Mr. LOTT. I modify my request so that we would begin then at 11:25,
to allow Senator Byrd to go forward with his statement between now and
then.
Mr. REID. I say to the majority leader, that would leave 2 hours and
35 minutes until 2 o'clock.
Mr. LOTT. Yes.
Mr. REID. There are no amendments in order anyway. We may have some
people who wish to speak on it. Would that be OK with the leader?
Mr. LOTT. I am not sure I understand what the request is.
Mr. REID. Rather than ending the debate at approximately 1:25, we
would do it at 2 o'clock and just vote at 2 o'clock.
Mr. LOTT. That would be fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request, as
modified?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader
and the distinguished minority whip for their kindness and courtesy to
me.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JIM ENGLISH
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart. And I do
not say that without justification. I measure my words in saying that I
rise today with a heavy heart, for it will shortly be time for me to
say goodbye, for now at least, to one of the most extraordinary men I
have ever had the pleasure of knowing in my 83 years on God's
footstool, this Earth.
The minority staff director of the Senate Appropriations Committee,
Mr. Jim English, has decided to retire this year. Jim English has been
my right arm, figuratively speaking, since 1989, when I assumed the
chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate. We have
been through so many battles together, that sometimes it seems as if
Jim English has always
[[Page 6226]]
been with me. I could almost say, I can never remember a time in my
life when Jim was not beside me.
In fact, I met Jim English in 1973, when he worked on the
Transportation Subcommittee, but he did not actually work directly for
me until 1989.
Jim English was born on a farm near Homer, LA. That simple fact
explains a great deal. Jim English has a head full of brains. And he
knows how to use them. They do not go to waste. They are not dormant.
They are always working. But while he has a head full of brains, he
does not have a thimble full of arrogance or supercilious attitude.
He is rock solid. He is honest. And he is full of good humor. He is
the type of person whose values and character reflect the very best of
America, and indeed the very best of human nature, and the preeminently
best of nobility. Few persons have I seen in life that I would think of
as being noble. Jim English is one. I do not recall ever having said
this about anybody else. It does not mean that I have not seen other
very noble people. The man who raised me, Titus Dalton Byrd, a man of
little education, but with a big heart and a great soul, was a noble
man.
James English has had a working career which includes being an
accounting clerk for the D.C. Government, revenue officer for the IRS,
clerk of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, vice president
for government affairs at Amtrak, Assistant Secretary of the Senate,
staff director of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and minority
staff director of the Appropriations Committee. I daresay that he has
worn all of those many hats, those many badges with distinction. There
is probably no position that Jim would not improve just by occupying
it.
He is without doubt--and I have had some extraordinarily fine staff
people--he is without a doubt, overall, the finest staff member I have
ever employed in my 48 years on Capitol Hill.
I have employed some top-notch, very fine staff people. I say this
about Jim English because of his versatility, for one. He is
multitalented, he is supremely capable, and he is completely undaunted
by any challenge. Jim English is also unrelentingly curious. He will
dig and dig and dig until he gets an answer to a question.
It has been said by someone that curiosity is one of the certain
characteristics of a vigorous mind. When you stop and think about it,
that is a very apt saying. Never was there a better example of the
truth of that observation than we have seen in Jim English. Moreover, I
have never met anyone so consistently good humored, even in the most
stressful of situations. As my dear friend, Senator Ted Stevens,
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, knows, there are certainly
times when being on the Appropriations Committee staff can be
dreadfully stressful and demanding.
I cannot recall ever seeing Jim English angry in all of the years I
have known him. I have rarely ever even seen him become impatient.
Emerson once observed:
It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion;
it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great
man is he who in the midst of a crowd keeps with perfect
sweetness the independence of solitude.
That is Jim English. He is the epitome of Emerson's thoughts in that
regard: Gentle with everyone, yet the toughest of adversaries when he
must be tough. Jim English seems always to maintain perfect control and
equanimity. In all the years I have worked with Jim English, I have
never heard him tell an off-color joke. I have never heard him use
profanity. If he had, he wouldn't stay on my staff. I don't use it in
front of my staff. Not that I have never used it in my life, but I
don't use it anymore. And Jim English doesn't use it. My staff people
don't use it. He is just a good man.
The Bible says no man is good, but Jim English comes as near to it as
anyone I have ever met. Losing him will be like losing an arm. Jim has
given over 30 years to Federal service, with 23 of those years spent
with the Senate Appropriations Committee. Almost 13 of those 23 years
he has spent working closely with me.
I shall miss him professionally, and I shall miss him personally, but
I know he wants to spend more time with his lovely and good wife
Phyllis, with his daughters Kathleen Pfost and Elizabeth Arensdorf, and
with his four grandchildren, Ashley, Alex, Evan, and Jimmy. As much as
I regret losing Jim English--and I couldn't keep him if I wanted to--no
one could begrudge him these desires.
I wish for him all the best that life has to offer, and I want him to
know I am grateful for the loyalty, the service, and the friendship he
has offered to me for so many good years.
My dear colleague--and I say ``dear colleague'' meaning it--Ted
Stevens is on the floor. He wants to share his thoughts on this
subject.
I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to Senator Stevens, after
which I be recognized again for just a few lines, and that the time be
extended to whatever is necessary, which will not be very long but not
more than 10 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to my great friend from
West Virginia. I am chairing a hearing at the present time of the
Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations. But I am saddened to come to
the Chamber for this occasion to recognize and comment upon the
retirement of Jim English from the staff of our Appropriations
Committee.
I say to Jim, very frankly, all of the members of our staff,
minority, majority, Members and staff, extend to him our heartfelt
congratulations and thanks for all he has done and our desire that he
and his wife Phyllis and their daughters and grandchildren will have a
grand time.
I can't fathom a young man such as that deciding to retire, but I
hope there are some fishing holes along the line that he will explore,
and other activities to do. My first father-in-law told me that English
is the only language in which ``retire'' means other than go to bed. I
hope it is a misuse of the term ``retire'' in terms of referring to Jim
English because he has much yet to contribute to our country and to his
family.
Senator Byrd and I have worked together with Jim English since 1973.
Although he left the committee and worked for Amtrak, as my colleague
mentioned, and he worked under the leadership of the Senator from West
Virginia on his staff and with the leadership staff, he has been back
again with our committee since 1989, according to our figures, and has
served as Senator Byrd's majority staff director and now as the
Democratic staff director in this equalness we are now celebrating.
In the time I have been chairman, Jim English has not just been an
adviser to Senator Byrd, he has been our adviser, the committee's
adviser, and he has worked with us in a way that has been deserving of
the trust we have imposed and conferred upon him. He is a man who
believes in close bipartisan relationships. On a committee such as
ours, he has fostered that by his actions and by his work. Much of the
credit for the close bipartisan relationship we have now comes from the
work he did before when Senator Byrd was chairman of the committee.
That period has extended through the time I have been chairman.
We have a different relationship on our committee. It is a committee
that recognizes the work has to be done. There is only one committee
that actually has to pass 13 bills every year. No matter what happens,
those bills have to pass the Congress. They have to be approved by our
committee. As my colleague mentioned, there are many issues that arise,
many specific battles where animosities develop within our ranks. I
have never seen Jim English take part in that. He has been a man of
calm temper--unlike me, I might add--and he is one who has worked to
ensure that the processes we follow are fair and honorable.
I can say without any question that my staff and I have trusted Jim
completely. If he tells us anything, it is accepted on its face. There
is no reason to go behind Jim English's word. He is
[[Page 6227]]
a man who has played a central role in the appropriations process for
many years.
I come to the Chamber to say I will miss him. I really don't like the
idea of seeing a young man such as him leave. It raises a question in
my mind: Who is the smarter of the two?
Anyone who recognizes the caliber of Jim English and his
professionalism will understand how much we are going to miss him.
I am sure you will find someone to replace him, and it is my hope
that we will have the same relationship with whomever that is. But it
is a difficult time to have a person such as Jim decide to leave, and I
want to say to Jim English that the doors of my offices will always be
open to you, no matter the issue and I will continue to rely upon your
advice, no matter where you go. I think you have earned the reputation
to be accepted in this body as a man of integrity and honor and one who
has always kept his word. There is nothing better you can say about a
man, in my opinion.
I wish I had the capability the Senator from West Virginia has to
remember quotes from distinguished authors. I have never tried to
develop that capability. But I do want Jim to know we have benefited
greatly from his service, whether Republican or Democrat. The country
is better off for you having spent time with us. We hope you will enjoy
your life from now on and come back to see us from time to time.
Whatever your new endeavors may be, you have our best wishes, and you
have my assurance that I would be ready to help you in any regard.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stevens for those remarks.
In my judgment, having served on the Appropriations Committee longer
than any other Senator serving, going on 43 years--and I have seen some
good chairmen of the Appropriations Committee--I have no hesitancy in
saying Senator Stevens is the best chairman of the Appropriations
Committee--and that includes myself as chairman--he is the best
chairman the Senate Appropriations Committee has had during my long
tenure in this body. I know that what he says brings pride to the heart
of this man--Jim English--who is about to leave the employ of the
Senate.
Let me close with a few lines which I think are most fitting when we
think of Jim English.
It Will Show In Your Face
You don't have to tell how you live each day
You don't have to say if you work or play;
For a tried and true barometer--right in its place,
However you live, my friend, it will show in your face.
The false, the deceit that you bear in your heart
Won't stay down inside where it first got its start;
For sinew and blood are a thin veil of lace
What you carry in your heart will show in your face.
If you have gambled and won in the great game of life
If you feel you have conquered sorrow and strife;
If you played the game square and you stand on first base,
You won't have to tell it, it will show in your face.
Then if you dissipate nights till the day is most nigh,
There is only one teller, and one that won't lie;
Since your facial barometer is right in its place,
However you live, my friend, it will show in your face.
Well, if your life is unselfish and for others you live,
Not for what you can get but for what you can give,
And if you live close to God in his infinite grace,
You won't have to tell it, it will show in your face.
____________________
COMMENDING JAMES HAROLD ENGLISH FOR HIS 23 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have the approval of the distinguished
majority leader and the distinguished minority leader to ask unanimous
consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 73
submitted earlier today by Senator Leahy and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 73) to commend James Harold English
for his 23 years of service to the United States Senate.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
Senators be added as cosponsors of the resolution: Senators Stevens,
Leahy, and Daschle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. REID. I ask that I be added as a cosponsor. Jim English is a
great public servant and has been a good friend of mine.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that
any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, all with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 73) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 73
Whereas James Harold English became an employee of the
United States Senate in 1973, and has ably and faithfully
upheld the high standards and traditions of the staff of the
United States Senate;
Whereas James Harold English served as Clerk of the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee from 1973 to 1980;
Whereas James Harold English served as the Assistant
Secretary of the Senate in 1987 and 1988;
Whereas James Harold English has served as Democratic Staff
Director of the Appropriations Committee of the United States
Senate from 1989 to 2001;
Whereas James Harold English has faithfully discharged the
difficult duties and responsibilities of Staff Director and
Minority Staff Director of the Appropriations Committee of
the United States Senate with great pride, energy,
efficiency, dedication, integrity, and professionalism;
Whereas he has earned the respect, affection, and esteem of
the United States Senate; and
Whereas James Harold English will retire from the United
States Senate on April 30, 2001, with over 30 years of
Government Service--23 years with the United States Senate:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the United States Senate--
(1) Commends James Harold English for his exemplary service
to the United States Senate and the Nation, and wishes to
express its deep appreciation and gratitude for his long,
faithful, and outstanding service.
(2) The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of
this resolution to James Harold English.
____________________
BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION ACT OF 2001
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report S. 350 by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 350) to amend the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to promote
the cleanup and reuse of brownfields, to provide financial
assistance for brownfields revitalization, to enhance State
response programs, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Committee on Environment and Public
Works, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration
Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING
Sec. 101. Brownfields revitalization funding.
TITLE II--BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS
Sec. 201. Contiguous properties.
Sec. 202. Prospective purchasers and windfall liens.
Sec. 203. Innocent landowners.
TITLE III--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS
Sec. 301. State response programs.
Sec. 302. Additions to National Priorities List.
[[Page 6228]]
TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING
SEC. 101. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING.
(a) Definition of Brownfield Site.--Section 101 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(39) Brownfield site.--
``(A) In general.--The term `brownfield site' means real
property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may
be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.
``(B) Exclusions.--The term `brownfield site' does not
include--
``(i) a facility that is the subject of a planned or
ongoing removal action under this title;
``(ii) a facility that is listed on the National Priorities
List or is proposed for listing;
``(iii) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral
administrative order, a court order, an administrative order
on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to
or entered into by the parties under this Act;
``(iv) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral
administrative order, a court order, an administrative order
on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to
or entered into by the parties, or a facility to which a
permit has been issued by the United States or an authorized
State under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1321), the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.), or the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et
seq.);
``(v) a facility that--
``(I) is subject to corrective action under section 3004(u)
or 3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6924(u), 6928(h)); and
``(II) to which a corrective action permit or order has
been issued or modified to require the implementation of
corrective measures;
``(vi) a land disposal unit with respect to which--
``(I) a closure notification under subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) has been
submitted; and
``(II) closure requirements have been specified in a
closure plan or permit;
``(vii) a facility that is subject to the jurisdiction,
custody, or control of a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States, except for land held in
trust by the United States for an Indian tribe;
``(viii) a portion of a facility--
``(I) at which there has been a release of polychlorinated
biphenyls; and
``(II) that is subject to remediation under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.); or
``(ix) a portion of a facility, for which portion,
assistance for response activity has been obtained under
subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et
seq.) from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
established under section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.
``(C) Site-by-site determinations.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (B) and on a site-by-site basis, the President
may authorize financial assistance under section 128 to an
eligible entity at a site included in clause (i), (iv), (v),
(vi), (viii), or (ix) of subparagraph (B) if the President
finds that financial assistance will protect human health and
the environment, and either promote economic development or
enable the creation of, preservation of, or addition to
parks, greenways, undeveloped property, other recreational
property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes.
``(D) Additional areas.--For the purposes of section 128,
the term `brownfield site' includes a site that--
``(i) meets the definition of `brownfield site' under
subparagraphs (A) through (C); and
``(ii)(I) is contaminated by a controlled substance (as
defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 802)); or
``(II) is mine-scarred land.''.
(b) Brownfields Revitalization Funding.--Title I of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 128. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING.
``(a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the
term `eligible entity' means--
``(1) a general purpose unit of local government;
``(2) a land clearance authority or other quasi-
governmental entity that operates under the supervision and
control of or as an agent of a general purpose unit of local
government;
``(3) a government entity created by a State legislature;
``(4) a regional council or group of general purpose units
of local government;
``(5) a redevelopment agency that is chartered or otherwise
sanctioned by a State;
``(6) a State; or
``(7) an Indian Tribe.
``(b) Brownfield Site Characterization and Assessment Grant
Program.--
``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator shall
establish a program to--
``(A) provide grants to inventory, characterize, assess,
and conduct planning related to brownfield sites under
paragraph (2); and
``(B) perform targeted site assessments at brownfield
sites.
``(2) Assistance for site characterization and
assessment.--
``(A) In general.--On approval of an application made by an
eligible entity, the Administrator may make a grant to the
eligible entity to be used for programs to inventory,
characterize, assess, and conduct planning related to 1 or
more brownfield sites.
``(B) Site characterization and assessment.--A site
characterization and assessment carried out with the use of a
grant under subparagraph (A) shall be performed in accordance
with section 101(35)(B).
``(c) Grants and Loans for Brownfield Remediation.--
``(1) Grants provided by the president.--Subject to
subsections (d) and (e), the President shall establish a
program to provide grants to--
``(A) eligible entities, to be used for capitalization of
revolving loan funds; and
``(B) eligible entities or nonprofit organizations, where
warranted, as determined by the President based on
considerations under paragraph (3), to be used directly for
remediation of 1 or more brownfield sites owned by the entity
or organization that receives the grant and in amounts not to
exceed $200,000 for each site to be remediated.
``(2) Loans and grants provided by eligible entities.--An
eligible entity that receives a grant under paragraph (1)(A)
shall use the grant funds to provide assistance for the
remediation of brownfield sites in the form of--
``(A) 1 or more loans to an eligible entity, a site owner,
a site developer, or another person; or
``(B) 1 or more grants to an eligible entity or other
nonprofit organization, where warranted, as determined by the
eligible entity that is providing the assistance, based on
considerations under paragraph (3), to remediate sites owned
by the eligible entity or nonprofit organization that
receives the grant.
``(3) Considerations.--In determining whether a grant under
paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(B) is warranted, the President or the
eligible entity, as the case may be, shall take into
consideration--
``(A) the extent to which a grant will facilitate the
creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a
greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or
other property used for nonprofit purposes;
``(B) the extent to which a grant will meet the needs of a
community that has an inability to draw on other sources of
funding for environmental remediation and subsequent
redevelopment of the area in which a brownfield site is
located because of the small population or low income of the
community;
``(C) the extent to which a grant will facilitate the use
or reuse of existing infrastructure;
``(D) the benefit of promoting the long-term availability
of funds from a revolving loan fund for brownfield
remediation; and
``(E) such other similar factors as the Administrator
considers appropriate to consider for the purposes of this
section.
``(4) Transition.--Revolving loan funds that have been
established before the date of enactment of this section may
be used in accordance with this subsection.
``(d) General Provisions.--
``(1) Maximum grant amount.--
``(A) Brownfield site characterization and assessment.--
``(i) In general.--A grant under subsection (b)--
``(I) may be awarded to an eligible entity on a community-
wide or site-by-site basis; and
``(II) shall not exceed, for any individual brownfield site
covered by the grant, $200,000.
``(ii) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive the $200,000
limitation under clause (i)(II) to permit the brownfield site
to receive a grant of not to exceed $350,000, based on the
anticipated level of contamination, size, or status of
ownership of the site.
``(B) Brownfield remediation.--
``(i) Grant amount.--A grant under subsection (c)(1)(A) may
be awarded to an eligible entity on a community-wide or site-
by-site basis, not to exceed $1,000,000 per eligible entity.
``(ii) Additional grant amount.--The Administrator may make
an additional grant to an eligible entity described in clause
(i) for any year after the year for which the initial grant
is made, taking into consideration--
``(I) the number of sites and number of communities that
are addressed by the revolving loan fund;
``(II) the demand for funding by eligible entities that
have not previously received a grant under this section;
``(III) the demonstrated ability of the eligible entity to
use the revolving loan fund to enhance remediation and
provide funds on a continuing basis; and
``(IV) such other similar factors as the Administrator
considers appropriate to carry out this section.
``(2) Prohibition.--
``(A) In general.--No part of a grant or loan under this
section may be used for the payment of--
``(i) a penalty or fine;
``(ii) a Federal cost-share requirement;
``(iii) an administrative cost;
``(iv) a response cost at a brownfield site for which the
recipient of the grant or loan is potentially liable under
section 107; or
``(v) a cost of compliance with any Federal law (including
a Federal law specified in section 101(39)(B)), excluding the
cost of compliance with laws applicable to the cleanup.
``(B) Exclusions.--For the purposes of subparagraph
(A)(iii), the term `administrative cost' does not include the
cost of--
``(i) investigation and identification of the extent of
contamination;
[[Page 6229]]
``(ii) design and performance of a response action; or
``(iii) monitoring of a natural resource.
``(3) Assistance for development of local government site
remediation programs.--A local government that receives a
grant under this section may use not to exceed 10 percent of
the grant funds to develop and implement a brownfields
program that may include--
``(A) monitoring the health of populations exposed to 1 or
more hazardous substances from a brownfield site; and
``(B) monitoring and enforcement of any institutional
control used to prevent human exposure to any hazardous
substance from a brownfield site.
``(e) Grant Applications.--
``(1) Submission.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Application.--An eligible entity may submit to the
Administrator, through a regional office of the Environmental
Protection Agency and in such form as the Administrator may
require, an application for a grant under this section for 1
or more brownfield sites (including information on the
criteria used by the Administrator to rank applications under
paragraph (3), to the extent that the information is
available).
``(ii) NCP requirements.--The Administrator may include in
any requirement for submission of an application under clause
(i) a requirement of the National Contingency Plan only to
the extent that the requirement is relevant and appropriate
to the program under this section.
``(B) Coordination.--The Administrator shall coordinate
with other Federal agencies to assist in making eligible
entities aware of other available Federal resources.
``(C) Guidance.--The Administrator shall publish guidance
to assist eligible entities in applying for grants under this
section.
``(2) Approval.--The Administrator shall--
``(A) at least annually, complete a review of applications
for grants that are received from eligible entities under
this section; and
``(B) award grants under this section to eligible entities
that the Administrator determines have the highest rankings
under the ranking criteria established under paragraph (3).
``(3) Ranking criteria.--The Administrator shall establish
a system for ranking grant applications received under this
subsection that includes the following criteria:
``(A) The extent to which a grant will stimulate the
availability of other funds for environmental assessment or
remediation, and subsequent reuse, of an area in which 1 or
more brownfield sites are located.
``(B) The potential of the proposed project or the
development plan for an area in which 1 or more brownfield
sites are located to stimulate economic development of the
area on completion of the cleanup.
``(C) The extent to which a grant would address or
facilitate the identification and reduction of threats to
human health and the environment.
``(D) The extent to which a grant would facilitate the use
or reuse of existing infrastructure.
``(E) The extent to which a grant would facilitate the
creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a
greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or
other property used for nonprofit purposes.
``(F) The extent to which a grant would meet the needs of a
community that has an inability to draw on other sources of
funding for environmental remediation and subsequent
redevelopment of the area in which a brownfield site is
located because of the small population or low income of the
community.
``(G) The extent to which the applicant is eligible for
funding from other sources.
``(H) The extent to which a grant will further the fair
distribution of funding between urban and nonurban areas.
``(I) The extent to which the grant provides for
involvement of the local community in the process of making
decisions relating to cleanup and future use of a brownfield
site.
``(f) Implementation of Brownfields Programs.--
``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator may
provide, or fund eligible entities or nonprofit organizations
to provide, training, research, and technical assistance to
individuals and organizations, as appropriate, to facilitate
the inventory of brownfield sites, site assessments,
remediation of brownfield sites, community involvement, or
site preparation.
``(2) Funding restrictions.--The total Federal funds to be
expended by the Administrator under this subsection shall not
exceed 15 percent of the total amount appropriated to carry
out this section in any fiscal year.
``(g) Audits.--
``(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct such reviews or
audits of grants and loans under this section as the
Inspector General considers necessary to carry out this
section.
``(2) Procedure.--An audit under this paragraph shall be
conducted in accordance with the auditing procedures of the
General Accounting Office, including chapter 75 of title 31,
United States Code.
``(3) Violations.--If the Administrator determines that a
person that receives a grant or loan under this section has
violated or is in violation of a condition of the grant,
loan, or applicable Federal law, the Administrator may--
``(A) terminate the grant or loan;
``(B) require the person to repay any funds received; and
``(C) seek any other legal remedies available to the
Administrator.
``(h) Leveraging.--An eligible entity that receives a grant
under this section may use the grant funds for a portion of a
project at a brownfield site for which funding is received
from other sources if the grant funds are used only for the
purposes described in subsection (b) or (c).
``(i) Agreements.--Each grant or loan made under this
section shall--
``(1) include a requirement of the National Contingency
Plan only to the extent that the requirement is relevant and
appropriate to the program under this section, as determined
by the Administrator; and
``(2) be subject to an agreement that--
``(A) requires the recipient to--
``(i) comply with all applicable Federal and State laws;
and
``(ii) ensure that the cleanup protects human health and
the environment;
``(B) requires that the recipient use the grant or loan
exclusively for purposes specified in subsection (b) or (c),
as applicable;
``(C) in the case of an application by an eligible entity
under subsection (c)(1), requires the eligible entity to pay
a matching share (which may be in the form of a contribution
of labor, material, or services) of at least 20 percent, from
non-Federal sources of funding, unless the Administrator
determines that the matching share would place an undue
hardship on the eligible entity; and
``(D) contains such other terms and conditions as the
Administrator determines to be necessary to carry out this
section.
``(j) Facility Other Than Brownfield Site.--The fact that a
facility may not be a brownfield site within the meaning of
section 101(39)(A) has no effect on the eligibility of the
facility for assistance under any other provision of Federal
law.
``(k) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2006.''.
TITLE II--BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS
SEC. 201. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES.
Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(o) Contiguous Properties.--
``(1) Not considered to be an owner or operator.--
``(A) In general.--A person that owns real property that is
contiguous to or otherwise similarly situated with respect
to, and that is or may be contaminated by a release or
threatened release of a hazardous substance from, real
property that is not owned by that person shall not be
considered to be an owner or operator of a vessel or facility
under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) solely by reason
of the contamination if--
``(i) the person did not cause, contribute, or consent to
the release or threatened release;
``(ii) the person is not--
``(I) potentially liable, or affiliated with any other
person that is potentially liable, for response costs at a
facility through any direct or indirect familial relationship
or any contractual, corporate, or financial relationship
(other than a contractual, corporate, or financial
relationship that is created by a contract for the sale of
goods or services); or
``(II) the result of a reorganization of a business entity
that was potentially liable;
``(iii) the person takes reasonable steps to--
``(I) stop any continuing release;
``(II) prevent any threatened future release; and
``(III) prevent or limit human, environmental, or natural
resource exposure to any hazardous substance released on or
from property owned by that person;
``(iv) the person provides full cooperation, assistance,
and access to persons that are authorized to conduct response
actions or natural resource restoration at the vessel or
facility from which there has been a release or threatened
release (including the cooperation and access necessary for
the installation, integrity, operation, and maintenance of
any complete or partial response action or natural resource
restoration at the vessel or facility);
``(v) the person--
``(I) is in compliance with any land use restrictions
established or relied on in connection with the response
action at the facility; and
``(II) does not impede the effectiveness or integrity of
any institutional control employed in connection with a
response action;
``(vi) the person is in compliance with any request for
information or administrative subpoena issued by the
President under this Act;
``(vii) the person provides all legally required notices
with respect to the discovery or release of any hazardous
substances at the facility; and
``(viii) at the time at which the person acquired the
property, the person--
``(I) conducted all appropriate inquiry within the meaning
of section 101(35)(B) with respect to the property; and
``(II) did not know or have reason to know that the
property was or could be contaminated by a release or
threatened release of 1 or more hazardous substances from
other real property not owned or operated by the person.
``(B) Demonstration.--To qualify as a person described in
subparagraph (A), a person must establish by a preponderance
of the evidence that the conditions in clauses (i) through
(viii) of subparagraph (A) have been met.
``(C) Bona fide prospective purchaser.--Any person that
does not qualify as a person
[[Page 6230]]
described in this paragraph because the person had, or had
reason to have, knowledge specified in subparagraph (A)(viii)
at the time of acquisition of the real property may qualify
as a bona fide prospective purchaser under section 101(40) if
the person is otherwise described in that section.
``(D) Ground water.--With respect to a hazardous substance
from 1 or more sources that are not on the property of a
person that is a contiguous property owner that enters ground
water beneath the property of the person solely as a result
of subsurface migration in an aquifer, subparagraph (A)(iii)
shall not require the person to conduct ground water
investigations or to install ground water remediation
systems, except in accordance with the policy of the
Environmental Protection Agency concerning owners of property
containing contaminated aquifers, dated May 24, 1995.
``(2) Effect of law.--With respect to a person described in
this subsection, nothing in this subsection--
``(A) limits any defense to liability that may be available
to the person under any other provision of law; or
``(B) imposes liability on the person that is not otherwise
imposed by subsection (a).
``(3) Assurances.--The Administrator may--
``(A) issue an assurance that no enforcement action under
this Act will be initiated against a person described in
paragraph (1); and
``(B) grant a person described in paragraph (1) protection
against a cost recovery or contribution action under section
113(f).''.
SEC. 202. PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS AND WINDFALL LIENS.
(a) Definition of Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser.--Section
101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as
amended by section 101(a)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(40) Bona fide prospective purchaser.--The term `bona
fide prospective purchaser' means a person (or a tenant of a
person) that acquires ownership of a facility after the date
of enactment of this paragraph and that establishes each of
the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
``(A) Disposal prior to acquisition.--All disposal of
hazardous substances at the facility occurred before the
person acquired the facility.
``(B) Inquiries.--
``(i) In general.--The person made all appropriate
inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the
facility in accordance with generally accepted good
commercial and customary standards and practices in
accordance with clauses (ii) and (iii).
``(ii) Standards and practices.--The standards and
practices referred to in clauses (ii) and (iv) of paragraph
(35)(B) shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of
this subparagraph.
``(iii) Residential use.--In the case of property in
residential or other similar use at the time of purchase by a
nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility
inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further
investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements
of this subparagraph.
``(C) Notices.--The person provides all legally required
notices with respect to the discovery or release of any
hazardous substances at the facility.
``(D) Care.--The person exercises appropriate care with
respect to hazardous substances found at the facility by
taking reasonable steps to--
``(i) stop any continuing release;
``(ii) prevent any threatened future release; and
``(iii) prevent or limit human, environmental, or natural
resource exposure to any previously released hazardous
substance.
``(E) Cooperation, assistance, and access.--The person
provides full cooperation, assistance, and access to persons
that are authorized to conduct response actions or natural
resource restoration at a vessel or facility (including the
cooperation and access necessary for the installation,
integrity, operation, and maintenance of any complete or
partial response actions or natural resource restoration at
the vessel or facility).
``(F) Institutional control.--The person--
``(i) is in compliance with any land use restrictions
established or relied on in connection with the response
action at a vessel or facility; and
``(ii) does not impede the effectiveness or integrity of
any institutional control employed at the vessel or facility
in connection with a response action.
``(G) Requests; subpoenas.--The person complies with any
request for information or administrative subpoena issued by
the President under this Act.
``(H) No affiliation.--The person is not--
``(i) potentially liable, or affiliated with any other
person that is potentially liable, for response costs at a
facility through--
``(I) any direct or indirect familial relationship; or
``(II) any contractual, corporate, or financial
relationship (other than a contractual, corporate, or
financial relationship that is created by the instruments by
which title to the facility is conveyed or financed or by a
contract for the sale of goods or services); or
``(ii) the result of a reorganization of a business entity
that was potentially liable.''.
(b) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--Section 107
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) (as amended by
section 201) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(p) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--
``(1) Limitation on liability.--Notwithstanding subsection
(a)(1), a bona fide prospective purchaser whose potential
liability for a release or threatened release is based solely
on the purchaser's being considered to be an owner or
operator of a facility shall not be liable as long as the
bona fide prospective purchaser does not impede the
performance of a response action or natural resource
restoration.
``(2) Lien.--If there are unrecovered response costs
incurred by the United States at a facility for which an
owner of the facility is not liable by reason of paragraph
(1), and if each of the conditions described in paragraph (3)
is met, the United States shall have a lien on the facility,
or may by agreement with the owner, obtain from the owner a
lien on any other property or other assurance of payment
satisfactory to the Administrator, for the unrecovered
response costs.
``(3) Conditions.--The conditions referred to in paragraph
(2) are the following:
``(A) Response action.--A response action for which there
are unrecovered costs of the United States is carried out at
the facility.
``(B) Fair market value.--The response action increases the
fair market value of the facility above the fair market value
of the facility that existed before the response action was
initiated.
``(4) Amount; duration.--A lien under paragraph (2)--
``(A) shall be in an amount not to exceed the increase in
fair market value of the property attributable to the
response action at the time of a sale or other disposition of
the property;
``(B) shall arise at the time at which costs are first
incurred by the United States with respect to a response
action at the facility;
``(C) shall be subject to the requirements of subsection
(l)(3); and
``(D) shall continue until the earlier of--
``(i) satisfaction of the lien by sale or other means; or
``(ii) notwithstanding any statute of limitations under
section 113, recovery of all response costs incurred at the
facility.''.
SEC. 203. INNOCENT LANDOWNERS.
Section 101(35) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601(35)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the first sentence, in the matter preceding clause
(i), by striking ``deeds or'' and inserting ``deeds,
easements, leases, or''; and
(B) in the second sentence--
(i) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the defendant''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``,
provides full cooperation, assistance, and facility access to
the persons that are authorized to conduct response actions
at the facility (including the cooperation and access
necessary for the installation, integrity, operation, and
maintenance of any complete or partial response action at the
facility), is in compliance with any land use restrictions
established or relied on in connection with the response
action at a facility, and does not impede the effectiveness
or integrity of any institutional control employed at the
facility in connection with a response action.''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) Reason to know.--
``(i) All appropriate inquiries.--To establish that the
defendant had no reason to know of the matter described in
subparagraph (A)(i), the defendant must demonstrate to a
court that--
``(I) on or before the date on which the defendant acquired
the facility, the defendant carried out all appropriate
inquiries, as provided in clauses (ii) and (iv), into the
previous ownership and uses of the facility in accordance
with generally accepted good commercial and customary
standards and practices; and
``(II) the defendant took reasonable steps to--
``(aa) stop any continuing release;
``(bb) prevent any threatened future release; and
``(cc) prevent or limit any human, environmental, or
natural resource exposure to any previously released
hazardous substance.
``(ii) Standards and practices.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of the Brownfields Revitalization
and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, the Administrator
shall by regulation establish standards and practices for the
purpose of satisfying the requirement to carry out all
appropriate inquiries under clause (i).
``(iii) Criteria.--In promulgating regulations that
establish the standards and practices referred to in clause
(ii), the Administrator shall include each of the following:
``(I) The results of an inquiry by an environmental
professional.
``(II) Interviews with past and present owners, operators,
and occupants of the facility for the purpose of gathering
information regarding the potential for contamination at the
facility.
``(III) Reviews of historical sources, such as chain of
title documents, aerial photographs, building department
records, and land use records, to determine previous uses and
occupancies of the real property since the property was first
developed.
``(IV) Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens
against the facility that are filed under Federal, State, or
local law.
``(V) Reviews of Federal, State, and local government
records, waste disposal records, underground storage tank
records, and hazardous
[[Page 6231]]
waste handling, generation, treatment, disposal, and spill
records, concerning contamination at or near the facility.
``(VI) Visual inspections of the facility and of adjoining
properties.
``(VII) Specialized knowledge or experience on the part of
the defendant.
``(VIII) The relationship of the purchase price to the
value of the property, if the property was not contaminated.
``(IX) Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable
information about the property.
``(X) The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely
presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to
detect the contamination by appropriate investigation.
``(iv) Interim standards and practices.--
``(I) Property purchased before may 31, 1997.--With respect
to property purchased before May 31, 1997, in making a
determination with respect to a defendant described of clause
(i), a court shall take into account--
``(aa) any specialized knowledge or experience on the part
of the defendant;
``(bb) the relationship of the purchase price to the value
of the property, if the property was not contaminated;
``(cc) commonly known or reasonably ascertainable
information about the property;
``(dd) the obviousness of the presence or likely presence
of contamination at the property; and
``(ee) the ability of the defendant to detect the
contamination by appropriate inspection.
``(II) Property purchased on or after may 31, 1997.--With
respect to property purchased on or after May 31, 1997, and
until the Administrator promulgates the regulations described
in clause (ii), the procedures of the American Society for
Testing and Materials, including the document known as
`Standard E1527-97', entitled `Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessment: Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessment Process', shall satisfy the requirements in clause
(i).
``(v) Site inspection and title search.--In the case of
property for residential use or other similar use purchased
by a nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility
inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further
investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements
of this subparagraph.''.
TITLE III--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS
SEC. 301. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.
(a) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as amended by section 202) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(41) Eligible response site.--
``(A) In general.--The term `eligible response site' means
a site that meets the definition of a brownfield site in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (39), as modified by
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `eligible response site'
includes--
``(i) notwithstanding paragraph (39)(B)(ix), a portion of a
facility, for which portion assistance for response activity
has been obtained under subtitle I of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.) from the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund established under section
9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
``(ii) a site for which, notwithstanding the exclusions
provided in subparagraph (C) or paragraph (39)(B), the
President determines, on a site-by-site basis and after
consultation with the State, that limitations on enforcement
under section 129 at sites specified in clause (iv), (v),
(vi) or (viii) of paragraph (39)(B) would be appropriate and
will--
``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
``(II) promote economic development or facilitate the
creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a
greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or
other property used for nonprofit purposes.
``(C) Exclusions.--The term `eligible response site' does
not include--
``(i) a facility for which the President--
``(I) conducts or has conducted a preliminary assessment or
site inspection; and
``(II) after consultation with the State, determines or has
determined that the site obtains a preliminary score
sufficient for possible listing on the National Priorities
List, or that the site otherwise qualifies for listing on the
National Priorities List;
unless the President has made a determination that no further
Federal action will be taken; or
``(ii) facilities that the President determines warrant
particular consideration as identified by regulation, such as
sites posing a threat to a sole-source drinking water aquifer
or a sensitive ecosystem.''.
(b) State Response Programs.--Title I of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) (as amended by section 101(b))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 129. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.
``(a) Assistance to States.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) States.--The Administrator may award a grant to a
State or Indian tribe that--
``(i) has a response program that includes each of the
elements, or is taking reasonable steps to include each of
the elements, listed in paragraph (2); or
``(ii) is a party to a memorandum of agreement with the
Administrator for voluntary response programs.
``(B) Use of grants by states.--
``(i) In general.--A State or Indian tribe may use a grant
under this subsection to establish or enhance the response
program of the State or Indian tribe.
``(ii) Additional uses.--In addition to the uses under
clause (i), a State or Indian tribe may use a grant under
this subsection to--
``(I) capitalize a revolving loan fund for brownfield
remediation under section 128(c); or
``(II) develop a risk sharing pool, an indemnity pool, or
insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions
under a State response program.
``(2) Elements.--The elements of a State or Indian tribe
response program referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) are the
following:
``(A) Timely survey and inventory of brownfield sites in
the State.
``(B) Oversight and enforcement authorities or other
mechanisms, and resources, that are adequate to ensure that--
``(i) a response action will--
``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
``(II) be conducted in accordance with applicable Federal
and State law; and
``(ii) if the person conducting the response action fails
to complete the necessary response activities, including
operation and maintenance or long-term monitoring activities,
the necessary response activities are completed.
``(C) Mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful
opportunities for public participation, including--
``(i) public access to documents that the State, Indian
tribe, or party conducting the cleanup is relying on or
developing in making cleanup decisions or conducting site
activities; and
``(ii) prior notice and opportunity for comment on proposed
cleanup plans and site activities.
``(D) Mechanisms for approval of a cleanup plan, and a
requirement for verification by and certification or similar
documentation from the State, an Indian tribe, or a licensed
site professional to the person conducting a response action
indicating that the response is complete.
``(3) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2006.
``(b) Enforcement in Cases of a Release Subject to State
Program.--
``(1) Enforcement.--
``(A) In general.-- Except as provided in subparagraph (B)
and subject to subparagraph (C), in the case of an eligible
response site at which--
``(i) there is a release or threatened release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant; and
``(ii) a person is conducting or has completed a response
action regarding the specific release that is addressed by
the response action that is in compliance with the State
program that specifically governs response actions for the
protection of public health and the environment;
the President may not use authority under this Act to take an
administrative or judicial enforcement action under section
106(a) or to take a judicial enforcement action to recover
response costs under section 107(a) against the person
regarding the specific release that is addressed by the
response action.
``(B) Exceptions.--The President may bring an
administrative or judicial enforcement action under this Act
during or after completion of a response action described in
subparagraph (A) with respect to a release or threatened
release at an eligible response site described in that
subparagraph if--
``(i) the State requests that the President provide
assistance in the performance of a response action;
``(ii) the Administrator determines that contamination has
migrated or will migrate across a State line, resulting in
the need for further response action to protect human health
or the environment, or the President determines that
contamination has migrated or is likely to migrate onto
property subject to the jurisdiction, custody, or control of
a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States
and may impact the authorized purposes of the Federal
property;
``(iii) after taking into consideration the response
activities already taken, the Administrator determines that--
``(I) a release or threatened release may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or
welfare or the environment; and
``(II) additional response actions are likely to be
necessary to address, prevent, limit, or mitigate the release
or threatened release; or
``(iv) the Administrator determines that information, that
on the earlier of the date on which cleanup was approved or
completed, was not known by the State, as recorded in
documents prepared or relied on in selecting or conducting
the cleanup, has been discovered regarding the contamination
or conditions at a facility such that the contamination or
conditions at the facility present a threat requiring further
remediation to protect public health or welfare or the
environment.
``(C) Public record.--The limitations on the authority of
the President under subparagraph (A) apply only at sites in
States that maintain, update not less than annually, and make
available to the public a record of sites, by name and
location, at which response actions have been completed in
the previous year and are planned to be addressed under the
State program that specifically governs response actions for
the protection of public health and the environment in the
upcoming year. The public record shall identify whether or
not the site, on completion of the
[[Page 6232]]
response action, will be suitable for unrestricted use and,
if not, shall identify the institutional controls relied on
in the remedy. Each State and tribe receiving financial
assistance under subsection (a) shall maintain and make
available to the public a record of sites as provided in this
paragraph.
``(D) EPA notification.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of an eligible response site
at which there is a release or threatened release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant and for which
the Administrator intends to carry out an action that may be
barred under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall--
``(I) notify the State of the action the Administrator
intends to take; and
``(II)(aa) wait 48 hours for a reply from the State under
clause (ii); or
``(bb) if the State fails to reply to the notification or
if the Administrator makes a determination under clause
(iii), take immediate action under that clause.
``(ii) State reply.--Not later than 48 hours after a State
receives notice from the Administrator under clause (i), the
State shall notify the Administrator if--
``(I) the release at the eligible response site is or has
been subject to a cleanup conducted under a State program;
and
``(II) the State is planning to abate the release or
threatened release, any actions that are planned.
``(iii) Immediate federal action.--The Administrator may
take action immediately after giving notification under
clause (i) without waiting for a State reply under clause
(ii) if the Administrator determines that 1 or more
exceptions under subparagraph (B) are met.
``(E) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of initiation of any enforcement action by the President
under clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of subparagraph (B), the
President shall submit to Congress a report describing the
basis for the enforcement action, including specific
references to the facts demonstrating that enforcement action
is permitted under subparagraph (B).
``(2) Savings provision.--
``(A) Costs incurred prior to limitations.--Nothing in
paragraph (1) precludes the President from seeking to recover
costs incurred prior to the date of enactment of this section
or during a period in which the limitations of paragraph
(1)(A) were not applicable.
``(B) Effect on agreements between states and epa.--Nothing
in paragraph (1)--
``(i) modifies or otherwise affects a memorandum of
agreement, memorandum of understanding, or any similar
agreement relating to this Act between a State agency or an
Indian tribe and the Administrator that is in effect on or
before the date of enactment of this section (which agreement
shall remain in effect, subject to the terms of the
agreement); or
``(ii) limits the discretionary authority of the President
to enter into or modify an agreement with a State, an Indian
tribe, or any other person relating to the implementation by
the President of statutory authorities.
``(3) Effective date.--This subsection applies only to
response actions conducted after February 15, 2001.
``(c) Effect on Federal Laws.--Nothing in this section
affects any liability or response authority under any Federal
law, including--
``(1) this Act, except as provided in subsection (b);
``(2) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.);
``(3) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.);
``(4) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.); and
``(5) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et
seq.).''.
SEC. 302. ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST.
Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) NPL Deferral.--
``(1) Deferral to state voluntary cleanups.--At the request
of a State and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
President generally shall defer final listing of an eligible
response site on the National Priorities List if the
President determines that--
``(A) the State, or another party under an agreement with
or order from the State, is conducting a response action at
the eligible response site--
``(i) in compliance with a State program that specifically
governs response actions for the protection of public health
and the environment; and
``(ii) that will provide long-term protection of human
health and the environment; or
``(B) the State is actively pursuing an agreement to
perform a response action described in subparagraph (A) at
the site with a person that the State has reason to believe
is capable of conducting a response action that meets the
requirements of subparagraph (A).
``(2) Progress toward cleanup.--If, after the last day of
the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the
President proposes to list an eligible response site on the
National Priorities List, the President determines that the
State or other party is not making reasonable progress toward
completing a response action at the eligible response site,
the President may list the eligible response site on the
National Priorities List.
``(3) Cleanup agreements.--With respect to an eligible
response site under paragraph (1)(B), if, after the last day
of the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the
President proposes to list the eligible response site on the
National Priorities List, an agreement described in paragraph
(1)(B) has not been reached, the President may defer the
listing of the eligible response site on the National
Priorities List for an additional period of not to exceed 180
days if the President determines deferring the listing would
be appropriate based on--
``(A) the complexity of the site;
``(B) substantial progress made in negotiations; and
``(C) other appropriate factors, as determined by the
President.
``(4) Exceptions.--The President may decline to defer, or
elect to discontinue a deferral of, a listing of an eligible
response site on the National Priorities List if the
President determines that--
``(A) deferral would not be appropriate because the State,
as an owner or operator or a significant contributor of
hazardous substances to the facility, is a potentially
responsible party;
``(B) the criteria under the National Contingency Plan for
issuance of a health advisory have been met; or
``(C) the conditions in paragraphs (1) through (3), as
applicable, are no longer being met.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that my friend, the chairman of the
committee, yield for a brief minute.
Mr. President, we have nine Senators who wish to speak on this
legislation, and there may be others at a subsequent time. I wonder if
my friend from New Hampshire would allow us to give a rough idea of
when people should be here. I know the Senator from Oklahoma, a
valuable member of the committee, wishes to speak before the chairman,
and I have no problem with that. I am wondering, how long does the
Senator from Oklahoma wish to speak?
Mr. INHOFE. Five minutes.
Mr. REID. Following that, Mr. President, I wonder if we may have a
unanimous consent agreement that the Senator from New Hampshire speak
for up to 20 minutes; the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, 15 minutes;
Senator Chafee, 15 minutes; Senator Boxer, 15 minutes; Senator Bond, 15
minutes; Senator Clinton, 15 minutes; Senator Crapo, 15 minutes; and
Senator Corzine, 15 minutes. That will use about an hour and 20 minutes
and still leave time for others who wish to come.
Mr. INHOFE. Let me change that to about 7 minutes.
Mr. REID. Let's make it 10 minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. All right.
Mr. REID. I have failed to list Senator Carper, but we will do him
after that for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the
Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while I was one who opposed S. 350 when it
was in committee because of some problems that were there that we have
tried to address, we have gotten a lot of cooperation from the
committee in the meantime to address the problems. I think S. 350
contains provisions that would be a positive first step toward
revitalizing brownfields in this country.
S. 350 provides developers with moderate assurances for Superfund-
forced cleanups. While some of my concerns over the finality of the
language remain, I am comforted by the remarks of the chairman and
ranking member of the committee concerning new information. That is,
the information referred to in S. 350 pertains to information of the
highest quality, objectivity, and weight which is acquired after
cleanup has begun. With this language, I don't think the abuses I was
concerned about are going to be there. If they are, we will be
monitoring it.
The scope of the cleanup finality provision is still of concern. The
EPA could simply sidestep the bill by using RCRA, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, or even the Toxic Substances and Control
Act to force parties to clean up sites. This is one of the concerns we
tried to address in the committee. I don't think it has been addressed
to our satisfaction, but at least we are in a position to monitor it.
It has been the argument of supporters of the legislation that EPA
has
[[Page 6233]]
never overfiled on a brownfields site. If the EPA overfiles a State
cleanup, S. 350 now requires the EPA to notify Congress. I wasn't
satisfied with just the fact that they had not done this in the past
because there is always that first time. We will be closely monitoring
this to make sure that provision stays in the legislation.
I still have concerns that businesses will not feel adequately
protected, and, therefore, brownfields may not get cleaned up. In the
end, the developers and businesses will be the judges of S. 350's
successes or failures.
A lot of people forget this and look at the bureaucracy and say: We
are going to have all this language. I can assure you, Mr. President,
if we do not have some protection for developers and businesses that
are willing to bid on cleanup sites, they are not going to be able to
do it. It does not do any good to pass legislation unless there is
enough confidence in the business community that they will not be
abused if they bid on these projects.
According to the EPA's figures, there are 200,000 sites contaminated
primarily from petroleum. This is roughly half the approximately
450,000 brownfields in the United States. During the markup, I had
concerns that by failing to address RCRA, Congress was neglecting the
200,000-plus sites that are petroleum-contaminated brown-
field sites in this country. By not addressing these sites in S. 350,
Congress is preventing almost half the brownfields in this country from
being cleaned up and developed.
I insisted Congress must address this issue. I stated that it was not
right to allow so many brownfields to remain contaminated under this
program.
I am proud to say today help is on the way for these sites. The
Inhofe amendment, which is incorporated into the managers' amendment,
will take a first major step toward cleaning up petroleum-contaminated
sites.
Specifically, the Inhofe amendment, A, allows relatively low-risk
brown-
field sites contaminated by petroleum or petroleum products to apply
for brownfields revitalization funding and, B, authorizes $50 million
to be used for petroleum sites.
My amendment will allow the large amount of abandoned gas stations
and other mildly petroleum-contaminated sites all across the Nation to
be cleaned up and put back into productive use.
Finally, I still want to work to place a cap on the administrative
costs set aside by the Federal EPA. A cost cap will ensure States and
parties seeking to clean up and redevelop brownfields are getting the
vast majority of the funds for brownfields programs and not just for
administrative costs.
EPA has informed us they are currently using approximately 16 percent
of brownfields funds appropriated on administrative costs. This amount
is unacceptable. I will be watching very closely to see what can be
done perhaps in the appropriations process. Senator Bond and some
others can perhaps propose an amendment to get this cap on and avoid
excessive administrative costs.
Over the last several years, the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works has worked very hard on Superfund reform. With S. 350, the
committee has decided for now to address only brownfields.
There are a lot of other problems. In the very beginning, I said
let's not cherry-pick this thing; let's not just address brownfields.
Let's get into it and look at retroactive liability, natural resource
damages, joint and several liability, and some of the abuses that have
taken place in this system.
I believe we now have the assurance of enough Members that we will go
ahead with a more comprehensive program and address these other
problems.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member and specifically Senators
Crapo, Bond, and Voinovich who are helping me on some of the issues
about which I have concerns and also the staff who have spent many
hours coming up with a bill that I think is acceptable. I yield the
floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Smith is right outside the door. I
am told that is the case.
Based on a prior unanimous consent agreement, Senator Smith will
speak from 11:40 a.m. until 12 o'clock. I will speak from 12 to 12:15
p.m. Senator Chafee will speak from 12:15 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. Senator
Boxer will speak from 12:30 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. Senator Bond will speak
from 12:45 p.m. to 1 p.m. Senator Clinton will speak from 1 p.m. to
1:15 p.m. Senator Crapo will speak from 1:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Senator
Corzine will speak from 1:30 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. Senator Carper will
speak from 1:45 p.m. to 2 p.m.
If anyone wants to juggle those times, they can contact the Members.
That is the way it is now.
Mr. President, while Senator Smith is on his way, I wish to express
my appreciation to the majority leader. I have been on the floor the
last 3 days indicating why we did not go to this legislation, and we
are now considering it.
I extend my appreciation to Senator Lott for moving forward this very
important piece of legislation. It is something that is long overdue,
years overdue, but it is something that could not be more timely to
clean up half a million sites and do a lot of good things about which
we will hear in the next couple of hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am very proud to be
debating the brownfields legislation, known as the Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, or S. 350. It
is a bill we have worked on for a long time--many years actually. It is
exciting to be at this point and to have bipartisan legislation that,
frankly, we know after we finish the debate is going to pass. That does
not happen every day in the Senate. So it is exciting.
I am proud that two-thirds of the Senate, both political parties, are
cosponsors--68 to be exact. Also, the President supports the bill. If
we can get the cooperation of the House of Representatives, this will
pass quickly, and the President will sign it. We are very excited about
that.
This bill has the full bipartisan support of all members of the
Environment and Public Works Committee across the political spectrum.
Make no mistake about it, in spite of the support the bill has, it
has not been an easy process. Superfund, so-called, is a very difficult
subject. That is an issue I have worked on and I know Senator Reid and
Senator Chafee and others have for many years.
Ever since I began my service in the Congress, I have tried to reform
this flawed Superfund law. It has been a bitter battle with a lot of
differences of opinion as to how we do it, sometimes partisan and
sometimes regional. But basically on reforming Superfund, other than a
few short fixes on certain things such as recyclers, we really have not
accomplished very much in the last 11 years.
I have always believed we are in need of comprehensive Superfund
reform to make the program work. I still believe after we pass the bill
there is a lot to be done. Today we have a chance to do something good.
It is not comprehensive Superfund reform. Frankly, I am at the point
now where comprehensive Superfund reform is not going to happen, and
maybe it should not happen. Maybe we should just move forward on a
piece-bill basis and do the right thing.
I was pleased to be joined by the committee's ranking member, the
Superfund subcommittee chairman and its ranking member, Senators Reid,
Chafee, and Boxer. I commend all of my colleagues who are present--
Senator Reid, Senator Boxer, Senator Chafee--for their leadership and
working tirelessly and in good faith in a bipartisan manner. Without
their cooperation and help, we would not be here today.
It is always easy to reach agreement on easy issues, but the
difficult issues, such as some of the issues with which we deal in the
environment, are not that easy and we have to work hard, respect the
other side's position, and try to come to a compromise.
If there is any positive spinoff from a 50/50 Senate, about which so
much is written and spoken, it is that, even if
[[Page 6234]]
we do not want to, we have to work together because we are not going to
pass anything meaningful, anything positive. We will not pass anything
out of committee going anywhere on the floor unless it is bipartisan.
We may not always agree on how to achieve our goals, but we all share
the same desire for a safe and healthy environment for all of our
families and for the future and our future generations. As I have said
many times, environment should be about the future. It shouldn't be
about politics of today. It should be about tomorrow and our children.
Sometimes in the decisions we make we would like to have immediate
results, but we don't get them. It takes time to see the fruits of our
labors.
I think you will see in the brownfields legislation, when it passes,
the process of cleaning up the old abandoned industrial sites.
I thank President Bush, as well, and his new EPA administrator,
Christine Whitman, for unwavering support. When they first took office,
my very first meeting was with then-Governor Whitman, now Administrator
Whitman. She gave me her full support and commitment on this issue, as
did the President. The President stated the brownfields reform is a top
environmental priority for his administration. It will now pass the
Senate within the first 100 days of the administration. That is a
promise made and a promise kept--sometimes rare in politics these days.
The President recognizes what it means for the environment. I am
proud the Senate will pass this priority and do it today.
As former Governors, both President Bush and Administrator Whitman
understand the importance of cleaning up the sites, and the President
deserves credit for making this a top priority, as do my colleagues in
the Senate. Without the support of the President, we would not see this
legislation become law. To his credit, President Clinton, as well, was
a supporter of the brownfields bill.
It has not been easy, but we have worked in good faith. I thank all
Senators involved for their willingness to work together toward this
common goal. It is amazing what can be accomplished when we set aside
the rhetoric and focus on the goal; or, indeed, if we have the
rhetoric, complete the rhetoric and sit down and get focused on getting
the job done.
Last year, the committee was successful in passing good, balanced,
bipartisan legislation, including estuaries restoration, clean beaches,
and the most famous of all, the historic Everglades restoration, which
was a prime project of the Senator from Rhode Island, our distinguished
father and former colleague, Mr. John Chafee.
I made a commitment after Senator Chafee's passing that I would, in
fact, shepherd that bill through the Senate, which we did, and
President Clinton signed it. It is now law. We will see that great
natural resource restored.
Again, it will take time. It will not happen tomorrow. We will not
see the Everglades restored tomorrow, but we will see it done over a
period of 10, 20, 30 years. We will not see every brownfield restored
today after passage of the bill, but we will see industrial site after
industrial site, abandoned industrial sites all over America, gradually
become green or restored in a way that they are productive and
producing tax revenues in the communities across our Nation.
When you see a brownfield, abandoned site, and you see activity, with
people working and cleaning it up, and it is looking nice in your
community, you can reference back to this legislation and know that is
why it is being done.
People say, why do you need the legislation? The answer is, under
current law no one will clean them up. I will discuss the reasons in a
moment. With brownfields, we have proven we can work together in
cooperation, as opposed to confrontation, and we can accomplish great
things. When we talk about all the great issues of the day, whether
China, the budget, or whatever, brownfields is not exactly something
that gets a lot of glamour. We had a huge debate on the Ashcroft
confirmation. That received a lot of publicity. However, down in the
trenches, these are the kinds of issues that don't get a lot of
attention. Maybe the trade press follows them. The national press
doesn't do much. Indeed, sometimes not even your local press, but it is
important. It is very important to the communities because we will be
restoring these sites.
I am hopeful the effort will set the stage for more cooperation and
also get at more of the old Superfund law to pick away and try to
reform various parts of the bill so we don't need Superfund anymore. We
will be cleaning up all of these sites as soon as we can.
We have learned environmental politics delays environmental
protection. Let me repeat that: Environmental politics delays
environmental protection. The more we argue about things, the longer it
takes to get something in place that will bring this to resolution, and
the resolution would be the cleanup. The expedited cleanup of
brownfield sites is very important to my constituents in New Hampshire,
as it is to other constituents in other States. My State helped to
drive this economy during the industrial age--little old New Hampshire,
with the mills along the Merrimack. We have more than our share of
these likely contaminated sites waiting to be turned back into positive
assets, including abandoned railroad sites, along the railroads, along
the rivers. Frequently, these are the sites we are talking about. It
could be Bradford, Keene, Concord, or New Ipswich. This bill will be of
monumental benefit to not only those towns but many towns all over
America. This bill will also create opportunities for the development
of more facilities such as the Londonderry eco-industrial park. Now
these brownfield sites will turn into industrial parks. Or, indeed, if
they are not parks, they may very well be ``green'' parks as opposed to
industrial parks. Again, this bill provides help in that regard.
If you take an abandoned industrial site and convert it to a good
commercial site, producing revenues for the community, it enhances the
community in a beautification way, produces revenue, puts people to
work. It is a win-win-win. Furthermore, it takes the pressure off of
green space. We won't go outside of Frankfurt, KY, somewhere and pull
off acres of land to build an industrial park if we have 10 acres of
abandoned brownfield sites to bring back and revitalize and use again.
That is the beauty of the legislation.
I am proud to help communities all across the Nation. We estimate as
many as 400,000 to 500,000 brownfield sites exist across America. We
will see activity now on these sites.
A brief background on the bill. On March 8, the Environmental and
Public Works Committee reported S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization
and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. There were a few dissenting
votes, but we worked with those individuals who had concerns and the
Members now have been able to reconcile those differences. As far as I
know, we have a totally united front. That is a tribute to every member
of that committee, on both sides, a tribute to the staffs of the
members working hard to address the concerns to come out with a totally
unified effort on a bipartisan bill.
This is a strong bill. It deserves the support of the full Senate,
not only the 68 cosponsors but the other 32 out there, as well.
How is S. 350 better than current law? That is the issue. Current law
is what it is and we are now cleaning up sites. How do we improve it?
Simply stated, our bill provides an element of finality that does not
exist today in current law. While allowing for Federal involvement
under specific conditions, current law allows EPA to act whenever there
is a release or a threatened release. Again, current law allows EPA to
act whenever there is a release or threatened release.
This bill changes that requirement, ups the ante a little bit, and
provides four things: One, EPA to find that ``the release or threatened
release may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare or the environmnent'' and after taking
[[Page 6235]]
into consideration response activities already taken, ``additional
response actions are likely to be necessary to address, prevent, limit,
or mitigate the release or threatened release.
We put some conditions on there for the EPA's finding.
We also find that the action should come at the request of the State
if we need to come back.
Third, contamination may have migrated across a State line.
Fourth, there may be new information to emerge after the cleanup that
results in the site presenting a threat.
That is not all our bill does. It also authorizes $200 million in
critically needed funds to assess and clean up brownfield sites as well
as $50 million to assist State cleanup programs. This is more than
double the level of funding currently expended on the EPA brownfield
program.
I also want to point out this is not about only Federal dollars. The
Federal dollars, the $200 million we are talking about here, are
nowhere near enough money to clean up 500,000 brownfield sites. What
this does is it limits the liability and brings us closer to finality
in cleanup so we can now get contractors to go on these sites. They can
get the insurance, they can take the risk, and they are not going to be
held accountable if a hot spot or some other problem that was not their
fault occurs several years down the road. That has been the problem to
date. They cannot do it because they will be held liable so they say,
fine, we are not going to go on the site and clean it up and take the
risk.
If a contractor comes onto a site, he is responsible. If he does what
he is supposed to do, follows the plans as he is supposed to, cleans it
up and does it in good faith and we find something later, he is not
accountable. That is why this bill will go so far toward moving us in
the right direction, getting these sites cleaned up.
Individuals and towns and property owners will now invest in cleaning
up these sites. Banks will lend money. There are millions and millions
of dollars--tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions--that will be
used now from the private sector to clean up these sites, far beyond
the $200 million we are talking about in this bill.
This will promote conservation through redevelopment, as I said
before, as opposed to new greenfield development, and will help to
revitalize our city centers and create new jobs in the inner cities. It
is a win for the environment, a win for the economy, a win for the
Nation, a win for every State, including New Hampshire, and a lot of
communities with those brownfield sites. It is a giant step forward. We
now have a chance to move forward on a piece of legislation that will
make a significant difference in communities across the Nation.
The real winners are the people who live near these abandoned sites--
sometimes those are minorities--the renewed urban centers that will see
development and jobs replace blighted, contaminated sites, the local
communities that will be revitalized, and the green space that is
preserved. It is a win, win, win, win, win, no matter how you cut it.
Thanks to the leadership of my colleagues, Senators Reid, Boxer, and
Chafee, and all my colleagues on the committee, we have a chance to
enact now, for the first time in all the years I have been in Congress,
which is 16--the first time to enact meaningful brownfields reform. We
came out of the gate running. I hope the House will follow suit,
because if they do, it will be on the President's desk shortly and the
President can sign this bill before the end of the summer.
There are numerous interests that support S. 350. I ask unanimous
consent that several letters of support I have received--and all of us
have received them--be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Conference of
State Legislatures,
March 7, 2001.
Hon. Bob Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing on behalf of the National
Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) to commend you for
your continued commitment to the issue of Brownfields
revitalization. Without the necessary reforms to the
Comprehensive Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), clean up and redevelopment opportunities are lost
as well as new jobs, new tax revenues, and the opportunity to
manage growth. NCSL's Environment Committee has made this a
top priority and we applaud the committee's leadership for
designating it as one of the first environmental issues to be
brought before the 107th Congress.
The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act of 2001 (S 350) provides a welcome increase
in federal funding for the assessment and cleanup of state
brownfields. We are encouraged by the committee's efforts to
provide some level of liability reform for innocent property
owners. NCSL would also like to acknowledge the committee's
success in garnering broad bi-partisan support on an issue
that is of concern in all 50 states.
As you continue work on The Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, we urge you to
reexamine the following:
The 20% cost share (under CERCLA the cost share is 10%)--
this could discourage states with tight budgets from
participating in the program. NCSL suggests that you maintain
the cost share provision of 10% under CERCLA.
NCSL recognizes that finality has been a contentious issue.
NCSL acknowledges that the bill provides relief from
Superfund liability, but we urge the committee to reexamine
the power of the Administrator with a view towards according
the states the appropriate deference prior to initiation of
an enforcement action.
Additions to the National Priorities List--NCSL supports
the listing of a facility only after the Administrator
obtains concurrence from the Governor of the respective
state.
We appreciate the efforts of the chief sponsors of S. 350
and the subcommittee to bring forward a bill to further
advance brownfields cleanup and redevelopment. We look
forward to working with you on this issue. For additional
information, please contact Molly Stauffer in NCSL's
Washington, D.C. office at (202) 624-3584 or by email at
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Representative Joe Hackney,
Chair, NCSL Environment Committee.
____
The United States
Conference of Mayors,
Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
Hon. Bob Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk
Assessment, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Environment and Public
Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste
Control, and Risk Assessment, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee and Boxer: On behalf of
The United States Conference of Mayors, I am writing to
express the strong support of the nation's mayors for your
bipartisan legislation, the ``Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001.'' The mayors believe
that this legislation can dramatically improve the nation's
efforts to recycle abandoned and other underutilized
brownfield sites, providing new incentives and statutory
reforms to speed the assessment, cleanup and redevelopment of
these properties.
This is a national problem that deserves a strong and
prompt federal response. The mayors believe that this
bipartisan legislation will help accelerate ongoing private
sector and public efforts to recycle America's land.
We thank you for your leadership on this priority
legislation for the nation's cities. We strongly support this
legislation and we encourage you to move forward
expeditiously so that the nation can secure the many positive
benefits to be achieved from the reuse and redevelopment of
the many thousands of brownfields throughout the U.S.
Sincerely,
H. Brent Coles,
President,
Mayor of Boise.
[[Page 6236]]
____
Hon. Bob Smith,
Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Ranking Member, Environmental and Public Works Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk
Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and
Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith, Chairman Chafee, Senator Reid, and
Senator Boxer: We are writing to thank you for the
outstanding leadership you have demonstrated by your re-
introduction of the Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. Our organizations, and
our many community partners across America, are heartened by
the benefits that this legislation would impart upon our
landscapes, economies, public parks and our communities as a
whole. Transforming abandoned brownfield sites into
greenfields or new development will provide momentum for
increasing ``smart growth'' and reducing sprawl by utilizing
existing transportation infrastructure, which in turn will
lead to better transportation systems and the revitalization
of historic areas and our urban centers.
As you are well aware, brownfields pose some of the most
critical land-use challenges--and afford some of the most
promising revitalization opportunities--facing our nation's
communities, from our cities to more rural locales.
Revitalization of these idled sites into urgently needed
parks and green spaces or into appropriate redevelopment will
provide great benefits to our neighborhoods and local
economies. In the process, it has also proven to be an
extremely powerful tool in local effort to control urban
spawl by directing economic growth to already developed
areas, encouraging the restoration and reuse of historical
sites, and in addressing longstanding issues of environmental
justice in underserved areas.
We acknowledge the commitment that the Environmental
Protection Agency and other federal agencies have
demonstrated to brownfields restoration through existing
programs. At the same time, given that there are an estimated
450,000--600,000 brownfield properties nationwide, we
recognize that these limited resources have been stretched
too far to allow for an optimal federal role. Additional
investment, at higher levels and in new directions, is
essential to meeting the enormous backlog of need and to
establish the truest federal partnership with the many state,
local, and private entities working to renew brownfield
sites.
The Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration
Act of 2001 would provide this much needed federal response.
Through our work with local governments, our organizations
have witnessed first-hand--and have often worked as a partner
to help create--the benefits that this bill would provide. We
are particularly gratified by the emphasis your legislation
places on brownfields-to-parks conversion, and the
flexibility it provides to tailor funding based on a
community's particular needs. In all, this bill provides the
framework and funding that an effective national approach to
brownfields will require.
Accordingly, we appreciate your vision in developing this
legislation, and we look forward to working with your towards
its enactment.
Sincerely,
The Trust for Public Land.
Scenic America.
American Planning Association.
The Enterprise Foundation.
National Association of Regional Councils.
Smart Growth America.
Surface Transportation Policy Project.
National Recreation and Park Association.
____
American Bar Association,
Governmental Affairs Office,
Washington, DC, March 6, 2001.
Hon. Robert C. Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the American Bar
Association, we write to express our support for the
liability reforms contained in S. 350, the ``Brownfield
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001,''
and we urge you and your committee to support these
provisions during the markup of the measure scheduled for
March 8, 2001. By enacting these reforms, Congress can help
to expedite the cleanup and redevelopment of more than
450,000 contaminated brownfield sites throughout the country
while at the same time breathing new life into the inner
cities in which these sites are concentrated.
As the largest association of attorneys in the United
States with over 400,000 members nationwide, the American Bar
Association has a strong interest in working with Congress in
order to ensure that federal environmental law, including the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``Superfund''), encourages and
does not impede the cleanup of brownfields. In an effort to
play a meaningful role in this area, the ABA House of
Delegates adopted a resolution in 1999 outlining detailed
suggestions for encouraging the redevelopment of brownfields,
and this resolution and the accompanying background report
are enclosed.
In recent years, brownfields increasingly have reduced the
quality of urban life in America. These contaminated
properties often lie unused or underutilized for long periods
of time largely due to the perceived legal liabilities that
confront potential new owners and developers of these
properties. While these sites remain idle, employment levels
suffer, particularly among disadvantaged communities within
the inner city. Often this accelerates urban flight,
increases sprawl, and creates the need to carve out yet more
space for suburban development, with the related
infrastructure needs that such development requires. By
encouraging the redevelopment of brownfields, we can
revitalize our urban core, preserve open space, conserve
resources, and make far better use of public dollars.
By now, almost all of the states have adopted their own
state brownfields programs, including statutes and
regulations designed to encourage the voluntary remediation
of brownfields. These programs generally set clear cleanup
standards that are designed to protect human health and the
environment while also taking future site use into
consideration. In order to encourage developers to
participate in these voluntary cleanup programs, most states
also grant liability relief to those who successfully clean
up the sites to the states' standards.
These programs have been recognized as being among the most
successful state environmental programs of the last decade.
Through these programs, sites across the country are being
cleaned up and redeveloped, creating new jobs and economic
opportunities, limiting the development of so called
``greenfields,'' and restoring state and local tax bases.
While these programs have met with considerable success, the
continuing threat of Superfund liability discourages many
developers from buying and then voluntarily cleaning up
contaminated property. As a result, many brownfield sites
remain idle for extended periods of time, despite the state
cleanup programs.
The ABA supports a number of key provisions contained in S.
350, including those provisions that encourage developers to
participate in state brownfields cleanup programs. The ABA
believes that in order to promote the continued economic use
of contaminated properties and reduce unnecessary litigation,
Congress should eliminate all Superfund liability for parties
who successfully clean up properties pursuant to a state
brownfields program, so long as the state programs (1) impose
cleanup standards that are protective of human health and the
environment; (2) ensure appropriate public notice and public
participation; and (3) provide the financial and personnel
resources necessary to carry out their programs.
S. 350 goes a long way towards achieving these aims by
preventing the President and the EPA from pursuing
enforcement actions against those involved in state
brownfields cleanup programs except in certain specific
circumstances, such as when a state requests federal
assistance, the contamination migrates across state lines or
onto federal property, or there is an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare or the
environment so that additional response actions are likely to
be necessary. By preventing the EPA from intervening in state
cleanups except in these limited situations, S. 350 will
encourage developers and other parties to participate in
state cleanup programs and bring brownfields back into
productive use by granting greater ``finality'' to these
programs.
The ABA also supports those provisions in S. 350 that would
grant Superfund liability exemptions to certain types of
innocent parties, including bona fide prospective purchasers
who do not cause or worsen the contamination at a brownfields
site and innocent owners of real estate that is continguous
to the property where the hazardous waste was released. The
ABA favors comprehensive reform of Superfund, including the
elimination of joint and several liability in favor of a
``fair share'' allocation system in which liability is
allocated based upon each party's relative contribution to
the harm. Until Congress enacts comprehensive reform
legislation, however, the ABA believes that truly innocent
parties, including those covered by S. 350, should be
released from potential Superfund liability. These reforms
are consistent with the principle that ``polluters should
pay,'' but only for the harm that they cause and not for the
harm caused by others. Innocent parties who have neither
caused nor worsened environmental hazards should not be
subject to liability under Superfund, and S. 350 furthers
this important principle.
The ABA has been a consistent advocate of legislation that
would expedite the cleanup
[[Page 6237]]
of brownfields and Superfund sites, reduce litigation, and
promote fairness to all parties, and the liability reforms
contained in S. 350 make significant strides towards
achieving these goals. For these reasons, we urge you to
support these reforms during the full committee markup
scheduled for March 8.
Thank you for considering the views of the ABA on these
important matters. If you would like more information
regarding the ABA's positions on these issues, please contact
our legislative counsel for environmental law matters, Larson
Frisby, at 202/662-1098.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Evans.
____
American Institute of Architects,
San Francisco, CA, March 2, 2001.
Hon. Bob Smith,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the 67,000 members of the
American Institute of Architects (AIA). I am writing to
commend you on the introduction of the Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Amendments Act
of 2001. This measure, S. 350, demonstrates your commitment
and leadership in keeping the brownfields redevelopment issue
at the forefront of the national agenda. The AIA endorses
this important measure since it offers practical solutions to
the key issues, including liability reform and financing
options. It is important for Congress to pass meaningful
brownfields redevelopment legislation this year. Superfund
reform issues should not be allowed to delay passage of S.
350.
As you know, there are brownfields problems in nearly every
community in the United States. If enacted, your bill would
offer thousands of communities the flexibility to access
grants or loan capitalization funds. Thus, S. 350 recognizes
that one size does not fit all and offers user-friendly
solutions that communities desperately need. Passage of S.
350 will stimulate and rejuvenate the economic development
components of cities. Thus, it would better integrate some
state and local environmental and economic development
programs.
Liability reform is clearly at the heart of a successful
brownfields proposal. Your measure provides protection for
innocent landowners and for those whose property may have
been contaminated through no fault of their own. Architects
and other members of the private sector are keenly aware that
these provisions are needed if progress is to occur at the
estimated 500,000 brownfields sites nationwide.
For your review and for inclusion in the Committee record,
I have enclosed a copy of a chapter entitled ``The New Market
Frontier: Unlocking Community Capitalism Through Brownfields
Redevelopment'' from the American Bar Association's book,
Brownfields: A Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping
Contaminated Property, which shows architects in three case
studies providing practical solutions to brownfields
problems. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of a recent AIA
publication ``Communities by Design,'' which demonstrates the
value of good design.
Finally, the AIA welcomes the opportunity of working with
you and your staff so that S. 350 advances and is signed into
law during the 107th Congress. If you need further assistance
contact Dan Wilson, senior director, Federal Affairs at (202)
626-7384.
Sincerely,
Gordon H. Chong,
Chairman, Government Affairs
Advisory Committee.
____
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Washington, DC, April 4, 2001.
Hon. Robert Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: The American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE), which represents 126,000 civil engineers in private
practice, academia and government service, respectfully
requests your support for passage of S. 350, the Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001.
We urge you to contact the Senate leadership to request
that the bill be brought to the floor as soon as possible.
ASCE advocates legislation that would eliminate statutory
and regulatory barriers to the redevelopment of
``brownfields,'' lands that effectively have been removed
from productive capacity due to serious contamination. These
sites, properly restored, aid in the revival of blighted
areas, promote sustainable development, and invest in the
nation's industrial strength.
As you are aware, the current brownfields program was
established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
1993 under the Superfund program. That program, which has
expanded to include more than 300 brownfields assessment
grants (most for $200,000 over 2 years) totaling more than
$57 million, now needs to be placed on a sound statutory
footing in order to ensure future success.
ASCE considers the program vital because we support limits
on urban sprawl to achieve a balance between economic
development, rights of individual property owners, public
interests, social needs and the environment. Community growth
planning based on the principles of sustainable development
should give consideration to the public needs, to private
initiatives and to local, state and regional planning
objectives.
Moreover, revitalized brownfields would reduce the demand
for the undeveloped land. Full provision of public
infrastructure and facilities redevelopment must be included
in all growth initiatives and should be made at the lowest
appropriate level of government.
We believe that a targeted brownfields restoration program
should take into account site-specific environmental exposure
factors and risk based on a reasonable assessment of the
future use of the property.
To ensure a uniform and protective cleanup effort
nationally, we would hope that S. 350 also would require
minimum criteria for adequate state brownfields programs.
ASCE believes the states should be required to demonstrate
that their programs satisfy minimum restoration criteria
before a bar to federal enforcement would apply.
We support systems to ensure appropriate public
participation in state cleanups or provide assurance through
state review or approval that site cleanups are adequate.
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Bein,
President.
____
The Trust for Public Land,
Washington, DC, February 15, 2001.
Hon. Bob Smith,
Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk
Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and
Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith, Chairman Chafee, Senator Reid, and
Senator Boxer: On behalf of the Trust for Public Land, I am
writing to thank you for introducing the Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. We
appreciate your outstanding efforts to promote local
environmental quality, as typified by your energetic advocacy
of this brownfields legislation.
TPL was honored to be part of the coalition that helped to
push this legislation to the brink of enactment at the end of
the 106th Congress, and we again look forward to working with
you to make this legislation a reality within the near
future. We are particularly grateful that you have re-
introduced identical legislation this time around.
Given our experience in community open-space issues, we are
heartened by the emphasis the legislation places on
brownfields-to-parks conversion where appropriate, and its
flexibility to tailor loan and grant funding based on
community needs and eventual uses. In all, this legislation
provides the framework and funding that an effective national
approach to brownfields requires, and offers the promise of a
much-needed federal partnership role in brownfields
reclamation.
Brownfields afford some of the most promising
revitalization opportunities from our cities to more rural
locales. This legislation will serve to help meet the
pronounced needs in underserved communities to reclaim
abandoned sites and create open spaces where they are most
needed. By transforming these idled sites into urgently
needed parks and green spaces, or by focusing investment into
their appropriate redevelopment, reclamation of brownfield
properties brings new life to local economies and to the
spirit of neighborhoods.
The Trust for Public Land gratefully recognizes the vision
and careful craftsmanship you have shown in your work to
advance this vital legislation, and we look forward to
working with you toward its enactment.
Sincerely,
Alan Front,
Senior Vice President.
____
Building Owners and Managers
Association International,
Washington, DC, March 29, 2001.
Hon. Bob Smith,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of commercial real estate
professionals nationwide, I am writing to ask for your
support, before the full Senate, of S. 350--the Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. The
Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International
and its 18,000 members believe that this bill provides
Congress its best opportunity to improve our nation's
remediation efforts in 2001.
[[Page 6238]]
Thanks to the efforts of a dedicated collection of
senators, the Senate now has a bipartisan piece of
legislation that would generate improved liability
protections, enhanced state involvement and increased federal
cleanup funding. Adoption of S. 350 would have an immediate
and dramatic impact on reducing the 400,000 brownfields sites
across America.
As the Environment and Public Works Committee has forwarded
this legislation out of committee, we look for your support
in securing its approval by the full Senate. We ask for your
assistance in bringing this bill to the floor and achieving
its passage early in 2001. If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact Rick Sheridan at (202) 326-6338.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Baier,
President, BOMA International.
____
National Association of Realtors,
Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
Hon. Robert Smith,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the more than 760,000
members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, I wish to
convey our strong support for the ``Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act.'' NAR
commends you for your efforts in crafting a practical and
effective bill which has garnered bipartisan support from the
leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee.
NAR supports this bill because it:
Provides liability relief for innocent property owners who
have not caused or contributed to hazardous waste
contamination;
Increases funding for the cleanup and redevelopment of the
hundreds of thousands of our nation's contaminated
``brownfields'' sites;
Recognizes the finality of successful state hazardous waste
cleanup efforts.
Brownfields sites offer excellent opportunities for the
economic, environmental and social enrichment of our
communities. Unfortunately, liability concerns and a lack of
adequate resources often deter redevelopment of such sites.
As a result, properties that could be enhancing community
growth are left dilapidated, contributing to nothing but
economic ruin. Once revitalized, however, brownfields sites
benefit their surrounding communities by increasing the tax
base, creating jobs and providing new housing.
The new Administration has clearly indicated its support
for brownfields revitalization efforts. The ``Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act'' is a
positive, broadly-supported policy initiative. NAR looks
forward to working together with you to enact brownfields
legislation in the 107th Congress.
Sincerely,
Richard Mendenhall,
2001 President.
____
Institute of Scrap
Recycling Industries, Inc.,
Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
Hon. Robert C. Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Works, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund Waste Control and Risk
Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and
Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee and Boxer: The Institute
of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI), strongly supports
the passage of the Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. Passage of this
bipartisan bill will reduce the many legal and regulatory
barriers that stand in the way of brownfields redevelopment.
This important brownfields legislation will provide
liability relief for innocent property owners who purchase a
property without knowing that it is contaminated, but who
carry out a good faith effort to investigate the site. It
also recognizes the finality of successful state approved
voluntary cleanup efforts and provides funds to cleanup and
redevelop brownfields sites.
ISRI stands ready to help build support for passage of this
bipartisan brownfields bill. In the previous Congress, ISRI's
membership worked to build grassroots support and sought
cosponsors for S. 2700 of the 106th Congress, the predecessor
bill to the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act of 2001.
ISRI looks forward to continuing to work with you to see
that the brownfields bill you have sponsored becomes law. We
believe that the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act of 2001 is a model for sensible bipartisan
environmental policy.
Sincerely,
Robin K. Wiener,
President.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Before I close, I take a moment, as we
usually do, to recognize some of the staff who have worked tirelessly
on this legislation. It has not been easy. Sometimes we go home for the
weekend or go back to our States and staffs are here working through
these issues.
I commend my own Department of Environmental Services, Phil O'Brien
and Mike Wimsatt, for their tireless work and input into this process;
from Senator Chafee's office--I am sure he will want to thank his own
staff--Ted Michaels; from Senator Reid's staff, Lisa Haage, Barbara
Rogers, and Eric Washburn--we appreciate all your help; Sara Barth from
Senator Boxer's office; Louis Renjel from Senator Inhofe's office;
Catherine Walters of Senator Voinovich's staff; and Gabrielle Tenzer
from Senator Clinton's staff; and from the EPA, Randy Deitz and Sven
Kaiser. Last but not least, my good committee staff: David Conover,
Chelsea Maxwell, Marty Hall, and Jim Qualters. I thank them for a lot
of effort, a lot of hard work in working together.
Of course, there are many more who deserve thanks.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Phil Gramm of Texas be
added as a cosponsor of the bill, which will get us up to 69.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I join with my friend from New Hampshire in
expressing appreciation to the people who have worked to get this bill
to the point it is. He has certainly been gracious in extending
appreciation to my staff. Lisa Haage, Barbara Rogers, and Eric Washburn
have done excellent work. I also thank, as he has, the hard-working
staff of the committee: David Conover, Chelsea Maxwell, Marty Hall, and
Ted Michaels of Senator Chafee's office, who has done such an
outstanding job working with Sandra Barth of Senator Boxer's office.
Without this good staff, we would not be at the point we are.
I also want to take a minute to express my appreciation to the
Senator from New Hampshire. I worked with the Senator from New
Hampshire on the very volatile, difficult Select Committee On MIA/POWs.
For one intense year we worked on that. That is where I first got to
know the Senator from New Hampshire. I recognize how strongly he feels
about issues.
Then I had the good fortune of being able to work with him on the
Ethics Committee. He was the lead Republican, I was the lead Democrat
on the committee for I don't know how long--it was a long time--until
he got his chairmanship of this committee.
I have found him to be a person who understands the institution and
understands the importance of people being moral and living up to the
ethical standards that are important for this institution. I may not
always agree with him on issues, but I agree with him as a person. He
is one of the finest people with whom I have ever dealt. So I have the
utmost respect for him, how he has handled this committee.
For 17 days I was chairman of this committee. The treatment I
received while chairman, and while ranking member, has been
outstanding. Senator Bob Smith is a good person and somebody of whom
the citizens of the State of New Hampshire should be proud.
I have spoken on this bill for 3 days now, expressing my desire to
have it considered. It is here now. I already said I appreciate Senator
Lott bringing it before the Senate.
I have been talking about Senator Smith. I also want to talk about
the ranking member of the subcommittee who has been responsible for
bringing us to this point, and that is Senator Barbara Boxer. Senator
Boxer and I came to the House together in 1982. We
[[Page 6239]]
have worked together for all these years. I have tremendous admiration
for Barbara Boxer. She is someone who believes strongly in the issues.
I have to say, she has done great work for this country on exposing
military fraud and military incompetence. But the best work she has
done, in my opinion, has been in dealing with the environment. So as a
member of this committee that I have worked on since I have been in the
Senate, she has been an outstanding member. She has run the
subcommittee very well.
An outstanding example is how she has been able to reach out to
Lincoln Chafee, who is a very able member of this committee. I had the
good fortune of serving in my time in the Senate with his father. I can
say John Chafee would be very proud of Lincoln for the work he has done
on this committee. This was John Chafee's committee. He was the
chairman, he was the ranking member of it. I cannot say more than that
John Chafee would be very proud of his son for the work he has done on
this committee.
As Senator Smith has indicated, this is an important piece of
legislation. It has now 69 cosponsors. It was reported out of committee
by a 15-3 vote. The staff has worked very hard to make sure the
problems people had with the legislation were resolved prior to it
coming to the floor--and most of those have been. That is the reason we
are working now on a specific time agreement. We are going to vote on
this matter around 2 o'clock this afternoon.
Members of the Environment and Public Works staff have worked hard.
Members of this committee worked hard to get the legislation to this
point. I have been extremely impressed with the new members of this
committee. Senator Corzine and Senator Clinton have worked extremely
hard, as has Senator Carper, to get us where we are. They are going to
come later today, as the unanimous consent agreement indicates, and
speak on their own behalf.
As I have said for 3 days, there are 500,000 sites from Kentucky to
Nevada, waiting to be cleaned up. About 600,000 people will be put to
work on these projects.
This will create local revenues of almost $2.5 billion.
This is an important bill. It provides critically needed money to
assess the cleanup of abandoned and underutilized brownfield sites. It
will create jobs. It will increase tax revenues and create parks and
open space. It will encourage cleanup and provide legal protection for
parties. It provides funding for enhancement of cleanup programs.
The managers' amendment before us today does several additional
things that were not in the reported bill. It further clarifies the
coordination between the States and the EPA. This was an issue raised
by Senator Voinovich. I told him before the full committee that we
would work to resolve his problems. We did that.
The managers' amendment provides clarification for cities and others
in purchasing insurance for brownfield sites. That is also an important
addition to this legislation.
It also provides for an additional $50 million per year for abandoned
sites which are contaminated by petroleum. There was some concern that
this may not have been covered in the original legislation. That has
been resolved.
Corner gas stations: A lot of times we find people simply stay away
from them. These corner gas stations are located at very essential
sites in downtown areas. We are trying to revitalize them. This
addition in the managers' amendment will do a great deal to resolve
that issue.
I am pleased we were able to work out the provisions so these
numerous sites can also be addressed.
There was a provision requested by Senators Inhofe and Crapo. They
felt very strongly about this. I am pleased we were able to agree on
that. It will be an important and critical part of this legislation.
This amendment also provides a provision for areas with a high
incidence of cancer and disease. It will give special consideration in
making grant decisions regarding children. This was pushed very
strongly by Senator Clinton. I am grateful for her input. These
provisions grew out of the amendment discussed in the markup of the
original bill sponsored by Senator Clinton.
I also want to add Senators Corzine and Boxer. But it is supported by
a broad bipartisan group of Members.
This amendment also increases citizen participation by adding
citizens' rights in requesting sites to be considered under State
programs. This is intended to ensure the beginning of the process so
that States can benefit from input from citizens who may be aware of
additional sites needing attention and who can help identify additional
reuse and redevelopment opportunities.
All of these changes have been carefully considered for providing
additional improvements to the bill. Moreover, they collectively
represent the same delicate balance as the underlying bill. It also
complements the needs of real estate communities, environmental areas,
mayors, and other local government officials, land and conservation
groups, and the communities that are most directly affected by these
sites.
This bill is balanced. It is unique. It is bipartisan. It sets an
example for the Senate in the months to come.
This brownfields legislation is not just an urban problem. It also is
very important to rural communities throughout America. For example,
brownfields money was granted to Mineral County to do a cleanup. It is
a very rural site. It was damaged by the largest ammunition dump during
the war. It is run now as an ammunition dump by the Army. But there are
lots of problems there. We have a 240-acre brownfield site set for
cleanup. After it is finished, we are confident that a golf course can
be created for this very rural community which will add recreational
activities.
An existing loan program in Las Vegas has already been used to fund
the cleanup of an old armory site, which will create jobs. It will now
be a home to a senior center, a small business incubator, a cultural
center, and retail stores.
I want to see many more examples of reclaiming these abandoned,
contaminated lands in Nevada and across the country. This bill provides
funds to accomplish it.
The Presiding Officer is a valuable member of the committee.
I have already spoken on a number of occasions about Senator
Voinovich's contribution to this legislation. It has been significant.
I reserve the remainder of my time for Senator Torricelli. I yield to
my friend from Rhode Island who has done such a magnificent job working
on this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of S. 350,
the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of
2001. This bill has won the support of the Bush administration, dozens
of organizations, and 68 co-sponsors in the Senate. Today, the Senate
has the opportunity to pass this bipartisan, pro-environment and pro-
economic development bill.
Brownfields are the legacy of our nation's industrial heritage. A
changing industrialized economy, the migration of land use from urban
to suburban and rural areas, and our nation's strict liability
contamination laws have all contributed to the presence of abandoned
industrial sites. With more than 450,000 brownfield sites nationwide,
we must begin to reclaim those lands, clean up our communities, and
discontinue the practice of placing new industrial facilities on open,
green spaces.
As a former mayor, I understand the environmental, economic, and
social benefits that can be realized in our communities from
revitalizing brownfields. While the environmental and social benefits
can seem obvious, only a mayor understands the continuing fiscal
expense to our nation's municipalities of the hundreds of thousands of
pieces of prime real estate that have dropped from the tax rolls.
Enactment of this legislation will provide a building block for the
revitalization of our communities. Communities whose fortunes sank
along with
[[Page 6240]]
the decline of mills and factories will once again attract new
residents and well-paying jobs. We will bring vibrant industry back to
the brownfield sites that currently host crime, mischief and
contamination. There will be parks at sites that now contain more
rubble than grass. City tax rolls will burgeon; neighborhoods can be
invigorated; new homes can be built, and community character will be
restored.
S. 350 enjoys broad bipartisan support. Not only is it supported by
the Bush administration, the bill's predecessor was supported by the
Clinton administration last session. The bill is strongly supported by
the nation's mayors, state elected officials, the real estate industry,
open space advocates, business groups, and environmental organizations.
Rarely do we see these organizations come together on the same side of
an issue. This high level of support is testimony to the bipartisan
nature of the legislation. It demonstrates that we can forge sound
legislation, and balance the needs of the environment and the economy
if we come to the table with open minds and good intentions.
I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Environment
and Public Works Committee for his leadership on this issue, Senator
Smith. His tireless efforts over that time have certainly paved the way
for this legislation. I also would like to extend my appreciation to
Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator Boxer for their commitment to this
issue and the bipartisan process which has proven so successful. In
addition, let me thank the staff that has worked so hard on this bill:
David Conover, Chelsea Maxwell, and Marty Hall of Senator Smith's
staff, Lisa Haage of Senator Reid's staff, Sara Barth of Senator
Boxer's staff, and Ted Michaels of my staff.
The issue of brownfields has been discussed for nearly a decade.
While I was mayor of Warwick, my fax machine constantly fed me alerts
from the U.S. Conference of Mayors seeking my support for brownfields
reform. With this legislation today, we have the opportunity to protect
the environment, strengthen local economies, and revitalize our
communities. I urge each of my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 350
and give each mayor across the country the benefit of the full
potential of their real estate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I could get the attention of the
Senator from Rhode Island for a moment, I thank the Senator so much for
his leadership on this issue. It has meant so much to us to have it and
that of Senator Smith. Senator Reid and I are most grateful. I think we
have a team that is very good for the environment. When we are
together, it is a real winner because we can reach out to colleagues on
both sides of the aisle from the entire spectrum. So I just want to say
thank you.
I say to the Senator, as much as I miss your father, whom I adored, I
must say that it is wonderful to have you here and following in his
``green'' footsteps.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator very much.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am here to say that this bill, S. 350,
the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act, is a
tremendously important issue for this country and for my constituents.
I truly believe if we look around the country, it is an extremely
important issue to everyone. Why? Because we have so many acres of land
around the country that have been contaminated with low-level hazardous
waste. They do not fit the definition of a Superfund site, but they are
expensive to clean up, and local communities really do need our help.
I want to show you an example of a successful brownfields
restoration. This photograph is of a site in Emeryville, CA, that
hosted a steel manufacturing plant for over 100 years. In the early
1990s, it was shut down, the buildings were demolished, and the area
was left empty and desolate. You can see from the photograph what a
horrible eyesore it was to the community. And, by the way, this site is
along a major freeway, so everyone saw it. It gave the impression of a
community that was simply going downhill.
The next picture I will show you is what happened when the State got
together with the IKEA company and worked together to clean up the
site.
In 1997, the State came to this agreement with the original owners of
the site and with IKEA to restore and redevelop the area. Now the site
holds 280,000 square feet of commercial retail space. The project has
created 300 new, permanent jobs for the community. Now the site
generates roughly $70 million in annual sales.
There are not too many things in this Chamber that we can do that has
such clear-cut benefit. Clean up the environment and you make an area
much nicer to look at. And then you can develop it and bring jobs to
the site.
So if anyone questions the need for this brownfields legislation, I
would welcome them to, again, look at these before-and-after pictures.
Here it is after; here it is before. It is a pretty clear picture.
I am so proud of the bipartisan cooperation that occurred in getting
the bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee. The broad
support, from a variety of diverse interests, as well as the
cosponsorship of over 60 Senators, is a good indication that the time
has come to pass this brownfields legislation.
I understand that even our colleagues who have problems with the bill
are now supporting it. I think this is a tribute to them for being open
minded about it, and a tribute to our chairman, Chairman Smith, and our
ranking member, Harry Reid, for working with our colleagues.
I want to talk a little bit about the brownfields in my home State of
California, the largest State in the Union, with 34 million people. The
economy of my State would be considered the sixth largest economy in
the world. So it seems to me that whenever there are problems in the
country, of course, we have more of those problems in my State. And
when good things are happening, we have more of the good things.
This is one of the problems. So let's talk about it. There are
estimated to be hundreds, if not thousands, of brownfield sites in
California. We have heard nationwide estimates of 400,000 to 600,000
brownfield sites. We have thousands of sites in California because some
industries have left the State with a dangerous legacy of
contamination.
This bill will serve as a catalyst for cleanup because it provides
funding for grants and revolving loan funds to assist our States, our
local communities, and our tribal governments to do the assessments
first. In other words, what is the problem? What is going on? What is
it going to cost to clean it up? And how is the best way to clean it
up?
This bill fills a gap. As I said before, Superfund covers our
Nation's most hazardous sites. We really did not have a way to approach
the less hazardous sites.
I want to talk about how happy I am that this bill includes my
proposal to protect children. Under S. 350, funding will be prioritized
for brownfields that disproportionately impact the health of children,
pregnant women, or other vulnerable populations, such as the elderly.
This is very important.
Why do I say that? Because children are not small adults. I have said
this often. I am a small adult. But children are not small adults. They
are more sensitive than adults to the health threats posed by hazardous
waste, even the kinds we call low level. Why? Because their bodies are
changing, and they are developing. Healthy adults can tolerate higher
levels of pollutants than children.
In recognition of this, the bill ensures that children, and others
who are particularly vulnerable, will be given special priority for
funding under this bill. So we are going to look at these sites. If it
is a site where children play, where children go, where the elderly go,
where people who are vulnerable go, those sites will be priority sites.
The bill also gives priority to cleanups in low-income and minority
communities because, unfortunately, we
[[Page 6241]]
have seen a lot of the environmental injustice in this country where
brownfield sites are disproportionately located in low-income and
minority communities, certainly in places such as Oakland, Los Angeles,
and Sacramento.
So we have a situation where the brownfields are most prevalent in
communities that are least able to deal with them. And the more
brownfield sites that are in a community, the lower the chance that the
community can improve its economic plight. It is a horrible cycle of
poverty.
Let's take this site shown in the photograph. This site was in a very
low-income community, and no one had the resources. And a company such
as IKEA, who eventually came to this site, did not want to go to this
site because there was no one to go to the store. You would have a
situation where the site could sit vacant for years and years and
years. It contributes to the cycle. You can never get out of the cycle.
So by saying this kind of a situation in a low-income community would
be a priority, we will give an economic stimulus to those communities.
I am very pleased about that.
The last issue that I believe very strongly about is the issue of
sites that were contaminated because there was illegal manufacturing of
a controlled substance there. This may sound very odd. So let me
explain what I mean.
In California, we have a terrible problem from the production of
methamphetamine. It turns out that this terribly dangerous drug is not
only illegal, not only does it destroy people--destroy people--but the
byproduct of methamphetamine production is a toxic stew of lye,
hydriodic acid, and red phosphorus. These elements threaten the
groundwater and agricultural lands of the Central Valley and elsewhere
in California where these secret methamphetamine labs are sited.
I show you a picture of one abandoned lab where you can see these
containers with all the chemicals that were left on the site.
This is another picture of an abandoned meth site. We can see what it
looks like, what a disaster it is when these criminals leave and then
suddenly the owners of the land who had no idea this was happening are
left with this horrible contamination. We were able to include relief
for these farmers. I will talk about that in a minute.
I will take a moment to talk more about these methamphetamine labs.
In California alone, there were 277 secret drug labs that were raided
in 1990. In 1998, there were over 1,000 of these clandestine drug labs.
The State is doing its best to address the problem as well as the
larger brownfields problem. They are trying to do it, but it is very
hard to do it alone. We have to have everyone helping. This bill will
provide invaluable assistance for the cleanup of meth sites and other
brownfields, which is another reason I am such a strong supporter of
the legislation.
This bill includes liability relief for innocent parties. These
innocent parties are people who are interested in cleaning up the
brownfield site, but they are afraid to get involved because they may
become liable for somebody else's mess. Our bill makes it clear that
innocent parties will not be held liable under Superfund for the work
they do on a brownfield site. This provision alone should help reduce
the fear of developers and real estate interests, and it should lead to
more cleanups. This provision is certainly a strong reason that a
variety of business and real estate interests are strong supporters of
the bill. They want to come in; they want to clean up the sites; but
they don't want to now become held liable for past problems and then be
hauled into court on a Superfund case.
However, I do believe very strongly that the polluter must pay. Our
bill does not protect people who are responsible for cleanup under
Superfund or any other statute. If you make a mess, if you despoil the
environment, you still will be held responsible for cleaning it up. We
maintain ``the polluter pays'' principle that underpins many of our
hazardous waste statutes.
The committee considered and rejected efforts to waive the
application of other statutes, such as RCRA and TSCA, to these
brownfield sites. It was too complicated to try to amend other
statutes, and I appreciate the fact that our foursome stuck together
during these amendments because it would have opened up a can of worms.
What we did was we kept this narrow. We kept it on the issue of
brownfields. We kept out extraneous issues. Again, I thank my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation on that.
Our bill encourages States to take the lead on brownfield sites. It
does set some limitations on EPA's enforcement authority under
Superfund for sites covered by this bill. We believe this is important
in gaining strong support. I am comfortable with this feature because
there are a number of safeguards that ensure that a secure Federal
safety net remains. These safeguards are an essential part of the
compromise that is the heart of the bill. They ensure that EPA can
apply its full Superfund enforcement authority under a variety of
circumstances.
Most important to me--and it was a tough debate that we had--was the
guarantee that EPA could intervene if a site threatens to cause
immediate and substantial endangerment to the public's health or
welfare or to the environment. I believe this language guarantees that
if a State's oversight of a cleanup fails to protect our citizens or
our environment, the Federal Government can intervene. We are clear
that we want the State to be responsible, but if there is a problem
which will result in an immediate threat to people's health, the EPA
can enter. It was a careful balance that went into crafting that
provision as well as the rest of the bill.
Together I believe we have produced a sensible and balanced bill that
will help encourage the recycling of brownfield sites that now sit
unused around the Nation.
In closing, one more time I will show our success story that happened
in Emeryville. First, let's show the before picture again. This is what
we are talking about, sites that look like this, sites that are
harmful. People don't want to go on them. People are afraid of them.
There is no economic development in the middle of our urban areas. Then
when we work together, we can bring business interests to the site and
we start to see people use the site again. The site will bring in
revenues.
I thank my colleagues for all their hard work, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for too many years comprehensive Superfund
reform has been blocked by partisan rhetoric and fear-mongering. Even
though the general public, government agencies, and federal bureaucrats
know that the Superfund program is broken, proposed changes were called
stealth attacks, roll-backs, and letting polluters off the hook. Those
characterizations were not accurate, but they were effective in
protecting one of the most troubled and inefficient programs in the
Federal Government from meaningful reform.
For more than 7 years we have been unable to reach agreement on
Superfund reauthorization so the Environment and Public Works Committee
decided to take a smaller, targeted approach. So today we are here
considering S. 350, the Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act.
There is general agreement that we need to address the issue of
Brownfields. Across the country, brownfields are blights on the
landscape, but because of liability concerns, too often clean-up and
redevelopment opportunities are lost. The loss of clean-up and
redevelopment opportunities means the loss of jobs and tax revenues for
communities and means these sites are not cleaned up.
However, even though I will support this bill today, more needs to be
done.
Working with my friends and colleagues, specifically Senators Inhofe
and Crapo, we were able to reach an agreement with the managers of the
bill to include in the manager's amendment a provision which will
include petroleum only sites in the brownfields
[[Page 6242]]
program. It is estimated that petroleum only sites make up almost half
the brownfield sites in the country. How can we pass a brownfields bill
that excludes half the brownfield sites in the country? Fortunately,
agreement was reached on this issue.
I want to go on record that I still have concerns regarding liability
issues. In my opinion the legislation does not protect developers from
potential liability and administrative orders under the Toxic Substance
Control Act. I joined with Senators Inhofe and Crapo in offering an
amendment during the committee's consideration, but unfortunately it
was defeated. Opponents argued that EPA has not yet used TSCA or RCRA
to deal with hazardous materials covered under Superfund so therefore
it shouldn't be an issue. However, many believe that if the ``front
door'' of Superfund is closed, EPA will use TSCA or RCRA as a ``back
door'' to pursue legal action against a developer.
In addition, it is my opinion that the bill still gives too much
authority to the EPA over State programs. If we are going to give the
responsibility to the State, EPA must step back and let the States run
the programs and EPA must first work with the State before overstepping
and taking enforcement actions.
S. 350 is a step in the right direction. However, we must continue
our efforts to address the liability issues that still remain and we
must continue efforts to make the overall Superfund program more
reasonable and workable.
As we all know, the great environmental progress in this country has
been made with bi-partisan support, when honest concern for the
environment and the people outweighed political opportunism. I hope
that the progress made on brownfields will translate into positive
movement on the remaining issues.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am grateful for the opportunity today
to speak about an important piece of environmental legislation, the
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act. This bill
enjoys the bipartisan support of 15 of the 18 members of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, and with the additions made in
the manager's amendment, I hope it will receive widespread support on
the floor.
This bill aims to return abandoned, contaminated lots that plague
nearly every city and town in this country to their past vitality. Once
upon a time, these 450,000 ``brownfields'' were home to our
neighborhood gas station, a flourishing textile mill, or a
manufacturing plant. They were central to the economic well being of
their communities. Unfortunately, now they lay idle and unproductive,
spoiling the quality of life in thousands of communities across the
country. Brownfields lower a community's tax base, encourage urban
sprawl and loss of open space, and worst of all, threaten to pollute
local streams and drinking water, endangering human health and
environmental quality.
While everyone wishes to see brownfields reintegrated into the
community, they often remain untouched urban eyesores. Developers fear
the potential liability risks involved in developing a site laden with
unknown chemicals. Communities lack the funds to initiate their own
clean up plans.
This bill could change all of that. First, it provides much-needed
funding for brownfields' restoration programs. Second, it offers
important legal protections that will give developers, private and
public, the confidence to cleanup these toxic sites. All across the
country, we see examples of communities successfully restoring
brownfields sites into vibrant and prosperous enterprises, including in
my home state of Connecticut.
With the help of small federal grants and loans, more than two dozen
cities and towns throughout Connecticut have been able to jump-start
their plans for environmental remediation and economic development of
brownfields sites.
Just last month, I joined in the Grand Opening of a new Harley
Davidson dealership on a former brownfields site in Stamford, one of
EPAs Brownfields Showcase Communities. Prior to cleanup, the area was a
chemical cesspool of abandoned lots contaminated with PCBs, lead,
arsenic and several other metals. During cleanup, close to 3,000 tons
of contaminated soil were removed from the site, reducing the risk of
groundwater contamination and exposure to neighborhood residents. Now
this enterprise brings new life, a cleaner environment, and new jobs to
the industrial South End of Stamford.
The promise of this approach may seem obvious, but the language in
this bill was not easily agreed. It is the product of over eight years
of negotiations, debate and finally compromise. So it is with pride
that I join more than two thirds of my colleagues, Democrat and
Republican, and dozens of organizations representing a wide range of
interests, including those of mayors, developers, realtors, insurance
companies and environmental groups, in supporting this legislation, I
believe we should all feel a sense of accomplishment and pride--this
was battle hard won.
This is a good day for America's communities, especially in the inner
cities which regrettably are home to many of these urban wastelands.
But it doesn't have to stay that way. This legislation is a shot in the
economic arm for towns like Stamford seeking to revitalize their
neighborhoods for future generations to enjoy. I strongly urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to support S. 350,
the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of
2001. This bill will help communities throughout the country identify
and clean up brownfields, sites where low level contamination has kept
the land from being developed.
This bill would help communities in several different ways. By
providing liability protection and economic incentives to clean up
contaminated and abandoned industrial sites, this legislation will make
our communities healthier and reduce environmental threats. By
returning these sites to productive use, we encourage redevelopment and
help curb sprawl. This legislation means both new jobs and a cleaner
environment for Missouri. It shows that a clean environment and a
strong economy are not in competition, they go hand in hand.
In Missouri, we have 11 brownfield projects financed in part with
federal funds, and another 29 projects that are State-financed.
One example of a successful brownfield project is Martin Luther King
Business Park in St. Louis, Missouri. The site, which is across the
street from two schools, was contaminated from a century of metal
plating and junkyards. Asbestos and high levels of lead were found
close to the surface. As a result of federally-funded assessments and
the State's Voluntary Cleanup and Brownfield Redevelopment Programs, a
developer stepped forward to purchase and cleanup the property. Due to
these cleanup efforts, a much-needed warehouse/light manufacturing
facility in the heart of St. Louis opened in 2000, bringing more than
60 jobs to the area. Construction of an even larger facility is
scheduled to begin this year after cleanup is complete. This
development will help to rejuvenate the entire surrounding area. This
progress was made possible by the federal brownfield grant which
allowed the City to perform initial environmental assessments. Without
those assessments, developers are reluctant to even consider such
properties.
We have made considerable progress toward making our urban centers
into places where people want to work and live. Yet we still have more
than 12,000 abandoned and tax-default properties in St. Louis alone.
Obviously our work is not done.
Brownfields are not just an urban problem. A century of lead mining
has left towns like Bonne Terre, Missouri with contamination from
mining waste. In Bonne Terre, developers are reluctant to purchase land
near the mine waste properties being addressed by Superfund because of
possible contamination. Using federal pilot funds, Bonne Terre is
working on cleaning up these sites and developing them into a
[[Page 6243]]
122-acre commercial zone and industrial park. The clean up and
development will bring more jobs to this rural community as well as
address environmental concerns.
I anticipate a strong vote in favor of the Brownfields Revitalization
and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I hope that this vote will
provide momentum for this legislation as it proceeds to the House of
Representatives and that it will eventually be signed into law by the
President.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 350, the
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I
compliment the efforts of Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee, and Boxer. They
have done a great job in moving this legislation forward.
I was very disappointed that this bill was not enacted last year, it
represents a lot of hard work and compromise. I think this bill is a
win-win for the environment, for local communities and for local
economies. More hazardous waste sites will be cleaned up, and we'll
have more parks and open space, more economic redevelopment, and more
jobs. This bill will make cleaning up polluted sites easier by reducing
the many legal and regulatory barriers to brownfields redevelopment
while providing much needed cleanup funds.
The brownfields bill is important for rural areas, not just big
cities. In Montana, we have hundreds of sites that have been polluted
by mining, timber processing, railroad work, and other industrial
activities that were part of our economic development.
I worked hard on a very similar bill last year, together with many of
my colleagues. Last year, it was the first bipartisan brownfields bill
ever introduced in the Senate. I was thrilled to cosponsor the bill
again this year, under the leadership of Senator Smith and Senator
Reid. This bill has been endorsed by a wide range of groups, including
the National Association of Realtors, the Conference of Mayors, and the
Trust for Public Lands. It represents a hard-won, delicately balanced
compromise.
Superfund critics have long argued that the possibility that EPA
could second-guess state-approved cleanups has discouraged brownfields
remediation. At the same time, I and others have argued that we need to
preserve the federal government's ability to use Superfund authorities
to deal with dangerous situations at sites cleaned up under state
programs in the rare case in which the cleanup is inadequate and there
is a threat to human health or the environment.
The tension between these two views has been one of the major
obstacles to moving brownfields legislation in the past. This bill
forges a new compromise on this issue, and it is a good compromise.
Both sides came to the table and made some important concessions. The
bill is not perfect, it is not everything I wanted. It is not
everything some of my colleagues across the aisle wanted, either. But,
as I have often said, let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the
good. And this is a good bill that will do good things for the
environment, for communities, for businesses and for the Nation. These
sites need to be cleaned up, for the health and well-being of our
citizens and our environment, and doing nothing is no longer an option.
Hopefully, two other bills will come to the floor that would expand
the abilities of the Economic Development Administration and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to help local communities
physically develop and restore brownfields sites to productive use.
Taken together, S. 350 and these two bills would make up a complete
brownfields redevelopment package. They will provide critical economic
and technical assistance to communities during all stages of
brownfields redevelopment--from an initial site assessment to putting
the finishing touches on a new apartment building or city park.
I am happy to hear that the administration has expressed its support
for S. 350. The brownfields bill is an outstanding example of a
bipartisan effort to help communities across the nation. I hope we can
all work together to make sure it is signed into law this year.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up
and will pass S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act of 2001. I am a strong supporter and advocate of this
legislation. I commend Senators Smith of New Hampshire, Reid, Chafee
and Boxer for their tremendous effort to craft strong bi-partisan
legislation to help our nation's communities. Brownfields are
abandoned, idled, or under-used commercial or industrial properties
where development or expansion is hindered by real or perceived
environmental contamination. Businesses located on brownfields were
once the economic foundations of communities. Today, brownfields lie
abandoned--the legacy of our industrial past. These properties taint
our urban landscape. Contamination, or the perception of contamination,
impedes brownfields redevelopment, stifles community development and
threatens the health of our citizens and the environment. Redeveloped,
brownfields can be engines for economic development. They represent new
opportunities in our cities, older suburbs and rural areas for housing,
jobs and recreation.
As Co-Chair of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force, I believe
brownfields redevelopment is one of the most important ways to
revitalize cities and implement growth management. The redevelopment of
brownfields, is a fiscally-sound way to bring investment back to
neglected neighborhoods, cleanup the environment, use infrastructure
that is already paid for and relieve development pressure on our urban
fringe and farmlands.
The State of Michigan is a leader in brownfields redevelopment,
offering technical assistance and grant and loan programs to help
communities redevelop brownfields. This legislation will compliment
state and local efforts to successfully redevelop brownfields. The bill
provides much needed funding to state and local jurisdictions for the
assessment, characterization, and remediation of brownfield sites.
Importantly, the bill removes the threat of lawsuits for contiguous
landowners, prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners.
Communities must often overcome serious financial and environmental
barriers to redevelop brownfields. Greenfields availability, liability
concerns, the time and cost of cleanup, and a reluctance to invest in
older urban areas deters private investment. This bill will help
communities address these barriers to redevelopment. Finally, the bill
provides greater certainty to developers and parties conducting the
cleanup, ensuring that decisions under state programs will not be
second-guessed. Public investment and greater governmental certainty
combined with private investment can provide incentives for
redeveloping brownfield properties and level the economic playing field
between greenfields and brownfields.
I believe the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act of 2001 will do much to encourage commercial,
residential and recreational development in our nation's communities
where existing infrastructure, access to public transit, and close
proximity to cultural facilities currently exist. America's emerging
markets and future potential for economic growth lies in our cities and
older suburbs. This potential is reflected in locally unmet consumer
demand, underutilized labor resources and developable land that is rich
in infrastructure. In Detroit, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development estimates that there is a $1.4 billion retail gap, the
purchasing power of residents minus retail sales. In Flint, HUD
estimates the retail gap to be $186 million and in East Lansing, $160
million. The redevelopment of brownfields will help communities realize
the development potential of our urban communities. It is a critical
tool for metropolitan areas to grow smarter allowing us to recycle our
Nation's land to promote continued economic growth while curtailing
urban sprawl and cleaning up our environment.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on March 12, 2001, the
Committee on Environment and Public
[[Page 6244]]
Works filed Senate Report 107-2, to accompany S. 350, the Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. When the
report was filed, the cost estimate from the Congressional Budget
Office was not available. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the
cost estimate be printed in the Record to comply with Section 403 of
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 20, 2001.
Hon. Bob Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 350, the
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act
of 2001. If you wish further details on this estimate, we
will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are
Kathleen Gramp (for Federal costs), who can be reached at
226-2860; Victoria Heid Hall (for the State and local
impact), who can be reached at 225-3220; and Lauren Marks
(for the private-sector impact), who can be reached at 226-
2940.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen.
____
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
S. 350 Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of
2001, as reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works on March 12, 2001
SUMMARY
S. 350 would expand and modify certain programs governed by
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, commonly known as the
Superfund Act). The bill would provide a statutory framework
for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policies and
programs related to brownfield sites and the liability of
certain entities under CERCLA. (Brownfields are properties
where the presence, or potential presence, of a hazardous
substance complicates the expansion or redevelopment of the
property.) The bill would authorize the appropriation of $750
million over the next 5 years for grants to States and other
governmental entities for various brownfield initiatives.
Another $250 million would be authorized over the same period
for grants to States and Indian tribes for implementing
voluntary cleanup programs. Finally, the bill would exempt
some property owners from liability under CERCLA under
certain terms and conditions.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 350 would cost $680 million
over the 2002-2006 period. CBO estimates that provisions
affecting the liability of certain property owners would
reduce net offsetting receipts (a form of direct spending) by
$2 million a year beginning in 2002, or a total of $20
million over the next 10 years. In addition, the Joint
Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that enacting this bill
would reduce revenues by a total of $24 million over the
2002-2006 period and by $110 million over the 2002-2011
period. Because S. 350 would affect direct spending and
receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
S. 350 would impose no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA).
ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The estimated budgetary impact of S. 350 is shown in the
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within
budget function 300 (natural resources and the environment).
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATION
Brownfields Spending Under
Current Law:
Budget Authority \1\........ 92 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........... 89 87 41 14 5 0
Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level......... 0 200 200 200 200 200
Estimated Outlays........... 0 10 110 170 190 200
Brownfields Spending Under S.
350:
Authorization Level \1\..... 92 200 200 200 200 200
Estimated Outlays........... 89 97 151 184 195 200
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority.... 0 2 2 2 2 2
Estimated Outlays............. 0 2 2 2 2 2
CHANGES IN REVENUES
Estimated Revenues \2\........ 0 0 1 4 8 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2001 level is the amount appropriated for that year for EPA
grants for brownfields initiatives, including grants to States for
voluntary programs.
\2\ Source: Joint Committee on Taxation.
BASIS OF ESTIMATE
For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 350 will
be enacted by the end of fiscal year 2001, and that all funds
authorized by the bill will be appropriated. Estimated
outlays are based on the historical spending patterns for
similar activities in the Superfund program.
Spending subject to appropriation
S. 350 would authorize the appropriation of $1 billion over
the next 5 years for two grant programs: for brownfield
revitalization and for enhancing State programs related to
brownfields and other voluntary initiatives. In recent years,
the Congress has allocated some of the money appropriated for
EPA's Superfund program for such grants; this legislation
would provide an explicit statutory authorization for these
activities and would authorize specific amounts for fiscal
years 2002 through 2006. Provisions limiting the liability of
certain property owners could increase the use of
appropriated funds to clean up Superfund sites, but CBO
estimates that any change in discretionary spending would not
be significant in the next 5 years.
Grant Programs. Title I would authorize the appropriation
of $150 million annually for grants to States and other
governmental entities to characterize, assess, or cleanup
brownfield sites. Remediation grants could be used to
capitalize revolving funds or to pay for cleaning up sites
owned by public or nonprofit entities. Grants used for
remediation would be subject to a matching requirement and
could be used to leverage funding from other sources. In
addition, title III would authorize $50 million a year for
grants to States and Indian tribes to develop or enhance
programs pertaining to brownfields or voluntary response
programs. These funds also could be used to capitalize
revolving funds for brownfield remediation activities.
Cleanup Costs. Under CERCLA, property owners may be
responsible for cleanup activities, even if they did not
contribute to the contamination of a Superfund site. Title II
would amend CERCLA to limit the liability of certain
prospective purchasers of contaminated property after the
date of enactment. By reducing the pool of potentially
responsible parties, the ``prospective purchaser'' provisions
in section 202 could reduce the number of Superfund sites
that can be cleaned up in a timely fashion by private
entities. This could, in turn, increase the number of sites
needing full or partial Federal funding for cleanup
activities.
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill's prospective
purchaser provisions would not affect discretionary spending
for several years because only properties purchased after the
date of enactment would be exempt from liability. The cost
eventually could be significant, however, because cleanup
costs average $20 million per site.
Direct spending
CBO estimates that provisions limiting the liability of
certain property owners would reduce net offsetting receipts
by about $2 million a year. EPA currently negotiates
liability settlements with 20 to 25 prospective purchasers of
contaminated property. As part of these agreements,
purchasers make both monetary and in-kind payments in
consideration of the government's covenant not to sue. While
the cash payments vary significantly among properties, the
agency typically collects an average of $100,000 per
settlement. EPA would forgo such payments under S. 350,
because prospective purchasers would no longer need these
agreements to be relieved of liability for cleaning up a
site.
The other limitations on liability in title II also could
affect EPA's ability to recover costs that the agency incurs
at cleanup projects that are the responsibility of private
parties. Liability for cleanup is retroactive, strict, and
joint and several, so changing the liability of one party
generally has the effect of shifting liability among the
other private parties. On the other hand, there may be some
circumstances in which this legislation would exempt the only
party likely to pay cleanup costs. We estimate that the loss
of offsetting receipts from these changes is likely to be
insignificant, however, because most of the provisions are
similar to current EPA practice.
Revenues
This bill would affect revenues by authorizing States and
local governments to use Federal grants for brownfields
remediation to capitalize revolving funds. JCT expects that
the ability to leverage these revolving funds would result in
an increase in the issuance of tax-exempt bonds by State and
local governments. JCT estimates that the Federal Government
would forgo tax revenues of $110 million over the 2002-2011
period as a result of these provisions.
PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS
The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
spending or receipts. The net changes in outlays and
governmental receipts that are subject to pay-as-you-go
procedures are shown in the following table. For the purposes
of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in
the current year, the budget year, and the succeeding 4 years
are counted.
[[Page 6245]]
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays............................... 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Changes in receipts.............................. 0 0 1 4 8 11 15 17 18 18 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED IMPACT ON STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
S. 350 would impose no mandates on State, local, or tribal
governments. The bill would authorize $200 million annually
from 2002 through 2006 for grants to State and local
governments for inventorying, characterizing, assessing and
remediating brownfield sites and for establishing or
enhancing response programs. Implementing S. 350 would
benefit State, local, and tribal governments if the Congress
appropriates funds for the grants and loans authorized in the
bill. Any costs incurred to participate in those grants and
loan programs would be voluntary.
S. 350 would make several changes to current law concerning
liabilities under CERCLA of certain property owners, which
may include State, local, or tribal governments. These
changes in liability, while not preemptions of State law,
could make it more difficult for any States that currently
rely on CERCLA to recover costs and damages under their own
cleanup programs from parties whose liability now would be
eliminated or limited by the bill. On the other hand, these
changes could benefit State, local, and tribal governments as
landowners if their liability would be reduced or eliminated.
Enacting S. 350 could also benefit State and local
governments with contaminated sites in their jurisdictions by
clarifying the liability for certain property owners under
Federal law and thereby encouraging remediation and
redevelopment of those sites.
ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR
This bill contains no new private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA.
Estimate Prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp (226-
2860); Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments:
Victoria Heid Hall (225-3220); Impact on the Private Sector:
Lauren Marks (226-2940); Revenues: Thomas Holtmann (226-
7575).
Estimate Approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Mr. SMITH of New Hamsphire. Mr. President, I also ask to have printed
in the Record a letter dated April 12, 2001 to Mr. Dan Crippen of the
Congressional Budget Office signed by myself, Senator Reid, Senator
Chafee, and Senator Boxer. The letter illustrates areas in CBO's cost
estimate that the authors of S. 350 believe to be inaccurate or
misleading. It is our intent, and our belief, that S. 350 will bring
increased private resources to brownfield sites, which will in turn
limit future expenditure of public resources.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Committee on Environment and
Public Works, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, April 12, 2001.
Mr. Dan L. Crippen,
Director, Congressional Budget Office, Ford House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Crippen: We are writing with regard to the
Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate for S. 350, the
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act
of 2001. It is important that the cost estimate prepared by
your office accurately reflect the provisions of the bill. As
the lead authors of the legislation, we are concerned that
the cost estimate for S. 350 is inaccurate in several
respects and is unintentionally misleading with regard to the
intent and application of the legislation.
The cost estimate indicates that section 202 of S. 350
would ``reduce the number of Superfund sites that can be
cleaned up in a timely fashion by private entities.'' We
disagree with this assumption because the effect of section
202 will be to encourage private entities to perform
cleanups. Although the bill may limit future potential
liability of parties not currently liable under the Superfund
statute, it does not affect the liability of parties who are
already liable under the statute at sites already underway.
For even those new prospective purchasers receiving
protection under section 202, the bill provides for a
``windfall lien,'' which would further reduce any need for
Federal funding at these sites. Moreover, the ``prospective
purchaser'' exemption is designed to, and should result in, a
significant increase in cleanups by private parties,
particularly at non-National Priorities List sites. The net
effect of these factors would be an increase in the
availability of private cleanup funds. The overall number of
sites at which Federal response authority applies under the
Superfund statute, and which will be cleaned up by private
entities, will increase as a result of enactment of the
``prospective purchaser'' provisions.
In addition, the cost estimate asserts that the eventual
cost of the bill will be significant because cleanup costs
average $20 million per site. In fact, although cleanup costs
at National Priorities List sites may average approximately
$20 million per site, the cleanup costs at a brownfield site
averages approximately $500,000 per site. Indeed, since this
section applies to both NPL and non-NPL sites, and there are
many more brownfield sites addressed annually than there are
NPL sites, the average cost of the sites covered by this
provision would be dramatically less than that indicated.
Therefore, as currently drafted, the estimate would lead one
to believe that S. 350 could shift responsibility to the
Federal Government for as much as $20 million in cleanup
costs per site. This simply is not the case.
While we do not dispute the numbers provided by the cost
estimate, it is equally important that the narrative section
of the cost estimate accurately track the provisions of the
legislation as closely as possible. We respectfully request
that the Congressional Budget Office reissue the cost
estimate for S. 350 to address the types of concerns we have
raised. Please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss these
issues further.
Sincerely,
Bob Smith,
Lincoln Chafee,
Harry Reid,
Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senators.
Amendment No. 352
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
call up the managers' amendment to S. 350 which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself,
Mr. Reid, Mr. Chafee, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment
numbered 352.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 57, strike line 24 and all that follows
through page 58, line 3, and insert the following:
``(ii)(I) is contaminated by a controlled substance (as
defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 802));
``(II)(aa) is contaminated by petroleum or a petroleum
product excluded from the definition of `hazardous substance'
under section 101; and
``(bb) is a site determined by the Administrator or the
State, as appropriate, to be--
``(AA) of relatively low risk, as compared with other
petroleum-only sites in the State; and
``(BB) a site for which there is no viable responsible
party and which will be assessed, investigated, or cleaned up
by a person that is not potentially liable for cleaning up
the site; and
``(cc) is not subject to any order issued under section
9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991b(h));
or
``(III) is mine-scarred land.''.
On page 65, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
``(4) Insurance.--A recipient of a grant or loan awarded
under subsection (b) or (c) that performs a characterization,
assessment, or remediation of a brownfield site may use a
portion of the grant or loan to purchase insurance for the
characterization, assessment, or remediation of that site.
On page 67, line 16, before the period, insert the
following: ``, including threats in areas in which there is a
greater-than-normal incidence of diseases or conditions
(including cancer, asthma, or birth defects) that may be
associated with exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants''.
On page 68, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
``(J) The extent to which a grant would address or
facilitate the identification and reduction of threats to the
health or welfare of children, pregnant women, minority or
low-income communities, or other sensitive populations.
On page 70, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
``(4) Report to congress.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this section, the Inspector General of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to Congress
a report that provides a description of the management of the
program (including a description of the allocation of funds
under this section).
On page 71, strike lines 15 through 17 and insert the
following:
[[Page 6246]]
``(k) Effect on Federal Laws.--Nothing in this section
affects any liability or response authority under any Federal
law, including--
``(1) this Act (including the last sentence of section
101(14));
``(2) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.);
``(3) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.);
``(4) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.); and
``(5) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.).
``(l) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $200,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
``(2) Use of certain funds.--Of the amount made available
under paragraph (1), $50,000,000, or, if the amount made
available is less than $200,000,000, 25 percent of the amount
made available, shall be used for site characterization,
assessment, and remediation of facilities described in
section 101(39)(D)(ii)(II).''.
On page 93, line 4, before ``develop'', insert ``purchase
insurance or''.
On page 94, line 11, strike ``and''.
On page 94, line 14, strike the period at the end and
insert ``; and''.
On page 94, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
``(iii) a mechanism by which--
``(I) a person that is or may be affected by a release or
threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant at a brownfield site located in the community in
which the person works or resides may request the conduct of
a site assessment; and
``(II) an appropriate State official shall consider and
appropriately respond to a request under subclause (I).
On page 97, line 7, after ``Administrator'', insert ``,
after consultation with the State,''.
On page 97, line 18, after the period, insert the
following: ``Consultation with the State shall not limit the
ability of the Administrator to make this determination.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 15 minutes.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today
on S. 350, the Senate's Superfund brownfields legislation.
As most of those working on this issue know, I have been working on
comprehensive Superfund reform essentially ever since I was elected to
Congress, about 8\1/2\ years ago. This was a very difficult issue.
In my opinion, we would have been best served if we had comprehensive
Superfund reform of the entire Superfund statute, but given the
political dynamics we face in the country and the Congress today, it
was evident that we would not be able to achieve a comprehensive bill
at this point in time, and the decision was made to move ahead with
brownfields legislation this year. That was a decision I fought against
last year but agreed to support this year, to see if we couldn't move
ahead and achieve some of the objectives that have already been so well
explained with regard to this legislation.
Brownfields legislation is badly needed in this country, as we try to
reform and clean up some of the areas that have been discussed by other
Senators. One of the concerns many of us had, however, was that if we
do a brownfields bill, we need to do one that truly works and not
simply create another approach to the issue that runs into the same
problems we have dealt with under the Superfund statute for so many
years. In other words, we need to craft it so the effort to reclaim
these areas and make them green again is not a failure and we don't
simply pass legislation that creates another set of difficult,
burdensome approaches to the issue.
To effectively encourage more brownfields redevelopment programs, we
have to provide the necessary resources, give the States the management
and oversight responsibility within their borders, and ensure that
developers are confident that their involvement will be truly welcomed
and they will not simply pick up the liabilities already facing those
who own the brownfields and work on the properties.
All this has to be done in conjunction with the assurance that public
health and the environment are being adequately protected. In that
context, as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee handled
this issue, a number of us had concerns that we hadn't yet achieved
those objectives as well as we could. I commend the managers of this
bill for working so well with us to address those issues in the interim
since the bill was sent out of committee and is now being considered in
the Senate. We have a managers' amendment that addresses a number of
those concerns and that makes it possible for those of us who had
problems with the way the bill was originally drafted to work with and
support the bill at this point.
The Senate has held many hearings on this legislation. A number of us
have worked on this measure for many years. I will discuss some of the
elements of progress that have been made since the bill was sent out of
committee and as we now move forward with the managers' amendment. I am
very pleased that we were successful in making these improvements.
The first issue relates to State finality. For those who are not
concerned with the issue, what we are talking about is a policy
decision that says that State governments should be the ones that
handle the management of the brownfields legislation. Instead of having
a national, federally led and, many of us believe, dictate-driven
decisionmaking process, we wanted to put together a system in which
each individual State had the ability to interpret and implement the
brownfields legislation with decisions going on in their own States.
Many of us felt that State management and control would result in
much better decisionmaking, as we would see it at the State and local
level, than we would have if the decisionmaking were driven from the
Federal level. It is a case of the State and local people having a much
better understanding of the needs in their communities than those who
are distant decisionmakers, not having the ability and understanding to
truly address the issues as best they could.
We needed to achieve that by still making sure the environmental
objectives were in place. I believe the managers' amendment gives us an
important stride forward in this effort.
As the Senator from California, who just spoke, indicated, one of the
protections built into this bill was the provision that if, as the
State moves forward, an imminent and substantial endangerment is found
to the environment or public health, then the Federal Government,
through the EPA, can step in and take some remedial actions. Short of
that imminent and substantial endangerment, it is the State's
responsibility for action.
One of the concerns that was debated in committee was whether we had
adequately clarified it enough to make it clear that the EPA or the
Federal administrators could not simply use any excuse they wanted in
order to claim an imminent and substantial endangerment, and had to
truly work with the States and step in at the Federal level only in
those extreme cases in which it was clear that the State either did not
have the resources or was not willing to implement the law.
I believe that is where we have reached the compromise. The language
included in the bill says imminent and substantial endangerment must be
found by the Federal Government before it can step in and supersede a
State's actions, which is the intent of all of us who have worked on
this legislation. That gives the States truly an opportunity to have
finality to their decisions about how to implement this law.
Second, I am pleased that our efforts working with the managers of
the bill were successful in nearly doubling the number of eligible
brownfield sites under the program by expanding the bill's coverage.
This improvement alone will help make this program a reality for many
more communities around the country.
In appreciation for the managers' efforts to improve the original
bill, I intend to support the amendment today, and the bill with the
amendment in place. I know there is still a lot of debate about whether
we have made enough improvement in the legislation or whether we have
made the bill good enough. The other body is going to be working on its
proposals, and there will still be an effort to work with the
administration, as the President, the
[[Page 6247]]
House, and the Senate all work together to craft a brownfields bill
that will ultimately be signed into law.
I look forward to working with all of them to make sure that even
further improvements and changes to the legislation can be made as we
move through the legislative process.
This effort today is a very strong effort, and I think a very good
effort, to move forward on meaningful brownfields legislation. With the
managers' amendment, as I said, enough improvements have been made that
those of us who had concerns at the committee level, I think most, if
not all of us, will be able to support the bill today. We will continue
to work with the House and the President and with the managers of the
bill in the Senate to see that we can make even additional improvements
to the legislation as it moves forward in the legislative process. I
think it is an important first step we are taking today, but it should
be recognized as such--as an important but first step.
With that, I conclude my remarks and yield back my remaining time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 350, the
Brownfields Revitalization and Restoration Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is my understanding that the Senator from
Ohio is using the time of Senator Bond; is that true?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, it is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this legislation will provide
incentives to clean up abandoned industrial sites, or brownfields,
across the country and put them back into productive use and preserve
our green spaces.
I want to congratulate the chairman of the committee, Senator Smith,
the ranking member of the committee, Senator Reid, the subcommittee
chairman, Senator Chafee, and all the other members of the committee
who have worked to put this piece of legislation together.
Revitalizing our urban areas has been an issue I have been passionate
about for many years. As former mayor of Cleveland, I experienced
first-hand the difficulties that cities face in redeveloping these
sites.
I have been working on brownfields issues at the national level since
I became Governor of Ohio in 1990 and through my involvement with the
National Governors' Association and the Republican Governors'
Association. For more than a decade, I have worked closely with
congressional leaders, such as Mike Oxley of Ohio and the late Senator
John Chafee, to develop legislation that would do many of the same
things this bill does.
When the Environment and Public Works Committee considered this
legislation in March, I voted to report the bill out of committee after
getting a commitment from the Presiding Officer today, Senator Reid,
that he would be willing to work with me on some concerns I had
regarding specific bill language.
During the committee markup of S. 350, I offered an amendment seeking
to strengthen the State finality provisions in the legislation. Based
on the commitment I received from Senator Reid, I ultimately withdrew
my amendment.
In my view, we need to create more certainty in the brownfields
cleanup process. Parties that clean up non-Superfund sites under State
cleanup laws need certainty about the rules that apply to them,
particularly that their actions terminate the risk of future liability
under the Federal Superfund Program.
Last Congress, I introduced legislation supported by the National
Governors' Association and the National Council of State Legislatures
which would create more certainty by allowing States to release parties
that cleaned up sites under State laws and programs from Federal
liability.
I believe it is important that we build upon the success of State
programs by providing even more incentives to clean up brownfield sites
in order to provide better protection for the health and safety of our
citizens and substantially improve the environment.
What we do not need are delays caused by the U.S. EPA's second-
guessing of State decisions. A good example of second-guessing occurred
in my own State. One company, TRW, completed a cleanup at its site in
Minerva, OH, under Ohio's enforcement program in 1986. Despite these
cleanup efforts, the U.S. EPA placed the site on the NPL list in 1989.
However, after listing the site, the EPA took no aggressive steps for
additional cleanup, and it has remained untouched for years.
To enhance and encourage further cleanup efforts, my State has
implemented a private-sector-based program to clean up brownfield
sites. When I was Governor, the Ohio EPA, Republicans and Democrats in
the General Assembly and I worked hard to implement a program that we
believe works for Ohio. Our program is already successful in improving
Ohio's environment and our economy, recycling acres and acres of
wasteland, particularly in our urban areas.
In almost 20 years under the Federal Superfund Program, the U.S. EPA
has only cleaned up 18 sites in Ohio. In contrast, 78 sites have been
cleaned up under Ohio's voluntary program in the last 6 years, and many
more cleanups are underway.
States clearly have been the innovators in developing voluntary
cleanup programs, and Ohio's program has been very successful in
getting cleanups done more quickly and cost effectively. For example,
the first cleanup conducted under our program--the Kessler Products
facility near Canton, OH--was estimated to cost $2 million and to take
3 to 5 years to complete if it had been cleaned up under Superfund.
However, under Ohio's voluntary program, the cost was $600,000 and took
6 months to complete. These cleanups are good for the environment and
they are good for the economy.
States are leading the way in cleaning up sites more efficiently and
cost effectively. According to State solid waste management officials,
States average more than 1,400 cleanups per year, and they are
addressing approximately 4,700 sites all over the United States of
America at any given time.
I am pleased the bill we are considering today does not require the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to pre-approve State laws and
programs. State brownfield programs address sites that are not on the
national priorities list and where the Federal Government has played
little or no role.
Ohio and other States have very successful programs that clean up
sites more efficiently and cost effectively. I worked closely with
Senator Smith and Senator Reid and other Members to protect these
State's programs. The managers' amendment is a result of that hard
work.
While I would still like to see more protection and certainty for
State programs, I do not believe we should delay the improvements to
the current programs that are in this bill. What our States are doing
is helping to recycle our urban wastelands, prevent urban sprawl, and
preserve our farmland and green spaces. So often people forget about
the fact we have these acres of wastelands in many urban, and even
rural, areas around the nation. Unless these sites are cleaned up, they
will force a greater loss of green space in our respective States.
These programs are cleaning up industrial eyesores in our cities and
making them more desirable places to live and work. That is another
aspect of this legislation to which the Senator from California,
Senator Boxer, eloquently spoke.
Because these programs are putting abandoned sites back into
productive use, they are a key element in providing economic rebirth to
many urban areas and good paying jobs to local
[[Page 6248]]
residents. That is another side we do not think about. We have all
sorts of assistance programs, training programs, and so forth, helping
people become self-sufficient and productive citizens. In far too many
cases in the United States, because we have not recycled urban
industrial sites, businesses and jobs are developed in the outlying
areas where many urban residents simply cannot get to, and are,
therefore, unable to take advantage of those jobs.
Mr. President, this is a wonderful bill in so many respects. It makes
sense for our environment and it makes sense for our economy.
Therefore, I am pleased the Senate is considering this bill today and I
urge the House and Senate to come to a prompt agreement on a final
version of this legislation so we can provide a cleaner environment for
cities across America.
I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this important
legislation to provide States and local communities with the tools and
the resources they need to clean up and reuse polluted industrial
properties, turning them from eyesores into opportunities and
leveraging literally billions of dollars in economic benefits.
The legislation we are voting on today, S. 350, the Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, represents
the ultimate form of recycling. It is the recycling of one of our most
precious and scarce natural resources; namely, our land. Our
environmental resources, as our financial resources, are not limitless.
The cleanup and reuse of brownfield sites allows businesses and
developers to use existing infrastructure so we can reduce sprawl and
preserve our precious green space and farmland and, at the same time,
it provides an opportunity to energize local economies and create new
jobs.
I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 350, the Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, an act which,
as the President knows so well, enjoys broad bipartisan support of a
majority of the Senate, as well as of the administration, a diversity
of State and local government organizations, business interests, and
environmental advocacy groups.
This bill, S. 350, is an important step in building on the proven
success of existing brownfields efforts. The bill authorizes the
establishment of a flexible program to provide grants and loans to
State, tribal, and local governments and nonprofit organizations to
assess, safely clean up, and reuse brownfields. It includes important
provisions that promote assistance for small, low-income communities,
as well as supporting efforts to create or preserve open space and
furthering participation by the public in cleanup decisions.
The bill provides appropriate liability relief for innocent parties
who want to clean up and reuse brownfield sites, while maintaining the
necessary Federal safety net to address serious cleanup issues.
Last week, I was delighted to learn that the EPA was making grants
for additional brownfields funding for Utica, NY. I remember the first
time I visited downtown Utica and saw all of the old mill and factory
buildings, which already were tied in with existing utilities,
providing an excellent opportunity for remediation that could be then
followed by immediate redevelopment, only to be told because they were
built on old industrial sites, because the manufacturing processes that
occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries involved dangerous chemicals
and other contaminants, these brownfield sites in the middle of
downtown Utica were too expensive for private developers and the local
community to clean up. I am delighted that Utica and other such places
around New York, including Albany and Chautauqua Counties and a village
of Haverstram in Rockland County also received brownfields funding.
We have seen the benefits of brownfields cleanup and revitalization
throughout New York, from Buffalo to Glen Cove, and all the places in
between. I stood on the shore at Glen Cove, one of the most beautiful
communities on the north shore of Long Island, and could see the
effects of the cleanup of brownfields that are going to turn what had
been a contaminated waste area into a place that can be part of
waterfront redevelopment.
To date, over 20 communities across New York have received assistance
through EPA's existing brownfields program. It is my hope and belief
that there will be many more when we finish this legislation, which
will more than double the resources currently available for brownfields
cleanup across our country.
This bill strikes a delicate balance. There are compromises and
tradeoffs. I appreciate the hard work of the committee in a bipartisan
fashion to move this legislation forward. I take this opportunity to
thank the leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee on
which I am honored to serve, particularly our chairman, Senator Smith,
and our ranking member, Senator Reid, and the two Senators who pushed
this legislation forward because of their respective chairing and
ranking positions on a subcommittee; namely, Senators Chafee and Boxer.
I also thank the staffs, including my staff, the committee staff, and
the individual staffs of the Senators who worked so quickly and
diligently to move this legislation to the floor today.
The managers' amendment includes a number of significant provisions.
Again, I applaud and thank everyone who was part of this process. I am
grateful; two of the managers' amendments I personally sponsored will
be part of this legislation. One provision will help focus the delivery
of brownfields assistance to communities that experience a higher than
normal incidence of diseases such as cancer, asthma, or birth defects.
Two weeks ago, I was very fortunate and honored to go with my friend,
the Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid, to Fallon, NV, where we held a
hearing on a cancer cluster. It is a lovely community, 50, 60 miles
from Reno. It is a small community, maybe 30,000 people at most, in a
sparsely populated county. They have had 12 cases of leukemia among
children in the last 2 years. Clearly, it is a cancer cluster. We don't
know what is causing it. Many believe, and much of the testimony we
heard certainly suggests, this rate of cancer in this kind of a cluster
could be linked with exposure to hazardous substances.
The important provision we have added to the bill will offer
assistance to communities already burdened with severe health programs,
to help them clean up the polluted sites that may contribute to these
problems. We will have to do a lot more, and I will be working with
Senator Reid under his leadership to think about what else we can do to
address environmental health issues.
We certainly have more than our share in New York. I am hoping that
in the future we will have a hearing in New York, perhaps on Long
Island, to talk about the cancer clusters. We have asthma clusters; we
have diabetes clusters. We need to figure out what we are doing or what
we could stop doing or how we can clean up whatever might be
associated.
Under S. 350, States that receive brownfields funding must survey and
inventory sites in the State. I was concerned there might be sites that
would be overlooked in communities that are small or sparsely populated
such as Fallon, or low-income or minority such as those in New York
City.
I am pleased that with this provision in the managers' amendment we
will be able to include public participation so individuals can request
a nearby brownfield site be assessed under a State program. States
would maintain discretion and flexibility to set up this process
however they best see fit, but concerned citizens would not be shut out
of the process. They could participate and ask their particular
[[Page 6249]]
brownfield site be given some attention and perhaps even expedited
cleanup because of the impact on their local community.
In every corner of our country there are abandoned, blighted areas
that used to be the engines of the industrial economy or served in our
national defense. We were privileged to hear testimony from the admiral
who runs the naval airbase that trains the top gun pilots outside of
Fallon. They use a lot of jet fuel. They have to occasionally burn it.
They sometimes have to drop it in their flight. They were very willing
to come forward and talk about what the defense industry can do to help
in this area.
Many of the places suffering from brownfields were in the forefront
of creating the strong economy and the strong national defense system
we enjoy today. I think we have to pay attention to the needs of these
communities.
I thank all who have made it possible for us to consider this bill
today. I urge my colleagues to join in passing this important piece of
environmental and economic and health care legislation. I hope our
colleagues in the House will work to move their own brownfields bill so
we can finally get about the business of revitalizing these sites so
they can realize their economic potential and preserve our country's
beautiful, open spaces, and revitalize our downtown areas.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from New York leaves the
floor, I want to publicly express my appreciation for her traveling to
Nevada as part of a committee to deal with a most serious problem. As
the Senator indicated, we do not know what the problem is in Churchill
County. Is it problems with the base? It could be from fuel. We
understand there have been alleged large leakages of fuel. Is it from
the dumping of the fuel, as she indicated? There is a theory by some
academics out of England that maybe it is a virus caused by the huge
influx of people coming to the base from various parts of the world to
this previously very stable community. Maybe it is from the
agricultural activity. The first Bureau of Reclamation project in the
history of this country took place there, the Newlands project. For
years they have been dumping hundreds of tons of pesticides and
herbicides on those crops. Could that be the cause? Could it be the
arsenic in the water there, which is 100 parts per billion? We are
trying to lower it to 10 parts per billion. We simply do not know the
cause.
With the Senator from New York coming there--I do not mean to
embarrass her, but with her national following, she focused attention
on Fallon, NV, that would have never been accomplished had she not
shown up there.
I indicated to the Senator earlier today I am going to send to her
the series of positive editorials that were written about her coming to
the State of Nevada, trying to help us with this most difficult
problem.
Finally, I want to say, as I have already said earlier, outside her
presence but on this floor, what a valuable member of this committee is
the Senator from New York. For the not quite 100 days we have been
functioning as this new Congress, she has been a member of this
committee and she has been very valuable. She attends the meetings,
stays through the meetings, and, as I indicated, she has been of
valuable assistance making this legislation better. I am happy to have
her as a member of the committee and of the Senate. The people from New
York should feel very good about the person they brought to Washington
as a Senator representing that State.
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank my friend from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey the time that is
left over from my having spoken. I believe there may be some other time
in there. I think the only speakers we have still to come are Senator
Corzine and Senator Carper--I think that is all who wish to speak. We
are going to 2 o'clock, so I yield whatever time up to 10 or 12 minutes
to the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding the
time. Before I begin my own remarks on brownfields, I want to join him
in commenting that Hillary Rodham Clinton had potentially one of the
most difficult transformations ever, maybe, becoming a Member of the
Senate. It is also fair to say after only 100 days she has probably had
one of the most remarkably successful transformations ever made to the
Senate.
Rarely has someone come to the Senate and devoted themselves so
diligently to the details of their work, meeting their responsibilities
to their State with such bipartisan acclaim by her colleagues.
I think the people of New York should be very proud, under difficult
circumstances and the changing of public responsibilities, of how well
she accomplished the feat and now how proudly she represents the State
of New York.
Since the fortunes of New Jersey are so closely tied to those of our
modest neighbor across the river, we are grateful that New York is so
well represented. I congratulate her on her introduction to the Senate.
As my friend and colleague from New York, I wish to address my
colleagues on the question of the brownfields legislation. We have now
completed an unprecedented decade of extraordinary national prosperity.
But it is a cruel irony that many of those communities which, a
generation ago, laid the foundation for America's industrial might and
the prosperity of our generation have not participated in every aspect
of this new prosperity.
Critical to the goal of ensuring that all communities do, indeed,
benefit from this prosperity is creating sound economic development in
these traditional economic centers. Although often more graphic in
central cities because of their limited space, brownfields
redevelopment is not just an issue of these old centers. It has also
become a question of small towns. The problem is, whether it is these
older industrial centers upon which our Nation built its future or it
is small towns or rural areas, the Senate now in considering again
changes to brownfields legislation must deal with the reality that
brownfields redevelopment projects must overcome several difficult but
critical barriers. These barriers historically have included: No. 1, a
lack of process certainty; No. 2, liability concerns; No. 3, added
expenses of environmental cleanup and the lack of redevelopment
financing.
S. 350 is a bipartisan effort to address these very issues and to
make our brownfields program of the last few years everything that it
can, should, and must be.
Since 1993, when the Brownfields Pilot Program was implemented,
hundreds of communities across the Nation have been successful in their
efforts to assess, clean up, and redevelop vacant or underused
contaminated sites. In my State of New Jersey, brownfields
revitalization represents the potential rebirth of many distressed
cities. Indeed, in many respects brownfields and HOPE VI grants have
entirely changed the landscape of some of the most distressed urban
areas in the State of New Jersey.
In Trenton, an old steel plant has been transformed to a minor league
baseball field. Now a center of recreation, attention, and life of the
city of Trenton, only years ago it was abandoned, contaminated
property.
A railroad yard on the Camden waterfront in front of a enormously
wonderful view of the city of Philadelphia, what should have been some
of the most productive land in the Nation, was abandoned. It has now
become a major entertainment center for the bistate area.
The city of Elizabeth is taking a former landfill and constructing a
shopping mall.
For all of these reasons, brownfields legislation is critical,
irreplaceable, in the economic revitalization of the cities of New
Jersey. It is not a theory. It is not a potential. It has been proven.
[[Page 6250]]
It is real in every one of these communities. But it does need to be
improved. I support the enhancements contained in S. 350 because, No.
1, they reduce the legal and regulatory barriers that prevent
brownfields redevelopment and provide funds to States for cleanup
programs. No. 2, they address the needs to address potential
liabilities faced by prospective purchasers and adjoining landowners.
Finally, they provide funds to assess and clean up abandoned and
underutilized brownfields sites. This has not been the province of
private funding sources.
This bill goes a long way to remove many of the uncertainties that
have made the financing of a brownfield project such a formidable task.
While this legislation is a major step in the right direction, there is
more that must be done to enhance the public-private partnerships to
complete the picture of brownfields revitalization. The strengthening
of the public-private partnership utilizes tax incentives to help
attract affordable private investment.
In August of 1997, this body approved a potentially significant
brownfields tax incentive. This tax incentive, referred to as the
``expensing provision,'' allowed new owners of these contaminated sites
to write cleanup costs off their taxes in the year they were deducted.
This allows for increased cashflow for redevelopment projects.
Surprisingly, despite the potential advantage of this expensing
provision, there have been relatively few takers.
A GAO study reported in December of 2000 that in New Jersey there had
been only three development projects which had even applied for this
tax benefit. Developers told me they are discouraged from using the
provision because of the provision's indefinite future and the
exclusion of brownfield sites containing petroleum. There is simply no
incentive for real estate developers to complete projects and market
them quickly if the tax benefit they have derived is going to be taxed
as ordinary income at 39.6 percent rather than capital gains at 20
percent.
The financial impact of that reality is very significant.
I intend to propose legislation which I believe is a very positive
enhancement.
My legislation will tax this ``recapture'' or reclaiming of this
previously earned benefit as capital gain at a rate of 20 percent
rather than as ordinary income.
Using tax incentives to overcome capital shortages, in the market
place, to achieve greater public benefits, is a proven formula for
success.
This is exactly what I intend to do. This can be done to reverse
negative trends and start new, constructive initiatives.
In 1962, the Regional Plan Association of New Jersey-New York-
Connecticut in its publication ``Spread City'' stated that the region
was drifting into a costly spread-out pattern of suburban development
versus dormant central cities.
This publication noted that this pattern would produce suburbs with
``neither the benefits of the city nor the pleasures of the
countryside.''
Four decades later this vision of ``Spread City'' has, in fact,
materialized.
Today, brownfields redevelopment should be viewed as a method of
controlling urban sprawl and ultimately preserving greenfields.
A recent study of nine New Jersey cities posed conservative estimates
that redevelopment of identified sites across the state could house
nearly a quarter of 225,000 new residents expected by 2005.
It is, therefore, good economic policy. It is good social policy. It
is good housing and job creation policy.
Finally, it is good environmental land use policy to enact
brownfields legislation, and to enhance it and improve it with the
necessary tax incentives to stimulate growth based on this exciting
concept.
I strongly identify myself with this initiative hoping the Senate
will consider my changes when indeed it is time to vote on brownfields.
I yield the floor. 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. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that Senator Wellstone be added as a cosponsor to S. 350.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Torricelli). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I point out, Mr. President, that with the
addition of Senator Wellstone, that makes 70 cosponsors to this
legislation. That runs the entire political spectrum, from Helms to
Wellstone. I think it is a great tribute to the type of legislation it
is that we could forge this kind of bipartisanship.
As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, there are a number of
stakeholders who have written to express their support for S. 350. I
did enter those letters in the Record and obviously will not read them
all, but I would like to highlight just three or four.
One of those letters was from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The
quote from that letter is:
The mayors believe that this legislation can dramatically
improve the nation's efforts to recycle abandoned or other
underutilized brownfields sites, providing new incentives and
statutory reforms to speed the assessment, cleanup and
redevelopment of these properties.
I think that is a very dramatic statement. As the Presiding Officer
knows, the mayors are a bipartisan group from both political parties
all across the country and are across the political spectrum as well.
Another letter we received was from the Trust for Public Land. One
paragraph of that letter states:
Brownfields afford some of the most promising
revitalization opportunities from our cities to more rural
locales. This legislation will serve to help meet the
pronounced needs in under-served communities to reclaim
abandoned sites and create open spaces. . .reclamation of
brownfields properties brings new life to local economies and
to the spirit of neighborhoods.
Also from the National Conference of State Legislatures:
I . . . commend you for your continued commitment to the
issue of brownfields revitalization. Without the necessary
reforms to CERCLA, [the Superfund law] clean up and
redevelopment opportunities are lost, as well as new jobs,
new tax revenues, and the opportunity to manage growth . . .
NCSL has made this a top priority and we applaud the
committee's leadership. . . .
Finally, from the Building Owners & Managers Association,
International:
Thanks to the efforts of a dedicated collection of
Senators, the Senate now has a bipartisan piece of
legislation that would generate improved liability
protections, enhanced State involvement and increased federal
cleanup funding. Adoption of S. 350 would have an immediate
and dramatic impact on reducing the 400,000 brownfields sites
across America.
Mr. President, as I have stated many times indeed--and the
distinguished Presiding Officer also mentioned some of this in his
remarks--this bill is going to encourage redevelopment and
revitalization all across our country.
I would like to highlight one particular redevelopment option that
would benefit from this bill. It is called ECO industrial development.
It is similar to that of the Londonderry, NH, industrial park.
By reducing the waste and pollution from industry, industrial land
users become better neighbors in residential areas. Developers and
communities can target the kind of development they want rather than
being at odds with each other.
I think that is the beauty of this legislation.
Eco-industrial development helps break down the notion that enhanced
environmental management can only be done at a greater cost to
businesses. It is not true. The two go hand in hand. You can have an
enhanced environment, and you can enhance industry. That is why this
concept is so appropriate.
I am hopeful this legislation will, in fact, encourage responsible
redevelopment and revitalization similar to the Londonderry eco-
Industrial park.
[[Page 6251]]
Let me talk about eco-industrial development for just a second. It
creates efficiencies in the use of materials and energy through
planned, voluntary networks among businesses and their industrial-
manufacturing processes. This increased efficiency not only drives down
pollution and waste generated by these industrial processes, but it
increases the profitability and competitiveness of the businesses at
the same time. With these reinforcing benefits, eco-industrial
development is a market-based, incentive-driven means for preventing
pollution rather than relying on the fragmented, end-of-the-pipe
regulations we have done for so many years.
So our current measures of productivity are based almost entirely on
measuring industrial output per unit of labor. But a handful of
companies--Dow Chemical, Monsanto, 3M, Ford Motor, and others--have
been focusing on ways to increase or maintain their current level of
output while using fewer resources. This resource productivity can
increase a company's return on its assets significantly. And overall,
an industrial and manufacturing sector in the U.S. that uses materials
and energy more efficiently will become more productive, more
profitable, and will remain competitive in global markets.
I think the moral of the story is that when you take an abandoned
site that has been polluted and you convert it into whatever--either a
green space or a true park or playground, or a baseball field, as the
Presiding Officer mentioned, in Trenton--whatever you do with it, if
you turn it into something productive, you have, No. 1, created jobs in
doing so, and, No. 2, you have taken all the pressure off additional
green space--a lot of pressure off additional green space--that now
will not be developed because this will be redeveloped, and also you
help to beautify your community.
I think it is also important to point out it is not just the large
cities such as Trenton, NJ, or Manchester, NH, or any other large
city--it is not just large cities--there are many small towns all
across America where some 400,000 to 500,000 of these sites lie. A lot
of them are on the eastern seaboard in the early developed areas of our
country, along the rivers and railroad tracks, and these are the areas
that need help.
For so many years, under the current Superfund law, they have not
been able to develop these sites because industry and contractors
simply would not take the risk, knowing the possible liability. So that
is why this legislation is so exciting. It is also why we have 70
cosponsors and why we probably will have a close to unanimous, if not
unanimous, vote in the Senate. And we look forward to seeing this bill
move forward to the House, and to get it out of the House or out of
conference, whatever the case may be, and get it to the President's
desk.
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. CORZINE. 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. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 350, the
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I
am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation.
This bill proves that environmental protection and economic
development can go hand in hand, that we can take depressed, blighted
areas, such as those in New Jersey with which we have worked, and make
them vibrant and productive, and that we can do so in a cooperative,
bipartisan manner.
Hundreds of thousands of contaminated industrial sites lie
underutilized or even abandoned across the country, largely because of
the potential risk and expense of cleaning them up. New Jersey has more
than 8,000 of these brownfields.
When developers now look at these sites, they see a hornet's nest of
problems. But when I look at them, I see opportunities. Many of these
brownfields are located in economically depressed urban areas. Cleaning
them up can spur economic development, create jobs, and bring in
additional tax revenue.
Of course, cleaning up brownfields does more than help the economy.
It also protects the public health. In addition, by cleaning up sites
in our urban areas, we redirect development away from our remaining
open space and reduce many of the problems associated with sprawl.
Unfortunately, despite the broad benefits of cleaning up brownfields,
the private sector often finds it unattractive or unrealistic to take
on the task. Nor is it always easy for States and local governments.
That's why this legislation is so important. By providing needed
funding and placing reasonable limits on developers' liability, it
should encourage the development of many brownfields and the
revitalization of depressed areas around our Nation and across the
State of New Jersey.
This legislation also represents an important compromise of Federal
and State interests. It provides funding for grants to States to help
them enhance and develop their own brownfields programs. It recognizes
the important lead role that States play in dealing with brownfields,
but it also retains the right of the Federal Government to intervene
under certain circumstances to address serious threats that may arise.
In general, I see this as a sound balance.
We should be proud that we have been able to work this in a way that
leads to a positive long-term result.
I do point out, however, that this bill merely provides an
authorization for funding in the future. It doesn't provide the funding
itself. Often we talk about authorizations and take victory laps, but
the appropriations process is important. That will be up to those in
the appropriations process later on, and we'll all have to work hard to
make sure that we can find real dollars to be placed against this real
need.
Along these lines, I was very disappointed that the Bush budget
included only $98 million for brownfields redevelopment. That's far
short of the $250 million authorized in this bill for fiscal year 2002.
The Bush administration has said that it would support the bill, but
their budget doesn't have the money to show this support. Congress will
have to do better.
Finally, I acknowledge the leadership of my predecessor, Senator
Frank Lautenberg, who took the lead in the last Congress to develop
this legislation. Senator Lautenberg for years has been a strong
advocate of addressing brownfields. I am pleased that his efforts--and
the efforts of staffer Lisa Haage, who now works for the Environment
Committee--soon should bear fruit.
I also want to thank Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee, and Boxer for
their leadership and hard work in crafting and advancing this
bipartisan legislation this year. This bill proves that bipartisanship
can and will lead to positive results, particularly with regard to
environmental legislation. I am hopeful that that spirit of cooperation
will operate here in the Chamber.
With that, I conclude my remarks and again urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. 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. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes this
afternoon to express my support for S. 350, the Brownfields
Revitalization and Restoration Act. It is a bill which I hope we will
vote to pass today and, hopefully, it will be enacted in the House as
well. The bill before us this afternoon represents years of discussion,
countless hearings and a genuine compromise. Some people in this
Chamber have been part of those discussions and have worked hard to
achieve this compromise.
[[Page 6252]]
We have heard from others today who talked about the balance this
bill represents and some of the compromises it contains. I want to
focus in my remarks on what this bill means to our States, including
the State I am privileged to represent, Delaware, where this
legislation can make and will make a real and significant impact.
This morning, I came to work by train, as I do most mornings. I
caught the train in Wilmington and headed down to Washington. I looked
out, as I often do, the left side of the train as we pulled out of the
Amtrak station in Wilmington, and I looked over to an area that during
World War II was a prime area for building ships, along the magnificent
Christina River. Between roughly 1941 and 1945, some 10,000 men and
women worked along the banks of the Christina River in Wilmington. They
built all kinds of ships, destroyer escorts, troop landing ships,
Liberty ships, and other vessels that really helped to win World War
II.
When the war was over in 1945, not surprisingly, all of those people
were no longer needed. Eventually, within a few years after the end of
the war, that vibrant shipbuilding community along the Christina folded
up and all of those jobs, for the most part, went away. What had been a
vibrant area with manufacturing vitality began to go to seed, and over
the years it eventually turned into an abandoned wasteland.
To be honest, as Delaware's Congressman during the late 1980s, as I
rode that same Amtrak train to work, I looked out that window and said
to myself, boy, this looks awful. And it did. Today it doesn't. Today,
we have a river walk, we have a beautiful park, we have buildings that
have been restored or are being restored, we have museums, restaurants,
and places to shop. We have a stadium where one of the greatest minor
league baseball teams in America plays, the Wilmington Blue Rocks.
A couple years ago, as Delaware's Governor, I signed legislation that
enabled us to go in and turn that industrial wasteland into the
riverfront jewel that it is becoming today for the State of Delaware.
We returned to productive use some land that had been forgotten and
that in a way, served as a buffer to keep people away from the river.
I want to thank several people, certainly our subcommittee chairman,
the ranking Democrat, and Senator Chafee, who headed the subcommittee
to develop this bill and nurtured it over the years. I thank Senator
Smith, chairman of the committee, for his good work, and Senator Reid
of Nevada, who has spent a fair amount of time in these vineyards in
the last couple of years.
As a freshman Senator who joined this important debate a little late,
they were kind enough to work with me and teach me a thing or two about
these issues and listen to my concerns and to reflect some of them in
the final bill. I don't see my friend from Ohio on the floor, but I
want to say a word about Senator Voinovich, who chaired the National
Governors' Association during the time when I was its vice-chairman,
and who has worked on this bill with me. We had the opportunity to work
a little together on this legislation and he was instrumental in making
a good bill even better. I am pleased to say to colleagues today and
fellow Governors across the country that included in this bill is a
provision that will go some distance toward ensuring that State
certification of brownfields cleanup will actually result in the
revitalization of thousands of underutilized sites in States across the
country.
I thank Senator Voinovich for his work on this, as well as the other
members of our committee who have worked very hard and patiently over
the last several months and years, and who didn't pass up the
opportunity this year to make this bill the best it could be. I believe
what we have today is a brownfields bill that moves EPA's existing
program a significant step forward.
This bill protects our environment and encourages businesses to reuse
these sites. In my opinion, it just makes good sense. I urge my
colleagues to vote in support of this bill.
Before I yield, I want to say, in reflecting on my first roughly 3
months here as a Senator, I have had the opportunity to work in a
bipartisan manner in the Chamber on a couple of major initiatives, such
as bankruptcy reform, along with the Presiding Officer, who was
instrumental in it; but the bill passed with 85 votes, with broad
bipartisan support. There was also campaign finance reform, which
enjoyed a lot of Democratic and Republican support as well. We had the
budget resolution, which ended up enjoying a fair amount of Democratic
support as well as Republican support, and today we have the
brownfields legislation, which I believe will pass this Chamber with
broad bipartisan support. I am encouraged at this degree of bipartisan
support we have seen on these issues. Maybe we will somehow set the
stage today for debate which is to begin maybe tomorrow or next week,
and that is to bring up the education issues, to try to redefine the
Federal role regarding the education of our children.
Thank you, Mr. President. I surrender my time and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to take a couple of
minutes to explain to my colleagues the managers' amendment, which will
be part of the entire vote. We did expand the bill. At the end of the
markup in committee, there were a number of concerns raised by Senators
on both sides, which we attempted to address and finally were able to
address. I wanted to highlight three or four of them on both sides of
the aisle.
Senator Inhofe raised a concern, and Senator Bond as well, about
innocent parties cleaning up relatively low-risk brownfield sites
contaminated by petroleum or a petroleum product. We were able to allow
for the application for brownfields revitalization funding for those
purposes as requested by Senators Inhofe and Bond.
Also, in authorizing $200 million annually for the brownfields
revitalization program, we added another $50 million, or 25 percent of
the total for the cleanup of petroleum sites. This was included in the
managers' amendment. We have unanimous committee support for it today.
Those are two contributions to the overall legislation by Senators
Inhofe and Bond.
In addition, Senator Chafee asked for a clarification that a grant or
loan recipient may use a portion of that grant or loan to purchase
insurance for the characterization assessment or remediation of the
prospective brownfields site. We were able to take care of that.
Senator Clinton asked for conditions to the rank and criteria used to
award moneys under this bill to address sites with a disproportionate
impact on the health of children, minorities, and other sensitive
subpopulations in communities with a higher than average incidence of
cancer and other diseases and conditions. We were able to include that.
Another concern of Senator Clinton was an element to a State response
program whereby a citizen can request a State official to conduct a
site assessment and the State official considers and responds
appropriately to that request. Those issues of concern were added to
the managers' amendment.
In addition, Senator Voinovich asked for a requirement that the
Administrator consult with States in determining when new information
regarding a facility presents a threat to human health or the
environment, while preserving EPA's authority to take appropriate
action.
Mr. President, I also received a moment ago a statement from the
administration. I will quote from part of it:
The administration supports Senate passage of S. 350 which
would authorize appropriations to assess and clean up certain
abandoned industrial sites known as brownfields and provide
protection from liability for certain landowners. By removing
barriers to brownfield cleanup and redevelopment, S. 350
would allow communities to reduce environmental and health
risks, capitalize on existing infrastructure, attract new
businesses and jobs, and improve their tax base.
[[Page 6253]]
We are pleased to have that statement of support.
Before I yield to Senator Reid for final remarks before the vote, I
thank Senator Reid again and all of the members of the committee,
Senator Chafee, Senator Boxer, and all those who worked with me to
bring this to closure. It has been a pleasure. I have enjoyed it. It
was a long ride, but we finally got to the end. We are glad we did. The
country will be the beneficiary of our actions.
It is nice to know that a piece of legislation, once it passes, will
have immediate results for almost any community in America. There are
so many sites. There are probably very few communities that do not have
a brownfield site, which is an abandoned industrial site.
I will be pleased when the bill is signed and when the dollars start
to flow, not just from the few dollars we have in the Federal process
but from the investments that will be made by the private sector
because these folks will now be able to go onsite and clean them up.
I am excited about the bill. I am glad we are at the end. I am happy
to hand it over to the House now and wait for them, and hopefully, if
there is a conference, it will be an easy one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to take a minute to express my
appreciation to the Senator from Delaware for being a member of the
committee. Senator Carper and I came to Washington together, along with
the Presiding Officer, in 1982. When he was elected to the Senate, I
was very happy. He was a great Member of the House of Representatives
and a tremendous Governor.
I was happy to visit the State of Delaware on a number of occasions
and work with the Governor of Delaware. The people of Delaware are very
fortunate to have someone of the caliber of Tom Carper representing
them in the Senate. He is a great addition to Joe Biden. They are good
Senators. I do not know how you can do better than the two Senators
from the State of Delaware.
Senator Carper's work on the committee and on this bill has been
exemplary. He reached out on a bipartisan basis to Senators Crapo and
Voinovich. He and Senator Voinovich were fellow Governors. As a result
of his advocacy, he worked very hard with Senator Voinovich to satisfy
the problems he had with this bill. I express my appreciation to the
Senator from Delaware.
I was very happy to hear from Senator Smith that we do now have a
statement from the administration on this legislation. This is, in
effect, icing on the cake. This legislation has been long in coming.
The prior administration tried very hard to get it before the Congress.
For various procedural reasons, we were unable to do so for 2 years. On
a bipartisan basis, the committee was able to report this important
legislation for consideration by the Senate.
This legislation is representative of how we should operate in the
Senate. It is a bill we recognize was controversial. It is a bill about
which we recognize there were disparate views in the committee, and we
also realize the Senate was divided 50/50, just as the Environment and
Public Works Committee was divided 50/50. Republicans reached
Democrats, Democrats reached Republicans, and we came up with this
legislation.
This is very good legislation; 500,000 sites in America will benefit
from this legislation. Billions of dollars will go to local
communities. Hundreds of thousands of jobs, in fact 600,000 jobs, will
be required to clean up these sites. This is important because, as we
indicated earlier this morning, there are corner service stations in
urban areas upon which nothing can be built. People will not touch them
because they are an old service station and there may be Superfund
liability. This legislation takes care of that.
Corner service stations all over America will be cleaned up and
something built which will contribute to the local community.
There are dry cleaning establishments all over America. We do not
have big dry cleaners. They are all small. All over America we have old
dry cleaning establishments. New businesses will not touch them because
of possible Superfund liability. This legislation takes care of all
that.
This is what the American people want in sending us an equally
divided Senate. This is what the people deserve. This legislation will
go a long way toward making people feel good about Government.
It has been a pleasure working with the Senator from New Hampshire,
as I have already stated. This is a joint effort. I commend and applaud
the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Chafee, and the ranking
member of the subcommittee, Senator Boxer, for their outstanding work.
Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on this matter?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 352 is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 352) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended, is agreed to.
regarding consultation with the states on new information
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity
to clarify some issues related to the Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act. Is it the Chairman's understanding that
the exception under which the President may bring an enforcement action
following new information becoming available is to occur after the
Administrator has consulted with the State?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. My colleague from Ohio is correct. The
managers' amendment clarifies the role of the State when new
information has become available. Specifically, the Administrator must
consult with the State before an enforcement action can be taken.
Additionally, the State's records must be consulted to determine
whether the new information was known by the State as defined in the
legislation.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Is it also correct that this provision does not limit
the Administrator of the EPA from making a determination, based on new
information, that the conditions at the facility present a threat that
requires further remediation?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, The managers' amendment states that consultation
with the State shall not limit the ability of the Administrator in
making a determination, as the result of new information, that
contamination or conditions at a facility present a threat requiring
further remediation to protect public health or welfare or the
environment. Consultation with the State is important and is addressed
in this section and other portions of the bill. It is not intended,
however, to be an open-ended process. Consultation should not delay or
prohibit the Administrator's ability to determine that a site presents
a threat that requires further remediation.
Mr. REID. I am very pleased that we were able to resolve the concerns
raised by my colleague Mr. Voinovich at the Committee markup, and wish
to thank him for working with us to reach this resolution.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank my colleagues for clarifying the role of the
States in making these determinations.
Regarding Petroleum Sites
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman and
ranking member if they agree with my interpretation of the Inhofe
amendment adopted as part of the managers' package.
This amendment ensures that certain sites that have been contaminated
by petroleum or petroleum products, ``petroleum contaminated'', will be
eligible for funding under title I of this bill, by expressly adding
these sites to the definition of ``brownfield sites,'' and specifically
authorizing funding for the
[[Page 6254]]
characterization, assessment and remediation of these sites. These
petroleum-contaminated sites must meet several conditions to be
eligible for funding under this new provision.
First, the site must be relatively low risk, as compared with other
petroleum-only sites in the State. This provision does not presuppose
that each State has conducted a ranking of its petroleum sites, or
require that it do so. Rather, we are aware that most States already
have experience in making determinations as to which petroleum
contaminated sites pose the greatest risk, under section 9003(h)(3) of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), States are directed to prioritize
sites for corrective action based on ``which pose the greatest threat
to human health and the environment.'' The Committee contemplates that
States will be able to use similar approaches to those used under
section 9003(h)(3) to identify sites that are appropriately covered by
this provision, those that are relatively low risk.
Section 9003(h)(3) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act directs states,
who are authorized under section 9003(h)(7), to prioritize underground
storage tank, ``UST'', sites. Under 9003(h)(3), a priority for
remediation is given to UST sites which pose the greatest threat to
human health and the environment, as determined by those States. The
new section 128(a)(D)(ii)(II) of S. 350 addresses sites that meet all
of the following conditions: there are no viable responsible parties,
otherwise known as abandoned sites; the petroleum site is not subject
to an order under section 9003(h) of SWDA; and the petroleum
contamination is relatively low risk. Relatively low risk should be
determined by comparing the relative risk of a given site to UST and
other petroleum contaminated sites in that State. The determination as
to whether a particular site meets the ``relatively low risk''
criterion will be made by the entity that is awarding the grant or loan
to the person doing the work.
Funds authorized under the new section 128(l)(2) shall be used for
site remediation, characterization, or assessment. If a site uses funds
authorized by section 128(l)(2) to assess a site, and it is later
determined (after the assessment) that the site is eligible for other
applicable Federal and State funding, funds from those other applicable
Federal or State programs shall be used first. This will preserve funds
authorized under this bill for sites that do not have access to another
source of funding.
Neither this nor any other provision of S. 350, in any way, alters
the exclusion of petroleum or petroleum products from the definition of
``hazardous substance'' under section 101 of CERCLA.
Mr. CRAPO. I commend the Senator from Oklahoma for this amendment and
am also interested in knowing if this interpretation is consistent with
the intent of the chairman and the ranking member of the Environment
and Public Works Committee.
Mr. SMITH. The Senator from Oklahoma's interpretation of the
amendment is consistent with my interpretation of the provisions and I
am pleased we were able to include it in the manager's amendment.
Mr. REID. I agree with the chairman. I hope that this section will
provide an additional tool for addressing abandoned petroleum sites.
The bill includes mechanisms to allow us to evaluate how this and other
provisions of the bill are working, and whether the funding levels are
sufficient.
Mr. BOND. I'd like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their
cooperation on this amendment and commend the Senator from Oklahoma for
his leadership on this important initiative, which will provide a vital
tool for brownfields cleanups.
regarding ``contract carriage'' and ``spur track'' issues
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as we have discussed here today, I hope
there will be additional opportunities for the committee to consider
needed legislative changes to sections of Superfund that are not
related to brownfields.
There are two such changes which clarify liability for common
carriers and rail spur track owners I would like to bring to your
attention which this committee has favorably considered in past
Superfund bills.
The first provision would conform the existing law to the industry's
current practice of using contract carriage agreements by clarifying
that a railroad would not be liable for the transportation of hazardous
substances under the terms of a contract with a shipper who later
mishandles the commodity. This is a technical amendment which is
necessary to reflect the fact that most rail shipments today move under
the terms of transportation contracts, not tariffs, as was the case
when CERCLA was first enacted in 1980.
The second issue addresses contamination on or around spur tracks,
which run to and through shipper facilities. The current law states
that railroads can be potentially liable as landowners for such
contamination even when it is caused by a shipper. This change would
hold the railroad liable only if the railroad caused or contributed to
the release of the hazardous substance.
Both these issues recognize that a railroad, as a common carrier,
should not be liable when it cannot control its customer's handling of
hazardous substances, and the customer's actions result in the release
of a hazardous substance that creates CERCLA liability.
These noncontroversial changes are simple and needed reforms to the
Superfund law, and I would hope you could support including these
provisions in later Superfund legislation or even, if the opportunity
presents itself as part of this brownfields bill.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I would say to my good friend that I
agree with these provisions and have, in fact, supported them in the
past. I will continue to support them, but as we have discussed it will
be difficult to include them in the brownfields bill. I would certainly
support the inclusion of these provisions in any Superfund legislation
that the committee acts on later this year.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the chairman for his support on these two
provisions.
regarding environmental insurance
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the work of the subcommittee
chairman and ranking minority member and the Environment and Public
Works Committee chairman in helping craft this brownfields bill. I
would like to clarify one matter in the managers' amendment regarding
the use of funding under this bill to purchase certain environmental
insurance at brownfield sites.
S. 350 clarifies that a person who receives federal funds for
characterization, assessment and cleanup of a brownfield site, and is
performing that work, will be able to use a portion of that money to
purchase insurance for the characterization, assessment or remediation
of that site. While I believe this can be a valuable tool, I would like
to ensure that the limited brownfield funding is maximized to
facilitate cleanup and reuse of as many sites as possible.
I would like to confirm with the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment that the language is
limited to the purchase of environmental insurance by persons
performing the actions, that the purchase of environmental insurance is
intended to be a relatively minor percentage of the overall costs at a
site, and that its primary purpose is to insure against costs of
assessment, characterization and cleanup being higher than anticipated.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada is correct. This
provision is intended only to clarify that a person performing the
characterization, assessment, or cleanup can use federal assistance to
purchase environmental insurance such as cost-cap insurance, which is
one of the most frequently used policies at brownfield sites. Such a
policy would cover the costs of cleanup if the actual costs exceeded
estimated costs. It is my understanding that this clarifies EPA's
current practice. This protection can give a developer the necessary
comfort to invest in a site. In addition, the purchase of such
environmental insurance with federal assistance is not intended to be a
significant portion of the overall assessment, characterization, or
cleanup costs at a site. The Senator
[[Page 6255]]
from Nevada also is correct regarding the purpose of these policies: no
portion of the funding under this bill would be available for other
types of insurance.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's clarification of
this matter.
Regarding a Mechanism for Citizens to Request State Officials to Assess
a Potential Brownfields Site
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank Chairmen Smith and Chafee and
Senators Reid and Boxer for agreeing to further enhance opportunities
for public participation in state brownfields programs under S. 350.
Specifically, the bill as amended would provide an opportunity for
individuals to request that a nearby brownfields site be assessed under
a state program, and for such requests to be considered and responded
to in an appropriate manner by the State. Although states complying
with the other state program elements in the bill must survey and
inventory sites in the state, there may be rare instances when sites
are inadvertently overlooked. I am particularly concerned about this
happening in communities that may be small or sparsely populated, low-
income, minority, or otherwise socially or politically disenfranchised.
This new provision will help to ensure that in those rare
circumstances that a site is overlooked in a State's survey process,
someone who lives or works in the community can bring a potential
brownfields site to the attention of the State and request that the
site be assessed under the state's brownfields program. The intent is
to provide states with the flexibility to set up this element of their
state brownfields program as they best see fit, and the provision does
not create an appeals process. Is that your understanding of the
provision?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes, that is my understanding of the
provision.
Mr. REID. That is my understanding as well.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I agree that it is important for States to be
responsive to the concerns of their citizens. As a former Governor of
Ohio, I have the unique first-hand experience of dealing with such
issues and the role of the state. In fact, Ohio law already requires
the state to respond to environmental complaints.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, OEPA, responds under the
verified complaint procedure required under State law. Under this
statute, the Director of OEPA must take action by expeditiously
investigating claims and following up within a specified period of
time. If enforcement action is warranted, then the Director must
contact the State Attorney General to initiate proper proceedings.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. It is important for a State to be
responsive to concerns brought up by its citizens. For example, under
the New Hampshire program, if a citizen contacts the Department of
Environmental Services, DES, regarding a site, the first and foremost
consideration is to carefully assess the potential risk to human health
and the environment. Both written and telephone communications are
assigned to DES's Special Investigations Section in the Waste
Management Division. There are four individuals who are involved in
this work and provide round-the-clock coverage.
DES first checks the data base to verify that the inquiry is indeed a
new matter and decides, based upon the information offered, the level
of risk and hence the immediacy of response required. Departmental
protocol governs this practice. An essential element of this approach
is based upon the intuitive, knowledgeable sense of the staff person
receiving the call. An attempt is made to identify matters that require
immediate response from others of a less immediate nature. In the event
of a grave emergency, DES or the on-scene commander, may request
assistance from EPA's emergency responders.
In the case where a site warrants an emergency response, the citizen
inquirer would be given information as soon as the site was in control
and the responders or other Division staff could be made available to
provide details. If the case is determined to be a new site, the
citizen would be responded to when an initial site drive by or on the
ground investigation had been made. In this case an inquirer would be
told what to expect for a response time, if a response were necessary.
An inquiry related to a known site which was not an emergency
situation would be addressed by the assigned Project Manager, who could
comment on planned or on-going work at the site and the nature or
degree of risk. DES also would seek to determine whether the inquirer
had new information that might be relevant. Most often, DES would make
an initial response to an individual within 2-3 days.
As you can see, Senator Clinton, the State of New Hampshire has a
very responsive brownfields program that takes seriously all requests
and inquires made by its citizens.
Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Senator Smith and Senator Voinovich. I think
everyone would agree with you that it is important for states to be
responsive to citizens' concerns, and that many states are doing just
that.
regarding information
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the ``information'' referred to in new
section 129(b)(1)(B)(iv) of S. 350 pertains to information that
indicates that a site presents a threat requiring further remediation
to protect public health or welfare or the environment. The committee
expects that the Administrator shall use her discretion in determining
whether this information is both credible and relevant to the site.
``Information'' consists of information not known by the State on the
earlier of the date on which cleanup was either approved or completed.
The ``information'' need not be specific to this site; however, it must
be relevant to the site in question. After careful consideration of the
quality, objectivity and weight of the ``information'' regarding the
site, the Administrator shall decide whether this information is
adequate to determine there is a threat to public health or welfare or
the environment.
This ``information'' triggers this section only if the Administrator
determines that it indicates that such contamination or conditions at
the facility present a threat requiring further remediation to protect
public health or welfare or the environment. Do the chairman and
ranking member agree with this interpretation of ``information?''
Mr. REID. Yes, that is correct. This provision is intended to ensure
that the public health and the environment are protected from such
threats.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I share my colleagues' interpretation of
this provision.
regarding cattle dipping vats
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to confirm with the chairman
and ranking Democratic member of the Environment and Public Works
Committee that certain sites in my State would be eligible for the
benefits of this important brownfields legislation. In several States,
including my State of Florida, there are a number of sites that were
contaminated in the early to mid-1900's by chemicals used for tick-
prevention measures required by the United States Department of
Agriculture. So-called cattle dipping vats were used to eliminate ticks
that threatened our Nation's cattle. It is my understanding that these
sites would be eligible for the benefits of this important brownfields
legislation. Is that your understanding?
Mr. REID. I agree with the Senator from Florida that sites
contaminated by the historic practice of dipping cattle to eliminate
ticks are eligible for benefits under this bill, so long as any
particular site meets the definitions and conditions in the bill.
Under the bill funding is available for assessment and cleanup of
``brownfield sites,'' which are ``real property, the expansion,
redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or
potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant.'' It is my understanding that the sites the Senator
describes would meet this portion of the definition of eligible
brownfield sites under the bill.
The bill goes on to exclude certain categories of sites, such as
those that
[[Page 6256]]
are listed or proposed for listing on the Superfund National Priorities
List, and those that are subject to orders or cleanup requirements
under other Federal environmental laws. So long as the sites the
Senator refers to are not within any of the exclusions they would be
eligible.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I can appreciate the concerns raised by
the Senator from Florida. I agree with Senator Reid that sites
contaminated as a result of former cattle dipping practices and which
meet the definitions and conditions for sites to obtain funding and
liability relief under this bill will be eligible for the benefits of
this bill.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the chairman and ranking Democratic member for
that clarification. I believe that since the federal government
required these dipping vats to be constructed, the individuals who
complied with that federal requirement should be excluded from all
liability under Superfund. However, I also believe that the brownfields
legislation we are considering today is a critical step forward in our
ability to clean-up sites around the country. I look forward to working
with both of you and our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works
Committee to take additional steps forward in the months to come.
alaska native corporations eligibility
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I congratulate the Chairman and Ranking
Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee for developing a
bill that has secured enormous bipartisan support in this Congress.
This is an important program for many states.
I have considered cosponsoring the measure. However I withhold
sponsorship at this time because there is a problem relative to which
native entities in Alaska are eligible for such funding.
Alaska native corporations have no government powers but manage, as
private landowners, twelve percent of our state.
The federal government has recognized 229 tribes in Alaska most of
which do not have governmental power over land.
The bill is ambiguous as to whether Alaska native corporations, are
eligible entities as ``Indian Tribes.''
I have not raised this with the committee, but do request assurance
that the conference will address this matter.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I would like to work with the Senator on
that issue.
EDA and HUD developmental funding
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleagues,
Senators Jeffords, Reid, and Smith from New Hampshire in a colloquy on
the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of
2001, S. 350. I am a co-sponsor and strong supporter of this
brownfields revitalization bill. I commend Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee
and Boxer for their hard work on crafting bipartisan brownfields
legislation which will help communities return these former commercial
and industrial properties back to productive use. The financial
incentives and statutory reforms provided in S. 350 will dramatically
improve our communities' efforts to redevelop brownfields.
As cochairmen of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force, Senator Jeffords
and I will introduce bills to complement S. 350 by providing
communities with economic resources to redevelop brownfield sites. Our
first proposal would expand efforts of the Department of Commerce's
Economic Development Administration, or EDA, to assist distressed
communities. The bill will provide EDA with a dedicated source of
funding for brownfields redevelopment and increased funding flexibility
to help States, local communities and nonprofit organizations restore
these sites to productive use. Our second proposal would permit the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to make brownfields
economic development initiative grants independent of economic
development loan guarantees, and set-aside a portion of the funding for
smaller communities. I hope that Senators Smith and Reid will work with
us to get our proposed legislation enacted.
These proposals would be very complementary to S. 350. Economic
development funding through EDA and HUD along with the financial
resources and liability clarifications contained in S. 350 would
provide communities with the help they need to return brownfields to
productive uses. Together, our proposals and S. 350, would provide
communities with the financial assistance needed to leverage private
investment in brownfields and accelerate reuse.
A number of national economic development organizations support this
proposal, including the US Conference of Mayors, National League of
Cities, National Association of Counties, National Association of
Development Organizations, National Association of Regional Councils,
National Association of Towns and Townships, Enterprise Foundation,
National Congress for Community Economic Development, Smart Growth
America, Council for Urban Economic Development, National Association
of Installation Developers, and the National Business Incubator
Association.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President I join my colleague, Mr. Levin, in
commending Senators Smith of New Hampshire, Chafee, Reid, and Boxer for
their efforts to promote brownfield revitalization. I am a co-sponsor
and strong supporter of S. 350, and believe this legislation is long
overdue.
Senator Levin and I have been working on complementary legislation.
The proposal would provide the Economic Development Administration
(EDA) with a formal channel of funding to help communities turn
brownfields environmental liabilities into economic assets. This
legislation would provide targeted assistance to projects that
redevelop brownfields. EDA funding for brownfields will help
communities get the financial assistance needed to leverage private
investment in brownfields. With over 450,000 brownfields sites
nationwide, it is imperative that the federal government assist local
cleanup efforts that in turn will stimulate economic revitalization.
The second legislative proposal addresses requirements on the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Brownfields
Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant program that are hampering
small city brownfields revitalization efforts. BEDI's required link to
Section 108 serves as a deterrent to many small towns in Vermont and
throughout the nation, who do not have the resources to commit to
brownfields. Our bill would permit HUD to make grants available
independent of economic development loan guarantees.
I am very hopeful that the Chairman and Ranking Member of Committee
on Environment and Public Works will work with us to advance this
important legislative initiatives.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from
Michigan, Mr. Levin, and my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, for
their strong support of S. 350 and commend them for their efforts to
provide communities with economic development resources to redevelop
brownfields. I commit to my colleagues, Mr. Levin and Mr. Jeffords,
that I will work with Senator Smith to have a hearing on their Economic
Development Administration brownfield proposal. I look forward to
working with them to explore options to further address the reuse of
brownfields and look forward to working with them to protect our
communities.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank Mr. Jeffords and Mr. Levin for
their support and co-sponsorship of S. 350. I appreciate their efforts
to craft legislation complementary to S. 350. As such, I will look
closely at their proposals and work with them to further advance the
issue of brownfield redevelopment.
Indian Tribes
Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I yield.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I believe that this
is a good piece of legislation that will promote the cleanup and reuse
of business and industrial sites that now stand essentially abandoned.
I would
[[Page 6257]]
just like to clarify one point. I note that throughout much of the Bill
any reference to `States' is accompanied by a reference to `Indian
Tribes'. However, this is not the case in section 129(b)(1)(B)(ii), as
added by section 301 of the Bill, regarding federal enforcement actions
in the event of contamination migrating across a State line. Could the
Senator confirm that it is the intention of the legislation that
references in that section to `States' should extend to `Indian
Tribes'?
Mr. REID. Yes Senator, that is the intention.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for the third reading and was
read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass? The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]
YEAS--99
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Hutchinson
The bill (S. 350), as amended, was passed, as follows:
S. 350
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
``Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration
Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING
Sec. 101. Brownfields revitalization funding.
TITLE II--BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS
Sec. 201. Contiguous properties.
Sec. 202. Prospective purchasers and windfall liens.
Sec. 203. Innocent landowners.
TITLE III--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS
Sec. 301. State response programs.
Sec. 302. Additions to National Priorities List.
TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING
SEC. 101. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING.
(a) Definition of Brownfield Site.--Section 101 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(39) Brownfield site.--
``(A) In general.--The term `brownfield site' means real
property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may
be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.
``(B) Exclusions.--The term `brownfield site' does not
include--
``(i) a facility that is the subject of a planned or
ongoing removal action under this title;
``(ii) a facility that is listed on the National Priorities
List or is proposed for listing;
``(iii) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral
administrative order, a court order, an administrative order
on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to
or entered into by the parties under this Act;
``(iv) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral
administrative order, a court order, an administrative order
on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to
or entered into by the parties, or a facility to which a
permit has been issued by the United States or an authorized
State under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1321), the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.), or the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et
seq.);
``(v) a facility that--
``(I) is subject to corrective action under section 3004(u)
or 3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6924(u), 6928(h)); and
``(II) to which a corrective action permit or order has
been issued or modified to require the implementation of
corrective measures;
``(vi) a land disposal unit with respect to which--
``(I) a closure notification under subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) has been
submitted; and
``(II) closure requirements have been specified in a
closure plan or permit;
``(vii) a facility that is subject to the jurisdiction,
custody, or control of a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States, except for land held in
trust by the United States for an Indian tribe;
``(viii) a portion of a facility--
``(I) at which there has been a release of polychlorinated
biphenyls; and
``(II) that is subject to remediation under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.); or
``(ix) a portion of a facility, for which portion,
assistance for response activity has been obtained under
subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et
seq.) from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
established under section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.
``(C) Site-by-site determinations.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (B) and on a site-by-site basis, the President
may authorize financial assistance under section 128 to an
eligible entity at a site included in clause (i), (iv), (v),
(vi), (viii), or (ix) of subparagraph (B) if the President
finds that financial assistance will protect human health and
the environment, and either promote economic development or
enable the creation of, preservation of, or addition to
parks, greenways, undeveloped property, other recreational
property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes.
``(D) Additional areas.--For the purposes of section 128,
the term `brownfield site' includes a site that--
``(i) meets the definition of `brownfield site' under
subparagraphs (A) through (C); and
``(ii)(I) is contaminated by a controlled substance (as
defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 802));
``(II)(aa) is contaminated by petroleum or a petroleum
product excluded from the definition of `hazardous substance'
under section 101; and
``(bb) is a site determined by the Administrator or the
State, as appropriate, to be--
``(AA) of relatively low risk, as compared with other
petroleum-only sites in the State; and
``(BB) a site for which there is no viable responsible
party and which will be assessed, investigated, or cleaned up
by a person that is not potentially liable for cleaning up
the site; and
``(cc) is not subject to any order issued under section
9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991b(h));
or
``(III) is mine-scarred land.''.
(b) Brownfields Revitalization Funding.--Title I of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 128. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING.
``(a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the
term `eligible entity' means--
``(1) a general purpose unit of local government;
``(2) a land clearance authority or other quasi-
governmental entity that operates under the supervision and
control of or as an agent of a general purpose unit of local
government;
``(3) a government entity created by a State legislature;
``(4) a regional council or group of general purpose units
of local government;
``(5) a redevelopment agency that is chartered or otherwise
sanctioned by a State;
``(6) a State; or
``(7) an Indian Tribe.
``(b) Brownfield Site Characterization and Assessment Grant
Program.--
``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator shall
establish a program to--
``(A) provide grants to inventory, characterize, assess,
and conduct planning related to brownfield sites under
paragraph (2); and
[[Page 6258]]
``(B) perform targeted site assessments at brownfield
sites.
``(2) Assistance for site characterization and
assessment.--
``(A) In general.--On approval of an application made by an
eligible entity, the Administrator may make a grant to the
eligible entity to be used for programs to inventory,
characterize, assess, and conduct planning related to 1 or
more brownfield sites.
``(B) Site characterization and assessment.--A site
characterization and assessment carried out with the use of a
grant under subparagraph (A) shall be performed in accordance
with section 101(35)(B).
``(c) Grants and Loans for Brownfield Remediation.--
``(1) Grants provided by the president.--Subject to
subsections (d) and (e), the President shall establish a
program to provide grants to--
``(A) eligible entities, to be used for capitalization of
revolving loan funds; and
``(B) eligible entities or nonprofit organizations, where
warranted, as determined by the President based on
considerations under paragraph (3), to be used directly for
remediation of 1 or more brownfield sites owned by the entity
or organization that receives the grant and in amounts not to
exceed $200,000 for each site to be remediated.
``(2) Loans and grants provided by eligible entities.--An
eligible entity that receives a grant under paragraph (1)(A)
shall use the grant funds to provide assistance for the
remediation of brownfield sites in the form of--
``(A) 1 or more loans to an eligible entity, a site owner,
a site developer, or another person; or
``(B) 1 or more grants to an eligible entity or other
nonprofit organization, where warranted, as determined by the
eligible entity that is providing the assistance, based on
considerations under paragraph (3), to remediate sites owned
by the eligible entity or nonprofit organization that
receives the grant.
``(3) Considerations.--In determining whether a grant under
paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(B) is warranted, the President or the
eligible entity, as the case may be, shall take into
consideration--
``(A) the extent to which a grant will facilitate the
creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a
greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or
other property used for nonprofit purposes;
``(B) the extent to which a grant will meet the needs of a
community that has an inability to draw on other sources of
funding for environmental remediation and subsequent
redevelopment of the area in which a brownfield site is
located because of the small population or low income of the
community;
``(C) the extent to which a grant will facilitate the use
or reuse of existing infrastructure;
``(D) the benefit of promoting the long-term availability
of funds from a revolving loan fund for brownfield
remediation; and
``(E) such other similar factors as the Administrator
considers appropriate to consider for the purposes of this
section.
``(4) Transition.--Revolving loan funds that have been
established before the date of enactment of this section may
be used in accordance with this subsection.
``(d) General Provisions.--
``(1) Maximum grant amount.--
``(A) Brownfield site characterization and assessment.--
``(i) In general.--A grant under subsection (b)--
``(I) may be awarded to an eligible entity on a community-
wide or site-by-site basis; and
``(II) shall not exceed, for any individual brownfield site
covered by the grant, $200,000.
``(ii) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive the $200,000
limitation under clause (i)(II) to permit the brownfield site
to receive a grant of not to exceed $350,000, based on the
anticipated level of contamination, size, or status of
ownership of the site.
``(B) Brownfield remediation.--
``(i) Grant amount.--A grant under subsection (c)(1)(A) may
be awarded to an eligible entity on a community-wide or site-
by-site basis, not to exceed $1,000,000 per eligible entity.
``(ii) Additional grant amount.--The Administrator may make
an additional grant to an eligible entity described in clause
(i) for any year after the year for which the initial grant
is made, taking into consideration--
``(I) the number of sites and number of communities that
are addressed by the revolving loan fund;
``(II) the demand for funding by eligible entities that
have not previously received a grant under this section;
``(III) the demonstrated ability of the eligible entity to
use the revolving loan fund to enhance remediation and
provide funds on a continuing basis; and
``(IV) such other similar factors as the Administrator
considers appropriate to carry out this section.
``(2) Prohibition.--
``(A) In general.--No part of a grant or loan under this
section may be used for the payment of--
``(i) a penalty or fine;
``(ii) a Federal cost-share requirement;
``(iii) an administrative cost;
``(iv) a response cost at a brownfield site for which the
recipient of the grant or loan is potentially liable under
section 107; or
``(v) a cost of compliance with any Federal law (including
a Federal law specified in section 101(39)(B)), excluding the
cost of compliance with laws applicable to the cleanup.
``(B) Exclusions.--For the purposes of subparagraph
(A)(iii), the term `administrative cost' does not include the
cost of--
``(i) investigation and identification of the extent of
contamination;
``(ii) design and performance of a response action; or
``(iii) monitoring of a natural resource.
``(3) Assistance for development of local government site
remediation programs.--A local government that receives a
grant under this section may use not to exceed 10 percent of
the grant funds to develop and implement a brownfields
program that may include--
``(A) monitoring the health of populations exposed to 1 or
more hazardous substances from a brownfield site; and
``(B) monitoring and enforcement of any institutional
control used to prevent human exposure to any hazardous
substance from a brownfield site.
``(4) Insurance.--A recipient of a grant or loan awarded
under subsection (b) or (c) that performs a characterization,
assessment, or remediation of a brownfield site may use a
portion of the grant or loan to purchase insurance for the
characterization, assessment, or remediation of that site.
``(e) Grant Applications.--
``(1) Submission.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Application.--An eligible entity may submit to the
Administrator, through a regional office of the Environmental
Protection Agency and in such form as the Administrator may
require, an application for a grant under this section for 1
or more brownfield sites (including information on the
criteria used by the Administrator to rank applications under
paragraph (3), to the extent that the information is
available).
``(ii) NCP requirements.--The Administrator may include in
any requirement for submission of an application under clause
(i) a requirement of the National Contingency Plan only to
the extent that the requirement is relevant and appropriate
to the program under this section.
``(B) Coordination.--The Administrator shall coordinate
with other Federal agencies to assist in making eligible
entities aware of other available Federal resources.
``(C) Guidance.--The Administrator shall publish guidance
to assist eligible entities in applying for grants under this
section.
``(2) Approval.--The Administrator shall--
``(A) at least annually, complete a review of applications
for grants that are received from eligible entities under
this section; and
``(B) award grants under this section to eligible entities
that the Administrator determines have the highest rankings
under the ranking criteria established under paragraph (3).
``(3) Ranking criteria.--The Administrator shall establish
a system for ranking grant applications received under this
subsection that includes the following criteria:
``(A) The extent to which a grant will stimulate the
availability of other funds for environmental assessment or
remediation, and subsequent reuse, of an area in which 1 or
more brownfield sites are located.
``(B) The potential of the proposed project or the
development plan for an area in which 1 or more brownfield
sites are located to stimulate economic development of the
area on completion of the cleanup.
``(C) The extent to which a grant would address or
facilitate the identification and reduction of threats to
human health and the environment, including threats in areas
in which there is a greater-than-normal incidence of diseases
or conditions (including cancer, asthma, or birth defects)
that may be associated with exposure to hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants.
``(D) The extent to which a grant would facilitate the use
or reuse of existing infrastructure.
``(E) The extent to which a grant would facilitate the
creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a
greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or
other property used for nonprofit purposes.
``(F) The extent to which a grant would meet the needs of a
community that has an inability to draw on other sources of
funding for environmental remediation and subsequent
redevelopment of the area in which a brownfield site is
located because of the small population or low income of the
community.
``(G) The extent to which the applicant is eligible for
funding from other sources.
``(H) The extent to which a grant will further the fair
distribution of funding between urban and nonurban areas.
``(I) The extent to which the grant provides for
involvement of the local community in the process of making
decisions relating to cleanup and future use of a brownfield
site.
``(J) The extent to which a grant would address or
facilitate the identification and reduction of threats to the
health or welfare of children, pregnant women, minority or
low-income communities, or other sensitive populations.
[[Page 6259]]
``(f) Implementation of Brownfields Programs.--
``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator may
provide, or fund eligible entities or nonprofit organizations
to provide, training, research, and technical assistance to
individuals and organizations, as appropriate, to facilitate
the inventory of brownfield sites, site assessments,
remediation of brownfield sites, community involvement, or
site preparation.
``(2) Funding restrictions.--The total Federal funds to be
expended by the Administrator under this subsection shall not
exceed 15 percent of the total amount appropriated to carry
out this section in any fiscal year.
``(g) Audits.--
``(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct such reviews or
audits of grants and loans under this section as the
Inspector General considers necessary to carry out this
section.
``(2) Procedure.--An audit under this paragraph shall be
conducted in accordance with the auditing procedures of the
General Accounting Office, including chapter 75 of title 31,
United States Code.
``(3) Violations.--If the Administrator determines that a
person that receives a grant or loan under this section has
violated or is in violation of a condition of the grant,
loan, or applicable Federal law, the Administrator may--
``(A) terminate the grant or loan;
``(B) require the person to repay any funds received; and
``(C) seek any other legal remedies available to the
Administrator.
``(4) Report to congress.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this section, the Inspector General of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to Congress
a report that provides a description of the management of the
program (including a description of the allocation of funds
under this section).
``(h) Leveraging.--An eligible entity that receives a grant
under this section may use the grant funds for a portion of a
project at a brownfield site for which funding is received
from other sources if the grant funds are used only for the
purposes described in subsection (b) or (c).
``(i) Agreements.--Each grant or loan made under this
section shall--
``(1) include a requirement of the National Contingency
Plan only to the extent that the requirement is relevant and
appropriate to the program under this section, as determined
by the Administrator; and
``(2) be subject to an agreement that--
``(A) requires the recipient to--
``(i) comply with all applicable Federal and State laws;
and
``(ii) ensure that the cleanup protects human health and
the environment;
``(B) requires that the recipient use the grant or loan
exclusively for purposes specified in subsection (b) or (c),
as applicable;
``(C) in the case of an application by an eligible entity
under subsection (c)(1), requires the eligible entity to pay
a matching share (which may be in the form of a contribution
of labor, material, or services) of at least 20 percent, from
non-Federal sources of funding, unless the Administrator
determines that the matching share would place an undue
hardship on the eligible entity; and
``(D) contains such other terms and conditions as the
Administrator determines to be necessary to carry out this
section.
``(j) Facility Other Than Brownfield Site.--The fact that a
facility may not be a brownfield site within the meaning of
section 101(39)(A) has no effect on the eligibility of the
facility for assistance under any other provision of Federal
law.
``(k) Effect on Federal Laws.--Nothing in this section
affects any liability or response authority under any Federal
law, including--
``(1) this Act (including the last sentence of section
101(14));
``(2) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.);
``(3) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.);
``(4) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.); and
``(5) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.).
``(l) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $200,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
``(2) Use of certain funds.--Of the amount made available
under paragraph (1), $50,000,000, or, if the amount made
available is less than $200,000,000, 25 percent of the amount
made available, shall be used for site characterization,
assessment, and remediation of facilities described in
section 101(39)(D)(ii)(II).''.
TITLE II--BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS
SEC. 201. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES.
Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(o) Contiguous Properties.--
``(1) Not considered to be an owner or operator.--
``(A) In general.--A person that owns real property that is
contiguous to or otherwise similarly situated with respect
to, and that is or may be contaminated by a release or
threatened release of a hazardous substance from, real
property that is not owned by that person shall not be
considered to be an owner or operator of a vessel or facility
under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) solely by reason
of the contamination if--
``(i) the person did not cause, contribute, or consent to
the release or threatened release;
``(ii) the person is not--
``(I) potentially liable, or affiliated with any other
person that is potentially liable, for response costs at a
facility through any direct or indirect familial relationship
or any contractual, corporate, or financial relationship
(other than a contractual, corporate, or financial
relationship that is created by a contract for the sale of
goods or services); or
``(II) the result of a reorganization of a business entity
that was potentially liable;
``(iii) the person takes reasonable steps to--
``(I) stop any continuing release;
``(II) prevent any threatened future release; and
``(III) prevent or limit human, environmental, or natural
resource exposure to any hazardous substance released on or
from property owned by that person;
``(iv) the person provides full cooperation, assistance,
and access to persons that are authorized to conduct response
actions or natural resource restoration at the vessel or
facility from which there has been a release or threatened
release (including the cooperation and access necessary for
the installation, integrity, operation, and maintenance of
any complete or partial response action or natural resource
restoration at the vessel or facility);
``(v) the person--
``(I) is in compliance with any land use restrictions
established or relied on in connection with the response
action at the facility; and
``(II) does not impede the effectiveness or integrity of
any institutional control employed in connection with a
response action;
``(vi) the person is in compliance with any request for
information or administrative subpoena issued by the
President under this Act;
``(vii) the person provides all legally required notices
with respect to the discovery or release of any hazardous
substances at the facility; and
``(viii) at the time at which the person acquired the
property, the person--
``(I) conducted all appropriate inquiry within the meaning
of section 101(35)(B) with respect to the property; and
``(II) did not know or have reason to know that the
property was or could be contaminated by a release or
threatened release of 1 or more hazardous substances from
other real property not owned or operated by the person.
``(B) Demonstration.--To qualify as a person described in
subparagraph (A), a person must establish by a preponderance
of the evidence that the conditions in clauses (i) through
(viii) of subparagraph (A) have been met.
``(C) Bona fide prospective purchaser.--Any person that
does not qualify as a person described in this paragraph
because the person had, or had reason to have, knowledge
specified in subparagraph (A)(viii) at the time of
acquisition of the real property may qualify as a bona fide
prospective purchaser under section 101(40) if the person is
otherwise described in that section.
``(D) Ground water.--With respect to a hazardous substance
from 1 or more sources that are not on the property of a
person that is a contiguous property owner that enters ground
water beneath the property of the person solely as a result
of subsurface migration in an aquifer, subparagraph (A)(iii)
shall not require the person to conduct ground water
investigations or to install ground water remediation
systems, except in accordance with the policy of the
Environmental Protection Agency concerning owners of property
containing contaminated aquifers, dated May 24, 1995.
``(2) Effect of law.--With respect to a person described in
this subsection, nothing in this subsection--
``(A) limits any defense to liability that may be available
to the person under any other provision of law; or
``(B) imposes liability on the person that is not otherwise
imposed by subsection (a).
``(3) Assurances.--The Administrator may--
``(A) issue an assurance that no enforcement action under
this Act will be initiated against a person described in
paragraph (1); and
``(B) grant a person described in paragraph (1) protection
against a cost recovery or contribution action under section
113(f).''.
SEC. 202. PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS AND WINDFALL LIENS.
(a) Definition of Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser.--Section
101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as
amended by section 101(a)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(40) Bona fide prospective purchaser.--The term `bona
fide prospective purchaser'
[[Page 6260]]
means a person (or a tenant of a person) that acquires
ownership of a facility after the date of enactment of this
paragraph and that establishes each of the following by a
preponderance of the evidence:
``(A) Disposal prior to acquisition.--All disposal of
hazardous substances at the facility occurred before the
person acquired the facility.
``(B) Inquiries.--
``(i) In general.--The person made all appropriate
inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the
facility in accordance with generally accepted good
commercial and customary standards and practices in
accordance with clauses (ii) and (iii).
``(ii) Standards and practices.--The standards and
practices referred to in clauses (ii) and (iv) of paragraph
(35)(B) shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of
this subparagraph.
``(iii) Residential use.--In the case of property in
residential or other similar use at the time of purchase by a
nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility
inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further
investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements
of this subparagraph.
``(C) Notices.--The person provides all legally required
notices with respect to the discovery or release of any
hazardous substances at the facility.
``(D) Care.--The person exercises appropriate care with
respect to hazardous substances found at the facility by
taking reasonable steps to--
``(i) stop any continuing release;
``(ii) prevent any threatened future release; and
``(iii) prevent or limit human, environmental, or natural
resource exposure to any previously released hazardous
substance.
``(E) Cooperation, assistance, and access.--The person
provides full cooperation, assistance, and access to persons
that are authorized to conduct response actions or natural
resource restoration at a vessel or facility (including the
cooperation and access necessary for the installation,
integrity, operation, and maintenance of any complete or
partial response actions or natural resource restoration at
the vessel or facility).
``(F) Institutional control.--The person--
``(i) is in compliance with any land use restrictions
established or relied on in connection with the response
action at a vessel or facility; and
``(ii) does not impede the effectiveness or integrity of
any institutional control employed at the vessel or facility
in connection with a response action.
``(G) Requests; subpoenas.--The person complies with any
request for information or administrative subpoena issued by
the President under this Act.
``(H) No affiliation.--The person is not--
``(i) potentially liable, or affiliated with any other
person that is potentially liable, for response costs at a
facility through--
``(I) any direct or indirect familial relationship; or
``(II) any contractual, corporate, or financial
relationship (other than a contractual, corporate, or
financial relationship that is created by the instruments by
which title to the facility is conveyed or financed or by a
contract for the sale of goods or services); or
``(ii) the result of a reorganization of a business entity
that was potentially liable.''.
(b) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--Section 107
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) (as amended by
section 201) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(p) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--
``(1) Limitation on liability.--Notwithstanding subsection
(a)(1), a bona fide prospective purchaser whose potential
liability for a release or threatened release is based solely
on the purchaser's being considered to be an owner or
operator of a facility shall not be liable as long as the
bona fide prospective purchaser does not impede the
performance of a response action or natural resource
restoration.
``(2) Lien.--If there are unrecovered response costs
incurred by the United States at a facility for which an
owner of the facility is not liable by reason of paragraph
(1), and if each of the conditions described in paragraph (3)
is met, the United States shall have a lien on the facility,
or may by agreement with the owner, obtain from the owner a
lien on any other property or other assurance of payment
satisfactory to the Administrator, for the unrecovered
response costs.
``(3) Conditions.--The conditions referred to in paragraph
(2) are the following:
``(A) Response action.--A response action for which there
are unrecovered costs of the United States is carried out at
the facility.
``(B) Fair market value.--The response action increases the
fair market value of the facility above the fair market value
of the facility that existed before the response action was
initiated.
``(4) Amount; duration.--A lien under paragraph (2)--
``(A) shall be in an amount not to exceed the increase in
fair market value of the property attributable to the
response action at the time of a sale or other disposition of
the property;
``(B) shall arise at the time at which costs are first
incurred by the United States with respect to a response
action at the facility;
``(C) shall be subject to the requirements of subsection
(l)(3); and
``(D) shall continue until the earlier of--
``(i) satisfaction of the lien by sale or other means; or
``(ii) notwithstanding any statute of limitations under
section 113, recovery of all response costs incurred at the
facility.''.
SEC. 203. INNOCENT LANDOWNERS.
Section 101(35) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601(35)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the first sentence, in the matter preceding clause
(i), by striking ``deeds or'' and inserting ``deeds,
easements, leases, or''; and
(B) in the second sentence--
(i) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the defendant''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``,
provides full cooperation, assistance, and facility access to
the persons that are authorized to conduct response actions
at the facility (including the cooperation and access
necessary for the installation, integrity, operation, and
maintenance of any complete or partial response action at the
facility), is in compliance with any land use restrictions
established or relied on in connection with the response
action at a facility, and does not impede the effectiveness
or integrity of any institutional control employed at the
facility in connection with a response action.''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) Reason to know.--
``(i) All appropriate inquiries.--To establish that the
defendant had no reason to know of the matter described in
subparagraph (A)(i), the defendant must demonstrate to a
court that--
``(I) on or before the date on which the defendant acquired
the facility, the defendant carried out all appropriate
inquiries, as provided in clauses (ii) and (iv), into the
previous ownership and uses of the facility in accordance
with generally accepted good commercial and customary
standards and practices; and
``(II) the defendant took reasonable steps to--
``(aa) stop any continuing release;
``(bb) prevent any threatened future release; and
``(cc) prevent or limit any human, environmental, or
natural resource exposure to any previously released
hazardous substance.
``(ii) Standards and practices.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of the Brownfields Revitalization
and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, the Administrator
shall by regulation establish standards and practices for the
purpose of satisfying the requirement to carry out all
appropriate inquiries under clause (i).
``(iii) Criteria.--In promulgating regulations that
establish the standards and practices referred to in clause
(ii), the Administrator shall include each of the following:
``(I) The results of an inquiry by an environmental
professional.
``(II) Interviews with past and present owners, operators,
and occupants of the facility for the purpose of gathering
information regarding the potential for contamination at the
facility.
``(III) Reviews of historical sources, such as chain of
title documents, aerial photographs, building department
records, and land use records, to determine previous uses and
occupancies of the real property since the property was first
developed.
``(IV) Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens
against the facility that are filed under Federal, State, or
local law.
``(V) Reviews of Federal, State, and local government
records, waste disposal records, underground storage tank
records, and hazardous waste handling, generation, treatment,
disposal, and spill records, concerning contamination at or
near the facility.
``(VI) Visual inspections of the facility and of adjoining
properties.
``(VII) Specialized knowledge or experience on the part of
the defendant.
``(VIII) The relationship of the purchase price to the
value of the property, if the property was not contaminated.
``(IX) Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable
information about the property.
``(X) The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely
presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to
detect the contamination by appropriate investigation.
``(iv) Interim standards and practices.--
``(I) Property purchased before may 31, 1997.--With respect
to property purchased before May 31, 1997, in making a
determination with respect to a defendant described of clause
(i), a court shall take into account--
``(aa) any specialized knowledge or experience on the part
of the defendant;
``(bb) the relationship of the purchase price to the value
of the property, if the property was not contaminated;
``(cc) commonly known or reasonably ascertainable
information about the property;
``(dd) the obviousness of the presence or likely presence
of contamination at the property; and
``(ee) the ability of the defendant to detect the
contamination by appropriate inspection.
[[Page 6261]]
``(II) Property purchased on or after may 31, 1997.--With
respect to property purchased on or after May 31, 1997, and
until the Administrator promulgates the regulations described
in clause (ii), the procedures of the American Society for
Testing and Materials, including the document known as
`Standard E1527-97', entitled `Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessment: Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessment Process', shall satisfy the requirements in clause
(i).
``(v) Site inspection and title search.--In the case of
property for residential use or other similar use purchased
by a nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility
inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further
investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements
of this subparagraph.''.
TITLE III--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS
SEC. 301. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.
(a) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as amended by section 202) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(41) Eligible response site.--
``(A) In general.--The term `eligible response site' means
a site that meets the definition of a brownfield site in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (39), as modified by
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `eligible response site'
includes--
``(i) notwithstanding paragraph (39)(B)(ix), a portion of a
facility, for which portion assistance for response activity
has been obtained under subtitle I of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.) from the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund established under section
9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
``(ii) a site for which, notwithstanding the exclusions
provided in subparagraph (C) or paragraph (39)(B), the
President determines, on a site-by-site basis and after
consultation with the State, that limitations on enforcement
under section 129 at sites specified in clause (iv), (v),
(vi) or (viii) of paragraph (39)(B) would be appropriate and
will--
``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
``(II) promote economic development or facilitate the
creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a
greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or
other property used for nonprofit purposes.
``(C) Exclusions.--The term `eligible response site' does
not include--
``(i) a facility for which the President--
``(I) conducts or has conducted a preliminary assessment or
site inspection; and
``(II) after consultation with the State, determines or has
determined that the site obtains a preliminary score
sufficient for possible listing on the National Priorities
List, or that the site otherwise qualifies for listing on the
National Priorities List;
unless the President has made a determination that no further
Federal action will be taken; or
``(ii) facilities that the President determines warrant
particular consideration as identified by regulation, such as
sites posing a threat to a sole-source drinking water aquifer
or a sensitive ecosystem.''.
(b) State Response Programs.--Title I of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) (as amended by section 101(b))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 129. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.
``(a) Assistance to States.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) States.--The Administrator may award a grant to a
State or Indian tribe that--
``(i) has a response program that includes each of the
elements, or is taking reasonable steps to include each of
the elements, listed in paragraph (2); or
``(ii) is a party to a memorandum of agreement with the
Administrator for voluntary response programs.
``(B) Use of grants by states.--
``(i) In general.--A State or Indian tribe may use a grant
under this subsection to establish or enhance the response
program of the State or Indian tribe.
``(ii) Additional uses.--In addition to the uses under
clause (i), a State or Indian tribe may use a grant under
this subsection to--
``(I) capitalize a revolving loan fund for brownfield
remediation under section 128(c); or
``(II) purchase insurance or develop a risk sharing pool,
an indemnity pool, or insurance mechanism to provide
financing for response actions under a State response
program.
``(2) Elements.--The elements of a State or Indian tribe
response program referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) are the
following:
``(A) Timely survey and inventory of brownfield sites in
the State.
``(B) Oversight and enforcement authorities or other
mechanisms, and resources, that are adequate to ensure that--
``(i) a response action will--
``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
``(II) be conducted in accordance with applicable Federal
and State law; and
``(ii) if the person conducting the response action fails
to complete the necessary response activities, including
operation and maintenance or long-term monitoring activities,
the necessary response activities are completed.
``(C) Mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful
opportunities for public participation, including--
``(i) public access to documents that the State, Indian
tribe, or party conducting the cleanup is relying on or
developing in making cleanup decisions or conducting site
activities;
``(ii) prior notice and opportunity for comment on proposed
cleanup plans and site activities; and
``(iii) a mechanism by which--
``(I) a person that is or may be affected by a release or
threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant at a brownfield site located in the community in
which the person works or resides may request the conduct of
a site assessment; and
``(II) an appropriate State official shall consider and
appropriately respond to a request under subclause (I).
``(D) Mechanisms for approval of a cleanup plan, and a
requirement for verification by and certification or similar
documentation from the State, an Indian tribe, or a licensed
site professional to the person conducting a response action
indicating that the response is complete.
``(3) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2006.
``(b) Enforcement in Cases of a Release Subject to State
Program.--
``(1) Enforcement.--
``(A) In general.-- Except as provided in subparagraph (B)
and subject to subparagraph (C), in the case of an eligible
response site at which--
``(i) there is a release or threatened release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant; and
``(ii) a person is conducting or has completed a response
action regarding the specific release that is addressed by
the response action that is in compliance with the State
program that specifically governs response actions for the
protection of public health and the environment;
the President may not use authority under this Act to take an
administrative or judicial enforcement action under section
106(a) or to take a judicial enforcement action to recover
response costs under section 107(a) against the person
regarding the specific release that is addressed by the
response action.
``(B) Exceptions.--The President may bring an
administrative or judicial enforcement action under this Act
during or after completion of a response action described in
subparagraph (A) with respect to a release or threatened
release at an eligible response site described in that
subparagraph if--
``(i) the State requests that the President provide
assistance in the performance of a response action;
``(ii) the Administrator determines that contamination has
migrated or will migrate across a State line, resulting in
the need for further response action to protect human health
or the environment, or the President determines that
contamination has migrated or is likely to migrate onto
property subject to the jurisdiction, custody, or control of
a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States
and may impact the authorized purposes of the Federal
property;
``(iii) after taking into consideration the response
activities already taken, the Administrator determines that--
``(I) a release or threatened release may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or
welfare or the environment; and
``(II) additional response actions are likely to be
necessary to address, prevent, limit, or mitigate the release
or threatened release; or
``(iv) the Administrator, after consultation with the
State, determines that information, that on the earlier of
the date on which cleanup was approved or completed, was not
known by the State, as recorded in documents prepared or
relied on in selecting or conducting the cleanup, has been
discovered regarding the contamination or conditions at a
facility such that the contamination or conditions at the
facility present a threat requiring further remediation to
protect public health or welfare or the environment.
Consultation with the State shall not limit the ability of
the Administrator to make this determination.
``(C) Public record.--The limitations on the authority of
the President under subparagraph (A) apply only at sites in
States that maintain, update not less than annually, and make
available to the public a record of sites, by name and
location, at which response actions have been completed in
the previous year and are planned to be addressed under the
State program that specifically governs response actions for
the protection of public health and the environment in the
upcoming year. The public record shall identify whether or
not the site, on completion of the response action, will be
suitable for unrestricted use and, if not, shall identify the
institutional controls relied on in the remedy. Each State
and tribe
[[Page 6262]]
receiving financial assistance under subsection (a) shall
maintain and make available to the public a record of sites
as provided in this paragraph.
``(D) EPA notification.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of an eligible response site
at which there is a release or threatened release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant and for which
the Administrator intends to carry out an action that may be
barred under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall--
``(I) notify the State of the action the Administrator
intends to take; and
``(II)(aa) wait 48 hours for a reply from the State under
clause (ii); or
``(bb) if the State fails to reply to the notification or
if the Administrator makes a determination under clause
(iii), take immediate action under that clause.
``(ii) State reply.--Not later than 48 hours after a State
receives notice from the Administrator under clause (i), the
State shall notify the Administrator if--
``(I) the release at the eligible response site is or has
been subject to a cleanup conducted under a State program;
and
``(II) the State is planning to abate the release or
threatened release, any actions that are planned.
``(iii) Immediate federal action.--The Administrator may
take action immediately after giving notification under
clause (i) without waiting for a State reply under clause
(ii) if the Administrator determines that 1 or more
exceptions under subparagraph (B) are met.
``(E) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of initiation of any enforcement action by the President
under clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of subparagraph (B), the
President shall submit to Congress a report describing the
basis for the enforcement action, including specific
references to the facts demonstrating that enforcement action
is permitted under subparagraph (B).
``(2) Savings provision.--
``(A) Costs incurred prior to limitations.--Nothing in
paragraph (1) precludes the President from seeking to recover
costs incurred prior to the date of enactment of this section
or during a period in which the limitations of paragraph
(1)(A) were not applicable.
``(B) Effect on agreements between states and epa.--Nothing
in paragraph (1)--
``(i) modifies or otherwise affects a memorandum of
agreement, memorandum of understanding, or any similar
agreement relating to this Act between a State agency or an
Indian tribe and the Administrator that is in effect on or
before the date of enactment of this section (which agreement
shall remain in effect, subject to the terms of the
agreement); or
``(ii) limits the discretionary authority of the President
to enter into or modify an agreement with a State, an Indian
tribe, or any other person relating to the implementation by
the President of statutory authorities.
``(3) Effective date.--This subsection applies only to
response actions conducted after February 15, 2001.
``(c) Effect on Federal Laws.--Nothing in this section
affects any liability or response authority under any Federal
law, including--
``(1) this Act, except as provided in subsection (b);
``(2) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.);
``(3) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.);
``(4) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.); and
``(5) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et
seq.).''.
SEC. 302. ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST.
Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) NPL Deferral.--
``(1) Deferral to state voluntary cleanups.--At the request
of a State and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
President generally shall defer final listing of an eligible
response site on the National Priorities List if the
President determines that--
``(A) the State, or another party under an agreement with
or order from the State, is conducting a response action at
the eligible response site--
``(i) in compliance with a State program that specifically
governs response actions for the protection of public health
and the environment; and
``(ii) that will provide long-term protection of human
health and the environment; or
``(B) the State is actively pursuing an agreement to
perform a response action described in subparagraph (A) at
the site with a person that the State has reason to believe
is capable of conducting a response action that meets the
requirements of subparagraph (A).
``(2) Progress toward cleanup.--If, after the last day of
the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the
President proposes to list an eligible response site on the
National Priorities List, the President determines that the
State or other party is not making reasonable progress toward
completing a response action at the eligible response site,
the President may list the eligible response site on the
National Priorities List.
``(3) Cleanup agreements.--With respect to an eligible
response site under paragraph (1)(B), if, after the last day
of the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the
President proposes to list the eligible response site on the
National Priorities List, an agreement described in paragraph
(1)(B) has not been reached, the President may defer the
listing of the eligible response site on the National
Priorities List for an additional period of not to exceed 180
days if the President determines deferring the listing would
be appropriate based on--
``(A) the complexity of the site;
``(B) substantial progress made in negotiations; and
``(C) other appropriate factors, as determined by the
President.
``(4) Exceptions.--The President may decline to defer, or
elect to discontinue a deferral of, a listing of an eligible
response site on the National Priorities List if the
President determines that--
``(A) deferral would not be appropriate because the State,
as an owner or operator or a significant contributor of
hazardous substances to the facility, is a potentially
responsible party;
``(B) the criteria under the National Contingency Plan for
issuance of a health advisory have been met; or
``(C) the conditions in paragraphs (1) through (3), as
applicable, are no longer being met.''.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I move to reconsider the
vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent
that there now be 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.
The Senator from Utah is recognized.
____________________
S. 1, BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the subject of
education, a subject about which we have been hearing a good deal in
the past several months.
I commend President Bush for putting forth a credible plan for
education improvement. The Bush Administration has worked with
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft a policy compromise
which will go along way to securing that all children have access to
quality education. I also commend the distinguished Chairman of the
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP, Committee for his tireless
work on this issue. As former chairman of the then Labor Committee, I
know my friend from Vermont has a job roughly akin to herding cats.
I also appreciate the Majority Leader's diligence and persistence in
continuing to bring this measure up for Senate consideration and his
efforts at brokering a compromise.
President Bush has made it a priority to ensure that State and local
education agencies have the discretion to make key decisions on how
education dollars are spent. I support the President's approach. I have
often said that we should not be second guessing on a federal level the
ability of State and local school boards, educators and parents to
direct the education of students.
President Bush has made it a priority to link a reduction in the
ridiculous amount of red-tape that State and local education agencies
face with real accountability measures.
Paperwork reduction is a decidedly pro-teacher priority, 80 percent
of our nation's educators say that paperwork is their number one
headache. Teachers just want to teach, not fill out forms or go to
meetings required by federal regulations.
The President has made yearly testing a priority and I commend him
for that. In my State of Utah, we have already begun implementing an
annual test. The Utah Performance Assessment System for Students, U-
PASS, requires a statewide criterion referenced test for all students,
grades 1st through 12th in reading, language arts, and math. I am proud
that, once again, Utah educators are ahead of the curve when it comes
to education innovation and reform.
[[Page 6263]]
I sincerely hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
will not stall, delay or prevent the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, or as it is now called, BEST, the Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act. We really need to pass this
bill and set the country on a path toward meaningful education
progress.
The need for reform is great. A recent report from the National
Center for Education Statistics, NAEP, concluded that reading scores
for 4th and 12th graders failed to improve over their 1992 levels. This
study also concluded that 58 percent of disadvantaged children in 4th
grade scored at the ``below basic'' level.
There also is an alarming disparity in skills between white students
and African American students. According to the National Center for
Education Statistics, achievement gaps between white and African-
American 9-year-old students have not narrowed since 1975. The score
gap in reading narrowed to its lowest, 18 points in 1988, and has since
widened to 29 points in 1999. For 17-year-old students, the gap in
reading was also its lowest in 1988, 20 points and has since widened to
31 points in 1999.
Clearly, the challenge is before us. And yes, we can do better.
Many local school districts are struggling. They are struggling with
class sizes that are too large and school buildings that are too small
or dysfunctional. They are struggling to provide books, materials, and
equipment that are appropriate for the 21st century.
They are struggling with resources, so they can pay their teachers
better, increase professional development for educators, and provide
essential music, art and sports opportunities for students as well.
They are struggling with transportation needs, especially in many rural
Utah communities where children can be bused as many as 100 miles
round-trip a day.
There is not a Senator in this body who doesn't want to help solve
these problems. Certainly, I have been a long-time advocate of federal
support for education, and I will continue to make that a top priority.
I honestly believe that colleagues on both sides of the aisle
sincerely and with good intentions want children to attend clean, safe
schools with state of the art technology and teachers who are
appreciated and well paid in reasonably sized classrooms and up-to-date
textbooks.
Sometimes, when the rhetoric gets too hot around these deeply felt
issues, I think it would behoove us all to remember that no one gets
elected to serve as an anti-education Senator.
So, if we are all pro-education then why the debate? Because, of
course, while we all agree on the merits of reform and we all want
education progress, we disagree on the means to achieve this goal. We
cannot afford to tie this bill up in partisan gridlock over a debate on
how much funding to provide. Where there is a will, there is a way, and
we simply have to find that way or we will be letting the American
public down.
While there are good intentions on all sides, some of my colleagues
honestly feel that education policy is best met at the federal level
and that the answer to every education challenge is a new federal
program. Others of us have markedly differing views.
I sincerely believe that State and local officials in Utah's 40
school districts and 763 public schools are the best ones to decide
whether or not to target federal money on school construction,
technology improvements, hiring new teachers, or anything else.
I trust the people of Utah to make these decisions. And, I believe
Utahns are perfectly capable of debating these issues locally and
choosing a course.
I have repeatedly said that Utah does more with less than any State
in the nation. Utah is a worst case scenario when it comes to school
finance, yet we consistently rank highly on student performance
measures. We must be doing something right!
Actually, I think we are doing a lot that is right, and one of the
things that Utah parents do right is spend a lot of time with their
children. An integral part of Utah's way of life involves family-
centered activities. This clearly has spill-over benefits for schools.
Utah can claim some well-deserved bragging rights. For example:
Utah is first in the nation in both advanced placement participation
and performance on a per capita basis.
Utah's dropout rates are substantially lower than the nation's as a
whole.
In the Statewide Testing Program, the performance of Utah students on
the Stanford Achievement Test exceeds national performance in
mathematics, reading, science reasoning, and the composite score.
Since 1984, Utah high school graduates have taken increasingly more
rigorous programs of study with substantial increases in such areas as
mathematics and foreign language.
Utah is second in the nation in the percentage of its adult
population holding a high school diploma.
Utah has made a number of important commitments to advancing
technology in education.
Utah provides incentives for school districts to acquire technology
infrastructure.
Utah installs Internet connections at every school and pays most of
the line charges.
Utah has launched a number of professional development efforts.
Utah provides in-service training opportunities and requires pre-
service teachers to complete a technology course as part of their
preparation program.
Utah parents are educated and informed and take an active role in
educating their children. I firmly believe that this is one of the
reasons why Utah students perform so well.
But, what we need in my State is not a federal superintendent looking
over the shoulder of our State-elected or locally elected school
boards. We need additional resources, plain and simple. But, resources
with so many strings attached bog us down. Give us the flexibility to
manage these resources and apply them to the areas of greatest need in
our State. Measure our children's educational progress. We will meet
the challenge.
I look forward to a challenging and informative debate. It is my
sincere hope that we will be successful in crafting legislation which
will genuinely put children first. Children are America's greatest
asset, and our future depends on their educational excellence. We must
ensure that no child is left behind. We must ensure that the
achievement gap is closed between disadvantaged children and their
peers. We must ensure that every child in this country is prepared for
the challenges and opportunities that await them in the years to come.
For it we fail, we have failed not only ourselves, but future
generations.
I am confident we are up to the task.
____________________
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2001
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate
crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy last month. The
Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current
hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is
unacceptable in our society.
Today, I would like to detail a heinous crime that occurred on
November 6, 1998 in Seattle, Washington. A gay man was severely beaten
with rocks and broken bottles in his neighborhood by a gang of youths
shouting ``faggot.'' The victim sustained a broken nose and swollen
jaw. When he reported the incident to police two days later, the
officer refused to take the report.
I believe that government's first duty is to defend its citizens--to
defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law
Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 is now a symbol that can become
substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change
hearts and minds as well.
____________________
VA CONTINUES TO LEAD THE NATION IN END-OF-LIFE CARE
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am committed to focusing a
spotlight
[[Page 6264]]
on the good work of the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, in the area
of long-term care. VA has hidden its light under a barrel for too long.
The federally funded VA health care system, out of necessity, has
developed some of the most innovative ways to care for older people.
The necessity arises because approximately 34 percent of the total
veteran population is 65 years or older, compared with approximately 13
percent of the general population. And by the year 2010, 42 percent of
the veteran population will be 65 years or older.
As a result of this demand, VA has led the nation in developing adult
day health care programs, standardized clinical treatment protocols and
specialized units for Alzheimer's patients, home-based services, and
respite care. Our older veterans are leading richer lives because of
these innovations.
Today, I wish to highlight the Alzheimer's unit at the Salem VA
hospital, which has received extraordinary praise from the son of a
veteran who was treated there for Alzheimer's.
I know firsthand how difficult it is to care for a loved one
afflicted by Alzheimer's. The special needs of Alzheimer's patients are
all too frequently misunderstood and therefore go unmet. It seems,
however, that the VA is up to the challenge. The family members of this
particular veteran found the care at the VA hospital to be first-rate,
humane and loving. By all accounts, the veteran suffering from
Alzheimer's was well cared for up until the very end.
To quote from the article, ``His daily needs were met by the staff
less from obligation or duty than from true, honest caring. His aimless
wandering was confined behind secured doors, without restraints, thank
goodness. Dad's sleepless nights and constant babbling were `normal'
there. The staff was unshaken by any of his peculiar behavior.''
The Salem VA Alzheimer's unit is not one of a kind, thankfully.
Approximately 56 VA hospitals have specialized programs for the care of
veterans with dementia. These programs include inpatient and outpatient
dementia diagnostic programs, behavior management programs, adapted
work therapy programs for patients with early to mid-stage dementia,
Alzheimer's special care units within VA nursing homes (like Salem's)
and transitional care units, and model inpatient palliative care
programs for patients with late stage dementia. There are also various
programs for family caregivers.
While VA has developed significant expertise in long-term care over
the past 20-plus years, it has not done so with any mandate to share
its learning with others, nor has it pushed its program development
beyond that which met the current needs at the time. For VA's expertise
to be of greatest use to others, it needs both to better capture what
it has done and to develop new learning that would be most applicable
to other health care entities.
Those who would benefit by capitalizing on VA's long-term care
expertise are the health organizations, including academic medicine and
research entities, with which VA is now connected, and the rest of the
U.S. health care system. Ultimately, this expertise can benefit all
Americans who will need some form of long-term care services.
As Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am
enormously proud of VA's efforts in end-of-life care. However, I have
always been dismayed that my colleagues here in the Senate remain for
the most part unaware of VA's good work in this area. Those of us in
the health policy arena should sit up and take notice. We simply must
stay ahead of the curve and explore the various ways to provide such
care, so all Americans will have the best choices available to them at
the time they need them.
I ask consent that a Roanoke Times article on VA Alzheimer's care by
Wayne Slusher, son of a veteran cared for at the Salem VA hospital, be
printed in the Record along with a press release on VA's newest end-of-
life care program, a fellowship in palliative care.
The material follows:
[From the Roanoke (VA) Times, Apr. 1, 2001]
Succumbing to Alzheimer's--In the Hands of the VA, a Declining Father
Got Genuine Care
(By Wayne Slusher)
It started out seemingly innocent enough. Wrong turns on
familiar roads, daily tasks forgotten and numerous other
little things not so significant as to send up red flags, but
still enough that it registered in the back of the mind that
something was not quite right.
In the years following, it got worse. Faucets left on,
asking for dinner an hour after leaving the table, inability
to use the phone, failing to recognize home, and on and on.
It had happened,
``If anything ever happens to me,'' my father would say
time and time again, ``you take me to the VA.'' It was a
frequent topic, since Dad was a deacon in his church and
spent a great deal of time visiting with the sick and the
elderly members in the community.
You spend your whole life hearing it, but reject the idea
that you'll actually have to act on it, much less take him to
the Veterans Affairs Medical Center so far from his home.
Even well-intentioned friends asked, ``Why the VA?''
But then, it had happened, and we decided that going to the
VA for help was what he had always wanted. There was
something so intrinsically important about honoring his wish,
especially when he was at a point of mental incapacity such
that he could no longer contribute to decision-making even
about himself.
So, in the middle of the night, we took him to the
emergency room. As we sat in the waiting room, Dad thought he
was in a train station on his way to visit old Army buddies,
and he was deliriously happy. Instead, the visit was with a
doctor who quickly determined that admission to the hospital
was warranted.
We doubt Dad ever fully understood what transpired that
evening. Leaving him there was one of the most difficult
tasks any of us had ever had to do.
That would be the beginning of our relationship with the VA
and, in particular, the staff providing services for those
with various levels of dementia.
Right away, we learned that the building to which he was
assigned was filled not only with people just like himself,
but also employed a staff of extremely skilled health-care
professionals who began the difficult job of taking care of
my father.
His daily needs were not met by the staff less from
obligation or duty than from true, honest caring. His aimless
wandering was confined behind secured doors--without
restraints, thank goodness. Dad's sleepless nights and
constant babbling were ``normal'' there. The staff was
unshaken by any of his peculiar behaviors. The specially
designed area provided as much of a homelike atmosphere as
possible, with bright colors, hanging plants and murals on
walls. The unit was always clean, always tidy.
The initial few weeks were full of all sorts of cognitive
tests, blood tests and scans. As the results of each test
came in, they ruled out, one by one, any chemical imbalances
or other underlying culprit that might bring on his state of
confusion. If there was a remote possibility, it was tested
for. Indeed, the unthinkable had happened. Only now it had an
official name: Alzheimer's.
In the months that followed, we watched the VA staff do
everything it could for Dad: bathing, dressing, feeding,
changing and hundreds of other daily tasks. Different
medications were tried, and in different combinations and at
different dosages, but his dementia had a mind of its own,
for lack of a better term. What had worked yesterday didn't
work today.
Each visit, Dad would be brought out to the visitation
area--a bright, sunny room with lots of plants, park benches
and a garden scene painted on the walls by the gifted wife of
another patient. The staff was always as glad to see us as we
were to see them, and it was during those months that we
began to realize that Dad, for all those years, had been
absolutely right about where he needed to be if it ever
happened.
The doctors, physician assistants, nurses, social workers,
occupational therapists, dieticians and others associated
with dementia services became more like family. It was
medicine administered in equal portions from the head and
from the heart. As Dad's mental state skidded deeper into a
quagmire, not one member of the staff ever complained. They
looked out for us just as much as they looked after my
father. When it appeared at one point that he might be stable
enough to consider releasing him to a long-term-care
facility, we were dismayed to think he might not receive the
same level of care he'd been getting at the VA. These folks
had come to know my father's needs, and we trusted them fully
with his care.
But the stability was short-lived and all too soon
interrupted by more difficulties. In particular, he's lost
his ability to swallow. In those last days and hours, he was
made as comfortable as possible. Even into the wee hours of
that final morning, the staff kept almost as constant a vigil
by his side as did the family.
The VA, we found, is full of immensely compassionate,
caring professionals who could not have done more for my
father. We think, too, perhaps they do not get recognition
and praise from the community as often as they should.
[[Page 6265]]
With my father's personal nightmare over, the staff at the
VA continues to care for others just as they cared for him.
They deal daily with patients who have long forgotten how to
say thank you. The staff never really knew my ``real''
father, a man who would have been so humbled and grateful for
their help. We hope we said thank you enough on his behalf.
We will never forget their kindness.
____
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Office of Public Affairs Media Relations,
News Release, April 20, 2001.
VA Sponsors New Program for End-of-Life Care
Washington.--Dying is never easy--not for an individual,
not for a family, not for the medical staff who administer
the care. But the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is
taking new steps to ease the process for everyone.
An initiative, called ``VA Interprofessional Fellowship
Program in Palliative Care,'' will develop health-care
professionals with vision, knowledge and compassion to lead
end-of-life care into the 21st century. Although aimed at
improving care for veterans, the program will affect how this
care--known as ``palliative care'' in medical circles--is
provided throughout the country.
``As VA serves an increasingly higher percentage of older
and chronically ill veterans, the need for end-of-life care
similarly increases,'' said Dr. Stephanie H. Pincus, VA chief
officer for Academic Affiliations, a program that educates
more than 90,000 physicians, medical students, and associated
health professionals each year. ``This interdisciplinary
fellowship will jump-start palliative care as an important
field in health care. It will change the way physicians,
social workers, nurses and other caregivers approach patients
at an extremely difficult time in their lives.''
Historically, VA has taken a leadership role in the
promotion and development of hospice care and, more recently,
in a national pain management initiative. In 1998, VA's
Office of Academic Affiliations addressed the need for
clinicians trained in end-of-life care and was awarded a
$985,000 grant by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to
support further education. On March 1, 2001, the palliative
care fellowship program was announced and will involve up to
six sites, with four one-year fellowships provided at each
site.
``The training changes the focus of health-care providers
who are treating the terminally ill,'' said Pincus. ``In the
past, doctors saw death as a failure, so they consequently
focused on medical cures and preventing death at any cost. We
are training medical care staff now to concentrate on symptom
management rather than disease management.''
Pincus further explained that the new fellowship program
has a large educational component. Trained clinicians are
expected to serve as leaders promoting development and
research. Selected training sites will be required to develop
and implement an ``Education Dissemination Project'' to
spread information beyond the training site through
conferences, curricula for training programs, patient
education materials and clinical demonstration projects.
And, of course, as resident doctors go out into the
community, they take their training with them. More than 130
VA facilities have affiliations with 107 medical schools and
1,200 other schools across the country. More than half the
physicians practicing in the United States have received part
of their professional education in the VA health care system.
``This is an important step for health-care providers. But
what does this mean to the chronically ill veteran?'' said
Pincus. ``It means that he will be more comfortable. It means
he might not have to die in ICU but instead be able to remain
in the secure surroundings of his home. It means he will be
treated by a caring, trained partnership of doctors, nurses,
chaplains and social workers. It means his family will be
included in decision-making and care giving.
``There comes a time when all the modern medicine in the
world can't cure the illness. That's when treating the pain,
communicating with compassion and providing support and
counseling become paramount. And that's what these
fellowships are all about,'' said Pincus.
____________________
50TH ANNIVERSARY MEMORIAL SERVICE OF THE 442ND REGIMENTAL COMBAT TEAM
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on March 25, 2001, I returned to my home
State of Hawaii to attend the 50th Anniversary Memorial Service of the
442nd Regimental Combat Team at the National Memorial Cemetery of the
Pacific. The memorial address was presented by Mr. H. David Burge,
Director of the Spark M. Matsunaga Veterans Affairs Medical & Regional
Office Center in Honolulu.
I was moved and impressed by his remarks, and I wish to share them
with the American people. I ask that Mr. Burge's address be part of the
Record.
The remarks follow:
I am very honored to be the first speaker in the 21st
century at the 442nd Veterans Club's 58th Anniversary
Memorial Service here at the National Memorial Cemetery of
the Pacific.
This morning is time to remember and pay special tribute to
boyhood friends and classmates lost in battle, dear friends
and loved ones no longer with us, and cherished members of
the 442nd who continue to serve as good family and community
elders and leaders. As we enter the new millennium, this is a
time for members, families, and friends of the 442nd to
reflect on the past, to celebrate the present, and to
contemplate the future.
Our men of the 442nd are testament to the joys, heartache,
and major accomplishments of the 20th century both here in
Hawaii and the Nation. To reflect on the past, let's roll the
clock back to the 1940s and see that period through snapshots
familiar to many of you.
In 1940, the U.S. Government felt that war with Japan was
imminent. As such, Japanese Americans were released and
banned from employment at Pearl Harbor and other military
bases in Hawaii without explanation or justification. Despite
these early warning signs, Japanese Americans in Hawaii did
not feel an acute sense of crisis. While Japanese American
bashing was increasing on the mainland, most people in Hawaii
where all groups were minorities had no animosity towards
their Japanese neighbors.
My mother's 1941 McKinley High School Black and Gold
Yearbook, published six months before the attack on Pearl
Harbor, provides a glimpse into the daily activities,
beliefs, and values of young Nisei in Hawaii prior to the
outbreak of World War II. In this regard, let me share with
you the introduction section of the yearbook:
In 1941, we find our sports-minded typical McKinley boy
standing five feet, six inches in height weighing 124 pounds
with naturally straight hair and brown eyes. The typical
McKinley girl is a petite lassie, five ft., one inch in
height, weighing a dainty 97 pounds, has black hair and is
brown-eyed. Both are Americans of Japanese ancestry.
Their trim figures and fresh complexions are accounted for
by their nine hours of sleep each night and their daily glass
of milk. Typical boy usually buys his lunch outside the
school. Not so typical girl. She knows the importance of a
healthy meal and depends on the school cafeteria for it.
The typical boy looks forward to weekend social activities.
He considers school dances tops and goes to as many of the
class, student body, and club dances as he possibly can, but
give jitter-bugging and waltzing only slight nod. He usually
goes stag to dances because of the small size of his
pocketbook. His favorite recreations are football, listening
to the radio, and going to movies with his friends.''
In general, the description of the typical Nisei student at
McKinley could have been a description of a typical student
at any American high school at that time. This is not
surprising since these high school students truly believed
that they were Americans and acted accordingly.
The Nisei students were heavily influenced by the McKinley
faculty almost entirely from the mainland with a heavy
concentration from the midwest. Their principal, Dr. Miles
Carey, indicated that his primary objective was in his words,
``helping our young people to develop those attitudes,
dispositions, and abilities which we call the democratic way
of living together.''
The results of a student survey included in the yearbook
reflected how strongly these young students embraced these
democratic beliefs. Moved by the growing crisis in Europe,
the Nisei students believed that the honor of the United
States should always be defended, even if it meant going to
war. They believed that common people should have more say in
the government. They also believed that all races were
mentally equal. It was also noteworthy that the Nisei
students firmly believed that the Hawaiian Islands would be
more efficiently run when they attained voting age.
My final observation in reviewing the yearbook was the
dedication page. It underscored the foundation for the Nisei
student's core values. It read, ``Respectfully dedicated to
our parents and the excellent home influence given us.''
Six months after publication of that yearbook, on the
morning of December 7, 1941, the lives of these young Nisei
were forever changed as they became part of one of America's
most dramatic stories--a story of shameful treatment by our
government, a story of heroic feats on the battlefield, a
story of major accomplishments in business and government
after the war, and finally a story of full vindication and
pride for all Americans of Japanese ancestry.
Just prior to the enemy attack on Hawaii, Washington
emphasized the danger of sabotage by the local Japanese
population to local military commanders. Follow on actions to
cluster aircraft in the middle of airfield to guard against
such local sabotage resulted in easy targets for attacking
enemy aircraft and needless destruction of most American
aircraft on the ground at Hickam, Wheeler, Bellows and Ford
Island.
[[Page 6266]]
After the attack, Hawaii Territorial Governor Poindexter
told President Roosevelt that what he feared most was
sabotage by the large Japanese community. Subsequently, 1,000
innocent Japanese Americans--Buddhist priests, language
school teachers, civic and business leaders, fishermen, and
judo instructors--were arrested and detained in tents on Sand
Island. A number of these individuals and their families,
without any proof and without any due process, were
subsequently transported to prisoner of war camps on the
mainland.
Secretary of Navy Frank Knox who visited Hawaii the week
following the attack reported to the President and Congress
that the devastation at Pearl Harbor was the most effective
fifth column work that had come out of any war in history.
His sensational and totally unfounded assessment that
Japanese Americans in Hawaii had aided the enemy attack hit
the headlines in newspapers across America, and significantly
fueled anti-Japanese American sentiment. The follow on rumors
of sabotage and espionage emanating from Hawaii, although
untrue, were used by West Coast groups to demand and justify
the wholesale internment of Japanese American families living
in California, Oregon, and Washington into concentration
camps in remote areas far from their homes.
Immediately after the attack, at a time that Hawaii was
still very vulnerable to another raid and possible occupation
by enemy forces, 317 Japanese American members of the Hawaii
Territorial Guard were involuntarily discharged without any
explanation. In addition, 2,000 Japanese American soldiers
already on active duty were recalled to Schofield Army
Barracks, stripped of their weapons, and separated from their
non-Japanese buddies and under orders from Washington, they
were shipped to the interior of the mainland for security
reasons. Finally, Japanese Americans were declared ineligible
for military service and classified as enemy aliens. All of
these unthinkable actions occurred at a time that every able-
bodied man was needed to defend Hawaii.
The ultimate act of wartime hysteria in Hawaii occurred in
February 1942 when President Roosevelt ordered the evacuation
and internment of all Japanese Americans in Hawaii in
concentration camps on the mainland. Fortunately, the
military was unable to carry out the President's order since
there were not enough ships to conduct such a massive
evacuation and the evacuation of such a large number of
workers would have crippled the islands. As such, the
evacuation orders were delayed several times and finally
abandoned in 1943.
Could any of us today who did not experience this war time
hysteria truly understand and appreciate the impact of these
outrageous actions on Japanese American families, especially
young Nisei family members? Hawaii's Nisei truly believed
they were Americans. They were equally offended by the
vicious attack on their homeland and equally ready to serve
their country. As just teenagers the rejection and hostility
vented towards them and their families by their own
government were beyond comprehension.
But perhaps unconsciously they responded in a very Japanese
way by doing the only thing they could under such extreme
circumstances that is stepping forward. Stepping forward with
loyalty and courage in order to honor their families and to
demonstrate to their fellow countrymen that they were worthy
Americans. While there was more than sufficient justification
for turning inward and refusing to support the government
that had treated them so brutally and unfairly, Nisei young
men demanded the right to fight.
As we know today, the Nisei achieved their objective but at
a very high price. The 100th Infantry Battalion led the way
and after nine long months of bitter fighting from Salerno to
Anzio was joined in Rome by the 442nd Regimental Combat Team.
Thereafter the two Japanese American units remained as one
through the bloody fighting in northern Italy and France to
the end of the war.
Bill Mauldin, the Stars and Stripes cartoonist who created
the beloved infantry characters Willie and Joe, described the
Nisei unit as follows:
``No combat unit in the army could exceed the Japanese
Americans in loyalty, hard work, courage and sacrifice.
Hardly a man of them hadn't been decorated at least twice,
and their casualty lists were appalling. When they were in
the line, they worked harder than anybody else. As far as the
army was concerned, the Nisei could do no wrong. We were
proud to be wearing the same uniform.''
This morning we gather to remember and honor the typical
McKinley boy and other young Nisei who fell on the
battlefields in Europe. They were good and brave Americans.
They brought honor to their families and great pride to all
citizens of Hawaii. It is unfortunate that these young men
did not live to see the full measure of their ultimate
sacrifices.
The insignia of the 442nd is the Statue of Liberty hand
holding the torch of freedom. This symbol is most appropriate
because it exemplifies the unit's steadfast belief in not
only freedom for all men but also through their actions and
sacrifices on the battlefield final freedom for Japanese
Americans in the form of real acceptance by their fellow
countrymen.
When President Truman welcomed home the 100th and 442nd, he
said to them, ``You are on the way home. You fought not only
the enemy, but you fought prejudice and you have won. Keep up
that fight and we will continue to win, to make this great
Republic stand for just what the Constitution says it stands
for: the welfare of all the people all the time.''
Perhaps President Truman did not fully realize the extent
to which the Nisei veterans would take to heart his challenge
to keep up the fight to ensure the welfare of all the people
all of the time. Although the war abroad was won, Nisei
veterans continued to forge ahead on the home front after the
war to ensure that their sacrifices in battle were not made
in vain. As many can attest today much hard work was needed
at the end of the war to accomplish President Truman's goal.
The enormity of the task at hand was reflected in comments
made at that time by the U.S. Speaker of the House, Sam
Rayburn. In voicing his opposition to statehood for Hawaii he
said, ``If we give them Statehood they'll send a delegation
of Japs here.''
This inflammatory statement was made by the powerful
Speaker from Texas whose Texas Lost Battalion was rescued two
years earlier in Europe by Nisei soldiers at a cost 800 Nisei
casualties to rescue 200 Texans. Unfortunately, much work
still remained to be accomplished at home, but the Nisei
veterans, as previously demonstrated in battle, were
undaunted in their quest and pressed on with unrelenting
effort.
These veterans were firm in the conviction they expressed
in that 1941 McKinley High School survey that the Nisei
generation would, in fact, make positive improvements in
Hawaii and our nation. More than a half-century later, we
know that our Nisei veterans were more than up to the task
and, as such, we have much to celebrate today.
Today a Sansei from Kauai, Eric Shinseki, serves as Chief
of Staff of the United States Army. This general of all
generals often relates stories of personal inspiration based
on the experiences of his Nisei family members who served in
World War II the same Nisei soldiers from Hawaii who were
once designated enemy aliens and denied the opportunity to
fight for their country.
Today 22 Nisei World War II veterans are Congressional
Medal of Honor recipients. I was honored to attend the
ceremonies last year in Washington and to witness the awards
made by President Clinton. At the White House ceremony, the
President attributed the lack of proper and timely
recognition for these individuals to three factors: war-time
hysteria, racial discrimination, and a complete breakdown in
national leadership. The President went on the praise all
Japanese Americans who served in World War II despite the
error of our nation in questioning their loyalty and
wrongfully interning their families.
Today we have the names of our new Nisei Medal of Honor
recipients forever etched in stone in the Hall of Heroes at
the Pentagon. In viewing the new inscriptions, I was moved to
see these names added along side the names of other American
heroes from every war in our nation's history. I was also
proud to see great sounding American names on the wall--
Hajiro, Hayashi, Inouye, Kuroda, Muranaga, Nakae, Nakamura,
Nishimoto, Okubo, Okutsu, Ono, Otani, Sakato, and Tanouye.
Today, a Nisei is the first and only Asian American to
serve as a Cabinet member. Norman Mineta, who served as
Secretary of Commerce for President Clinton and continues to
serve today as Secretary of Transportation for President
Bush, was a youngster in California when his family was sent
to an American concentration camp. He vividly recollects how
the military police took away his favorite baseball bat
because they viewed it as a weapon.
Today, a brand new National Japanese American Memorial
proudly stands on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The
Memorial, the first and only memorial dedicated to any ethnic
group in our Nation's capitol, is dedicated to Japanese
American immigrants who valiantly fought for and attained
their full rights as citizens.
When I attended the dedication ceremony for the new
Memorial last fall, I was overwhelmed by the great honor
finally bestowed upon Japanese Americans by our great nation.
Think about it for a moment--America is a country of
immigrants--many waves of immigrants. And today, there is
only one memorial to honor any of these immigrants in the
shadow of our nation's Capitol--that is the Japanese American
Memorial.
And finally today, a brand new, state-of-art veteran's
medical center, named after the late Senator Spark M.
Matsunaga, now proudly serves all our veterans here in
Hawaii.
So today, I say to our Nisei veterans you have brought
great pride to your families as well as pride in their
heritage for future generations of Japanese Americans. More
importantly, you have ensured that your friends, who were
lost in battle, did not die in vain.
So at this juncture, where are our Nisei veterans headed
next? Are they declaring
[[Page 6267]]
victory and passing the 442nd's Statue of Liberty torch on to
others?
While such action would certainly be justified, it would
not reflect the values ingrained into many Nisei by their
progressive high school teachers who exposed them to the
ideals of justice and equality and urged them to continually
reach out to others.
It is said that McKinley Principal Miles Carey got people
to do what he wanted because he treated them humanely and
considerately. If there was any fault with Dr. Carey, and
maybe it was not a fault, he was dreamer. But all of this was
due to his efforts to treat people right. And in this regard,
he did an outstanding job in getting his students to think
like him. So it is not surprising that the final chapters of
American's Nisei veterans are still being written.
Here in Hawaii, our Nisei veterans are currently developing
and endowing at the University of Hawaii a Nisei Veterans
Forum on Universal Values for a Democratic Society. The
purpose of this effort is to show current and future
generations of high school students the benefits of the
values drawn from the various ethnic groups here in Hawaii--
values similar to those of Nisei veterans that were used to
help them persevere through challenging times during their
lives. In this manner, Nisei veterans are passing on to
future generations of students the same type of beliefs and
values they were exposed to during their formative years.
On the national front, Nisei and Sansei from Hawaii and the
mainland are actively engaged in the important work of the
new Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles. The
Museum is the first and only national museum dedicated to an
ethnic group in America. Through both fixed and traveling
exhibits, the Museum shares the darkest and brightest moments
for Japanese Americans with others both at home and abroad.
It is noteworthy that the City of Los Angeles currently lists
the Museum as one of seven must see attractions in its
brochures provide to tourists.
The Museum has also received a large federal grant this
year, through the sponsorship of Senator Inouye, that will
use the experiences of Japanese American veterans from World
War II, Korea, and Vietnam as the foundation for a new Center
for the Preservation of Democracy. In this manner, the
sacrifices of our Nisei veterans will be captured and used to
construct a very real and moving American story. A story that
needs to be told over and over again to current and future
generations of Americans so that no group of Americans is
ever subjected to what Japanese Americans experienced.
Well, 60 years has now passed since that Black & Gold
Yearbook of 1941. Today, the typical McKinley boy from that
time is still five ft., six inches tall, but perhaps heavier
than the then reported 124 pounds. By contrast, I know that
the typical McKinley girl from that same period is still five
ft., one inch tall, and still weighs 97 pounds.
Regarding the results of that 1941 high school survey, I
say to our Nisei veterans you successfully carried through on
your convictions. You stepped forward to defend your country
and after the war worked hard to make Hawaii and our nation
better places to live.
You are grayer and wiser than you were 60 years ago. You
still believe in honor, duty, and country and have a proven
record to show these are not just words. You are still humble
and as such will not bathe yourselves in glory although most
of us realize you deserve such honor. And perhaps more
important, you truly care about your families and all
families in America. For it is through your story that your
children, grandchildren, and future generations will cherish
and take great pride in their Japanese American heritage. And
it is through this same story that other Americans will learn
that the preservation of our democracy requires constant
vigilance and courage to not allow hysteria of any kind to
strip innocent Americans of their basic rights.
That 1941 yearbook states, ``Respectfully dedicated to our
parents and the excellent home influence given us.'' Today I
say to our Nisei veterans who died in combat, to our Nisei
veterans who returned home and are no longer with us, and to
our Nisei veterans we are blessed to still have with us: We
dedicated this service to you and the excellent influence you
have had on us.
God bless our Nisei veterans and their families, God bless
their beloved Hawaii, and God bless the great nation they
served so well both in battle and in peace.
____________________
THE CLEAN EFFICIENT AUTOMOBILES RESULTING FROM ADVANCED CAR
TECHNOLOGIES ACT OF 2001
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to address a bill I have just
introduced, S. 760, the ``CLEAR Act,'' which is short for the Clean
Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies Act.
Let me begin my remarks by thanking the original cosponsors of S.
760, Senators Rockefeller, Jeffords, Kerry, Crapo, Lieberman, Collins,
Chafee, and Gordon Smith, all of whom have joined with me in drafting
this legislation which will help our country achieve a greater reliance
on alternative fuel technologies.
Our proposal relies on a system of tax-based incentives to encourage
development of alternative fuel technologies and consumer acceptance of
these products. Rather than rely on a system of federal mandates, we
use tax credits to promote all of the advanced technologies being
pursued by auto manufacturers in a dramatic effort to reduce emissions
and improve efficiency. These technologies include: fuel cell; hybrid
electric; alternative fuel; and battery electric vehicles.
It is significant that our bipartisan initiative is founded on a
belief that government should not be in the business of picking winners
and losers in the free market. Rather, the CLEAR Act leaves it up to
the consumer to choose among the lowest emitting vehicles.
By promoting the technologies and fuels that improve air quality, S.
760 helps to solve two of our nation's most difficult and expensive
problems, air pollution and energy dependence. These are issues of
critical concern in my home state of Utah. According to a study by
Utah's Division of Air Quality, on-road vehicles in Utah account for 22
percent of particulate matter. This particulate matter can be harmful
to citizens who suffer from chronic respiratory or heart disease,
influenza, or asthma.
Automobiles also contribute significantly to hydrocarbon and nitrogen
oxide emissions in my state. These two pollutants react in sunlight to
form ozone, which in turn reduces lung function in humans and hurts our
resistance to colds and asthma. In addition, vehicles account for as
much as 87 percent of carbon monoxide emissions. Carbon monoxide can be
harmful to persons with heart, respiratory, or circulatory ailments.
While Utah has made important strides in improving air quality, it is
a fact that each year more vehicular miles are driven in our State. It
is clear that if we are to have cleaner air, we must encourage the use
of alternative fuels and technologies to reduce vehicle emissions.
Let me paint the picture on the national scale. In 1998, a year for
which we have complete data, our nation had 121 regions that failed to
attain the Environmental Protection Agency's National Ambient Air
Quality Standards, NAAQS. This status directly threatens the quality of
life of more than 100 million, or about one-third, of our citizens who
must bear the health and the economic burden associated with non-
attainment. Non-attainment status can be costly, whether due to the
loss of federal highway money, lost economic opportunities, or the
expensive measures required to reach attainment.
EPA has set new standards for both ozone and particulate matter, PM
2.5. By the EPA's own estimates, the annual cost of achieving the new
ozone standard in 2010 was set at $9.6 billion. Additionally, the EPA
put the annual cost of achieving the PM 2.5 standard at $37 billion,
for a combined cost of $47 billion annually. These staggering figures
paint a graphic picture of why we need to invest more effort toward the
promotion of alternative fuels. Every new alternative fuel or advanced
technology car, truck, or bus on the road will displace a conventional
vehicle's lifetime of emissions and reliance on imported oil.
This brings me to another important benefit of the CLEAR Act,
increased energy independence. Whether during the energy crisis in the
1970s, during the Persian Gulf War, or during our current energy
crisis, every American has felt the sting of our dependency on foreign
oil. And I might add, Mr. President, that our dependency on foreign oil
has steadily increased to the point where we now depend on foreign
sources for more than 57 percent of our oil. Last month alone, it was
over 60 percent. When enacted, the CLEAR Act will play a key role in
helping our nation improve its energy security by increasing the
diversity of our fuel options and decreasing our need for gasoline. Our
nation's energy strategy will not be complete without an incentive
[[Page 6268]]
to increase the use of alternative fuels and advanced car technologies.
Historically, consumers have faced three basic obstacles to accepting
the use of alternative fuels and advanced technologies. These are the
cost of the vehicles, the cost of alternative fuel, and the lack of an
adequate infrastructure of alternative fueling stations. The CLEAR Act
would lower all three of these barriers.
First, we provide a tax credit of 50 cents per gasoline-gallon
equivalent for the purchase of alternative fuel at retail. To give
customers better access to alternative fuel, we extend an existing
deduction for the capital costs of installing alternative fueling
stations. We also provide a 50 percent credit for the installation
costs of retail and residential refueling stations.
Finally, we provide tax credits to consumers to purchase alternative
fuel and advanced technology vehicles. To make certain that the tax
benefit we provide translates into a corresponding benefit to the
environment, we split the vehicle tax credit into two. One part
provides a base tax credit for the purchase of vehicles dedicated to
the use of alternative fuel or vehicles using advanced technologies.
The other part offers a bonus credit based on the vehicle's efficiency
and reduction in emissions. In this way, we are confident that the
CLEAR Act will provide the biggest possible ``bang for the buck'' in
terms of providing a social benefit to our citizens.
We all recognize that in the future we will not use gasoline fueled
vehicles to the same extent we do today. Our legislation is an attempt
to bring benefits of cleaner air to our citizens sooner, to free our
cities from expensive EPA regulations, and to reduce our consumption of
foreign oil. S. 760 enables us to tackle these problems with
incentives, not mandates.
Our proposal is the most comprehensive legislation ever brought
before Congress to promote the use of alternative fuel vehicles and
advanced car technologies among consumers. We urge our colleagues to
join with us in this forward-looking approach to cleaner air and
increased energy independence.
____________________
THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday,
Tuesday, April 24, 2001, the Federal debt stood at
$5,681,673,830,247.36, Five trillion, six hundred eighty-one billion,
six hundred seventy-three million, eight hundred thirty thousand, two
hundred forty-seven dollars and thirty-six cents.
One year ago, April 24, 2000, the Federal debt stood at
$5,711,906,000,000, Five trillion, seven hundred eleven billion, nine
hundred six million.
Five years ago, April 24, 1996, the Federal debt stood at
$5,110,704,000,000, Five trillion, one hundred ten billion, seven
hundred four million.
Ten years ago, April 24, 1991, the Federal debt stood at
$3,438,135,000,000, Three trillion, four hundred thirty-eight billion,
one hundred thirty-five million.
Fifteen years ago, April 24, 1986, the Federal debt stood at
$1,959,555,000,000, One trillion, nine hundred fifty-nine billion, five
hundred fifty-five million, which reflects a debt increase of more than
$3 trillion, $3,722,118,830,247.36, Three trillion, seven hundred
twenty-two billion, one hundred eighteen million, eight hundred thirty
thousand, two hundred forty-seven dollars and thirty-six cents during
the past 15 years.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
CONGRATULATING CENTRAL FALLS HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this past weekend, twenty-two
exceptional students from Central Falls High School in Rhode Island
visited Washington to compete in the national finals of the ``We The
People . . . The Citizen And The Constitution'' program, after
finishing in first place in the Rhode Island competition. In fact, this
is the fourth time that the Central Falls High School team has won the
statewide competition!
For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with it, the ``We The
People . . . The Citizen And The Constitution'' program is among the
most extensive educational specifically to ensure that young people
understand the history and philosophy of the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights. The three-day national competition simulates a congressional
hearing in which students are given the opportunity to demonstrate
their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on
historical and contemporary constitutional issues.
Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the ``We The People .
. . The Citizen And The Constitution'' program provide an excellent
opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective on the
significance of the U.S. Constitution and its place in our history. It
is heartwarming to see young Rhode Islanders taking such an active and
participatory interest in public affairs.
I am very proud of Gabriel Arias, Jorge Bolivar, Andrew Castillo,
Karen Corrales, Johnathan DePina, Kinga Dobrzycki, Kayla England, Renee
Fisher, Christina Garcia, Roseangel Gavidia, Karen Hurtado, Deborah
Navarro, Jessica Pareja, Denisse Reyes, Erik Rua, Shirley Rua, Jesse
Salazar, Janet Sanchez, Corey Stad, Monica Torres, Vladimir Uran,
Sirabel Uran, for making it to the national finals. I congratulate this
outstanding group of young men and women for their hard work and
perseverance. Also, I want to applaud Jeff Schanck, a fine teacher who
deserves so much credit for guiding the Central Falls High School team
to the national finals.
Yesterday, I was pleased to visit with the students from Central
Falls to offer my congratulations for what they have achieved. These
students, with the guidance of Mr. Schanck, have learned much about the
meaning of our nation and what countless men and women have fought and
died to protect. No matter what the outcome of the contest, they have
each earned the greatest prize of all: Knowledge.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Ms. Evans, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the presiding officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 11:14 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that pursuant to
section 1238(b) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) and the order of the
House of Wednesday, April 4, 2001, the Speaker on Thursday, April 5,
2001, appointed the following members on the part of the House of
Representatives to the United States-China Security Review Commission:
Mr. Stephen D. Bryen of Maryland, Ms. June Teufel Dryer of Florida, and
Mr. James R. Lilley of Maryland.
The message also announced that the House has passed the following
bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:
H.R. 428. An act concerning the participation of Taiwan in
the World Health Organization.
The message further announced that the House disagrees to the
amendment of the Senate to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83)
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting forth appropriate
budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011, and agree
[[Page 6269]]
to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses thereon; and appoints Mr. Nussle, Mr. Sununu, and Mr.
Spratt, as the managers of the conference on the part of the House.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bill was read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 428. An act concerning the participation of Taiwan in
the World Health Organization; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
____________________
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-1534. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, a report relative to Voluntary Stationary
Source Emission Reduction Programs Into State Implementation
Plans; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1535. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, a report entitled ``1999/2000 PCB Questions and
Answers Manual--Part 4''; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
EC-1536. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, a report entitled ``Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive Programs''; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-1537. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units for Which Construction is Commenced After
September 18, 1978; Standards of Performance for Industrial-
Commercial-Industrial Steam Generating Units'' (FRL6965-4)
received on April 5, 2001; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-1538. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production'' (FRL6965-5)
received on April 5, 2001; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-1539. A communication from the Assistant to the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Aid
in Sport Fish Restoration Program, Participation by the
District of Columbia and U.S. Insular Territories and
Commonwealths, 50 CFR part 80'' (RIN1018-AD 83) received on
April 6, 2001; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-1540. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Transportation Conformity: Idaho'' (FRL6957-1) received on
April 6, 2001; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-1541. A communication from the Acting Secretary of the
Army, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
navigation study for Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1542. A communication from the Acting Secretary of the
Army, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
navigation improvements for the Port Jersey Channel, Bayonne,
New Jersey; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1543. A communication from the Acting Secretary of the
Army, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to
Success Dam, Tule River Basin, California; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1544. A communication from the Acting Secretary of the
Army, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
Upper Des Plaines River, Illinois; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-1545. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a vacancy in the position of Administrator of
the Federal Highway Administration, Department of
Transportation; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-1546. A communication from the Assistant to the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Aid
in Sport Fish Restoration Program, Participation by the
District of Columbia and U.S. Insular Territories and
Commonwealths, 50 CFR part 80'' (RIN1018-AB83) received on
April 6, 2001; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-1547. A communication from the General Counsel of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Disaster Assistance;
Cerro Grande Fire Assistance'' (RIN3067-AD12) received on
April 6, 2001; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-1548. A communication from the General Counsel of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of the designation of acting officer for
the position of Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-1549. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``EPA International Green Buildings Initiative'' received on
April 11, 2001; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-1550. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Gasoline Volatility
Requirements for Allegheny County'' (FRL6962-3) received on
April 11, 2001; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-1551. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, a report entitled ``2001 Update of Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium''; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-1552. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, a report entitled ``Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation Guidance for Operators of Public Water
Systems Serving 10,000 of Fewer People''; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-1553. A communication from the Chairman of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, transmitting, a report on licensing
activities and regulatory duties; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-1554. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Nebraska'' (FRL6968-5) received on April 19, 2001; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1555. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Idaho'' (FRL6962-1) received on April 19, 2001; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1556. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Final Additions to the Final Guidelines for the
Certification and Recertification of the Operators of
Community and Nontransient Noncommunity Public Water Systems;
Final Allocation Methodology for Funding to States for the
Operator Certification Expense Reimbursement Grants Program''
(FRL6967-3) received on April 19, 2001; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-1557. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan,
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District'' (FRL6963-1)
received on April 19, 2001; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-1558. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision to the California State Implementation Plan; Bay
Area Air Quality Management District and Imperial County Air
Pollution Control District'' (FRL6954-8) received on April
19, 2001; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1559. A communication from the Chief of the Division of
Scientific Authority, Fish and Wildlife Service,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Changes in List of Species in Appendices to the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora'' (RIN1018-AH63) received on April 18, 2001; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1560. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Post 96 Rate of Progress Plan, Motor Vehicles Emissions
Budgets (MVEB) and Contingency Measures for the Houston/
Galveston (HGA) Ozone Nonattainment Area'' (FRL6969-3)
received on April 19, 2001; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
[[Page 6270]]
EC-1561. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans (SIP); Texas: Control of Gasoline
Volatility'' (FRL6969-4) received on April 23, 2001; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1562. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bay Checkerspot
Butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis)'' (RIN1018-AH61)
received on April 23, 2001; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-1563. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, a report entitled ``Reregistration Eligibility
Decision: Diclofop-Methyl''; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1564. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, a report entitled ``Report on FQPA Tolerance
Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk Management Decision
for Fenitrothion''; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1565. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, a report entitled ``Interim Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (IRED) for Fenthion''; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1566. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, a report entitled ``Reregistration Eligibility
Decision: Etridiazole (Terrazole)''; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1567. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, a report entitled ``Interim Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (IRED): Oxamyl''; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1568. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, a report entitled ``Reregistration Eligibility
Decision: Vinclozlin''; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1569. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Zoxamide 3,5-dichloro-N-(3-chloro-1-methyl-2-oxopropyl)-4-
Methylbenzamide; Pesticide Tolerance'' (FRL6774-8) received
on April 6, 2001; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
EC-1570. A communication from the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Farm Credit Administration,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Risk-Based
Capital Requirements'' (RIN3052-AB56) received on April 6,
2001; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-1571. A communication from the Acting Administrator of
the Commodity Credit Corporation, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Dairy and Cranberry Market Loss Assistance Programs, Honey
Marketing Assistance Loan and LDP Program, Sugar Nonrecourse
Loan Program, and Payment Limitations for Marketing Loan
Gains and Loan Deficiency Payments'' received on April 11,
2001; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-1572. A communication from the Acting Administrator of
the Commodity Credit Corporation, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Dairy Price Support, Dairy Recourse Loan, Livestock
Assistance, American Indian Livestock Feed, and Pasture
Recovery Programs'' (RIN0560-AG32) received on April 11,
2001; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-1573. A communication from the Acting Administrator of
the Commodity Credit Corporation, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``2001 Crop Disaster Program'' (RIN0560-AG32) received on
April 11, 2001; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
EC-1574. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Propiconazole; Time-Limited Pesticide Tolerance'' (FRL6778-
1) received on April 11, 2001; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1575. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Metolachlor: Extension of Tolerance for Emergency
Exemptions'' (FRL6778-6) received on April 11, 2001; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1576. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Flumioxazin, Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL6778-5) received on
April 19, 2001; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
EC-1577. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL6778-8) received on
April 19, 2001; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
EC-1578. A communication from the Acting Administrator of
the Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable
Programs, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Irish Potatoes Grown
in Washington; Exemption from Handling and Assessment
Regulations for Potatoes Shipped for Experimental Purposes''
(FV00-946-1 FIR) received on April 19, 2001; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1579. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator of Policy and Program Development, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Brucellosis in Cattle; State and Area Classifications;
South Dakota'' (Doc. No. 00-103-2) received on April 19,
2001; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-1580. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator of Policy and Program Development, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Pine Shoot Beetle; Addition to Quarantined Area'' (Doc No.
99-101-2) received on April 19, 2001; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1581. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator of Policy and Program Development, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Imported Fire Ant; Addition to Quarantined Areas'' (Doc.
No. 00-076-2) received on April 19, 2001; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1582. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator of Policy and Program Development, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Tuberculosis Testing for Imported Cattle'' (Doc. No. 00-
102-1) received on April 19, 2001; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1583. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator of Policy and Program Development, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Brucellosis in Cattle; State and Area Classifications;
Oklahoma'' (Doc. No. 01-016-1) received on April 19, 2001; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1584. A communication from the Acting Administrator of
the General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the Annual Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2000;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1585. A communication from the Inspector General of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law,
a report relative to commercial activities; to the Committee
on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1586. A communication from the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Annual
Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2000; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-1587. A communication from the Archivist of the United
States, National Archives and Records Administration,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the Annual Performance Report
for Fiscal Year 2000; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
EC-1588. A communication from the Chairman of the Federal
Labor Relations Authority, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Annual Program Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2000; to
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1589. A communication from the Executive Director of the
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
additions to the procurement list received on April 6, 2001;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1590. A communication from the General Counsel of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, the report
of the designation of acting officer for the position of
Deputy Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1591. A communication from the Chairman of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Budget Estimates and Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2002;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1592. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
[[Page 6271]]
report of a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Federal Acquisition Circular 97-24 consisting of FAR Case
1999-010 (stay), Interim Rule, Contractor Responsibility,
Labor Relations Costs, and Costs Relating to Legal and Other
Proceedings--Revocation'' received on April 11, 2001; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1593. A communication from the Secretary of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Annual
Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2000 and the Performance
Plan for Fiscal Year 2002; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
EC-1594. A communication from the General Manager of the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the Annual Financial Report for Fiscal year
2000; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1595. A communication from the Attorney General of the
United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Annual
Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2000 and the Performance
Plan for Fiscal Year 2002; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
EC-1596. A communication from the Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Potomac Electric Power
Company, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Balance Sheet for
Fiscal Year 2000; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1597. A communication from the President's Pay Agent,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
General Schedule (GS) locality-based comparability payments
to non-GS categories of positions in more than one executive
agency; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1598. A communication from the Executive Director of the
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
additions to the procurement list received on April 18, 2001;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1599. A communication from the Chairman of the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the Annual Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2000; to
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1600. A communication from the Chairman of the Federal
Maritime Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Annual Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2002; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1601. A communication from the Acting Administrator of
the Agency for International Development, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the Annual Performance Report for Fiscal
Year 2000; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1602. A communication from the District of Columbia
Auditor, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled
``Certification of the Fiscal Year 2001 Revised Revenue
Estimate''; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1603. A communication from the Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the Annual Performance Report for Fiscal
Year 2000; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1604. A communication from the Acting General Counsel of
the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM),
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy in the
position as Director of OPM; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
EC-1605. A communication from the Acting General Counsel of
the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM),
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the designation
of acting officer in the position of Director; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-1606. A communication from the Acting General Counsel of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy in the position of
Director of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of
the President; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-1607. A communication from the Acting General Counsel of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy in the position of
Deputy Director of National Drug Control Policy, Executive
Office of the President; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-1608. A communication from the Acting General Counsel of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy in the position of
Deputy Director for Supply Reduction, Executive Office of the
President; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-1609. A communication from the Acting General Counsel of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy in the position of
Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, Executive Office of the
President; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-1610. A communication from the Acting General Counsel of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office
of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of the designation of acting officer for the position of
Director of National Drug Control Policy; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
EC-1611. A communication from the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report concerning the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-1612. A communication from the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report relative to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-1613. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to military
expenditures for countries receiving United States
assistance; to the Committee on Appropriations.
____________________
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-19. A resolution adopted by the House of the
Legislature of the State of Michigan relative to
nonindigenous species being released in the ballast water of
ships on the Great Lakes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
House Resolution No. 24
Whereas, While the problems created by the introduction of
nonindigenous species into the Great Lakes from ballast water
are not new, this situation is raising greater concerns as
the damage done to this freshwater network becomes more
apparent. The alarming rate at which the zebra mussel has
spread demonstrates the serious problems that can result when
the area's delicate ecology is thrown out of balance; and
Whereas, In recent years, numerous proposals have been
advanced to halt the introduction of new species. Many of
these proposals involve strengthening laws and enforcement on
the release or treatment of ballast water; and
Whereas, In all discussions to address the issue created by
ballast water discharges in the Great Lakes, it is essential
that a regional approach be taken. With the multiple levels
of government, including states, provinces, and two federal
governments, it is important that there be a well-coordinated
effort on this matter. A quilt of regulations or practices
developed by the individual entities could provide more harm
than good, not only to the environment, but also to specific
communities and to specific uses of the lakes; now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we
memorialize the Congress of the United States to enact
legislation that offers a regional solution to the problems
of nonindigenous species being released in the ballast water
of ships on the Great Lakes; 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.
Adopted by the House of Representatives, March 7, 2001.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
S. 771. A bill to permanently prohibit the conduct of
offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the
State of Florida, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 772. A bill to permit the reimbursement of the expenses
incurred by an affected State and units of local government
for security at an additional non-governmental property to be
secured by the Secret Service for protection of the President
for a period of not to exceed 60 days each fiscal years; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
S. 773. A bill to provide for disclosure of fire safety
standards and measures with respect to campus buildings, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. BAYH (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
S. 774. A bill to designate the Federal building and United
States courthouse located at 121 West Spring Street in New
Albany, Indiana, as the ``Lee H. Hamilton Federal Building
and United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. Reid):
S. 775. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to permit expansion of medical residency training
programs in geriatric medicine and to provide for
reimbursement of care coordination and assessment services
provided under the medicare program; to the Committee on
Finance.
[[Page 6272]]
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Baucus, and
Mr. Wellstone):
S. 776. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to increase the floor for treatment as an extremely low
DSH State to 3 percent in fiscal year 2002; to the Committee
on Finance.
By Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
S. 777. A bill to permanently extend the moratorium enacted
by the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Kohl, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Warner, and Mr.
Gramm):
S. Res. 73. A resolution to commend James Harold English
for his 23 years of service to the United States Senate;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. DAYTON (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Johnson,
and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. Res. 74. A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate
regarding consideration of legislation providing medicare
beneficiaries with outpatient prescription drug coverage; to
the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LOTT (for Mr. Hutchinson (for himself, Mr. Dodd,
Mr. Crapo, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Feinstein,
Mr. Craig, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Specter, Mr. Edwards, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Helms, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Kerry)):
S. Res. 75. A resolution designating the week beginning May
13, 2001, as ``National Biotechnology Week''; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 39
At the request of Mr. Stevens, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 39, a bill to provide a
national medal for public safety officers who act with extraordinary
valor above and beyond the call of duty, and for other purposes.
S. 41
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Lugar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 41, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the research credit
and to increase the rates of the alternative incremental credit.
S. 60
At the request of Mr. Byrd, the names of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) were added as
cosponsors of S. 60, a bill to authorize the Department of Energy
programs to develop and implement an accelerated research and
development program for advanced clean coal technologies for use in
coal-based electricity generating facilities and to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide financial incentives to encourage the
retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of coal-based electricity
generating facilities to protect the environment and improve efficiency
and encourage the early commercial application of advanced clean coal
technologies, so as to allow coal to help meet the growing need of the
United States for the generation of reliable and affordable
electricity.
S. 133
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 133, a bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the
exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance programs, and
for other purposes.
S. 231
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 231, a bill to amend the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure that seniors
are given an opportunity to serve as mentors, tutors, and volunteers
for certain programs.
S. 250
At the request of Mr. Biden, the name of the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Akaka) was added as a cosponsor of S. 250, 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. 277
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 277, a bill to amend the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the
Federal minimum wage.
S. 316
At the request of Mr. McConnell, the name of the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 316, a bill to
provide for teacher liability protection.
S. 350
At the request of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, the names of the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
Wellstone) were added as cosponsors of S. 350, a bill to amend the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 to promote the cleanup and reuse of brownfields, to provide
financial assistance for brownfields revitalization, to enhance State
response programs, and for other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Chafee, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 350, supra.
S. 393
At the request of Mr. Frist, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Fitzgerald) was added as a cosponsor of S. 393, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage charitable contributions
to public charities for use in medical research.
S. 441
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 441, a bill to provide
Capitol-flown flags to the families of law enforcement officers and
firefighters killed in the line of duty.
S. 452
At the request of Mr. Murkowski, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Cleland) was added as a cosponsor of S. 452, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure that the Secretary of Health
and Human Services provides appropriate guidance to physicians,
providers of services, and ambulance providers that are attempting to
properly submit claims under the medicare program to ensure that the
Secretary does not target inadvertent billing errors.
S. 486
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Bingaman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 486, a bill to reduce the
risk that innocent persons may be executed, and for other purposes.
S. 543
At the request of Mr. Wellstone, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 543, a bill to
provide for equal coverage of mental health benefits with respect to
health insurance coverage unless comparable limitations are imposed on
medical and surgical benefits.
S. 554
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 554, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand medicare coverage of
certain self-injected biologicals.
S. 656
At the request of Mr. Reed, the names of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Chafee) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) were
added as cosponsors of S. 656, a bill to provide for the adjustment of
status of certain nationals of Liberia to that of lawful permanent
residence.
S. 659
At the request of Mr. Crapo, the names of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Warner), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Smith, of New
Hampshire), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the Senator from
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) were added as cosponsors of S. 659, a bill to
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to adjust the labor costs
relating to items
[[Page 6273]]
and services furnished in a geographically reclassified hospital for
which reimbursement under the medicare program is provided on a
prospective basis.
S. 706
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Wellstone) was added as a cosponsor of S. 706, a bill to amend the
Social Security Act to establish programs to alleviate the nursing
profession shortage, and for other purposes.
S. 739
At the request of Mr. Wellstone, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Bingaman) were added as cosponsors of S. 739, a bill to amend title 38,
United States Code, to improve programs for homeless veterans, and for
other purposes.
S. RES. 63
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. McConnell) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 63, a resolution
commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifice made by
the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law
enforcement officers.
S. RES. 68
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 68, a
resolution designating September 6, 2001 as ``National Crazy Horse
Day.''
S. CON. RES. 28
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 28, a
concurrent resolution calling for a United States effort to end
restrictions on the freedoms and human rights of the enclaved people in
the occupied area of Cyprus.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
S. 771. A bill to permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore
drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the State of Florida, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator
Bill Nelson, to introduce legislation that will protect the coast of
Florida in the future from the damages of offshore drilling.
In past Congresses, I have introduced similar legislation that sought
to codify the annual moratorium on leasing in the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico and ensure that state's receive all environmental documentation
prior to making a decision on whether to allow drilling off of their
shores.
Today, I am introducing legislation that takes these steps, plus
several others. The Outer Continental Shelf Protection Act will protect
Florida's fragile coastline from outer continental shelf leasing and
drilling in three important ways.
First, we transform the annual moratorium on leasing and preleasing
activity off the coast of Florida into a permanent ban covering
planning areas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Straits of Florida,
and the Florida section of the South Atlantic.
Second, the Outer Continental Shelf Protection Act corrects an
egregious conflict in regulatory provisions where an effected state is
required to make a consistency determination for proposed oil and gas
production or development under the Coastal Zone Management Act prior
to receiving the Environmental Impact Statement, EIS, for them from the
Mineral Management Service.
Our bill requires that the EIS is provided to affected states before
they make a consistency determination, and it requires that every oil
and gas development plan have an EIS completed prior to development.
Third, our bill buys back leases in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico which
are an immediate threat to Florida's natural heritage and economic
engine.
What does this bill mean for Florida? The elimination of preleasing
activity and lease sales off the coast of Florida protects our economic
and environmental future.
For years, I have taken my children and grandchildren to places like
Grayton Beach so that they can appreciate the natural treasures and
local cultures that are part of both their own heritage and that of the
Florida Panhandle.
We have a solemn obligation to preserve these important aspects of
our state's history for all of our children and grandchildren. Much of
our identity as Floridians is tied to the thousands of miles of
pristine coastline that surround most of our state.
The Florida coastline will not be safe if offshore oil and gas
resources are developed. For example, a 1997 Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA, study indicated that even in the absence of oil leakage, a
typical oil rig can discharge between 6,500 and 13,000 barrels of waste
per year. The same study also warned of further harmful impact on
marine mammal populations, fish populations, and air quality.
In addition to leakages and waste discharges, physical disturbances
caused by anchoring, pipeline placement, rig construction, and the
resuspension of bottom sediments can also be destructive. Given these
conclusions, Floridians are unwilling to risk the environmental havoc
that oil or natural gas drilling could wreak along the sensitive
Panhandle coastline.
Because the natural beauty and diverse habitats of the Gulf of
Mexico, the Florida Keys, and Florida's Atlantic Coast attract visitors
from all over the world and support a variety of commercial activities,
an oil or natural gas accident in these areas could have a crippling
effect on the economy. In 1996, the cities of Panama City, Pensacola,
and Fort Walton Beach reported $1.5 billion in sales to tourists.
Florida's fishing industry benefits from the fact that nearly 90
percent of reef fish caught in the Gulf of Mexico come from the West
Florida continental shelf.
For the last several years, I have been working with my colleagues,
former Senator Connie Mack and now Senator Bill Nelson, Congressman Joe
Scarborough, and others to head off the threat of oil and natural gas
drilling. In June of 1997, we introduced legislation to cancel six
natural gas leases seventeen miles off of the Pensacola coast and
compensate Mobil Oil Corporation for its investment. Five days after
the introduction of that legislation and two months before it was
scheduled to begin exploratory drilling off Florida's Panhandle, Mobil
ended its operation and returned its leases to the federal government.
While that action meant that Panhandle residents faced one less
economic and environmental catastrophe-in-the-making, it did not
completely eliminate the threats posed by oil and natural gas drilling
off Florida's Gulf Coast. Florida's Congressional representatives fight
hard each year to extend the federal moratorium on new oil and natural
gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. But that solution is temporary.
Today we are introducing the Outer Continental Shelf Protection Act
to make permanent our efforts to protect Florida's coastlines. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee to move this legislation forward and protect the
coast of future generations of Floridians and visitors to Florida.
______
By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 772. A bill to permit the reimbursement of the expenses incurred
by an affected State and units of local government for security at an
additional non-governmental property to be secured by the Secret
Service for protection of the President for a period of not to exceed
60 days each fiscal year; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to provide fair
reimbursement to state and local law enforcement organizations for
additional costs incurred by them in providing frequent assistance to
the Secret Service to protect the President of the United States.
Of course, the Secret Service has the principal responsibility for
protecting
[[Page 6274]]
our Presidents. Without the assistance of state and local law
enforcement organizations, however, providing that protection would be
more costly and more difficult, if not impossible. For the most part,
state and local law enforcers provide this assistance with no need for
or expectation of reimbursement from the Federal government. In some
cases, however, reimbursement is appropriate. It is appropriate, for
example, when state and local law enforcement organizations are
required to incur substantial expenses on a frequent basis in
localities that are small and thus does not have adequate financial
bases to provide the necessary services without reimbursement.
This is not a new idea. Dating back to at least the Administration of
President Jimmy Carter, the Federal government has provided
reimbursement to local and sometimes state organizations where sitting
Presidents maintain a principal residence. In the early 1990s,
reimbursement was provided for services provided for then-President
Bush's visits to Kennebunkport, Maine. Reimbursement is similarly
available now to Crawford, Texas. The bill I am introducing will extend
this authority to localities and states other than the place of
principal residence when the sitting President so designates.
I envision that it will help, for example, the Kennebunkport Police
Department and associated law enforcement organizations in my home
state. I expect that the allure of summer in Maine will draw President
George W. Bush to the Bush family residence in Kennebunkport for
several visits in the coming months. My bill will help ensure that the
town, with a population of only 3,720, will not have to shoulder alone
the substantial financial burden associated with these visits. In
addition, however, I anticipate that in the future other localities
will benefit, for this bill has been carefully drafted to provide
reimbursement to localities and states designated by future Presidents.
This bill will not result in an unlimited ``windfall'' to local and
state law enforcement organizations. It requires that the organizations
requesting reimbursement first incur the expenses and therefore will
likely discourage excessive expenditures. It also limits the number of
days for which reimbursements may be sought to not more than 60 days
per fiscal year. In addition, it provides reimbursement only for
services provided in conjunction with visits to small localities with a
population of no more than 7,000 residences. Finally, the total amount
of reimbursement is limited to not more than $100,000 per fiscal year.
I encourage my colleagues to support this modest, yet important and
equitable provision of support to local and state law enforcement
organizations.
______
By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
S. 773. A bill to provide for disclosure of fire safety standards and
measures with respect to campus buildings, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Campus
Fire Safety Right-to-Know Act so that we can move forward in protecting
our children at our colleges and universities. It is an unfortunate
reality that it often takes great tragedies to highlight
vulnerabilities in our laws.
On January 19, 2000, several New Jersey families experienced an
unimaginable tragedy. A fire in a freshman college dormitory killed 3
students and injured 62 others. Investigations into the fire revealed
that the dorm was not equipped with a sprinkler system, which could
have saved lives. In addition, during that fatal evening, many students
delayed leaving the building because they assumed it was a false alarm,
an all too common occurrence.
On March 19, 2000, a fire broke out at a fraternity house at a
Pennsylvania university, killing three students. This was not the first
fire at that fraternity house, in 1994, five students were killed in a
fraternity house fire.
On June 8, 2000, a student was killed in an early morning fraternity
house fire at an Illinois university. Local authorities said the
building was not protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system.
And, as recently as April 1, 2001, a fire in a residence hall at a
New Hampshire college forced 100 students out of the building and
seriously damaged at least two apartments. This was the second fire to
occur at a residence hall at that college within two months.
This is a national crisis that endangers our children's lives.
Although the average number of college residence fires dropped 10
percent in the last decade, an average of 66 students still are injured
in campus fires in dorms, and fraternity and sorority houses. In the 11
deadly campus fires between 1900 and 1997, an average of two people
died in each.
The National Fire Protection Association reports that 72 percent of
dorms, and fraternity and sorority houses that suffer fires are not
equipped with life saving sprinkler systems, even though sprinklers are
proven to cut by up to two-thirds the risks of death and property
damage in fires.
I have a proposal that will help make university housing safer. The
Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act would highlight the issue of
campus fire safety by requiring colleges and universities to provide
annual reports that explains fire policies, frequency of false alarms,
and whether dorms are equipped with sprinkler systems.
These reports would be straight-forward and based on the types of
reporting that many campuses already do.
Colleges and universities could use these reports to highlight their
successes and progress with campus fire safety. They would be, in part,
a marketing tool to attract students and families.
The reports would also bring greater awareness about campus fire
safety to schools that have not made progress, and encourage them to
take action.
And, the reports would be a resource for students and their families,
so that they know whether their dorms are fire safe and can work with
their schools to improve fire safety.
My bill is supported by universities in my State, Seton Hall, Rutgers
and Princeton, and is also endorsed by the National Fire Protection
Association, the National Safety Council, and College Parents of
America.
We need to pass this measure so that we can ensure that the tragedies
in New Jersey, Illinois, and Pennsylvania are the last of their kinds.
______
By Mr. BAYH (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
S. 774. A bill to designate the Federal building and United States
courthouse located at 121 West Spring Street in New Albany, Indiana, as
the ``Lee H. Hamilton Federal Building and United States Courthouse'';
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today to
pay tribute to a good friend and a great man, former Congressman Lee
Hamilton. I am honored to introduce legislation designating the Federal
Building and United States Courthouse located at 121 W. Spring Street
in New Albany, Indiana, as the ``Lee H. Hamilton Federal Building and
U.S. Courthouse.''
Lee Hamilton was born in Daytona Beach, FL, on April 20, 1931, and
raised in Evansville, IN. He attended Evansville Central High school,
where he excelled both in the classroom and on the basketball court. As
a senior, he led his team to the final game of the Indiana state
basketball tournament, and received the prestigious Tresler award for
scholarship and athletics.
After graduation, Congressman Hamilton attended Depauw University,
and earned his bachelor's degree in 1952. He went on to study for one
year in post-war Germany at Goethe University, before enrolling in law
school at Indiana University, where he received his Doctor of
Jurisprudence Degree in 1956.
In 1964, Lee Hamilton was first elected to the U.S. House of
Representatives, where he went on to serve with distinction for 34
years. During his long tenure in office, he established himself as a
leader in International Affairs, serving as the chairman of the House
Foreign Relations committee, Intelligence Committee, and Iran-Contra
committee. Mr. Hamilton was
[[Page 6275]]
widely respected for his powerful intellect and impressive knowledge of
foreign affairs, and remains unquestionably one of our nation's
foremost experts on foreign policy.
In addition to his record on foreign affairs, Mr. Hamilton also
played an important role in reforming the institution of Congress
itself. He cochaired the Joint Committee on the Organization of
Congress where he worked to reform the institution by instituting the
gift-ban, tightening lobbying restrictions, and applying the laws of
the workplace to Congress.
Even with all his success in Washington, however, Mr. Hamilton never
forgot his Hoosier roots. He always remained down-to-earth and
accessible to his southern Indiana constituents. Over the years, he was
presented with a number of opportunities to ascend to other offices,
including the U.S. Senate, Secretary of State, and the Vice-Presidency
of the United States. He chose instead to retain his House seat and
fulfill his commitments to the people of southern Indiana.
Today, Congressman Hamilton remains active in foreign policy and
congressional reform. He currently heads the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, and serves as the
director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University.
Congressman Hamilton has received numerous public service awards
including the Paul H. Nitze Award for Distinguished Authority on
National Security Affairs, the Edmund S. Muskie Distinguished Public
Service Award, the Phillip C. Habib Award for Distinguished Public
Service, the Indiana Humanities Council Lifetime Achievement Award and
the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress' Statesmanship
Award. It is only fitting that we recognize Congressman Hamilton's many
years of service to the people of Southern Indiana by naming the New
Albany Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in his honor.
It is my hope that the Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse located
at 121 W. Spring Street in New Albany will soon bear the name of my
friend and fellow Hoosier, Congressman Lee Hamilton.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. Reid):
S. 775. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
permit expansion of medical residency training programs in geriatric
medicine and to provide for reimbursement of care coordination and
assessment services provided under the Medicare Program; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the
Geriatric Care Act of 2001, a bill to increase the number of
geriatricians in our country through training incentives and Medicare
reimbursement for geriatric care.
I am proud to be joined in this effort today by Senator Harry Reid of
Nevada. Senator Reid has been a pioneer in seeking real commonsense
solutions to the health care challenges facing our Nation's seniors. In
fact, he has graciously allowed me to include in this bill components
of a bill he introduced during the last Congress. Moreover, he has been
an invaluable resource and ally to me as I have grappled with the
solutions to these challenges we are seeking.
Our country teeters on the brink of revolutionary demographic change
as baby boomers begin to retire and Medicare begins to care for them.
As a member of the Finance Committee and the Special Committee on
Aging, I have a special interest in preparing health care providers and
Medicare for the inevitable aging of America. By improving access to
geriatric care, the Geriatric Care Act of 2001 takes an important first
step in modernizing Medicare for the 21st century.
The 76 million baby boomers are aging and in 30 years, 70 million
Americans will be 65 years and older. They will soon represent one-
fifth of the U.S. population, the largest proportion of older persons
in our Nation's history. Our Nation's health care system will face an
unprecedented strain as our population grows older.
Our Nation is simply ill-prepared for what lies ahead. Demand for
quality care will increase, and we will need physicians who understand
the complex health problems that aging inevitably brings. As seniors
live longer, they face much greater risk of disease and disability.
Conditions such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and
Alzheimer's disease occur more frequently as people age. The complex
problems associated with aging require a supply of physicians with
special training in geriatrics.
Geriatricians are physicians who are first board certified in family
practice or internal medicine and then complete additional training in
geriatrics. Geriatric medicine provides the most comprehensive health
care for our most vulnerable seniors. Geriatrics promotes wellness and
preventive care, helping to improve patients' overall quality of life
by allowing them greater independence and preventing unnecessary and
costly trips to the hospital or institutions.
Geriatric physicians also have a heightened awareness of the effects
of prescription drugs. Given our seniors' growing dependence on
prescriptions, it is increasingly important that physicians know how,
when, and in what dosage to prescribe medicines for seniors.
Frequently, our older patients respond to medications in very different
ways from younger patients. In fact, 35 percent of Americans 65 years
and older experience adverse drug reactions each year.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, medication
problems may be involved in as many as 17 percent of all
hospitalizations of seniors each year. Care management provided by a
geriatrician will not only provide better health care for our seniors,
but it will also save costs to Medicare in the long term by eliminating
the pressures on more costly medical care through hospitals and nursing
homes. Quite clearly, geriatrics is a vital thread in the fabric of our
health care system, especially in light of our looming demographic
changes. Yet today there are fewer than 9,000 certified geriatricians
in the United States. Of the approximately 98,000 medical residency and
fellowship positions supported by Medicare in 1998, only 324 were in
geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry. Only three medical schools
in the country--the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in
Little Rock being one of them--have a department of geriatrics. This is
remarkable when we consider that of the 125 medical schools in our
country, only 3 have areas of residency in geriatrics.
As if that were not alarming enough, the number of geriatricians is
expected to decline dramatically in the next several years. In fact,
most of these doctors will retire just as the baby boomer generation
becomes eligible for Medicare. We must reverse this trend and provide
incentives to increase the number of geriatricians in our country.
Unfortunately, there are two barriers preventing physicians from
entering geriatrics: insufficient Medicare reimbursements for the
provisions of geriatric care, and inadequate training dollars and
positions for geriatricians. Many practicing geriatricians find it
increasingly difficult to focus their practice exclusively on older
patients because of insufficient Medicare reimbursement. Unlike most
other medical specialties, geriatricians depend most entirely on
Medicare revenues.
A recent MedPAC report identified low Medicare reimbursement levels
as a major stumbling block to recruiting new geriatricians. Currently
the reimbursement rate for geriatricians is the same as it is for
regular physicians, but the services geriatricians provide are
fundamentally different. Physicians who assess younger patients simply
don't have to invest the same time that geriatricians must invest
assessing the complex needs of elderly patients. Moreover, chronic
illness and multiple medications make medical decisionmaking more
complex and time consuming. Additionally, planning for health care
needs becomes more complicated as geriatricians seek to include both
patients and caregivers in the process.
We must modernize the Medicare fee schedule to acknowledge the
importance of geriatric assessment and care
[[Page 6276]]
coordination in providing health care for our seniors. Geriatric
practices cannot flourish and these trends will not improve until we
adjust the system to reflect the realities of senior health care.
The Geriatric Care Act I am introducing today addresses these
shortfalls. This bill provides Medicare coverage for the twin
foundations of geriatric practice: geriatric assessment and care
coordination. The bill authorizes Medicare to cover these essential
services for seniors, thereby allowing geriatricians to manage
medications effectively, to work with other health care providers as a
team, and to provide necessary support for caregivers.
The Geriatric Care Act also will remove the disincentive caused by
the graduate medical education cap established by the 1997 Balanced
Budget Act. As a result of this cap, many hospitals have eliminated or
reduced their geriatric training programs. The Geriatric Care Act
corrects this problem by allowing additional geriatric training slots
in hospitals. By allowing hospitals to exceed the cap placed on their
training slots, this bill will help increase the number of residents in
geriatric training programs.
My home State of Arkansas ranks sixth in the Nation in percentage of
population 65 and older. In a decade, we will rank third. In many ways,
our population in Arkansas is a snapshot of what the rest of the United
States will look like in the near future.
All of us today could share stories about the challenges faced by our
parents, our grandparents, our families, our friends, our loved ones as
they contend with the passing years. These are the people who have
raised us, who have loved us, who have worked for us, and who have
fought for us. Now it is our turn to work for them, to fight for them,
and this is where we must start.
I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation to
modernize Medicare, to support crucial geriatric services for our
Nation's growing population of seniors. I also urge my colleagues to
recognize that this is only the beginning of what I hope will be a
grand overhaul of the way we think about and deliver care to our
Nation's elderly. There are many more things to discuss and to
address--adult daycare, long-term care insurance, just to name a few.
But it is essential that we begin soon, that we begin now in preparing
those individuals we will need 10 years from now in order to be able to
care for our aging population in this Nation.
Madam President, I also want to submit three letters of support for
this bill, along with a list of organizations that support this
important legislation, and encourage all of my colleagues to recognize
the unbelievable responsibility we have today to prepare for the
seniors of tomorrow. I ask unanimous consent that the items I mentioned
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The National Council
on the Aging,
Washington, DC, April 24, 2001.
Hon. Blanche L. Lincoln,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lincoln: On behalf of the National Council on
the Aging (NCOA)--the nation's first organization formed to
represent America's seniors and those who care for them--I
write to express our organization's support for the Geriatric
Care Act of 2001.
A major shortcoming of the Medicare program is the grossly
inadequate, fragmented manner in which chronic care needs are
addressed. Some of the major problems include: specific
geriatric and chronic care needs are not clearly identified;
services are poorly coordinated, if at all; medications are
not managed properly, resulting in avoidable adverse
reactions; family caregivers are excluded from the care
planning process; transitions across settings are disjointed;
and follow-up care and access to consultation to promote
continuity are often unavailable. All of these serious
problems cry out for Medicare coverage of care coordination.
NCOA strongly supports your efforts to address these critical
shortcomings in the Medicare program.
NCOA also supports efforts to increase the number of health
care providers who have geriatric training. Given the aging
of our population and the coming retirement of the baby
boomers, it is important to have physicians trained to care
for older patients who may be frail and suffer from multiple,
chronic conditions. We applaud your efforts to meet this
challenge by introducing legislation to allow for growth in
geriatric residency programs above the hospital-specific cap
established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
We applaud your leadership on behalf of our nation's most
frail, vulnerable citizens and stand ready to assist you in
working to enact the Geriatric Care Act of 2001 into law this
year.
Sincerely,
Howard Bedlin,
Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy.
____
American Association of Homes
and Services for the Aging,
Washington, DC, April 18, 2001.
Hon. Blanche L. Lincoln,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lincoln: I understand that you are introducing
legislation to provide incentives for the training of
geriatricians and to require Medicare reimbursement for
geriatric assessments and care management for beneficiaries
with complex care needs. The American Association of Homes
and Services for the Aging (AAHSA) strongly supports your
proposal, which would help to alleviate the serious shortage
of physicians trained to meet the special needs of older
people.
AAHSA is a national non-profit organization representing
more than 5,600 not-for-profit nursing homes, continuing care
retirement communities, assisted living and senior housing
facilities, and community service organizations. More than
half of AAHSA's members are religiously sponsored and all
have a mission to provide quality care to those in need.
Every day AAHSA members serve over one million older persons
across the country.
Residents of long-term care facilities rely on physician
services more than the general population does. The severity
of older people's medical conditions compounded by multiple
co-morbidities demand more time per visit than younger or
healthier people need. Many of these seniors would benefit
from the services of a geriatrician, who is trained in the
special medical needs of older people. Unfortunately, few
physicians elect to specialize in this field. In addition,
the Medicare Part B fee schedule does not recognize the
specialty services of geriatricians and the time and effort
they spend providing medical care of this older, more
vulnerable population. Nursing facilities have a difficult
time finding physicians, let alone geriatric specialists, to
serve residents. Geriatric clinic practices find it difficult
to provide the level of service this population requires and
deserves for the payment that they receive through the
Medicare fee schedule.
Your legislation would do much to address these issues, and
AAHSA is anxious to work with you toward its passage. Please
feel free to contact Will Bruno, our Director of
Congressional Affairs.
Sincerely,
William L. Minnix, Jr., D. Min.
President and CEO.
____
American Association
for Geriatric Psychiatry,
Bethesda, MD, April 24, 2001.
Hon. Blanche L. Lincoln,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lincoln: On behalf of the American Association
for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP), I would like to take this
opportunity to thank you for your introduction of the
``Geriatric Care Act of 2001.''
Although geriatric psychiatry is a relatively small medical
specialty, it is one for which demand is growing rapidly as
the population ages and the ``baby boom'' generation nears
retirement. Arbitrary, budget-driven limits on Medicare
payment for graduate medical education, such as caps on the
aggregate number of residents and interns at a teaching
hospital, could discourage the expansion of training programs
in geriatric psychiatry and other fields that are extremely
relevant to the Medicare population. Your bill would help to
increase the number of physicians with the specialized
geriatric training that is needed to serve the growing number
of elderly persons in this country.
In addition, we support the provision of your bill, which
would provide Medicare reimbursement for assessment and care
coordination. This will help to provide those Medicare
beneficiaries with severe physical and mental disorders with
the access to the appropriate and coordinated care that they
deserve.
AAGP commends you for your commitment to ensuring that
America's senior citizens have adequate access to effective
health care, and we look forward to working with you on the
``Geriatric Care Act of 2001.''
Sincerely,
Stephen Bartels, MD,
President.
____
Supporters of the Geriatric Care Act of 2001
American Association for Geriatric Psychiatrists.
Alzheimer's Association.
Alliance for Aging Research.
American Geriatrics Society.
National Chronic Care Consortium.
National Council on Aging.
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare.
[[Page 6277]]
American Association for Homes and Services for the Aging.
International Longevity Center.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself Mr. Enzi, Mr. Baucus, and Mr.
Wellstone):
S. 776, A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
increase the floor treatment as an extremely low DSH State to 3 percent
in fiscal year 2002; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
with Senators Enzi, Baucus, and Wellstone, entitled the ``Medicaid
Safety Net Hospital Improvement Act of 2001.'' This legislation is
absolutely critical to the survival of many of our nation's safety net
hospitals. It would provide additional funding to address their growing
burden of providing uncompensated care to many of our nation's 42.6
million uninsured residents, including 463,000 in New Mexico, through
the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, program.
In recognition of the burden bourne by hospitals that provide a large
share of care to low-income patients, including Medicaid and the
uninsured, the Congress established the Medicaid DSH program to give
additional funding to support such ``disproportionate share''
hospitals. By providing financial relief to these hospitals, the
Medicaid DSH program maintains hospital access for the poor. As the
National Governors' Association has said, ``Medicaid DSH's funds are an
important part of statewide systems of health care access for the
uninsured.''
Recent reports by the Institute of Medicine entitled ``America's
Health Care Safety Net: Intact But Endangered,'' the National
Association of Public Hospitals entitled ``The Dependence of Safety Net
Hospitals'' and the Commonwealth Fund entitled ``A Shared
Responsibility: Academic Health Centers and the Provision of Care to
the Poor and Uninsured'' have all highlighted the importance of the
Medicaid DSH program to our health care safety net.
As the Commonwealth Fund report, which was released just this last
week, notes: ``The Medicaid DSH program has had a beneficial effect on
patient access. The average payment rate for Medicaid inpatient
services has increased dramatically. Medicaid payments for hospital
services were only 76 percent of the cost of providing this care in
1989. By 1994, Medicaid payments had increased to 94 percent of
costs.''
Unfortunately, as the Commonwealth Fund report adds, ``. . . there
are large inequities in how these funds are distributed among states.''
In fact, for 15 states, including New Mexico, our federal DSH
allotments are not allowed to exceed 1 percent of our state's Medicaid
program costs. In comparison, the average state spends around 9 percent
of its Medicaid funding on DSH. This disparity and lack of Medicaid DSH
in ``extremely low-DSH states'' threatens the viability of our safety
net providers. In New Mexico, these funds are critical but inadequate
to hospitals all across our state, including University Hospital,
Eastern New Mexico Regional Hospital, St. Vincent's Hospital, Espanola
Hospital, and others.
In an analysis of the Medicaid DSH program by the Urban Institute,
the total amount of federal Medicaid DSH payments in six states was
less than $1 per Medicaid and uninsured individual compared to five
states than had DSH spending in excess of $500 per Medicaid and
uninsured individual. That figure was just $14.91 per Medicaid and
uninsured person in New Mexico. Compared to the average expenditure of
$218.96 across the country, such disparities cannot be sustained.
As a result, this bipartisan legislation increases the allowed
federal Medicaid DSH allotment in the 15 ``extremely low-DSH states''
from 1 percent to 3 percent of Medicaid program costs, which remains
far less, or just one-third, of the national average. I would add that
the legislation does not impact the federal DSH allotments in other
states but only seeks greater equity by raising the share of federal
funds to ``extremely low-DSH states.''
Once again, the Commonwealth Fund recommends such action. As the
report finds, ``States with small DSH programs are not permitted to
increase the relative size of their DSH programs . . . [C]urrent
policy simply rewards the programs that acted quickly and more
aggressively, without regard to a state's real need of such funds.''
Therefore, the report concludes, ``. . . greater equity in the use of
federal funds should be established among states.''
Again, this is achieved in our legislation by raising the limits for
``extremely low-DSH states'' from 1 percent to 3 percent and not by
redistributing or taking money away from other states.
Failure to support these critical hospitals could have a devastating
impact not only on the low-income and vulnerable populations who depend
on them for care but also on other providers throughout the communities
that rely on the safety net to care for patients whom they are unable
or unwilling to serve.
As the Institute of Medicine's report entitled ``America's Health
Care Safety Net: Intact But Endangered'' states, ``Until the nation
addresses the underlying problems that make the health care safety net
system necessary, it is essential that national, state, and local
policy makers protect and perhaps enhance the ability of these
institutions and providers to carry out their missions.''
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. 776
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 ``Medicaid Safety Net
Improvement Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN FLOOR FOR TREATMENT AS AN EXTREMELY LOW
DSH STATE TO 3 PERCENT IN FISCAL YEAR 2002.
(a) Increase in DSH Floor.--Section 1923(f)(5) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(f)(5)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``fiscal year 1999'' and inserting ``fiscal
year 2000'';
(2) by striking ``August 31, 2000'' and inserting ``August
31, 2001'';
(3) by striking ``1 percent'' each place it appears and
inserting ``3 percent''; and
(4) by striking ``fiscal year 2001'' and inserting ``fiscal
year 2002''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
take effect on October 1, 2001, and apply to DSH allotments
under title XIX of the Social Security Act for fiscal year
2002 and each fiscal year thereafter.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 73--TO COMMEND JAMES HAROLD ENGLISH FOR HIS 23 YEARS
OF SERVICE TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE
Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Daschle,
Mr. Reid, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Gramm) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 73
Whereas James Harold English became an employee of the
United States Senate in 1973, and has ably and faithfully
upheld the high standards and traditions of the staff of the
United States Senate;
Whereas James Harold English served as Clerk of the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee from 1973 to 1980;
Whereas James Harold English served as the Assistant
Secretary of the Senate in 1987 and 1988;
Whereas James Harold English has served as Democratic Staff
Director of the Appropriations Committee of the United States
Senate from 1989 to 2001;
Whereas James Harold English has faithfully discharged the
difficult duties and responsibilities of Staff Director and
Minority Staff Director of the Appropriations Committee of
the United States Senate with great pride, energy,
efficiency, dedication, integrity, and professionalism;
Whereas he has earned the respect, affection, and esteem of
the United States Senate; and
Whereas James Harold English will retire from the United
States Senate on April 30, 2001, with over 30 years of
Government Service--23 years with the United States Senate:
Now, therefore, be it
[[Page 6278]]
Resolved, That the United States Senate--
(1) Commends James Harold English for his exemplary service
to the United States Senate and the Nation, and wishes to
express its deep appreciation and gratitude for his long,
faithful, and outstanding service.
(2) The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of
this resolution to James Harold English.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 74--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING
CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION PROVIDING MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES WITH
OUTPATIENT PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE
Mr. DAYTON (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Johnson, and Mr.
Rockefeller) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Finance.
S. Res. 74
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that, by not
later than June 20, 2001, the Senate should consider
legislation that provides medicare beneficiaries with
outpatient prescription drug coverage.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution which
expresses the sense of the Senate that the Senate will consider
legislation providing prescription drug coverage for senior citizens by
June 20, 2001. The resolution does not specify what form of coverage
will be considered; rather, it simply commits us to scheduling
consideration of this important legislation, and hopefully its passage,
in the near future.
Many of us have promised the senior citizens of our states that
Congress would enact this kind of program. As you know, last year the
106th Senate was unable to reach agreement on whether to provide
prescription drug coverage directly through Medicare, through
subsidized insurance policies, or another mechanism. While these
disagreements stymied any one measure's passage, it appeared that an
overwhelming majority of Senators then supported some form of coverage.
I believe it is imperative that we get a program of financial
assistance for hard-pressed senior citizens quickly enacted. While I
have my own preference for direct, voluntary coverage under Medicare, I
am most concerned that some form of financial assistance be provided to
desperate senior citizens in Minnesota and across the country, whose
lives are being traumatized by the unaffordable costs of their
prescription medicines. Their economic security, their emotional well-
being, and their physical health are being threatened, even ruined, by
ever-increasing costs over which they have no control.
I respectfully request your support for this resolution when it comes
to the floor for a vote.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 75--DESIGNATING THE WEEK BEGINNING MAY 13, 2001, AS
``NATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY WEEK''
Mr. LOTT (for Mr. Hutchinson (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Helms, Mr. Biden, and Mr.
Kerry) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 75
Whereas biotechnology is increasingly important to the
research and development of medical, agricultural,
industrial, and environmental products;
Whereas public awareness, education, and understanding of
biotechnology is essential for the responsible application
and regulation of this new technology;
Whereas biotechnology has been responsible for
breakthroughs and achievements that have benefited people for
centuries and contributed to increasing the quality of human
health care through the development of vaccines, antibiotics,
and other drugs;
Whereas biotechnology is central to research for cures to
diseases such as cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, multiple
sclerosis, heart and lung disease, Alzheimer's disease,
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and innumerable
other medical ailments;
Whereas biotechnology contributes to crop yields and farm
productivity, and enhances the quality, value, and
suitability of crops for food and other uses that are
critical to the agriculture of the United States;
Whereas biotechnology promises environmental benefits
including protection of water quality, conservation of
topsoil, improvement of waste management techniques,
reduction of chemical pesticide usage, production of
renewable energy and biobase products, and cleaner
manufacturing processes;
Whereas biotechnology contributes to the success of the
United States as the global leader in research and
development, and international commerce;
Whereas biotechnology will be an important catalyst for
creating more high-skilled jobs throughout the 21st century
and will lead the way in reinvigorating rural economies and;
Whereas it is important for all Americans to understand the
beneficial role biotechnology plays in improving quality of
life and protecting the environment: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the week beginning May 13, 2001, as
``National Biotechnology Week''; and
(2) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling upon the people of the United States to observe the
week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Dodd,
Crapo, Kennedy, Inhofe, Feinstein, Craig, Murray, Spector, Edwards,
Mikulski, Helms, Biden, and Kerry to introduce a Senate Resolution
declaring May 13-20, ``National Biotechnology Week.''
There have been phenomenal advancements in science over the last few
years that are allowing us to improve health care, increase crop
yields, reduce the use of pesticides, and replace costly industrial
processes involving harsh chemicals with cheaper, safer, biological
processes. These advancements have occurred due to the hard work and
diligence of scientists and researchers in United States, and all
around the world, who have spent their lives promoting and perfecting
the practice of biotechnology.
Biotechnology is the use of biological processes to solve problems or
make useful products. While the use of biological processes for these
purposes is not new, the use of recombinant DNA technology and our
greater understanding of the role of genetics in our lives have led to
the creation of hundreds of products and therapeutic treatments with a
wide variety of health, agricultural, and environmental benefits.
Through the analysis of genes and gene products, we will soon be able
to forecast disease and create preventative therapies that will
drastically reduce the cost of health care by limiting the number of
drug treatments necessary and reducing the amount of time patients must
be in the hospital. This same technology will enable us to refocus
health care on promoting health and preventing disease rather than
restoring health in the sick and treating the symptoms and effects of
full-blown illness in our nation's health care clinics.
With the publication of the human genome sequence, we are now one
step closer to understanding the mechanisms of disease. The
identification of which genes are activated, how, and the determination
of the functional characteristics of their RNA and protein products are
frontiers that remain for our next generation of scientists. However,
we are quickly moving towards those frontiers, shedding light on the
complex functions of our own bodies that have been shrouded in mystery
and speculation for centuries.
In the area of agriculture, the benefits and potential for
biotechnology are no less stunning--allowing us to increase the yield
of commodities while reducing the use of pesticides. As the world
population continues to balloon and the amount of arable land available
decreases, we will increasingly look to biotechnology to meet the needs
of people everywhere. Researchers in industry and academia are also
exploring the possibilities for genetic traits that will yield maximum
production, even in the face of inclement weather.
They are also looking for ways to use biotechnology to create novel
plants that will provide food that has value added traits such as
reduced fat content and increased levels of vitamins and minerals that
our diets here in the United States or those in the developing world
may be deficient in. The potential for the product known as
[[Page 6279]]
``golden rice,'' which could substantially combat blindness and anemia
in the third world, is immense. In the next ten to twenty years, we
will likely be able to grow vaccines in plants, eliminating the
difficulties of distribution in many areas of the world.
Industrial biotechnology also shows tremendous potential for reducing
the pollution and waste generated through industrial production.
Through the use of enzymes and other biological components, industries
are able to minimize material and energy inputs while simultaneously
maximizing renewable resources. An added benefit of those processes is
that they limit the production of hazardous pollutants and wastes while
producing recyclables or biodegradable products. Industrial
biotechnology has been used to create environmentally friendly laundry
detergents with fewer phosphates and paper production treatments that
reduce the discharge of chlorine. Industrial enzymes have also been
used to create ethanol and other alternative fuels from corn and
biomass.
Aside from the environmental benefits of both agricultural and
industrial biotechnology, researchers have used this technology to
actually solve environmental problems and clean up environmental
disasters. Through the use of bioremediation, the use of living
organisms to degrade toxic waste into harmless byproducts, researchers
and environmentalists have been able to clean polluted coastlines and
areas where fuels have leaked into the soil. Cities and towns
throughout the world are now using microbes to remove pollutants from
their sewage systems, and the EPA is now using bioremediation to clean
up some of our nation's most serious waste sites.
With all of these marvelous benefits, there is no doubt that
biotechnology is touching our lives and improving our world. But, along
with this technology comes the responsibility to understand and
carefully evaluate it. If there is to be a future for this technology,
and we are to fully realize its benefits, elected officials and the
public must be informed and engaged about the basics of technology
itself and its incredible benefits.
This is why my colleagues and I are pleased to introduce this
resolution declaring May 13-20, 2001, as ``National Biotechnology
Week.'' It is our hope that public officials, community leaders,
researchers, professors, and school teachers across the country will
take this week to actively promote understanding of biotechnology in
their communities and their classrooms.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 352. Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Reid,
Mr. Chafee, and Mrs. Boxer) proposed an amendment to the bill
S. 350, to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to promote the
cleanup and reuse of brownfields, to provide financial
assistance for brownfields revitalization, to enhance State
response programs, and for other purposes.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 352. Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Chafee, and Mrs. Boxer) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 350, to
amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 to promote the cleanup and reuse of brownfields,
to provide financial assistance for brownfields revitalization, to
enhance State response programs, and for other purposes; as follows:
Beginning on page 57, strike line 24 and all that follows
through page 58, line 3, and insert the following:
``(ii)(I) is contaminated by a controlled substance (as
defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 802));
``(II)(aa) is contaminated by petroleum or a petroleum
product excluded from the definition of `hazardous substance'
under section 101; and
``(bb) is a site determined by the Administrator or the
State, as appropriate, to be--
``(AA) of relatively low risk, as compared with other
petroleum-only sites in the State; and
``(BB) a site for which there is no viable responsible
party and which will be assessed, investigated, or cleaned up
by a person that is not potentially liable for cleaning up
the site; and
``(cc) is not subject to any order issued under section
9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991b(h));
or
``(III) is mine-scarred land.''.
On page 65, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
``(4) Insurance.--A recipient of a grant or loan awarded
under subsection (b) or (c) that performs a characterization,
assessment, or remediation of a brownfield site may use a
portion of the grant or loan to purchase insurance for the
characterization, assessment, or remediation of that site.
On page 67, line 16, before the period, insert the
following: ``, including threats in areas in which there is a
greater-than-normal incidence of diseases or conditions
(including cancer, asthma, or birth defects) that may be
associated with exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants''.
On page 68, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
``(J) The extent to which a grant would address or
facilitate the identification and reduction of threats to the
health or welfare of children, pregnant women, minority or
low-income communities, or other sensitive populations.
On page 70, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
``(4) Report to congress.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this section, the Inspector General of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to Congress
a report that provides a description of the management of the
program (including a description of the allocation of funds
under this section).
On page 71, strike lines 15 through 17 and insert the
following:
``(k) Effect on Federal Laws.--Nothing in this section
affects any liability or response authority under any Federal
law, including--
``(1) this Act (including the last sentence of section
101(14));
``(2) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.);
``(3) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.);
``(4) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.); and
``(5) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.).
``(l) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $200,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
``(2) Use of certain funds.--Of the amount made available
under paragraph (1), $50,000,000, or, if the amount made
available is less than $200,000,000, 25 percent of the amount
made available, shall be used for site characterization,
assessment, and remediation of facilities described in
section 101(39)(D)(ii)(II).''.
On page 93, line 4, before ``develop'', insert ``purchase
insurance or''.
On page 94, line 11, strike ``and''.
On page 94, line 14, strike the period at the end and
insert ``; and''.
On page 94, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
``(iii) a mechanism by which--
``(I) a person that is or may be affected by a release or
threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant at a brownfield site located in the community in
which the person works or resides may request the conduct of
a site assessment; and
``(II) an appropriate State official shall consider and
appropriately respond to a request under subclause (I).
On page 97, line 7, after ``Administrator'', insert ``,
after consultation with the State,''.
On page 97, line 18, after the period, insert the
following: ``Consultation with the State shall not limit the
ability of the Administrator to make this determination.''.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2001. The purpose of
this hearing will be to review agricultural trade issues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on
Wednesday, April 25, 2001, immediately following the nomination
hearing, on status of labor issues in airline industry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee, on Commerce, Science, and
[[Page 6280]]
Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 25, 2001, at
9:30 a.m. on the nomination of Brenda Becker to be Assistant Secretary
for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs (DOC), and Michael
Jackson to be Deputy Secretary for the Department of Transportation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on finance
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Wednesday, April 25, 2001, to hear testimony on Medicare and SSI
Benefits: Turning off the Spigot to Prisoners, Fugitives, the Deceased
and other ineligibles.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. and at 2 p.m., to
hold two hearings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on
Wednesday, April 25, 2001, at 10 a.m., in SD226.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
select committee on intelligence
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2001, at 2 p.m., to hold a closed
briefing on intelligence matters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on consumer affairs, foreign commerce and tourism
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism of the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to
meet on Wednesday, April 25, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., on west coast gas
prices.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on Housing and Transportation
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2001, to conduct a hearing on
``HUD's Program, Budget and Management Priorities for FY 2002.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on Strategic
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Strategic of the Committee on Armed Services be
authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April
25, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the
fiscal year 2002 budget request of the National Nuclear Security
Administration in review of the Defense authorization request for
fiscal year 2002 and the future years Defense program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Daniel Wood
be given floor privileges for this day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mathew
Tinnings, a fellow in Senator Bingaman's office, be granted the
privilege of the floor for the pendency of the debate on S. 350.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
SENATOR ROBERT KERREY OF NEBRASKA
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I want to share a couple of thoughts
regarding some reports that have appeared in the media in the last few
hours regarding our colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey.
Some reports have been written during the last 24 hours about an
incident that took place in Vietnam in February 1969, several weeks
prior to Senator Kerrey receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor for
the secret mission on which he served. I read a couple of those
reports. I want to express my personal concern about the approach of
the media to this issue, and express my personal support for Senator
Bob Kerrey, particularly for the nature and the circumstances of the
mission which has been written about.
It is my hope that the media is not going to engage in some kind of
32-year-later binge because there is a difference of memory about a
particularly confusing night in the delta in a free fire zone under
circumstances which most of us who served in Vietnam understood were
the daily fare of life in Vietnam at that point in time.
I served in the very same area that Bob Kerrey did. I served there at
the very same time that he did. I remember those free fire zones. I
remember our feelings then and the great confusion many people felt
about the ambiguities we were automatically presented with then by a
military doctrine that suggested that certain areas were wholly and
totally ``enemy territory,'' but nevertheless to the naked eye we could
often perceive life as we knew it in Vietnam being carried on in those
areas.
Inevitably, there were older citizens, women, children, and others
who were often, as a matter of strategy by the Viet Cong, drawn into
the line of fire and put in positions of danger without regard, I might
add, for their side as well as ours.
To the best of my memory, most people worked diligently--I know
Senator Kerrey did as well as others--to avoid the capacity for
confusion or for accidents. I know certainly within our unit there was
a great deal of pride on many occasions when orders were changed on the
spot simply because perceptions on the spot made it clear that there
was the potential for innocents to be injured.
I fully remember what it was like to ``saddle up'' for a nighttime
mission with no Moon, with no light, trying to move clandestinely and
trying to surprise people. The confusion that can ensue in those kinds
of situations is not confusion that lends itself to a 32-year-later
judgment.
There were occasions in Vietnam, as everyone knows, when innocents
were victims. There wasn't a soldier there at that time, or who has
come back to this country and home today, who doesn't regret that.
But I also know it is simply a disservice to our Nation and to the
quality of the service and a person such as Bob Kerrey to have
condemnation after the fact which does anything to diminish the quality
of service, or the unit's service, or the service of so many others who
spent their sweat and blood and youth in that particularly difficult
battlefield.
So it is my hope that in the next days people will understand the
appropriate perspective and put this issue in its appropriate
perspective. Bob Kerrey served with distinction. He obviously feels
anguish and pain about those events, but I do not believe they should
diminish, for one moment, the full measure of what he has given to his
country and of what he represents. It is my hope that he personally
will not allow it to.
____________________
TAIWAN
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I want to say a word about what President
Bush said this morning with respect to Taiwan because if what the
President said is, in fact, what he means, or if it is indeed the new
policy of the United States, it has profound implications for our
country. He made a far-reaching comment this morning on the American
defense of Taiwan, a comment which suggests that without
[[Page 6281]]
any consultation with Congress, without any prior notice to the
Congress, a policy that has been in place for 30 years is now summarily
being changed with implications that I believe are serious.
When asked by Charles Gibson, on ABC's ``Good Morning America,''
whether the United States had an obligation to defend Taiwan if Taiwan
were attacked by China, President Bush said:
Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that.
Charles Gibson then asked:
With the full force of the American military?
President Bush responded:
Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend theirself.
For almost 30 years, through Republican and Democrat administrations
alike, the cornerstone of our approach to policy toward China and
Taiwan has been the so-called ``one China'' policy: There is but one
China; Taiwan is a part of China, and the question of Taiwan's future
must be settled peacefully.
This policy was laid out in the 1972 Shanghai Communique issued by
the United States and China at the end of President Nixon's historic
visit. It was reaffirmed in subsequent bilateral communiques--in 1979,
when the United States recognized the People's Republic of China and
again in 1982 on the question of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.
A consistent tenet of this policy is the U.S. expectation that the
question of reunification of China and Taiwan will be settled
peacefully. We have never stated what the United States would do if
Beijing attempted to use force to reunify Taiwan with the mainland--
until today. We have not stated it in the course of Republican and
Democrat administrations alike because we understood the danger of
doing so.
We have been deliberately vague about what the circumstances might be
under which we would come to Taiwan's defense, not only to discourage
Taiwan from drawing us in by declaring independence but also to deter a
Chinese attack by keeping Beijing guessing as to what the response
might be.
Sometimes some people have talked about trying to reduce that
ambiguity and simplify it and simply say, of course we would come to
their defense. But if you do that, you invite a set of consequences
that might carry with it its own set of dangers, and you may lose
control of the capacity to make a determination about what has happened
and what the circumstances really are to which you need to respond.
President Bush's comments this morning on ``Good Morning America''
suggest that the administration has decided to abandon the so-called
strategic ambiguity. If so, the President has made a major policy
change with absolutely no consultation with the Foreign Relations
Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Intelligence Committee, or
the leadership of the Congress.
In my view, it is a policy change that serves neither our interests
nor Taiwan's. Any situation which results in the use of force across
the
Taiwan Strait is unlikely to be simply black and white, as clear as can
be. The Tonkin Gulf is a classic example of that. To this day, people
debate over whether or not there really was an attack on the Maddox and
the Turner Joy, and whether or not there was an appropriate response
under those circumstances.
The scenarios which could lead to the use of force and the conditions
under which the United States might respond are simply too variable to
lend themselves to a simple, clear declaration such as the declaration
made by the President this morning.
For example, if China attacked in response to what it sees as a
Taiwanese provocation, would we then respond? Apparently so, according
to President Bush. Or if Taiwan declared independence, and China
responded militarily, would we then come to Taiwan's defense? Have we
given Taiwan a card it wanted all along, which is the capacity to know
that no matter what it does, the United States would, in fact, be there
to defend it?
The answer to that question is the reason that we have carried this
ambiguity through President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan,
President Bush, the President's father, and President Clinton.
In a subsequent interview on CNN, the President reiterated that we
maintain the ``one China'' policy, and he hopes Taiwan will not declare
independence. But he remained vague as to what we would do if Taiwan
did declare independence and China attacked.
To remove the strategic ambiguity runs the risk of decreasing
Taiwan's security rather than increasing it and of eliminating the
flexibility that we will need to determine how to respond in any given
situation.
Notwithstanding President Bush's efforts to clarify that the United
States does not want Taiwan to declare independence, the new policy has
the automatic impact, if it is in place, and if it is the declaration
that was made, of emboldening Taiwan and, frankly, reducing our control
over events.
Although I have argued that we need to inject more clarity into our
engagement with China, I personally believe that on this question our
interests and Taiwan's are better served by the ambiguity that has
existed and would be better served by maintaining it. It not only
deters a Chinese attack, but it discourages Taiwan from misreading what
the United States might do.
President Bush has said that the United States has an obligation to
defend Taiwan. Certainly we want to help Taiwan preserve its thriving
democracy and robust, growing economy. I have said previously that I
think this is enough of a message to the Chinese, that no American
President could stand idly by and watch while that democracy that has
been gained is set back, by force or otherwise. Nevertheless, we need
to press both Taipei and Beijing to reinvigorate the cross-strait
dialogue, without any misinterpretations about our role.
So let us be clear: The Taiwan Relations Act does not commit the
United States to come to the defense of Taiwan in the event of an
attack. The Taiwan Relations Act commits us to provide Taiwan with the
necessary military equipment to meet its legitimate self-defense needs.
The arms package that the Bush administration just approved for Taiwan,
I believe, is the right mix and the right measure, and it will
significantly increase the Taiwanese defensive capacities. I support
that package.
It may be the case that we would send American forces ultimately to
Taiwan's defense if there were an attack, but that decision should not
be made by an American President in advance during a television
interview.
A decision of this magnitude, which holds the potential for risking
the lives of American military men and women, should be made in
response to the circumstances at the moment, on the ground, in the air,
and, most importantly, in consultation with the Congress of the United
States in the due performance of its responsibilities with respect to
the engagement of our forces overseas.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for
15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mrs. Lincoln pertaining to the introduction of S. 775
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Byrd). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2001
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today it adjourn until the hour of 10
a.m. on
[[Page 6282]]
Thursday, April 26. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday,
immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be
approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the
two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate
then begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m. with Senators
speaking for 10 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator
Thomas or his designee from 10 to 10:30, and Senator Durbin or his
designee from 10:30 to 11 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. NICKLES. For the information of all Senators, it is hoped that
the Senate can begin consideration of S. 149, the Export Administration
Act, at approximately 11 a.m. Therefore, votes could occur during
tomorrow's session. In addition, the negotiations on the education bill
are continuing, and it is still hoped that an agreement can be reached
prior to the end of the week.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. NICKLES. If there is no further business to come before the
Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment
under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 3:56 p.m., adjourned until
Thursday, April 26, 2001, at 10 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate April 25, 2001:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
LOU GALLEGOS, OF NEW MEXICO, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE, VICE PAUL W. FIDDICK, RESIGNED.
MARY KIRTLEY WATERS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, VICE ANDREW C. FISH, RESIGNED.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
TIMOTHY J. MURIS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSIONER FOR THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF SEVEN YEARS FROM
SEPTEMBER 26, 1994, VICE ROBERT PITOFSKY, RESIGNED.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
LEE SARAH LIBERMAN OTIS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VICE MARY ANNE SULLIVAN,
RESIGNED.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
CLAUDE A. ALLEN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, VICE KEVIN L. THURM, RESIGNED.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
PAT PIZZELLA, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
LABOR, VICE PATRICIA WATKINS LATTIMORE.
IN THE AIR FORCE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED UNITED STATES AIR FORCE RESERVE OFFICER
FOR APPOINTMENT AS CHIEF OF AIR FORCE RESERVE AND FOR
APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTIONS 8038 AND 601:
TO BE LIEUTENANT GENERAL
MAJ. GEN. JAMES E. SHERRARD III, 0000
THE FOLLOWING AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO
THE GRADES INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
TO BE MAJOR GENERAL
BRIG. GEN. GREGORY B. GARDNER, 0000
BRIG. GEN. ROBERT I. GRUBER, 0000
BRIG. GEN. CRAIG R. MC KINLEY, 0000
BRIG. GEN. JAMES M. SKIFF, 0000
TO BE BRIGADIER GENERAL
COL. RICHARD W. ASH, 0000
COL. THOMAS L. BENE, JR., 0000
COL. PHILIP R. BUNCH, 0000
COL. CHARLES W. COLLIER, JR., 0000
COL. RALPH L. DEWSNUP, 0000
COL. CAROL ANN FAUSONE, 0000
COL. SCOTT A. HAMMOND, 0000
COL. DAVID K. HARRIS, 0000
COL. DONALD A. HAUGHT, 0000
COL. KENCIL J. HEATON, 0000
COL. TERRY P. HEGGEMEIER, 0000
COL. RANDALL E. HORN, 0000
COL. THOMAS J. LIEN, 0000
COL. DENNIS G. LUCAS, 0000
COL. JOSEPH E. LUCAS, 0000
COL. FRANK PONTELANDOLFO, JR., 0000
COL. RONALD E. SHOOPMAN, 0000
COL. BENTON M. SMITH, 0000
COL. HOMER A. SMITH, 0000
COL. ANNETTE L. SOBEL, 0000
COL. CLAIR ROBERT H. ST. III, 0000
COL. REX W. TANBERG, JR., 0000
COL. MICHAEL H. WEAVER, 0000
COL. LAWRENCE H. WOODBURY, 0000
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
April 25, 2001
[[Page 6283]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
RECOGNIZING THE FRESNO CENTER FOR NEW AMERICANS
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Fresno
Center for New Americans (FCNA) on their 10 year anniversary. Their
work makes a critical difference in the community and the lives of many
new Americans.
The Fresno Center for New Americans is a non-profit organization that
assists new Americans in becoming productive, self-fulfilled, and self-
sufficient members of the community. They also foster cultural
preservation and promote cross-cultural understanding.
FCNA was established in 1991 as a non-profit organization. The
organization addresses a wide variety of social issues, including
health education, employment assistance and placement, and
acculturation services. FCNA's vision is to act as a resource to
refugees and new Americans, and to contribute to their quality of life.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Fresno Center for New Americans
for helping new citizens become productive members of our society. I
urge my colleagues to join me in wishing the Fresno Center for New
Americans many more years of continued success.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO HARLAND B. JOHNSON
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man
whose devotion to the youth in my district is an inspiration to us all.
Mr. Harland B. Johnson helped start the Boys and Girls Club of Santa
Cruz, California in 1966, and he served as its founding President of
the Board of Directors. On May 11, 2001, Mayor Tim Fitzmaurice of the
City of Santa Cruz will proclaim the day as ``Harland B. Johnson Day'',
and I am proud to be able to salute him here, Mr. Speaker.
Since Mr. Johnson first began the Boys and Girls Club of Santa Cruz,
he has continued to sit on its Board of Directors. It is this 35 year
tenure that is the milestone we are all celebrating this coming May,
and I believe that his commitment to the youth of Santa Cruz is a
shining example of dedication and community service.
In his 35 years with the Club, Mr. Johnson has raised literally
hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure the operation and
maintenance of the facilities and programs that the Boys and Girls Club
offers. Because of his tireless efforts, tens of thousands of Santa
Cruz youth have had the opportunity to utilize all that the Club has to
offer. This safe environment, which has served as a constant for
several generations of schoolchildren, has provided a place for the
community to come together and help our children become enriched,
educated and dedicated individuals.
Harland B. Johnson has helped make the Boys and Girls Club possible,
and has been the driving force behind the success that this
institution. For all of his work and dedication for the past 35 years,
and for the many years left to come, I join with the City of Santa Cruz
in honoring Mr. Johnson.
____________________
TAXATION ON MEMBERS OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES
______
HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring
attention to the following article by Mr. Dennis Fitzgerald proposing
an end to taxation on members of the U.S. armed forces.
George W. Bush has a golden opportunity to effect a meaningful tax
cut, spark our flagging economy and restore morale and loyalty in the
military in one fell swoop. He should--immediately--end all taxes on
members of the armed forces.
It has always seemed to me mildly absurd that those who are being
paid by taxes also have to pay them. It would seem that by ending
military taxation, President Bush could increase the buying power of
our military and at the same time relieve them from the burden of
filing federal tax returns. He would also go a long way toward keeping
the best people in the service.
Military stationed in a combat zone pay no taxes now. Why should they
have to pay while training for that mission? Some training is more
dangerous than some combat. And people who change jeep transmissions in
a combat zone are often under no more peril than those performing the
same task stateside.
It is no secret that re-enlistment rates have reached an all time
low. The all--volunteer military is woefully short of competent middle
management. And only the Marines last year filled their enlistment
quotas. Some have cited the opportunities presented by a booming
economy as the reason for the best captains leaving the service before
their time.
But the real reason for these departures is morale and a lack of
financial incentive. Thirty years ago a career military person could
count on a living wage while on active duty, discounted food, gasoline
and other creature comforts through the PX system and the GI education
bill amounting to a month of education for each month served up to 36
months.
The retirement benefits, if one served 20 or more years, were what
kept most ``lifers'' going. These were one half to three fourths of the
highest salary and medical services and PX aid club privileges for
life. Both retirement and active duty benefits have been severely
curtailed, leading to a malaise that even George Washington's army
would recognize.
The solution is a tax-break--big time. There are approximately 1.4
million service people on active duty with total salaries of about $42
billion. Tax revenues from this group currently stand at about $12
billion. This is a drop in the bucket when one considers total tax
revenues of $950 billion.
This move would encourage people both to join and stay in the
military. In the worst case it would cost the country little, and, if
the Laffer curve is still operational, perhaps would actually increase
tax revenues.
Increasing the disposable income of service people makes good
economic sense. The newly formed XFL is killing to attract male
audiences between 18 and 32. Why? Because they have a lot of money to
spend. It should dawn on this administration that they have a lot of
that cohort in their employ. And If they freed up their income, they
might just spend it on stuff.
Camp LeJeune North Carolina on its web site proudly boasts it
contributes some $3 billion to the local economy. Fine. With a tax cut
it might just contribute $4 billion. And with the multiplier effect,
this would pump tens of billions of dollars into an economy that most
agree is faltering. And part that increased revenue would find its way
to the U.S. Treasury through increased income and excise taxes on
civilians who sell to service people.
Congress, especially those members from the South, should support
this measure. Increased revenue from businesses surrounding military
bases has always warmed their hearts-and filled their campaign chests.
With the military tax cut adopted, there would be an easier haul
through Congress for a more far-reaching bill later in the year.
These practical considerations aside, the major reason for this
measure would be to put pride back in our military. Those on active
duty in the armed forces should consider themselves so special that the
government exempts them from paying taxes.
In addition to saving administrative headaches, increasing disposable
income, bumping up total tax revenues and attracting good people for
the military, a zero tax rate would add a certain all-encompassing
eclat to serving that medals, decorations or flag ceremonies could
never replace.
[[Page 6284]]
____________________
IN SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF THE 125TH ANNIVERSARY OF FIRELANDS COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL, SANDUSKY, OHIO
______
HON. PAUL E. GILLMOR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, as Sandusky's first hospital, Good
Samaritan Hospital, which joined with Sandusky Memorial Hospital in
1985 to create Firelands Community Hospital, has cared for generations
of Sandusky area families. It gives me great pleasure today to
commemorate the hospital's 125th anniversary and its long tradition of
providing quality health care to the community.
The hospital can trace its roots to 1876, when Wilborforce Farr, the
minister of Grace Church, Sandusky, and other community leaders founded
Good Samaritan Hospital, a place where everyone could receive health
care, regardless of their financial or social situation. For the past
125 years, the hospital has played a vital role in the lives of
Sandusky area residents.
In 1985, Firelands Community Hospital was established through the
union of Good Samaritan and Sandusky Memorial Hospitals. At the time
the merger of these two institutions was considered a bold, but
necessary move. The federal government's push to lower health care
costs was forcing hospitals to reconsider how they did business. Those
who did not adapt to the changing health care climate would suffer
serious financial trouble.
Although the decision to consolidate was not an easy one, the Board
of Trustees and Professional Staffs of both hospitals had the foresight
and initiative to put the needs of the community first. Their efforts
provided the foundation for Firelands Community Hospital's role as one
of the area's leading comprehensive health care systems.
Today, Firelands Community Hospital continues to provide new and
innovative services and programs to meet the needs of the Sandusky area
community. More than 7000 inpatients and 250,000 inpatients are served
annually at four Sandusky facilities. In recent surveys, Firelands has
been rated the best in Erie County for quality of physician care,
personal care and attention, most modern technology, physical
environment and range of services.
For the past one hundred twenty-five years Sandusky, area residents
have entrusted their health care needs to Firelands Community Hospital,
and I am confident they will continue to do so for generations to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ROGERS HIGH SCHOOL
______
HON. ASA HUTCHINSON
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Rogers High
School and its participants in the ``We the People . . . . . The
Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals.
I am pleased to recognize the class from Rogers High School who
represented Arkansas in the national competition. The outstanding young
people who participated are: David Clay, Jessica Diaz, Mitch Dinowitz,
Marcus Emerson, Kenni Floyd, Haris Hasic, Jared Janacek, Amanda Lay,
Ashley Marcum, Dylan Mory, John O'Connor, Josh Reece, Stephen Reed,
Kyle Schoeller, Brian Shook, Bethany Simmons, Luke Siversen, Cody
Steussy, Zack Taylor, David Young. The class is coached by Brenda
Patton.
``We the People . . . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' is the
nation's most extensive program dedicated to educating young people
about our Constitution. Over 26 million students participate in the
program, administered by the Center for Civic Education. The national
finals, which includes representatives from every state, simulates a
congressional hearing in which students testify as constitutional
experts before a panel of judges.
I wish these bright students the best of luck at the ``We the People
. . . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals. They
represent the Third District of Arkansas well, and I wish them all the
best in their future academic pursuits.
____________________
THIS YEAR, EARTH DAY MEANS MORE THAN EVER BEFORE
______
HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, America
celebrated its 31st annual Earth Day. In the past, Earth Day has been a
day of both preservation and celebration. The day has symbolized our
commitment to preserving the Earth's beauty for the enjoyment of future
generations. This year, however, Earth Day means much more. This year,
we are not using Earth Day as a catalyst for the creation of new and
innovative ways to keep our environment clean and healthy. This year,
we are not spending Earth Day talking about reducing air pollution and
cleaning up the water we drink. This year, Earth Day is not a
celebration of the environmental accomplishments of the past 31 years.
Instead, this year, we are spending Earth Day toe-to-toe with the
Bush Administration to simply maintain the status quo of our country's
environmental policies. This year, we are spending Earth Day fighting
against the special interests of oil and gas companies. This year, we
are celebrating Earth Day with a return to the careless and unhealthy
environmental practices of the 1970s. This year, Earth Day means more
than it has ever meant before.
In the first 100 days of President Bush's term in office, the
Administration has sought to eliminate nearly every major environmental
advancement of the past twenty years. Whether it is trying to drill for
oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), failing to reduce
the amount of carbon dioxide emissions into the air, or halting a plan
to lower arsenic levels in drinking water, the Bush Administration has
made it clear that it is not serious about protecting our environment.
In Florida, we are facing the relentlessness of the oil and gas
industries. As recently as last Sunday, the Bush Administration
restated its plan to auction nearly six million acres off of the coast
of Florida's Panhandle for the purposes of drilling for oil and natural
gas. This is a plan that Floridians have both feared and rejected.
Florida has maintained a position that any drilling will not occur
within 100 miles of Florida's coast. While Florida's neighboring states
have chosen to move forward with offshore drilling programs, the people
of Florida have recognized the environmental dangers of offshore
drilling and chosen not to move forward with any such program.
Drilling off the coast of Florida's Panhandle could have devastating
outcomes. Studies show that the cost of offshore drilling far outweighs
the benefits. The potential for oil spills and life-threatening
accidents is there. The construction of oil rigs, combined with
continued drilling, will undoubtably disrupt the marine ecosystem that
currently exists. One only has to look at pictures of an oil rig
sinking off the coast of Brazil to recognize the real dangers of
offshore drilling. Now, the Administration is seeking not only to
destroy Florida's already delicate environment, but to do it against
the obvious wishes of Florida's people and government.
This year, we must view Earth Day as an opportunity to rally our
troops and fight against the special interests that have been dictating
environmental roll backs for the past 100 days. If the Administration
will not fight against the oil and gas companies, then we must. We have
a responsibility to recognize the role that we play in preserving our
environment. If we do not recognize and accept this responsibility,
then no one will.
____________________
CONGRATULATING JOHN DIENER
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor John Diener for
receiving the Award of Distinction from the College of Agricultural and
Environmental Sciences at the University of California, Davis.
The award is the highest designation given by the college to
individuals whose contributions enrich the image and reputation of the
college and enhance its ability to provide public service.
Diener earned a degree in agricultural economics in 1974. He worked
as a pest control advisor, specializing in viticulture, for six years
before beginning a farm operation in 1980. In 20 years his farm grew
from 640 acres to 4,500 acres. He began organic production practices
and helped develop Greenway Organic Farms.
Diener has supported research and started field studies on reclaiming
farmland that suffers from high underground water tables. This sort of
research has set the foundation for growers to grow crops on acreage
considered too salty. The success of his new farming methods can be
seen by the abundant harvesting of crops on land that had previously
been considered non-fertile soil.
[[Page 6285]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate John Diener on his Award of
Distinction. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating John and
wishing him many more years of continued success.
____________________
COMMENDING THE VIRGIN ISLANDS FRESHWATER ASSOCIATION, INC.
______
HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN
of the virgin islands
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to commend an
outstanding group of Virgin Islanders--Helen George-Newton, Eldra
Malone-Drew, Ava Stagger, Carol Stagger, Kenneth ``Cisco'' Francis and
Renaldo Chinnery, who, as residents of New York, recognized the need to
preserve and promote the culture of the Virgin Islands. In March of
1991, they officially established the Virgin Islands Freshwater
Yankees, which was later incorporated as the Virgin Islands Freshwater
Association, Inc.
Since then, the Association has grown to 75 dedicated members, who
contribute to their Virgin Islands community through educational
scholarships, supplying equipment to the health facilities on all three
islands, helping our senior citizens and the underprivileged children,
providing supplies during natural disasters or emergency occurring in
the territory.
Although this organization takes their responsibilities seriously,
they also find time to have fun and participate in the annual carnival
activities on St. Thomas and St. Croix.
They also serve as an oasis for Virgin Islanders on the mainland by
sponsoring yearly social events. They promote and offer guidance to the
other Virgin Islands associations throughout the United States and
continue to preserve the values that are the roots of their heritage.
For the past ten years, in commemoration of the day that the Virgin
Islands were transferred from the Danish government to the United
States, ``Virgin Islands Transfer Day'', this organization has honored
numerous outstanding Virgin Islanders in the area of sports, politics,
education, health and community involvement. This year, the
organization and all of its past honorees was recognized at the Tenth
Anniversary Transfer Day Dinner Dance held in New York on March 31,
2001.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize and commend the Virgin Islands
Freshwater Association, Inc. as an outstanding model for community
involvement and the preservation of their culture. I invite my
colleagues to join with me in congratulating the efforts of this
organization.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO BONNIE GARTSHORE
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life
of Bonnie Gartshore, a woman of letters and history who will be honored
in Monterey, California on June 9.
The living memory of Monterey and Pacific Grove, Bonnie is a mild-
mannered journalist, a determined educator, an accomplished poet and a
lifelong human-rights activist.
She was a feminist before the term was coined. And as a devoted
Catholic, she has always displayed her conviction, piety and humanity
through her life and her work.
Bonnie was introduced at a tribute dinner at Carmel Mission in 1983
as ``a true peacemonger and an incorrigible advocate for the poor and
beleaguered.'' At that dinner Bonnie, ever the teacher, called
attention to the statues of Benny Bufano, pointing out that he always
turned the palms of hands outward, ``open to receive and also to let
go.'' That's an important lesson, Bonnie explained. ``Something I have
learned: If you are busy hanging onto things, you are going to miss a
lot along the way.''
Bonnie was born in Monterey 75 years ago--on Nov. 23, 1925--in the
heyday of the sardine industry that was centered just a few blocks from
her Filmore Street home. She called it a great place for living and
learning, with few houses and a mix of people that included school
principals, doctors, drunks and bums.
It was the Monterey that John Steinbeck wrote about. And it
conditioned her for life. ``I wasn't surprised by anything because I
had seen it all growing up,'' she said later. As for childhood: ``What
I did as a young girl growing up in the New Monterey that used to be,
was soak in the twin pleasures of forest and beach, develop a delight
in reading and a curiosity about people and places, and absorb the
values of my mother, who was a mixture of middle-class morality and
liberal political views.''
Her parents tried to calm her independence by sending her to Catholic
school in the 1930s, hoping the nuns would straighten her out. But
Bonnie ended up writing some of the services and sermons for the
priests of the diocese. Bonnie is one of the few women ever asked to
deliver a homily at San Carlos Cathedral. She did it, of course,
preaching on her theme: ``Jesus doesn't leave anyone out.''
She graduated from San Carlos School in 1939 and went on to Pacific
Grove High School, where she discovered a knack for writing and became
editor of the school newspaper. Bonnie then went to San Jose State
College as a journalism major. She edited the campus paper, the Spartan
Daily, of course, and graduated with honors in 1947.
Once out of school, Bonnie went to work for the Monterey Peninsula
Herald and started what has become a 53-year association as a writer
and editor through three locations and four owners. She began her
career in the society section, where ``the girls'' were assigned in
those days, as the assistant editor. Her first office was in the tower
of the building at Pearl and Washington Streets, which was The Herald's
location in those days, Morgan's Coffee & Tea these days.
Bonnie's first stint with The Herald lasted for 15 years. Then she
left to tour England and Scotland, work for the Paso Robles Daily
Press, do research in Big Sur, and work as assistant editor of The
Observer, the weekly newspaper of the Roman Catholic Diocese of
Monterey. She also took a variety of jobs that included writing
advertising brochures, doing publicity for the Monterey County and
Santa Cruz County Fairs and writing the introduction to an aphrodisiac
cookbook.
Bonnie also handled special sections for The Herald and wrote
occasional stories for The Herald's Weekend Magazine until she
eventually returned full time. In 1990, after establishing herself as
Monterey's ``historian in residence,'' she started a weekly history
column, Looking Back, for The Herald. The Monterey History & Art
Association recently published a collection of those columns as a book
titled ``Footprints from the Past.''
Bonnie also developed a writers' workshop for the inmates at the
Soledad Correctional Training Facility. She described it at the time as
``something useful I could do.'' Subsequently, she was hired by
Hartnell College in Salinas to teach English and speech classes at the
prison, an avocation that lasted for a 20-year stretch. During that
time, Bonnie staged a poetry reading at the Carl Cherry Center for the
Arts in Carmel in order to raise money to publish a book of the
convicts' poems.
She has also published two books of her own poetry, ``Trying to Put
it Together'' in 1988 and ``Taking My Cue from the Walrus'' in 2000.
Beyond her professional pursuits, Bonnie's devotion to religion has
made her a lifelong activist for peace and social justice. ``In the
1960s I came to understand that religion and activism go hand in
hand,'' she explained.
She picketed with the United Farm Workers before it became
fashionable, marched with civil rights and peace groups, helped
organize a Monterey memorial of the bombing of Hiroshima, interviewed
the homeless and presented programs about humanity in Monterey, Pacific
Grove and Carmel. She organized programs for Catholic women, presented
retreats and wrote liturgies for the priests of the other gender.
Bonnie has made her home in Pacific Grove for the past 45 years,
where she's been active in anything literary, including the Monterey
Peninsula Dickens Fellowship, The Robert Louis Stevenson Club of
Monterey and the Cherry Foundation in Carmel.
In 1989, when Bonnie was presented the Woman of the Year award from
the Quota Club of Monterey-Pacific Grove, she told that audience: ``I'm
learning all the time. . . . There were all these people along the way,
all the wonderful people I was learning from.''
____________________
COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
______
speech of
HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues to
remember one of the great tragedies of the twentieth century: the
deportations and massacres of more than one and a half million
Armenians in the final
[[Page 6286]]
years of the Ottoman Empire. I extend my sincere sympathy to the
survivors and their descendants for the hardships they suffered. Our
hearts go out to Armenians around the world, including the Armenian-
American community, as they mourn the loss of those innocent lives.
However, Armenians deserve not only our sympathy, but our support as
well, Although Armenia has made great strides to become an independent
and democratic state, many challenges remain. As Armenia, moves towards
forging a lasting peace in the region, it is critical that there be an
honest accounting of all those who died and why they died.
Taking a moment here today, is the least we can do to honor the
victims of that terrible time, but it is essential nonetheless. If
there is to be any hope of preventing future acts of such inhumanity,
the senseless acts of violence inflicted upon Armenians must be
properly recognized.
____________________
A SPECIAL TRIBUTE ON THE 125TH ANNIVERSARY OF CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
______
HON. PAUL E. GILLMOR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to
recognize an institution in northwestern Ohio. Central Mutual Insurance
Company has a history as great and rich as Ohio itself.
The ``Van Wert County Mutual Fire Insurance Company'' was formed on
April 5, 1876, the start of what was to become today's Central
Insurance Companies. Twelve days later Central Mutual was incorporated
and has been providing insurance for automobiles, homes, and businesses
through independent agents in 15 states with regional offices in
Atlanta, Boston, Dallas and Van Wert. Central Mutual's family is made
up of Central Insurance Companies, the All-American Insurance Company,
Central Insurex, and CMI Lloyds, located in Dallas, TX.
Soon after its founding, Central Insurance began to operate through
independent agents rather than having salesmen sell directly to the
public, which was revolutionary at the time. The first agency to meet
the call was the Purmort Brothers Insurance Agency, also in Van Wert,
which has been continually representing Central Insurance for its
entire 125 years. Quickly the Central Insurance Company began to grow
and by 1883, they expanded their operations outside of their home
state. Since then, they have spread across the country, opening offices
while still retaining the important values that guided them to success
in the late 1800's.
In today's extremely competitive market, customer service is the key
to success. Central Mutual epitomizes that commitment. An insurance
policy is simply a promise to pay for covered losses that occur to a
policyholder's assets. For the last 125 years, their primary commitment
to policyholders has been to ensure that adequate funds are available
to fulfill these promises.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize this company for all of its
contributions to Ohio, including its Fire Museum, which preserves a
vital piece of American history. In addition, I want to wish all of the
Central Mutual Insurance Company family the best. You are an example
for Ohio and the country.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MS. BETTY TIMES
______
HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Betty Times.
Betty Times was a truly unique individual whose record of dedicated
community service is an inspiration. Her leadership has meant so much
to the many agencies she supported as well as the individuals whose
lives she touched.
Her work included the Marin City-USA Project, Sausalito School Board,
Marin General Hospital Board, Marin Education Fund, the Marin City
Community Development Corporation, the National Women's Political
Caucus, and many others. She became the first African-American to head
a county department when she was named to direct the newly formed
Citizens Service Office in 1978. She has been honored by the Marin
Women's Hall of Fame, the county Human Rights Commission (the Martin
Luther King Humanitarian Award), and the Marin County Grass Roots
Leadership Network.
Mr. Speaker, we honor Betty Times for her strength, good humor, wit,
and integrity as well as her leadership. The Marin community will be
the poorer for her loss.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE ARMENIAN COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF FRESNO
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the
Armenian Community School of Fresno on celebrating their 24th year of
existence at their annual banquet.
The Armenian Community School of Fresno was opened with 24 students
on September 12, 1977. This was the first community-wide Armenian day
school in Fresno. Through generous donations from the Hovannissian and
Sahatdjian Families, as well as other individuals and organizations,
the school was able to move from the Holy Trinity Armenian Apostolic
Church Sunday School room to its present location on September 8, 1980.
The essence of the Armenian Community School is to emphasize serious
study, to educate on social responsibility, and to lay the foundation
for strong, healthy, moral, ethical, and spiritual values.
The student body has grown to over 120 students. Many features have
been added to the education program such as the Fresno County Science
Fair, Outdoor Education Camps, a solid Physical Education program, and
a Student Council. The students receive a bilingual curriculum, which
helps them become model Armenian-American citizens with a strong
appreciation and knowledge of their heritage and culture.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Armenian Community School of
Fresno on the occasion of their 24th year anniversary. I urge my
colleagues to join me in wishing the Armenian Community School of
Fresno many more years of continued success.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JEANNE STINE, FORMER MAYOR OF THE CITY OF TROY, MICHIGAN
______
HON. SANDER M. LEVIN
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 2001, the City of Troy, Michigan
will pay tribute at a dinner in honor of their former Mayor, Jeanne
Stine. She recently left that post she had held since 1992.
During Mayor Stine's tenure, the City of Troy witnessed remarkable
growth and prosperity, whether measured by the total market value of
its property, the growth in employment, or most vitally, the quality of
life for Troy's citizens. The ground was recently broken for
construction of a community center, including a new gymnasium,
conference center, computer room, exercise facilities, and a senior
citizen dining room. The annual Troy Daze festival prospered under her
tutelage. There, I have spent many happy hours with Mayor Stine at the
festival, watching her as she pridefully spoke to the annual ceremonies
swearing in new citizens and touring the many booths of a wide variety
of Troy's public service groups.
Beginning with her first service to Troy's citizens when elected to
the City Council in 1976, Jeanne Stine has worked tirelessly for her
community. She serves as the Immediate Past President of the Michigan
Association of Mayors and Vice President of the Michigan Municipal
League. She also serves on the Board of Directors of a number of
organizations, including the Boys and Girls Club of Troy, Arab American
Chaldean Council and the Troy Community Coalition.
Mayor Stine received her BS and RA from Wayne State University. She
worked as an educator and school counselor in the neighboring community
of Clawson for 33 years.
Troy is a far more enjoyable, hospitable and cohesive community today
because of Jeanne Stine. No matter was too small for her attention, and
I was privileged to participate with her in some of her incessant
efforts to better life for Troy's citizens, whether improving the post
office, modernization of its highways, or the encouragement of the
uniquely successful Troy Community Coalition and its anti-drug program.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking my friend,
Jeanne Stine, for her years of public service and in wishing her good
health and happiness in the years ahead.
[[Page 6287]]
____________________
COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
______
speech of
HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand with the Armenian-
American community to commemorate the Armenian Genocide, one of the
darkest chapters of world history.
First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan and
the gentleman from New Jersey for their leadership as co-chairmen of
the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues.
Today marks the 86th year of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide.
The Armenian people were subjected to deportation, expropriation,
torture, massacre, starvation, and abduction. April 24, 1915 is
recognized the world over as the day the Ottoman Turks rounded and
killed hundreds of Armenian leaders in Constantinople. Thousands more
were murdered in public. This began an eight year long campaign that
claimed the lives of over 1.5 million Armenian men, women and
children--half of the world's Armenian population at the time.
Moreover, 500,000 Armenians were forcibly driven out of their homeland
to seek refuge in other nations.
From 1915 to 1923, in a short eight years, the Ottoman Turks
systematically and deliberately slaughtered over 1.5 million Armenians
in their homeland. In a short eight years, in the blink of any eye, a
2,500 year-old civilization--the first Christian nation in the world--
was almost wiped out.
Because of modern-day Turkey's attempt to disavow the Armenian
Genocide and dispute the historical records, we must continue to affirm
the Armenian Genocide. We must continue to commemorate the victims and
the survivors as a matter of conscience and as a matter of faith. I
believe we must have faith that efforts to do so will make a difference
and will help keep the memories alive despite the Turkish government's
attempt to rewrite history. I believe we must have faith to work
together in the hopes of preventing any type genocide from ever
occurring again.
As I said two years ago in this chamber and on this floor, we cannot,
should not and will not forget the Armenian Genocide. As a matter of
conscience, we should all stand together to speak out to remember the
victims. While the Armenians have suffered through such tragic horrors,
it would be an even greater tragedy if we forget. We will remember and
honor their memories in the hopes for a better tomorrow.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE KALINA SINGING SOCIETY
______
HON. JACK QUINN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to
the Kalina Singing Society of my Congressional district on the occasion
of its 100th Anniversary.
Founded in Buffalo, New York on March 1, 1901, the Kalina Singing
Society is a women's chorus founded under the auspices of the Polish
Singing Circle and a member of the Polish Singers' Alliance of America.
For the past 100 years, it has proudly promoted American and Polish
culture through song, and has garnered a fine reputation as an
outstanding performance group.
Throughout its rich history, and still today, the Kalina Singing
Society has promoted the Arts, as well as our City's rich cultural
heritage. They have performed countless concerts, operettas, recitals,
guest appearances, joint concerts, and holiday offerings, and have
participated in national competition.
The Kalina Singing Society has continued to exhibit a strong and
dedicated commitment to the Polish-American community, the City of
Buffalo, and to the spirit of community service and volunteerism that
has always been the hallmark of our Western New York community.
Mr. Speaker, today I join with the group's membership, and indeed,
our entire Western New York community, to honor the Kalina Singing
Society on this historic anniversary. On behalf of the Thirtieth
Congressional district of the State of New York, I want to formally
extend my enthusiastic commendation, and offer my personal best wishes
for the Kalina's second century.
____________________
RECOGNIZING PAULINE BLAYNEY
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Pauline
Blayney for being named ``Silent Servant'' of the year 2001 by the
Fowler Chamber of Commerce.
Pauline was bom in Fresno and has been a Fowler resident since the
age of six. In 1946 she married Laurice Blayney. The couple has three
children and nine grandchildren.
Pauline has been involved with several community activities in the
community, including: Fowler Improvement Association, Friday Book Club,
Iowa Community Club, Presbyterian Church of Fowler, Presbyterian Women
of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., Edwin Blayney Senior Center, Girls
Scouts, Cub Scouts.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Pauline Blayney for her ``Silent
Servant'' of the year 2001 award presented by the Fowler Chamber of
Commerce. I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing Pauline Blayney
many more years of continued success.
____________________
HONORING COMMISSIONER JACK BUELL FOR ACTS OF CARING
______
HON. C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER
of idaho
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, this week is National County Government Week.
Countless counties across the country are represented in Washington,
D.C. to honor outstanding elected officials who do so much to serve
their communities. As a former Lieutenant Governor of Idaho for
fourteen years, I have had the privilege of working with many fine
officials on the county level. One of those officials is Mr. Jack
Buell.
For the past twenty years, Jack has ably represented the citizens of
Benewah County, Idaho as County Commissioner. He's a Democrat. But that
isn't what distinguishes Jack. A lifelong Idahoan, Jack was born in St.
Maries, Idaho. He married Eleanor, his wife of 39 years, raised a
family and built a successful trucking business. Through the years, he
has developed affiliations that have benefited the citizens of Idaho--
including, the Idaho Department of Transportation Advisory Board, the
Idaho State Scaling Board, and the timber industry, in which he now
serves as President of the Associated Logging Contractors, and as
Chairman of the Idaho Forest Products Commission. In that last
capacity, he has passionately led the timber industry at rallies
throughout Idaho, Montana, and Washington with caravans of diesel
trucks.
And even those mighty achievements do not explain why I honor Jack
Buell today. In 1996, during heavy flooding and cleanup efforts in St.
Maries, Jack selflessly donated the use of virtually every piece of
heavy equipment he owned to help move homes to safety, provide escape
for trapped victims, and help rebuild the flood-ravaged community. That
experience, and many others, resulted in his community and peers
awarding him the Idaho Association of Counties Sidney Duncombe Award.
Jack is a good friend, a solid family man and businessman, and he
deserves my thanks, and thanks from fellow county officials--and
Congress--for his service to communities and citizens in Idaho.
____________________
CONGRATULATING RJ REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY FOR BEING NAMED ONE OF ``THE
100 BEST COMPANIES TO WORK FOR''
______
HON. RICHARD BURR
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate
Mr. Andy Schindler and the fine folks at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
in Winston-Salem, North Carolina in being named to Fortune magazine's
annual list of ``100 Best Companies to Work For.''
I have always been proud of R.J. Reynolds and its employees and I
remain honored to be their Representative in Congress. Reynolds is one
of North Carolina's best corporate citizens, one of its largest
taxpayers, and an invaluable asset to our state. Frankly, Mr. Speaker,
it's been a long time coming for Reynolds to receive this national
commendation as North Carolinians have known of Reynolds' benefits for
years.
During my tenure in serving the people of the Fifth District of North
Carolina, I have had the pleasure of working with and getting to
[[Page 6288]]
know many of the executives and employees at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company. They are all extremely dedicated, hard working, creative, and
proud of their work. An organization is only as good as its people; and
the workers at Reynolds are second to none, and it shows in the final
product.
Congratulations to Reynolds and its employees for winning this award.
You've always been at the top of my list. Keep up the good work.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. TAMMY BALDWIN
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, during the week of March 26, 2001, I was
absent from the House due to a death in my family. Although I received
the appropriate leave of absence from the House, I want my colleagues
and constituents of the 2nd District of Wisconsin to know how I
intended to vote on the rollcall votes that I missed.
Rollcall vote 62: I would have voted ``No''.
Rollcall vote 63: I would have voted ``Aye''.
Rollcall vote 64: I would have voted ``Aye''.
Rollcall vote 65: I would have voted ``No''.
Rollcall vote 66: I would have voted ``Aye''.
Rollcall vote 67: I would have voted ``Aye''.
Rollcall vote 68: I would have voted ``No''.
Rollcall vote 69: I would have voted ``Aye''.
Rollcall vote 70: I would have voted ``No''.
Rollcall vote 71: I would have voted ``No''.
Rollcall vote 72: I would have voted ``Aye''.
Rollcall vote 73: I would have voted ``Aye''
Rollcall vote 74: I would have voted ``Aye''.
Rollcall vote 75: I would have voted ``No''.
____________________
CONGRATULATING FRESNO AREA CONGREGATIONS TOGETHER (FACT)
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Fresno Area
Congregations Together (FACT) for their service to the community of
Fresno. They recently celebrated their 2nd Annual Awards Banquet.
FACT has played a vital role in the community of Fresno since 1997.
FACT's mission is to develop neighborhood leaders, while improving the
quality of life in areas throughout the city. FACT members fulfill
their obligation to seek social justice, dignified relationships, and
healthier communities in a meaningful, hands-on manner. The 10
congregations/organizations that form FACT are: Anabaptist Community
Action, First Mexican Baptist, Grace Lutheran, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel,
Our Saviour's Lutheran, St. Alphonsus, St. Helen's, St. John's
Cathedral, San Antonio Maria Claret, and San Ygnacio Episcopal Mission.
FACT uses a systematic approach to addressing community concerns.
Congregational committee's meet with neighborhood residents to listen
to their memories, concerns, pressures, sources of pain, and hopes for
a better tomorrow. After community concerns are identified, research is
conducted to learn about causes and possible solutions to the concerns.
The concerns are then brought to the attention of the public official
responsible for facilitating positive results.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate FACT for their exemplary
community service in the city of Fresno. I urge my colleagues to join
me in wishing FACT many more years of continued success.
____________________
HONORING LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY
______
HON. DALE E. KILDEE
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honor to recognize one of
the crowning jewels of my district. On April 26, government and
community leaders will gather in Pontiac, Michigan to formally unveil
the new program headquarters of Lighthouse of Oakland County, the
Robert and Mary Flint Campus of Caring. This wonderful facility, named
after its two primary benefactors, was completely constructed with the
selfless donations of time, materials, and money from hundreds of
individuals who realize the significant impact Lighthouse has made in
the community.
Lighthouse of Oakland County began in 1972 as an ecumenical ministry
at Pontiac's St. Vincent de Paul Church, designed to assist low-income
families and senior citizens in need. Nearly 30 years later, it remains
committed to these ideals, providing a full range of human services to
help lift the less fortunate from poverty to independence and self-
sufficiency. With an army of volunteers and charitable donors,
Lighthouse provides service through three subsidiaries Lighthouse
Emergency Services, Lighthouse PATH, and Lighthouse Community
Development.
With branches in Pontiac and nearby Clarkston, Lighthouse Emergency
Services responds to families and seniors with an immediate need for
food, medicine, transportation, or temporary shelter. Last year, the
two branches assisted more than 76,000 people, many of whom are among
Oakland County's working poor.
Lighthouse Pontiac Area Transitional Housing, or PATH began in 1991
and provides a safe, structured environment for 24 women and their
children referred by homeless shelters. PATH offers counseling, job
training, child care, and instruction in parenting and life skills.
With an 84% success rate, many women have gone to become independent
and productive members of society.
In 1992, Lighthouse Community Development initiated a neighborhood
revitalization program whose goal was to increase affordable housing
for low-income families. Through the efforts of community volunteerism
and donations, a cluster of vacant and abandoned houses was transformed
into the Unity Park housing development. Community Development
continues to renovate and repair homes, build new single family
housing, maintain neighborhood yards, and also provides financial
management training.
Lighthouse's value has been recognized by many, as evidenced by its
many collaborations with churches, community programs, and businesses.
They have received numerous rewards and citations and serve as one of
Michigan's best managed non-profit groups.
Mr. Speaker, I am exceptionally proud to have Lighthouse of Oakland
County in my district, and I am grateful for people like Robert and
Mary Flint, the Lighthouse staff, and its Executive Director, Noreen
Keating. With the new facility, the Campus of Caring will provide
programs for computer training center, business and banking, senior
independence, and life skills, among others. Through their work, many
disadvantaged citizens will indeed reach their full potential. I ask my
colleagues in the 107th Congress to please join me in congratulating
Lighthouse.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. JIM LEEDY
______
HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend
and lifelong resident of my 34th Congressional District in Norwalk,
California. Mr. Jim Leedy recently passed away and I am proud to honor
him for his devout community service in organizations like the Knights
of Columbus, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Blind Association and the
Rancho San Antonio Boys Home.
Jim was born in Los Angeles in 1935 and educated in the Los Angeles
Public Schools. He married his high school sweetheart Kathleen in 1956
and was drafted into the Army in 1958, spending his time in Korea.
After an honorable discharge, he and his wife bought a home in Norwalk,
where they lived for forty wonderful and memorable years and raised two
children, Jim and Theresa.
Jim was a truck driver by trade, however most of his life was spent
helping others in various capacities. He became active in the Knights
of Columbus in 1972 and was preparing to become a 4th degree Knight
when he passed away. Under the leadership of Jim as Community Director,
the Norwalk Knights of Columbus won-top honors in Community Service at
the State convention in 1977. Since then, Jim has remained very active
and involved in many different service areas of the Knights of
Columbus, as well as the VFW. During the last two years of his life,
Jim served as Family Director for the Knights of Columbus under two
different Grand Knights. Even when he was not holding a specific
office, Jim constantly worked on programs to better the community,
organizing and raising funds for numerous charitable organizations.
Jim was also actively involved in St. Linus Church and gave much of
his time to helping others. During the Thanksgiving and Christmas
holidays, Jim would use his truck to pick up and deliver food baskets
to the needy. He also picked up and delivered wreaths and trees for
Christmas and palms during the
[[Page 6289]]
Easter season for the church. In addition to the service organizations
that Jim belonged to, he took it upon himself to volunteer to deliver
baked goods from local markets to the Norwalk Senior Citizens Center,
Rio Hondo Woman's Shelter, Norwalk Social Service Center, and woman's
detention center in Norwalk. He did this Monday through Friday every
week of the year. The people he delivered bread to affectionately
called Jim the ``Bread Man'', and he could always be counted on for a
great big ``bear hug'' and a smile no matter what task he was
undertaking.
Neighbors and friends used to say that there was nothing Jim would
say ``no'' to when he was asked to do for others. I am grateful to have
known Jim Leedy and experience his warmth and compassion that touched
so many around him. I wish to express my deepest sympathies to Jim's
wife Kathleen, his children, Jim and Theresa, grandchildren and step
grandchild.
____________________
COMMENDING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF STUDENTS AT HAYS HIGH SCHOOL
______
HON. JERRY MORAN
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I offer congratulations to the
twenty-nine students from Hays High School in Hays, Kansas for their
excellence in academic competition: Kristin Alstatt, Tara Bauer, Travis
Beam, Chelsea Boldra, Sarah Braun, Kelly Brooks, Ashleigh Dyck, Elise
Eilts, Brandon Fross, Rebekah Girard, Daran Herrman, Bojun Hu, Brandon
Klaus, Brandi Legleiter, Matthew Leiker, Abby Maska, Fatou Mbye, Jayna
Montoia, Charlotte Moore, Kayla Schippers, Jill Seib, Evan Shaw, Kevin
Wasinger, Michael Wasinger, Sonya Wesselowski, Jeremy Wilson, Michael
Wilson, Joslin Woofter, Alexandra Zehner.
This past weekend, Hays High represented the state of Kansas in the
national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the
Constitution program. These Kansas seniors joined over 1200 students
from across the United States to compete in Washington, DC. These young
scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals and through
their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the
fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. I
commend each of these students for their hard work and success.
I would also like to recognize their teacher, Sue Boldra, for helping
prepare these young students. Ms. Boldra's commitment and dedication to
nurture and encourage our youth shines through the accomplishments of
her students. The First Congressional district has been proud to be
represented by Hays High for the past four years on the national level
in this prestigious competition. I comrnend Ms. Boldra for her
excellent job promoting education and patriotism among the youth of
Kansas.
I also applaud Professor Richard Heil at Fort Hays State University
for his three years of service as a judge at the We the People national
finals. Dr. Heil's commitment to this program has helped students from
across the United States take a strong interest in the principles that
govern our nation.
It is an honor to recognize such a meritorious group.
____________________
HONORING ELMA MANKIN, HERNDON ROTARY CITIZEN OF THE YEAR
______
HON. TOM DAVIS
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to honor a friend of Northern Virginia, Ms. Elma Mankin,
who is being recognized by the Herndon Rotary Club as Citizen of the
Year at a ceremony on April 25, 2001 in Herndon, Virginia.
Ms. Mankin has dedicated herself to making our community a better
place. As an active philanthropist, she spends countless hours
volunteering in Herndon's many historical sites. She is involved with
the Herndon Historical Society, the Herndon Women's Club, Reston
Hospital, Herndon United Methodist Church, the Council for the Arts in
Herndon, and other local organizations.
A lifelong member of Herndon, Ms. Mankin has seen it grow from a one-
stop-light town to the booming technological corridor it is today. She
began her career as a secretary at Herndon High School and eventually
moved to the Herndon Elementary School. She retired when she gave birth
to her two daughters. After the last of her children grew up, she
looked for ways to remain active in the community.
She went to Northern Virginia Community College to receive her
associate's degree in fine arts. Her works became well-known, but she
decided to keep art as a hobby. Ms. Mankin continues to enjoy art, but
her real joy is her love of volunteering. She became involved in over
ten organizations after finishing her degree.
Ms. Mankin continues her volunteer efforts, visiting Reston Hospital
once a week to assist in the rehabilitation center. She also
participates in a social group for local women called ``Lunch and Fun
Bunch.'' She serves as a trustee on the Herndon School Board, a
lifetime member of the Historical Society, and has served as a town
election official for 22 years. Her countless hours of service make our
district proud to have such a fine citizen.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish the very best to Ms. Elma Mankin as
she is recognized as the Citizen of the Year. She certainly has earned
this recognition, and I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in
applauding this remarkable achievement.
____________________
HONORING PAUL BESSELIEVRE
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor
Paul Besselievre, the recently retired C.E.O./Owner of Valley Trane,
who was recently featured in an Executive Profile for the Fresno
Business Journal newspaper. The question and answer Executive Profile,
printed in the Fresno Business Journal on February 26, 2001, reads as
follows:
Q. What is the best thing about your job?
A. Dealing with professionals within the company and the
community.
Q. What is the worst thing about your job?
A. Those 7 a.m. meetings.
Q. What is your best professional accomplishment?
A. Training many young engineers and other professionals to
be successful in the industry, and hopefully, in life.
Q. If you could effect any change in the business
community, what would it be?
A. To get back to doing business with a handshake, where a
man's word is his bond, and lawyers are used mostly to write
your will.
Q. What is your best personal accomplishment?
A. My wife of 39 years is still my sweetheart. Every Friday
is date night. And we still make out.
Q. What is a good yardstick of success?
A. Good friends and a family that loves you.
Q. Best decision?
A. I asked Carol Poljansek to marry me.
Q. Worst decision?
A. To skate across Bear Butte Lake before the ice was thick
enough. This should stimulate thought.
Q. What is the community service project or event closest
to your heart?
A. I belong to too many organizations to pick one. Each has
a special place in my heart, or I wouldn't be a part of it. I
couldn't pick a favorite child. Any organization or project
that improves the livability of my community is close to my
heart.
Q. Best advice you've ever received?
A. One night in 1965 while working late, Earl Nightengale
came on the radio and asked a simple question. What do you
say when someone asks, ``Will you do me a favor?'' Most
people ask what it is. He encouraged them to just say
``sure.'' It's an attitude. Expect the best of people. If
they ask for something unreasonable, you can always recant.
What you learn when you expect the best of people is that you
usually get it. This change in attitude becomes a way of
life. That 10-minute broadcast had a profound impact on me.
Life as an optimist is a lot more enjoyable.
Q. Favorite book?
A. The Children's Stories of the Bible. My parents read it
to my sister and me, and Carol and I read it to our children.
Q. Favorite recreational activities?
A. Camping, skiing, fishing, cooking. Any activity
outdoors, especially in the mountains.
Q. Where did you spend your most recent vacation?
A. A trip to Kansas City to spend Thanksgiving with my
children, grandchildren, mother, sister, niece, nephew, and
friends who are also family.
Q. What type of car do you drive?
A. A 1983 Buick Riviera convertible.
Q. What is your favorite restaurant?
A. Every ethnic restaurant. We will never run out of
favorites. This area is rich with them. Indian, Thai,
Chinese, Japanese, Basque, Italian, Mexican, Cajun,
Vietnamese, Armenian, etc.
Q. What was your first job?
[[Page 6290]]
A. Emptying wastebaskets in an office building after school
in Lemmon, South Dakota when I was 10 years old. Moved on to
a lawn mowing and snow shoveling business when I was 12.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor my friend Paul Besselievre for his years
of dedicated and distinguished service to his community. I urge my
colleagues to join me in wishing Mr. Besselievre a pleasant retirement
and many more years of continued success.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE
of hawaii
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was unavoidably detained in
Hawaii on official business during which two rollcall votes were taken.
Had I been present I would have voted:
Rollcall No. 85, Motion to Instruct Conferees on the FY 2002 Budget
Resolution, ``Yes''.
Rollcall No. 86, Motion to Suspend the Rules on HR 428 concerning the
participation of Taiwan in the World Heath Organization, ``Yes''.
____________________
COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
______
speech of
HON. XAVIER BECERRA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the 86th anniversary
of the Armenian Genocide, in hopes that we will work to ensure that our
country's foreign policy reflects a respect for human rights, and
renounces ethnic cleansing and genocide. This Special Order brings
forth an opportunity to pay tribute to the memory of the 1.5 million
Armenians that lost their lives as a result of this tragic event.
As we arrive at this anniversary once again, the United States should
now more than ever promote healing with Turkey and the Armenian
community in this nation and abroad. By acknowledging the great tragedy
of the Armenian Genocide, we would be doing something today that is
right for the wrong endured by Armenians 86 years ago. Although we are
conscience of the current crisis in the Middle East and value our
relationship with Turkey, it does not diminish the need to recognize
what Armenians experienced during the early 20th Century. There are
many people across the world who will agree that this is a highly
sensitive and serious issue to discuss. But in order for us to correct
the errors of the past we must never forget they took place by
officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide and standing up against
such atrocities.
On this April 24th, 2001, we remember and mourn the loss of all the
Armenians killed from 1915 to 1923. But we also look forward to the day
when we will see peace and stability realized by not tolerating acts of
severe cruelty and injustice. Unfortunately, genocide is not yet a
vestige of the past. In more recent years we have witnessed ethnic
killings in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo. We must continue on
with a commitment to prevent such assaults on humanity from occurring
again. There are many Armenians living in California today who form a
strong and vibrant part of the State's community. The strength they
have displayed in overcoming the suffering is an example to us all.
Surrounded by countries still hostile to them, to this day the
Armenian struggle continues. Our nation must work to prevent further
aggression and assure Armenians throughout the world that they can live
free of threats to their existence and property. Now with an
independent Armenian state, the United States has an opportunity to
contribute to a true memorial of the past by strengthening Armenia's
emerging democracy.
Mr. Speaker, as we remember and honor the dead, we also honor the
living. Out of the ashes of their history, Armenians all over the world
have clung to their identity and have prospered in new communities. For
my part, I will vigorously fight to help improve the lives of Armenians
in the United States and abroad.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. THOMAS STARZL
______
HON. JOHN E. PETERSON
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of
one of the truly great Americans of the 20th century, Dr. Thomas
Starzl, the renowned ``Father of Transplantation.''
Dr. Starzl turned 75-years old on March 11th, and his former
students, colleagues, patients and others are gathering in Pittsburgh
in late April for the dedication of a portrait to hang alongside other
University of Pittsburgh medical research luminaries such as Dr. Jonas
Salk, who discovered the polio vaccine. Dr. Starzl's pioneering work on
organ transplantation is no less important to our society.
One considered to be mere science fiction, the reality of organ
transplantation is today often taken for granted. For years throughout
his early career, Dr. Starzl tirelessly experimented with
transplantation in the face of adversity and the skepticism of his
colleagues and academics. But he succeeded, and because of his work
thousands of lives are saved each year by organ transplant surgery.
It was 20-years ago this year that Dr. Starzl performed the first
liver transplant in Pittsburgh. Since that time, more than 11,300
transplants have been performed in what is now the UPMC Health System,
making Pittsburgh the busiest transplant center in the world. Even
though he retired from surgery in 1991, his work and dedication to the
field of transplantation continues and is unmatched.
Now as we proceed into a new century, his work continues. Just
because he's now emeritus does not mean he will be idle. He still
contributes on a daily basis (just a few years ago he was named the
most cited in clinical medicine) and he will provide leadership and
vision to the program that bears his name.
Few in their lifetimes have pioneered and developed a field of
medicine and seen it flourish, as has Dr. Starzl. And expect more from
him--there are breakthroughs around the corner.
____________________
COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
______
speech of
HON. STENY H. HOYER
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, every year on April 24 we commemorate the
Armenian genocide. Between 1915 and 1923, in what is called the first
genocide of this century, more than one million Armenians perished and
500,000 survivors were exiled from their homes in Ottoman Turkey. We
mark this unspeakable tragedy each year on that date so that we can
examine what occurred and honor the memory of the victims. Sadly, Mr.
Speaker, the massacre of the Armenians was not the last genocide of the
20th Century. In designing his ``final solution to the Jewish problem''
Adolf Hitler reflected, ``Who today remembers the Armenians?'' Decades
later, the cries of these victims echoed in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia-
Herzegovina and Kosovo.
We must remember, Mr. Speaker, but we must also learn from this event
and ultimately act on that knowledge to prevent such indescribable
horror from ever occurring again. There are those who deny that there
was an Armenian genocide. Mr. Speaker, Yehuda Bauer, historian of Yad
Vashem, has said that ``to deny a genocide . . . is a denial of
truth.'' We must speak the truth, and that is what we do here in this
House today.
As we honor the memory of those who perished, we marvel at the
strength of the survivors and the generations which have followed. In
the diaspora, the Armenian people have prospered and flourished
throughout the world. The creation of the independent state of Armenia
in 1991 not only provided the Armenian people with a homeland, but is a
beacon of hope for the future. It is our hope, Mr. Speaker, that
Armenia will thrive and prosper and continue to fortify its democracy.
It is also our hope, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Armenia and
Azerbaijan will redouble their efforts to find a solution to the
conflict in Nagomo-Karabagh. I commend our government for bringing the
parties together in Florida recently for renewed negotiations, and I
hope that this intensified effort will result in an agreement that will
ensure lasting peace for all the people of the region.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. RICHARD CHRISTMAS
______
HON. MIKE ROGERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the
accomplishments of Mr.
[[Page 6291]]
Richard Christmas of Lansing, Michigan. Mr. Christmas has been writing
letters for over forty years to government officials in an attempt to
set aside a day dedicated to space exploration. Over the years his
letter writing campaign has payed great dividends. Ten Michigan cities,
sixteen cities in other states, and a few states have dedicated a day,
and sometimes a week for space exploration.
Mr. Christmas has always had an interest in space ever since he was a
young boy. However, due to a severe accident he was forced to put his
space ambitions on hold. After his recovery he started to write letters
to government officials. At first there were few replies but as the
United States Space Program gained momentum so did his letter-writing
campaign. He has received several letters from mayors and governors
commending him on his continuous effort and dedication to space
exploration.
Today, Mr. Christmas wants more cities to become involved with making
space exploration a national holiday. With the National Air and Space
Museum's 25th anniversary around the corner, this would be a perfect
time to promote Space Day across the country and I encourage my
colleagues to support the efforts of my civic-minded constituent, Mr.
Richard Christmas.
____________________
HONORING PAUL POLO FOR HIS OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY
______
HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to
pay tribute to an outstanding Connecticut business leader and my dear
friend, Paul Polo, who has been honored by the Italian American
Historical Society of Greater New Haven with their 12th Annual
Distinguished Service Award.
Each year, the Italian American Historical Society of Greater New
Haven honors members of Connecticut's Italian American community for
their service and dedication. The Distinguished Service Award is a
reflection of their commitment to the Society and to it's mission--
preserving the culture and heritage of Italian-Americans. Throughout
his life, Paul has demonstrated a unique commitment to public service
in both his professional and philanthropic efforts.
Paul's contributions to the Italian-American community are
innumerable. For over four decades, Paul has been a member of the Order
Sons of Italy in America, serving as president of the nation's largest
and oldest Italian American organization for two years. Under his
leadership, the organization raised millions of dollars that was
contributed to education, medical research, and social awareness
issues. Paul now serves as the president of the Sons of Italy
Foundation, where he has again played a crucial role in fund-raising
efforts on behalf of a variety of service organizations. In addition to
his work on the national stage, Paul is also involved in several
organizations in Connecticut. A member of the Knights of Columbus,
Elks, Mount Carmel Society, the Chamber of Commerce, and as an
organizational representative of the American Society of Association
Executives, Paul has dedicated much of his life to making a real
difference in the lives of others.
An avid political activist, Paul has long been a figure in Washington
as well as Connecticut. In 1991, Paul met with former President Bush as
a representative from the Order Sons of Italy in America during an Oval
Office meeting to discuss initiatives for social equality. In addition,
he served on President Bush's policy round table. Former President Bill
Clinton named Paul an alternate delegate to the U.S. Small Business
Administration. Currently serving as the chairman of this year's
Democratic National Convention and co-vice chairman of the Italian
American Democratic Leadership Council--an organization which he helped
to establish--Paul remains an active participant in public affairs.
As a respected business leader, volunteer, an political activist,
Paul has left an indelible mark on the State of Connecticut. His
commitment and dedication has gone a long way to enrich our communities
and strengthen the bonds we share. It is with great pride that I rise
today to join his children, Paul Jr., Daniel and Michael;
grandchildren, Daniel Jr., Anthony, Philip, Nicole and Emily; family,
friends, and colleagues in extending my sincere appreciation and
congratulations to Paul Polo for his outstanding service to Connecticut
and our great nation.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. SUE WILKINS MYRICK
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to inclement weather, I was unable to
participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have
voted as follows: Rollcall vote 85, on the Motion to Instruct Conferees
on H. Con. Res. 83, establishing the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 2002, I would have voted
``nay.'' Rollcall vote 86, on H.R. 428, concerning the participation of
Taiwan in the World Health Organization, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE 2600TH BIRTHDAY OF LORD MAHAVIR
______
HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to praise
the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Vajpayee, in declaring this year as
the year of nonviolence. April 6 commemorates the 2600th birthday of
the greatest prophet of Jainism, Lord Mahavir.
Jainism is a beautiful religion originating in India over two
millennia ago, built on the principles of nonviolence, working on the
self, and realization of multiplicity of truth through our varying
perspectives of life. Lord Mahavir worked tirelessly all his life until
he reached Nirvana, and then embarked barefoot to spread his message of
truth across the great nation of India.
Lord Mahavir practiced and preached environmental protection to
safeguard trees, plants and animals for the living. The observation of
the nonviolent practices of the Jainis was a major influence on the
philosophy of the great Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi. The same
principles of nonviolence and respect for life were practiced more
recently by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the United States, as he
led the struggle for civil rights for all Americans.
Mahavir's principles are extremely important today as well. Mahavir
or The Great Soul taught us liberation of soul by right knowledge,
right faith and right conduct. We must all bring this into our lives to
make this world a better place for our children and grandchildren.
April 6th marks the beginning of pioneering celebrations throughout
the world for nonviolence, and thus I ask my colleagues to join me in
recognizing the year 2001 as the year of nonviolence worldwide.
____________________
LETTER CARRIERS DELIVER HOPE TO FAMILIES IN NEED
______
HON. GERALD D. KLECZKA
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 12, 2001, the largest one-
day food drive in the country will take place. Letter carriers from
across the nation will join together and collect nonperishable food
items from their customers and the supplies will be taken to food
pantries for distribution. In Milwaukee, last year's food drive
benefited the community by providing a total of over 376,000 pounds of
donations for more than 100 local food operations.
These contributions come at a critical time when donations to food
pantries traditionally fall. During the summer months, demand for food
to feed school-aged children typically peaks as access to school
breakfast and lunch programs is restricted. Students suffer as their
parents struggle to provide well-balanced meals. It is because of this
that the National Letter Carriers Food Drive is so important to the
health of our communities.
This project has been made possible by the generous sponsorship and
efforts of the National Association of Letter Carriers, U.S. Postal
Service, AFL-CIO, United Way of Greater Milwaukee, Harley-Davidson
Motor Company, Covenant Healthcare, and Hunger Task Force of Milwaukee.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to ask that my colleagues lend their
support to the letter carriers' food drives in their own hometowns and
districts. To my neighbors in Milwaukee and Waukesha counties, I ask
that they look deep in their hearts and pick up a few extra
nonperishable items while doing their weekly shopping. As all food
collected remains in the community, these essential donations will
benefit those that we work and live with.
Together we can make a difference in the fight against food shortage.
May 12, 2001, the
[[Page 6292]]
National Letter Carriers' Food Drive provides a practical step in the
march to stamp out hunger.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MARY LOU RAYNES
______
HON. IKE SKELTON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and pay
tribute to Mary Lou Raynes, who will retire from Central Missouri State
University on July 31, 2001, after more than 31 years of devoted
service to the Army ROTC Fighting Mules Battalion.
Mrs. Raynes began her service to the Fighting Mules Battalion in
August of 1969. During her first decade at CMSU, she served as the
university-hired secretary of the department. Later, she was promoted
to government service, spending over 20 years as the department's
Military Personnel Technician.
Mrs. Raynes has continually gone above and beyond the call of duty.
She has received numerous cash awards, two consecutive Annual Formal
Inspections with laudatory ratings and received commendation from Cadet
Command for excellence on six different occasions. She is continually
cited as the ``subject matter expert'' in Cadet Personnel Management
and has been praised many times for ``far exceeding the standards
expected of a civil service employee.'' Mrs. Raynes has been a loyal
ally of the ROTC Fighting Mules Battalion, even when the group was
severely shorthanded in both instructors and administrative support.
On top of her overwhelming support to Central Missouri State
University's Army ROTC program, Mrs. Raynes has been successful in
other areas. She was recognized as the Warrensburg, Missouri, American
Business Woman of the Year. She was also commended for organizing the
community Christmas Store and the radio show KOKO Expo Home Show.
Mr. Speaker, Mary Lou Raynes' passion for excellence in Central
Missouri State University's Army ROTC has made a difference in the
lives of students and teachers. I know all Members of Congress will
join me in paying tribute to her outstanding service to the Army ROTC
Fighting Mules Battalion.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MATTIE M. HOLLIMAN
______
HON. VERNON J. EHLERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a truly
outstanding woman who did so much in our community to help those who
are less fortunate. If only there were more people like Mattie M.
Holliman; then this world would be a better place. I am saddened to
report that Mattie passed away on March 9 after a brief illness. This
lady, known as ``Mother Holliman'' in our community, leaves behind an
outstanding legacy.
During her 79 years, Mattie was a tireless worker who looked out for
others who were homeless, hungry or unemployed. Sitting still was a
concept that was unknown to Mattie. If there was a community issue to
be addressed then Mattie would organize a community meeting with local
officials to discuss the issues. She had a special way of bringing
people together to solve problems. She was an organizer with an
empathetic soul, and she was as much at home with her Mayor or Senator
as she was with the homeless person sleeping under the freeway.
For 16 years she worked as a certified social worker at the Sheldon
Complex. But her work didn't stop when she turned off the lights and
closed the door at the office. Mattie was always doing something to
help somebody or some cause. In addition to her job at the Sheldon
Complex, she was the founder of two grassroots organizations, Community
Volunteers Agency and the Men's Supportive Task Force.
Mattie's dedication and work did not go unnoticed in our community,
which is evident by the numerous awards she received for her efforts in
community service. Among her many honors were the United Way's
Volunteer of the Year Award, YWCA Tribute, Giants Award, NAACP Award,
and in 1993 she was recognized by President Clinton for being the first
inductee into the Creative Communications Centres Women's Hall of Fame.
All of us who knew Mattie Holliman are thankful for the opportunity
to have shared in her life. Her leadership, thoughtfulness, and caring
ways will be missed by those who had the privilege of knowing her. She
was a remarkable woman with a heart of gold who did so much for so many
during her lifetime.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO HOWARD RUBENSTEIN
______
HON. TOM LANTOS
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me today in
paying tribute to the extraordinary talent and civic contributions of
Howard J. Rubenstein, who will be honored on Sunday at the Fifth Annual
Heritage Dinner of the Museum of Jewish Heritage--A Living Memorial to
the Holocaust.
Mr. Speaker, Howard Rubenstein was dubbed by Newsweek Magazine as the
``Dean of Damage Control.'' That praise is indeed appropriate because
Howard is one of America's foremost public relations consultants. A Phi
Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, he later
finished first in his class in the night school division at St. John's
University School of Law, and later was awarded an honorary doctor of
law degree from the University. Howard founded his public relations
agency in 1954 and ran it from his parents' kitchen table until his
mother refused to answer the family phone, ``Rubenstein and
Associates.'' Today his firm is one of the nation's largest and best-
known independent public relations agencies with a staff of more than
190 people.
Mr. Speaker, the Museum of Jewish Heritage--a Living Memorial to the
Holocaust, opened to the public in 1997. Overlooking the Statue of
Liberty and Ellis Island, its mission is to educate people of all ages
and backgrounds about the 20th century Jewish experience before, during
and after the Holocaust. The Museum contains more than 2,000
photographs, 800 artifacts, and 24 original documentary films. The
Museum's core exhibition combines archival material with modern media
to provide a thoughtful and moving chronicle of history, keeping the
memory of the past alive and offering hope for the future.
Howard Rubenstein is being honored by the Museum of Jewish Heritage
for his extraordinary commitment to public service. He has served as a
member of numerous civic and philanthropic organizations, and currently
sits on the Executive Committee of the Association for a Better New
York. He is a trustee of the Police Athletic League, the Central Park
Conservancy, and the Inner City Scholarship Fund of the Archdiocese of
New York. He is Vice Chairman of the new York State-New York City
Holocuast Memorial Commission and is a special advisor to the New York
City Commission on the Status of Women. Howard has served on the
Mayor's Committee on Business and Economic Development for Mayors
Beame, Dinkins, and Giuliani, and he is a member of the board of
directors of the Center for Democracy here in Washington, D.C. he also
served as a consultant to the United States Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission and, as an attorney, he was assistant counsel to the
Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, one particular episode stands out in my reflection upon
Howard Rubenstein's service to his community. In 1991, the Brooklyn
community of Crown Heights exploded in a chain reaction of violence,
riots, and ever mounting divisions between the area's African-American
and Hasidic Jewish populations. These disputes escalated, eventually
dividing the city and receiving national attention. Responding to a
request for his assistance from then Mayor David Dinkins, Howard
undertook the difficult task of diffusing the tensions between the
African-American and Jewish communities. He organized a ``Peace
Conference'' in Crown Heights and then planned a ``Neighbor to
Neighbor'' event at the Apollo Theater in Harlem. There he screened the
movie, ``The Liberators'', a film depicting the liberation of a Nazi
concentration camp by African-American soldiers, to an audience of over
1300 Jews and African-Americans. The showing was broadcast live on New
York television, while simultaneously 500 ``Neighbor to Neighbor''
meetings were held in homes and community centers around the City.
Howard's efforts were critical to defusing tensions as well as
restoring civility and understanding in Crown Heights. I believe that
this efforts speak volumes about the character and commitment of this
outstanding man.
Mr. Speaker, in an era when business leaders all too often fail to
demonstrate a devotion to the needs of our society, Howard Rubenstein
is a model for all of us to emulate. I invite my colleagues to join me
in extending warmest congratulations and sincere appreciation to Howard
J. Rubenstein on this special occasion.
[[Page 6293]]
____________________
U.S. INTERVENTION IN SOUTH KOREA
______
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing into the record the
attached article from yesterday's Wall Street Journal, as I believe it
accurately depicts the problem that many nations face in attempting to
resolve their difference once our government decides to insert itself
into internal or regional matters in other parts of the world. Instead
of hindering peace in the ways pointed out by this article, we can play
a constructive role in the world. However, to do so will require a
change of policy. By maintaining open trade and friendly diplomatic
relations with all countries we could fulfill that role as a moral
compass that our founders envisioned. Unfortunately, as this article
shows, our current policy of intervention is having the exact opposite
effect.
South Korea Fears Bush Team Is Hindering Detente With North
(By Jay Solomon)
Seoul, South Korea--Amid heightened tension between the
U.S. and China over the downing of an American spy plane,
frustration is mounting inside President Kim Dae Jung's
government that President Bush's Asia policies are
undercutting ties between North and South Korea.
President Kim has made his peace initiative toward
reclusive North Korea--with whom the South remains
technically at war--a cornerstone of his administration. Mr.
Bush's advisers say they are still reviewing the merits of
engaging the communist North, but a number of Mr. Kim's aides
fear time is running out since his term ends next year.
Fueling this unease among some in Mr. Kim's government is
their belief that the Bush administration views peace on the
Korean Peninsula as working against its principal security
interests. Central to this is Mr. Bush's plans to build a
national missile-defense shield, for which North Korea's
missile program is a primary justification. U.S. military and
intelligence officials have played up in recent weeks both
the military and nuclear threats posed by North Korea's
military, re-emphasizing the Pentagon's need to maintain
37,000 troops in South Korea.
Now, the U.S.-China standoff over an American surveillance
plane that landed on China's Hainan island is fanning fears
that a renewed Cold War will grip North Asia. ``The U.S.'s
dependence upon a Cold War strategy . . . is causing the
detente mood (on the Korean Peninsula) to collapse,'' says
Jang Sung Min, a legislator with the Millennium Democratic
Party and an aide to Mr. Kim. He fears the U.S.'s pursuit of
missile defense will exacerbate this tension by leading to a
renewed arms race between regional powers China, Japan and
Russia.
The South Korean Foreign Ministry, while officially
maintaining that it is too early to judge Mr. Bush's policy
vis-a-vis North Korea, also is expressing skittishness toward
Washington's intentions. Spokesman Kim Euy Taek says the
ministry hopes ``the Bush administration will rethink its
skepticism'' toward North Korea after completing its review
of the Clinton team's policies toward Pyongyang.
For its part, the Bush administration doesn't accept the
premise that its actions are undermining Seoul's peace
initiative. ``We continue to strongly support President Kim's
policy of engagement with North Korea,'' a State Department
spokesman in Washington says. ``We share a common concern
about the nature and level of the military threat from North
Korea, and we continue to discuss ways to deal with that.''
Just three months ago, expectations were high that a peace
pact could be signed between allies South Korea and the U.S.
and North Korea. Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
had held an unprecedented meeting with North Korea's supreme
leader, Kim Jong II, after the North sent a senior envoy to
Washington. President Clinton was seriously considering a
deal in January where North Korea would scrap some weapons
programs in exchange for financial aid.
Kim Dae Jung's government followed up by scheduling a March
summit with Mr. Bush in Washington in hopes of picking up
where Mr. Clinton left off. Instead Mr. Bush voiced
``skepticism'' toward Kim Jong II's intentions and placed all
talks with North Korea on hold pending the Clinton-policy
review.
This rebuke has fueled a marked deterioration in North-
South relations. Last month, Pyongyang halted peace talks
with the South, a sporting exchange has been cancelled, and
Kim Jong II's proposed trip to South Korea during the first
half of the year has been delayed to the second half--at the
earliest.
Now, President Kim and his supporters are left hoping Mr.
Bush's team will quickly wrap up their review of North Korea
policy and sign on to new peace talks. If not, however, there
is a helpless sense of what can actually be achieved without
Washington's imprimatur. Hahn Hwa Kap, a senior member of
President Kim's Millennium Democratic Party, says: ``The
longer this process takes, the longer it will take for North-
South relations to improve.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO FORMER MICHIGAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE PAUL TESANOVICH
______
HON. BART STUPAK
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Paul
Tesanovich, a former representative to the Michigan House of
Representatives from the 110th Representative District, which is
comprised of six counties--Gogebic, Ontonagon, Baraga, Iron, Houghton,
and Keweenaw--in my congressional district.
Paul was first elected to the House in 1994, and he has just
concluded his service in the Michigan House because of the Michigan
term limits law. This law was enacted at the will of the voters of
Michigan, but I have to confess that in this case I believe the law has
turned a dedicated public servant out of office.
Mr. Speaker, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, where Paul and I are
from, is an area rich in natural wealth and scenic beauty. It is also
an area that, because of its sheer size, offers a wealth of diverse
social and political issues. Because its population is sparse, however,
its representation in Lansing is meager in numbers.
Spokesmen for this region, therefore, must stand taller and speak
more eloquently than their downstate counterparts. Paul served on the
important Appropriations Committee in the Michigan House, a position
that allowed him an excellent platform to speak on behalf of his
region.
Paul brought an essential understanding of the region with him when
he went to Lansing. He knew that the part of the state he represented
has a rich and diverse heritage. In fact, one community, Calumet, once
was so vital and prosperous that it came within one vote of becoming
the capital of Michigan.
Paul and I had the opportunity to work together on many major issues,
perhaps the most important of which was trying to rebuild the region's
economic vitality in the face of challenges like imports, which have
devastated its copper mining industry.
In trying to address the problems of unemployment arising from the
closing of the White Pine Mine and related economic fallout from that
closing, Paul and I have shared the knowledge that we have great
resources at hand in this part of Michigan, which will be at the heart
of any development effort. These resources include the excellent
quality of the area's workforce and the strength of its nationally-
renowned engineering school, Michigan Technological University.
I wish Paul and his wife Julie and their three children the best in
Paul's post-legislative career. He has my respect and friendship, and I
will miss working with him.
____________________
COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
______
speech of
HON. JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise with my colleagues in
calling for the remembrance of the Armenian Genocide. I remain deeply
concerned that the United States has not officially recognized this
tragedy as a genocide, and believe it is time this nation acknowledges
the truth.
That truth is told by those who were there. Many Armenians that saw
the killing, saw the destruction and lived through the persecution, are
now our neighbors and friends. For years, these brave individuals who
lost their loved ones have told the painful story of their experience,
yet it has often fallen on deaf ears. They have told of the day in
1915--April 24th--when Turkish officials arrested and exiled 200
Armenian political, intellectual and religious leaders. That terrible
day started a campaign of terror that would last for eight years,
resulting in the death of 1.5 million Armenians.
Today, despite all of our advances, we still see this kind of brutal
ethnic cleansing in several places around the world. In Kosovo, an
international military force had to be called in to end ethnic
cleansing in that tiny province. And across Africa, in places like
Sierra Leone and the Congo, entire groups of women, children and men
have literally been wiped out in attempts to control land and
resources. If we
[[Page 6294]]
are ever to stop such inhumane treatment, we must ensure that we speak
the truth about the past. We must ensure that our young people hear the
wrongs that have been committed against humanity, so that they have the
opportunity to stand firmly for basic human rights as they rise to
become our leaders.
As a nation, the United States speaks often about respect for human
rights. I am proud that we hold such values so close--but until will
accept the truth about atrocities like the Armenian Genocide we fail to
reach our goals.
____________________
BEADS OF HOPE PROJECT
______
HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, lymphoma advocates are coming to
Washington, DC for the 3rd annual Lymphoma Advocacy Day on April 25,
2001 to unveil a project that will put the rising incidence of lymphoma
into perspective for Members of Congress and the public.
Mr. Speaker, according to the American Cancer Society, 1996 saw over
85,000 new cases of lymphoid malignancies in the United States. These
included Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, the lymphocytic
diseases known as CLL (chronic lymphocytic leukemia) and ALL (acute
lymphoblastic leukemia) as well as multiple myeloma. Lymphoma is the
second most rapidly rising cancer over the last 20 years. Sixty percent
of all childhood malignancies are lymphomas or their cousin, leukemia.
The project being unveiled is called ``Beads of Hope'', it consists
of a necklace of beads to symbolize the 64,000 Americans who will be
diagnosed with lymphoma in 2001. Each bead represents one newly
diagnosed person.
Mr. Speaker, these Beads of Hope have a story of their own that I
would like to share, it makes me proud to be an American. The project
was conceived by Karl Schwartz, whose wife, Joanne, is a non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma survivor. Karl circulated his idea over several lymphoma
Internet list-servers and received an enthusiastic response. One member
of his email group, Jessica Chen, took off with the bead idea, shared
it with Debra of the Bead Fairies and received a donation for all
64,000 beads from The Beadery of Hope Valley, Rhode Island.
Email group members are volunteering to string beads in sections that
will be brought to Washington, DC and assembled on Capitol Hill.
Jessica estimates that when connected the necklace will be 600 yards
long! At the suggestion of Cure For Lymphoma board member Katherine
Adams, advocates will continue the theme by wearing beaded safety pins
on their clothing and distributing pins to Members of Congress with
whom they will be meeting on the 25th. Each bead on a pin will
represent one year of being touched by lymphoma.
I ask my colleagues to show your support for this caring initiative
by wearing these beaded pins. Make and distribute pins to your family,
friends, business associates and Congressional reps. Carry the theme
forward into National Lymphoma Awareness Week (Oct. 7-13).
I thank the Lymphoma advocates who have come to our Nation's Capitol,
I thank the Lymphoma Research Foundation of America for all the hard
work they have done to fight this dreaded disease. As you know I
strongly support the increased funding of the National Institutes of
Health, and hope to see its budget doubled over the next five years,
and with that hopefully diseases such as lymphoma will become history.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JAMES P. MORAN
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 87, 1 was
unavoidably detained on official business. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE FINLANDIA UNIVERSITY LIONS FOR THEIR NSCAA BASKETBALL
CHAMPIONSHIP
______
HON. BART STUPAK
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a few words about a great
accomplishment by a small university in my congressional district--one
of the nation's newest universities, as a matter of fact.
Finlandia University in Hancock, Michigan, up on the beautiful
Keweenaw Peninsula, is less than a year old. That age is deceiving,
however. Finlandia is actually a new name for Soumi College, a school
founded by Finnish immigrants in 1896 to ensure their children would
have a better life through advanced education.
One of the qualities of Finnish culture is a respect for the quality
of ``sisu,'' translated variously as persistence, determination, drive,
or stamina. The Finlandia Lions, the university's basketball team,
recently demonstrated the characteristic of sisu by capturing the
National Small College Athletic Association national championship in
basketball.
The team entered the tourney with a 14-14 record and came up in the
first round against St. Mary's College of Ave Maria University, an
Orchard Lake, Mich., school. After defeating St. Mary's by a score of
76-50, Finlandia University next faced the tournament's No. I seed,
Northwest Christian College from Eugene, Ore. In a comeback victory,
69-66, Finlandia won the right to meet Southern Virginia College of
Buena Vista, Va., which it defeated 98 84 to take the title.
The Finlandia Lions basketball team was led by second-year coach Art
Van Damme and assistant coach Duane Snell. Nine Michigan students and
one student from Finland make up the roster of the National Small
College Athletic Association championship team. Team members are Nick
Forgette and Jacob Polfus of Carney; Jeffrey Stiefel of Capac, Jeremy
Suardina of Gwinn; John Abramson, Painesdale; Mark Nolan, Watton; Jon
Paul Katona, Negaunee; Pete Flaska, Ishpeming; Bill Loeks, Iron
Mountain; and Marcus Ylainen of Helsinki, Finland.
Mr. Speaker, Finlandia University is the only private university in
Michigan's Upper Peninsula and one of only 28 colleges and universities
in the U.S. affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
In its vision statement, Finlandia University says it is ``committed to
offering liberal arts based, globally connected, international,
ecologically sensitive, spiritually engaged and career focused
baccalaureate and associate degree programs as well as community
education opportunities.''
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, Finlandia is also offering its students an
opportunity to cheer for one heck of a basketball team. I ask you and
my House colleagues to join me in offering the warmest congratulations
to Coach Van Damme and the Finlandia Lions for their success in
capturing the NSCAA basketball crown.
____________________
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, April 26, 2001 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.
MEETINGS SCHEDULED
MAY 1
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine the report of the panel to
review the V-22 Program.
SH-216
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings to examine climate change issues.
SR-253
10 a.m.
Appropriations
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for certain Department of Energy programs
relating to Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy,
science, and nuclear issues.
SD-124
[[Page 6295]]
Appropriations
Interior Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for the Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture.
SD-138
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine the legal issues surrounding
faith based solutions.
SD-226
Small Business
To hold hearings to examine the Small Business
Administration's funding priorities for fiscal year
2002.
SR-428A
Appropriations
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for the Department of Commerce.
S-146, Capitol
2 p.m.
Foreign Relations
East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the future relationship
between the United States and China.
SD-419
2:30 p.m.
Armed Services
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the United States military's
capabilities to respond to domestic terrorist attacks
involving the use of weapons of mass destruction.
SR-222
MAY 2
9:30 a.m.
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
To hold hearings to examine the current status of human
rights and democracy in Ukraine and the role of the
United States in assisting Ukraine's development as an
independent, market-oriented democracy in the face of
the current political crisis.
334, Cannon Building
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee
To hold hearings on individual fishing quotas.
SR-253
Environment and Public Works
To hold hearings to examine the science of global climate
change and issues related to reducing net greenhouse
gas emmissions.
SD-628
Appropriations
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for the Department of Labor.
SH-216
10 a.m.
Appropriations
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
SD-138
Appropriations
To hold closed hearings on Plan Colombia.
S-407, Capitol
2 p.m.
Judiciary
Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee
To hold hearings on the implementation of the
Telecommunications Act and its impact on competition in
the industry.
SD-226
2:30 p.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee
To hold hearings on certain cloning issues.
SR-253
MAY 3
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine the lessons learned from the
attack on USS Cole, on the report of the Crouch/Gehman
Commission and on the Navy's Judge Advocate General
Manual Investigation into the attack, including a
review of appropriate standards of accountability for
United States military services, to be followed by
closed hearings (in Room SR-222).
SD-106
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SR-253
10 a.m.
Appropriations
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for the Department of Agriculture, focusing
on assistance to producers and the farm economy.
SD-138
Appropriations
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for the Department of State.
SD-192
2 p.m.
Appropriations
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for Department of Energy environmental
management and the Office of Civilian Radio Active
Waste Management.
SD-124
Judiciary
Immigration Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine certain aspects of United
States immigration policy, focusing on asylum issues.
SD-226
MAY 8
10 a.m.
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine high technology patents,
relating to genetics and biotechnology.
SD-226
Appropriations
Interior Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for the Department of Energy.
SD-124
MAY 9
10 a.m.
Appropriations
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
SD-138
MAY 10
10 a.m.
Appropriations
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for the Food and Drug Administration,
Department of Health and Human Services.
SD-138
MAY 15
10 a.m.
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine high technology patents,
relating to business methods and the internet.
SD-226
MAY 16
10 a.m.
Appropriations
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
SD-138
JUNE 6
10 a.m.
Appropriations
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for the National Science Foundation and the
Office of Science Technology Policy.
SD-138
JUNE 13
10 a.m.
Appropriations
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Council of Environmental Quality.
SD-138
JUNE 20
10 a.m.
Appropriations
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2002 for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
SD-138