Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 for April 26, 2001

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Issue]
[Pages 6296-6468]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

April 26, 2001

[[Page 6296]]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, April 26, 2001

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

____________________

DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

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

Washington, DC,

April 26, 2001.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Paul Ryan to act as Speaker
pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

____________________

PRAYER

Metropolitan Stephan F. Petrovich, Archbishop and Primate of New
York, Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the U.S.A., offered
the following prayer:
All powerful God, You know the hearts of all people and guide all
things under Your powerful protection. Help us to always acknowledge
Your greatness in comparison to our own human frailty and guide us as
we continue to work to make Your will to be done on this Earth.
Bless our Nation which is founded on trust in You. Make us always
grateful for the freedoms and blessings we enjoy in this great land of
prosperity and mindful of the principles of liberty and justice for
all, which our founding fathers and mothers have instilled in us.
In Your divine mercy, guide our Nation's leaders, our elected
officials and especially these men and women here today, always keeping
in mind these awesome principles upon which our country is founded,
never to forget that You call us all not to work for self-glory but to
serve the greater good and always make them worthy of the work
entrusted to them.
We ask You, O God, to give us the courage to work for peace in the
whole world, that the example we give may lead others to sincerely
desire the furtherance of the right to the pursuit of happiness for all
humankind.
Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

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

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. WAXMAN led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

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

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

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

____________________

WELCOME TO METROPOLITAN STEPHAN F. PETROVICH, ARCHBISHOP AND PRIMATE OF
NEW YORK

(Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to welcome His Beatitude,
Metropolitan Stephan to the United States House of Representatives and
to thank him for offering a very thoughtful prayer this morning. I
appreciate his willingness to visit Congress and share those meaningful
words with Members of the House.
Despite his distinguished position as the highest ranking official of
the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the United States, Metropolitan
Stephan is widely recognized for his great humility in connection to
the people he serves. His leadership in bringing people of diverse
economic, social, and political backgrounds together in fellowship has
made a positive difference in the lives of many Americans.
In addition to his services, Metropolitan Stephan has served our
Nation in many other ways. A Vietnam veteran, His Beatitude has founded
and supported a number of charitable organizations, including a health
care program for seriously ill individuals, and efforts to supply
humanitarian assistance to the people of Ukraine.
On behalf of my colleagues, I thank Metropolitan Stephan for joining
us today and wish him the very best during his visit to Washington.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will now entertain 10 one-minutes
on each side.

____________________

NATIONAL PRETZEL DAY

(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, though many people do not know it, today has
been designated by the industry as National Pretzel Day. This is a
multimillion-dollar industry, and I have a number of large pretzel
producers in my district, including Auntie Anne's, which you see in the
shopping malls, Herr's, Anderson, Sturgis, Hammond and others.
Everybody, it seems, eats pretzels today; but few of us know about the
history of the pretzel and that they are one of the world's oldest
snack foods.
Pretzels go back as far as 610 A.D., when young students in North
Italian monasteries received them as rewards for correctly reciting
their prayers.
A monk designed the pretzel to resemble the way students cross their
arms across their chest in prayer, and that is also where the pretzel
gets its name. Pretzel comes from ``pretiola,'' the Latin word for
``little reward.''
Pretzels have come a long way in the last 1,400 years and they are
now a multimillion dollar industry in the U.S., and they are very
popular. I am very proud to say that many of America's most popular
pretzels come from Lancaster and Chester Counties in Pennsylvania.

____________________

GOLDEN JACKPOT AWARD GOES TO THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY

(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am announcing the new winner of the
Golden Jackpot Award which has been created to recognize indefensible
government decisions that benefit special interests at the expense of
the public interest.
There are two worthy contestants for today's award. The recent Bush
administration decision to eliminate contraceptive coverage for women
in the Federal health insurance plans and to

[[Page 6297]]

freeze funding for family planning programs is an amazing example of a
ridiculous policy aimed at satisfying right-wing groups that cannot
distinguish between abortion and family planning.
Even this incredible decision pales next to Energy Secretary Spencer
Abraham's rollback of air conditioner efficiency standards at a time
when America is facing its worst energy problems in 25 years. This is
an obscure decision that has enormous implications. Because of the
rollback, the United States will have to build over 40 new power plants
by the year 2020.
The action benefits the manufacturers of air conditioners who
contributed heavily to President Bush and Republicans, but it is a
disaster for the American people, and Californians in particular. I
give this award to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham.

____________________

REWARDING PERFORMANCE IN COMPENSATION ACT

(Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, performance bonuses and gainsharing
programs are a way for employees to share in the success of a company
that they work for. Whether exempt or nonexempt, all employees should
have the same opportunity to receive bonuses for their hard work. For
many employers, the administrative costs associated with operating
bonus programs for their hourly employees often end up costing more
than actual bonuses. Because of this, current law virtually ensures
that employers exclude hourly workers from bonus programs.
Today, I am reintroducing The Rewarding Performance in Compensation
Act, which will help workers to share when their efforts that they have
produce gains for the company. This legislation would amend the Fair
Labor Standards Act to specify that an hourly employee's regular rate
of pay in calculating overtime would not be affected by additional
payments that reward employees who meet certain goals.
Simply put, this bill would give hourly nonexempt employees the same
access to bonuses that are exempt from professional employees that they
already receive, and I ask my colleagues to support The Rewarding
Performance in Compensation Act.

____________________

UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which will be before this
body later on today.
First of all, we should have truth in advertising. This bill has
nothing to do with protecting unborn victims, which in it is defined as
broadly as three cells, but everything in rolling back a woman's right
to choose. It is not about violence against pregnant women. It is about
taking away a woman's right to choose. It erodes Roe v. Wade. It will
define for the first time the beginning of life in a criminal statute.
The domestic violence groups in America do not support it, but
President Bush does. I have the statement of administration policy,
President Bush's policy, which is anti-woman, toothless in protecting
women against violence; but it is very strong in depriving a woman of a
right to choose.
I urge everyone to vote against this bill when it comes to the floor
today.

____________________

SPIRIT OF VOLUNTEERS AND WORKERS IN SOUTHWEST MINNESOTA UPLIFTS
COMMUNITY

(Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today about
the floods that have been wreaking havoc in southwest Minnesota and
other areas around the country. A week ago, I was in Montevideo and in
Granite Falls with Governor Ventura, and I was saddened by the
devastation and flooding that nature can cause; but I was uplifted by
the spirit of volunteers and workers that came to help their
communities with such a disaster.
I wanted to take this time to thank those communities and the leaders
and the many youth who gave so much work and worked so hard to help
their neighbors during this time of need: Carver County and Kevin
Carrolls; Chaska and Mayor Bob Roepke; Granite Falls and Mayor Dave
Smiglewski and Bill Lavin; Montevideo and Mayor Jim Curtis and Steve
Jones; New Ulm and Mayor Arnolf Koelpin and Gary Gleisner; Redwood
Falls and Mayor Sara Triplett and Jeff Weldon; Shakopee and Mayor Jon
Brekke and Mark McNeill; St. Peter and Todd Prafke and Jerry Hawbaker;
and to all the others who have worked so hard to help their
communities. We applaud their efforts and we thank them.

____________________

PROCTOLOGIST SHOULD BE ADVISING JUDGES AT FRENCH BEAUTY CONTEST

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, is she or is she not? Rumors persist that
Miss France is not a big-bone diva but actually a man. Reports say that
pageant officials said they are anxiously awaiting the bathing suit
contest. Unbelievable. Maybe J. Edgar Hoover will crown the next Miss
France, Mr. Speaker.
Hey, what is next? Will they have certification standards performed
by licensed gynecologists for these pageants? Beam me up. This is not
brain surgery. Even the University of Dayton School of Political
Science can determine human genitalia.
I yield back the fact that a proctologist should be advising these
judges at this French beauty contest.

____________________

UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT, A SHIELD OF PROTECTION TO UNBORN
CHILDREN

(Mr. GRAVES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 503,
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This bill extends a shield of
protection to those children that cannot protect themselves.
Under this bill, a criminal who commits a violent crime against a
pregnant mother will be charged with a second offense on behalf of the
second victim, the unborn child.
My home State of Missouri, along with 23 other States across our
Nation, already recognize that unborn children who are victims of
crimes must be protected from the violent actions of criminals. This
legislation will extend the same level of protection to all mothers and
their unborn children which is currently afforded to the mothers and
children of Missouri and half the States across our country.
Our vote today will send a clear message to the criminals around this
Nation that the laws of this land will not tolerate the violent actions
against the mothers and their unborn children and will hold criminals
strictly accountable for their heinous crimes.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 503, Mr. Speaker.

____________________

{time} 1015

MORE MONEY NEEDED FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

(Mrs. McCARTHY of New York asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
support for more money for our public schools. Our public schools
desperately need increased funding as we prepare our students for the
next generation

[[Page 6298]]

for the 21st century. Schools must modernize facilities, provide better
training and pay for teachers, reduce class size, and provide
innovative learning experiences.
That is why I support the New Democrat's Three R's bill. This bill
will increase education funding by $35 billion over 5 years. Right now
we only spend 7 percent of our Federal budget on education. That means
that some our most neediest schools are not getting enough funding. We
need to do more for these schools, and we can.
Let us be honest here: We know that putting more money into the
system is not going to solve all our problems. If our schools do the
work and use this money to meet their goals, we will reward them with
additional funding. But if they do not meet their goals after 3 years,
there has to be accountability.
But there is a major difference in the way we approach funding in our
schools and the way President Bush approaches it. While the President
sends funding to the States without any direction, our approach is that
we should send our Federal dollars back to our school districts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to give all of our schools the help
they need by supporting the Three R's.

____________________

ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISTS DRIVING UP ENERGY COSTS

(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, people all over this Nation are seeing their
gas prices and utility bills go way up. Well, they can thank the
environmental extremists, who have stopped or delayed almost every type
of production in this Nation.
All over the country, small groups of elitist environmentalists
protest every time anyone tries to drill for any oil, dig for any coal,
cut any trees or produce any natural gas. This destroys jobs and drives
up prices and really hurts the poor and working people the most.
Most of these environmentalists seem to come from wealthy families,
and perhaps they do not realize or care how much they are hurting lower
income people. Their rules and regulations drive small businesses and
small farms out of business, and thus help the extremely big businesses
who fund them.
But unless people want their gas and utility bills to go much, much
higher, they had better start opposing the left wing socialism that is
prevalent in much of the environmental movement today.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO LUTRELLE FLEMING PALMER

(Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a veteran journalist, a
political organizer, a constituent, a neighbor, and a long-time friend,
Mr. Lutrelle Fleming Palmer. He recently retired after 50 years of
hard-fought and committed activism.
Since 1950, Lu Palmer has been using the power of the pen and the
radio to relay firsthand accounts of the triumphs and struggles of
African Americans.
As a newspaper reporter, mainstream columnist, and black radio
commentator, Lu always did it his way. He frequently took unpopular
stands on highly controversial issues. Courageously, he always did so
in a very public manner, because for Lu, informing his people was a top
priority.
In 1981, he began to organize the politically independent
organization, Chicago Black United Communities, or CBUC. Once again,
Lu's motivation was to inform and galvanize the black community. The
visionary efforts of Lu and CBUC were so successful that he is credited
with playing a pivotal role in producing Chicago's first African-
American mayor, Mayor Harold Washington.
Lu Palmer's talents, vision, insight, independent spirit and love for
his people is commendable and should be recognized by this Congress.
So today, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the 50 year-
career of the legendary Chicago radio and political activist, Mr.
Lutrelle F. Palmer, Lu Palmer.

____________________

PROTECTING PREGNANT WOMEN AND UNBORN CHILDREN

(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the House will today be taking up a very
important piece of legislation, H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act. It is a very carefully constructed bill which will fill a
gap which presently exists in Federal law.
Right now, under Federal law it provides no additional punishment for
criminals who commit an act of violence against pregnant women and kill
or injure the unborn children that they might be carrying.
I want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for
his leadership in preparing this long overdue piece of legislation. Let
us protect pregnant women in this Nation, and let us also protect the
innocent unborn children that they are carrying.

____________________

THE MEDICAID SAFETY NET HOSPITAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001

(Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, there are 42.6 million
uninsured Americans. The critical care needs of this population, when
met, is often provided by safety net hospitals. These institutions
provide such care, often at a financial loss to the most needy among
us.
Today the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and I will
introduce the Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Improvement Act of 2001.
This bipartisan measure raises the floor for Federal Medicaid
allotments to States for hospitals that serve the uninsured from 1
percent to 3 percent, alleviating some of the growing burden of
providing uncompensated care to many of our Nation's uninsured.
The legislation provides a more level playing field by raising the
amount of Federal funds to States that have been undercompensated and
does not impact the Federal allotments to other States.
As Congress considers policies for improving health care access to
America's uninsured, we must not abandon the safety net already in
place. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting these critical
hospitals and the vulnerable populations who depend on them.

____________________

RECOGNIZING NATIONAL VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK

(Mr. BARCIA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in recognition of
National Victims' Rights Week. Presently the scales of justice are
tilted against crime victims. For too long, victims of crime have gone
unrecognized in our criminal justice system. Too often the victim is
all but forgotten, left outside of the process. This is not right and
must be changed.
Victims should not occupy the fringes of our criminal justice
process. It was Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo who said:
``Justice, though due of the accused, is due to the accuser also. The
concept of fairness must not be strained until it is narrowed to a
filament. We are to keep the balance true.''
As we remember victims of crime this week, we see the filament
Justice Cardozo spoke of becoming increasingly thin. Our current system
is not fair to victims, and the time has come for us to balance the
scales of justice.
Our Nation was founded on the principles of equal protection under
the law and equal justice for all. It is not until our Constitution
guarantees the rights

[[Page 6299]]

of victims that the scales of justice will truly be balanced.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PAGE BOARD

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). Without objection,
and pursuant to section 127 of Public Law 97-377 (2 U.S.C 88b-3), the
Chair announces the Speaker's appointment of the following Members of
the House to the House of Representatives Page Board:
Mr. Shimkus of Illinois,
Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico.
There was no objection.

____________________

APPOINTMENT AS MEMBER OF FIRST FLIGHT CENTENNIAL FEDERAL ADVISORY BOARD

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, and pursuant to Section
12(b)(1) of the Centennial of Flight Commemoration Act (36 U.S.C. 143)
and upon the recommendation of the minority leader, the Chair announces
the Speaker's appointment of the following citizen of the United States
to the First Flight Centennial Federal Advisory Board:
Mr. Neil Armstrong, Lebanon, Ohio.
There was no objection.

____________________

APPOINTMENT AS MEMBERS OF JAMES MADISON COMMEMORATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, and pursuant to section
5(b) of the James Madison Commemoration Commission Act (P.L. 106-550)
the Chair announces the Speaker's appointment of the following members
on the part of the House to the James Madison Commemoration Advisory
Committee:
Dr. Charles R. Kesler, Claremont, California,
Mr. Randy Wright, Richmond, Virginia.
There was no objection.

____________________

RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
resignation as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs:

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, April 24, 2001.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Thank you for appointing me to serve on
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
In keeping with the Democratic Caucus rules and Rules of
the House that limit me to serving on no more than two full
committees I am resigning from my seat on the House Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
Please notify me as to the disposition of this request. If
you cannot reach me directly at 226-3787, please notify my
Chief of Staff, Mark Brownell, at 225-2165.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this
matter.
Sincerely,
Collin C. Peterson,
Member of Congress.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is
accepted.
There was no objection.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 503, UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT
OF 2001

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 119 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 119

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
503) to amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform
Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from
assault and murder, and for other purposes. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The amendment printed in
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the further amendment printed
in the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule
XVIII and numbered 1, if offered by Representative Lofgren of
California or her 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. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter)
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a
modified closed rule for H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
The rule provides that the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules
report shall be considered as adopted.
The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate, equally divided and
controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. The rule makes in order the amendment
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, if offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) or her designee, which shall
be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
This is a fair rule, which will permit a thorough discussion of all
of the relevant issues. Indeed, after 2 hours of debate and
consideration of a Democrat substitute amendment, we will be more than
ready to vote on H.R. 503. This is not a complex issue.
Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 1996, Gregory Robbins, an Air Force
enlisted man, wrapped his fist in a T-shirt and brutally beat his
pregnant 18-year-old wife. Soon after, his young wife gave birth to a
stillborn 8-month-old fetus. To their surprise and disappointment, the
Air Force prosecutors concluded that, although they could charge
Gregory Robbins with simple assault, they could not charge him in the
death of the couple's child. Why? Because Federal murder laws do not
recognize the unborn. A criminal can beat a pregnant woman in the
stomach to kill the baby, and the law ignores her pregnancy.
This is not just an isolated problem. Three years ago in my hometown
of Charlotte, North Carolina, Ruth Croston and her unborn child were
brutally murdered by her estranged husband. The husband later was
charged with domestic violence, but the prosecutors could do nothing
about the dead child.
It is wrong, and it has to be stopped. Fortunately, 24 States have
adopted laws that protect pregnant women from assaults by abusive
boyfriends or husbands, and now it is time for the Federal Government
to do the same.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would make it a Federal crime to
attack a pregnant woman in order to kill or injure her fetus. The bill
would only apply in cases where the underlying assault is, in and of
itself, a Federal crime, such as attacks by military personnel or
attacks on Federal property.
This bill, introduced by my good friend the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham), should have the support of everyone in Congress.
Whether you are pro-life, such as myself, or pro-choice, we should all
agree to protect young women from forced, cruel, and painful abortions.
All you have to do is ask the woman who just lost her child to such a
violent attack. It is not the same thing as a simple assault. Clearly
it is more serious and more emotionally jarring, and it should be
treated accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and
to support the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 6300]]

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule that I will not actively
oppose, but H.R. 503, the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act,
deserves full and open debate. A truly open rule would have insured
that no one was shut out of the process.
But everyone in the Chamber understands what is going on today. The
majority did not bring this bill to the floor to protect pregnant
women. The majority brought the measure to the floor today to launch
its battle to end a woman's right to choose in the 107th Congress. But,
more specifically, the majority is responding to the call of the
National Right to Life Committee and their goal of achieving legal
status and protections for a fetus.

{time} 1030

If passed, this bill would mark the first time that our Federal laws
would recognize the fetus in early stages of gestational development as
a person, a notion that the Supreme Court considered but rejected.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503 represents an effort to endow a fetus with
rights, such as recognition as a crime victim, and to thus erode the
fundamental premise of Roe v. Wade. Aside from this general concern,
there is a real threat that the bill will spur the antichoice movement
to use the legislation as a building block to undermine a woman's right
of reproductive freedom.
The threat to Roe v. Wade could not be more clear. In Roe, the Court
recognized a woman's right to have an abortion as a privacy right
protected by the 14th amendment. In considering the issue of whether a
fetus is a person, the Court noted that the unborn have never been
recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense, and concluded that
``person,'' as used in the 14th amendment, does not include the unborn.
The supporters of H.R. 503 would suggest that they are advancing the
bill in an effort to combat domestic violence. If that is true, it is,
at best, an awkward and, at worst, a dangerous effort. If the sponsors
of H.R. 503 were truly concerned with the problem of violence against
women, they would have supported full funding of the Violence Against
Women Act. The amounts appropriated in the 2001 budget are more than
$200 million short of the authorization levels.
Mr. Speaker, a far more effective legislative alternative is
available, which discourages crimes against pregnant women without
undermining Roe v. Wade. Such an alternative is embodied in the
Lofgren-Conyers substitute which defines the crime to be against the
pregnant woman, whereas H.R. 503 makes the crime against the fetus.
This distinction is a critical one because the substitute avoids the
issue of ``fetal rights'' and ``fetal personhood'' that put the bill at
odds with the principles of Roe v. Wade, medical science and common
sense. Instead, the Lofgren-Conyers substitute recognizes it as the
woman who suffers the injury when an assault causes harm to her fetus
or causes her to lose the pregnancy.
The substitute also acknowledges the connection between the woman and
her fetus without distinguishing the rights of one from the other. That
is a very important point.
The substitute, therefore, accomplishes the stated goals of H.R. 503,
deterring violent acts against pregnant women that cause injury to
their fetuses or termination of a pregnancy.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the majority's goal of averting
violence against women in their developing pregnancies is secondary to
the goal of undermining the reproductive rights of women. Rather than
seeking to score points in the abortion debate, we invite the majority
to join us in crafting legislation that protects women and mothers from
violence that threatens all those who are under their care.
I would note that H.R. 503 is unanimously opposed by groups concerned
about ending domestic violence and protecting a woman's right to
choose, including the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the
National Women's Law Center, the National Council of Jewish Women, the
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the People for the
American Way.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for consideration
of the bill, H.R. 503. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a
carefully constructed piece of legislation that will help fill the gap
in Federal law with regard to protecting unborn children from violence.
Current Federal law provides no additional punishment for criminals
who commit acts of violence against pregnant women and kill or injure
their unborn children. Thus, except in those States that recognize
unborn children as victims of such crimes, injuring or killing an
unborn child during the commission of a violent crime has no legal
consequences whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503 would correct this deficiency in the law by
providing that an individual who injures or kills an unborn child
during the commission of certain predefined violent Federal crimes may
be punished for a separate offense.
I would like to reiterate what the gentlewoman from North Carolina
said about a particularly heinous case. This legislation would ensure
that prosecutors have the tools they need to prosecute criminals like
Gregory Robbins, who was an airman at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
in my State of Ohio, when he wrapped his fists in a T-shirt to reduce
the chance that there might be bruising and visible wounds on the
mother of the child and beat his 8-months pregnant wife in the face and
abdomen, and he killed the unborn baby in doing that.
Military prosecutors were able to charge Robbins for the death
because under Ohio law, there is a fetal homicide law, and they were
able to do so under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But had Mr.
Robbins committed this act just across the Ohio River, just across from
my district which is Cincinnati, in Kentucky, a State which has no
fetal homicide law, he would have received no additional punishment for
killing the unborn child.
By enacting H.R. 503, Congress will ensure that violent criminals who
commit violent acts against pregnant women are justly punished for
injuring or killing those unborn children. Without the Unborn Victims
of Violence Act, the crimes against these innocent victims will
continue to go unpunished.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule, and I urge my colleagues
to support the rule and H.R. 503 to provide meaningful protection for
violence against unborn children. We ought to stop that in this
country, and this is the appropriate legislation to do so.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to take a moment to give the penalties from the Lofgren
substitute, which are even stronger than those of the underlying bill.
The Lofgren-Conyers substitute includes the following elements:
One, it creates a separate criminal Federal offense for harm to a
pregnant woman, which protects the legal status of a woman.
Two, it recognizes the pregnant woman as the primary victim of the
crime that causes termination of the pregnancy.
Three, it includes exactly the same sentences for the offenses as
does the base bill, providing a maximum 20-year sentence for injury to
the woman's pregnancy, and a maximum of life sentence for termination
of a woman's pregnancy, and requires a conviction for the underlying
predicate offense, requiring an intent to commit the predicate offense
be proven.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 6301]]

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res.
119, and I would like to commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman
of the Committee on Rules, and all of the members of the Committee on
Rules for their hard work on this fair rule.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is almost identical to the rule passed in the
106th Congress to consider similar legislation that provides for
thorough consideration of H.R. 503 by authorizing 2 hours of debate and
an opportunity for the minority to offer a substitute amendment which
will be debated for 1 hour. This is a fair rule which will provide
ample time for both debate and amendment.
Furthermore, the rule provides that the amendment committed in the
Committee on Rules report, which makes a technical change to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice shall be considered as adopted when
the rule is adopted. I appreciate the indulgence of the Committee on
Rules with regard to the small perfecting provision, and I would also
like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for working with me to facilitate
the consideration of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong
opposition to the Rule for H.R. 503, ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act
of 2001.'' We should have had more opportunity to discuss this
extremely vital public policy matter in a serious way. This legislation
has regrettably come to the House without more than nominal
consideration of the consequences of the sponsor's bill. We can and
should do better, Mr. Speaker.
At this time, I would like to express my opposition to H.R. 503, the
``Unborn Victims of Crime Act'' because I believe this is a veiled
attempt to create a legal status for the unborn. While we would all
like to protect pregnant women and the fetus from intentional harm by
others, this bill seeks to create a legal status that will give anti-
abortion advocates a back door to overturning current law. I have seen
similar legislation come before our committee and I am sorry to see it
before the Congress yet again.
I believe that the cosponsors of this bill had good intentions when
it was introduced, but the practical effect of this legislation would
effectively overturn 25 years of law concerning the right of a woman to
choose. That would be a travesty.
I sympathize with the mothers who have lost fetuses due to the
intentional violent acts of others. Clearly in these situations, a
person should receive enhanced penalties for endangering the life of a
pregnant woman. In those cases where the woman is killed, the effect of
this crime is a devastating loss that should also be punished as a
crime against the pregnant woman.
However, any attempt to punish someone for the crime of harming or
killing a fetus should not receive a penalty greater than the
punishment or crime for harming or killing the mother. By enhancing the
penalty for the loss of the pregnant woman, we acknowledge that within
her was the potential for life. This can be done without creating a new
category for unborn fetuses.
H.R. 503 would amend the federal criminal code to create a new
federal crime for bodily injury or death of an ``unborn child'' who is
in utero. In brief, there is no requirement or intent to cause such
death under federal law. The use of the works as ``unborn child,''
``death'' and ``bodily injury'' are designed to inflame and establish
in federal precedent of recognizing the fetus as a person, which, if
extended further, would result in a major collision between the rights
of the mother and the rights of a fetus. While the proponents of this
bill claim that the bill would not punish women who choose to terminate
their pregnancies, it is my firm belief that this bill will give anti-
abortion advocates a powerful tool against women's choice.
This bill will create a slippery slope that will result in doctors
being sued for performing abortions, especially if the procedure is
controversial, such as partial birth abortion. Although this bill
exempts abortion procedures as a crime against the fetus, the potential
for increased civil liability is present.
Supporters of this bill should address the larger issue of domestic
violence. For women who are the victims of violence by a husband or
boyfriend, this bill does not address the abuse, but merely the result
of that abuse.
If we are concerned about protecting a fetus from intentional harm
such as bombs and other forms of violence, then we also need to be just
as diligent in our support for women who are victimized by violence.
In the unfortunate cases of random violence, we need to strengthen
some of our other laws, such as real gun control and controlling the
sale of explosives. These reforms are more effective in protecting life
than this bill.
We do not need this bill to provide special status to unborn fetuses.
A better alternative is to create a sentence enhancement for any
intentional harm done to a pregnant woman. This bill is simply a clever
way of creating a legal status to erode abortion rights.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The 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 include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 503.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.

____________________

UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2001

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 119, the rule
just passed, I call up the bill (H.R. 503) to amend title 18, United
States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn
children from assault and murder, and for other purposes, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 119, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 503 is as follows:

H.R. 503

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 ``Unborn Victims of Violence
Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.

(a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 90 the following:

``CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN

``Sec.
``1841. Protection of unborn children.

``Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

[[Page 6302]]

and (i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118,
1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501,
1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B),
(a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116,
2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280,
2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
``(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of
1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).
``(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2283).
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
the prosecution--
``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person
authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or
for which such consent is implied by law;
``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
``(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child'
means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or
`child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo
sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the
womb.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to chapter 90 the following new item:

``90A. Protection of unborn children........................1841''.....

SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.

(a) Protection of Unborn Children.--Subchapter X of chapter
47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), is amended by inserting after section 919
(article 119) the following new section:

``Sec. 919a. Art. 119a. Protection of unborn children

``(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in
conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in
subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily
injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child,
who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is
guilty of a separate offense under this section.
``(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph,
the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the
punishment provided under this chapter for that conduct had
that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
``(B) An offense under this section does not require proof
that--
``(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or
should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
``(ii) the accused intended to cause the death of, or
bodily injury to, the unborn child.
``(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby
intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child,
that person shall, instead of being punished under
subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 880,
918, and 919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and 119(a))
for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human
being.
``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death
penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this
section.
``(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are
sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926, and
928 of this title (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a),
122, 124, 126, and 128).
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
the prosecution--
``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person
authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or
for which such consent is implied by law;
``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
``(d) In this section, the term `unborn child' means a
child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who
is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at
any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 919 the following new item:

``919a. 119a. Protection of unborn children.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 119, the
amendment printed in House Report 107-50 is considered adopted.
The text of H.R. 503, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 119, is
as follows:

H.R. 503

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 ``Unborn Victims of Violence
Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.

(a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 90 the following:

``CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN

``Sec.
``1841. Protection of unborn children.

``Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

``(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of
the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby
causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section
1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct
takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this
section.
``(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph,
the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the
punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had
that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
``(B) An offense under this section does not require proof
that--
``(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or
should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
``(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or
bodily injury to, the unborn child.
``(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby
intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child,
that person shall instead of being punished under
subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections
1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing
or attempting to kill a human being.
``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death
penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this
section.
``(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the
following:
``(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229,
242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i),
924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120,
1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505,
1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and
(a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119,
2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332,
2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
``(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of
1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).
``(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2283).
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
the prosecution--
``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person
authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or
for which such consent is implied by law;
``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
``(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child'
means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or
`child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo
sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the
womb.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to chapter 90 the following new item:

``90A. Protection of unborn children........................1841''.....

SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.

``Sec. 919a. Art. 119a. Causing death of or bodily injury to
unborn children

[[Page 6303]]

``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
the prosecution--
``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person
authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or
for which such consent is implied by law;
``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
``(d) In this section, the term `unborn child' means a
child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who
is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at
any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 919 the following new item:

``919a. Art. 119a. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn
children.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 2 hours of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider an amendment in the nature of
a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, if
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) or her
designee, which shall be considered read and shall be debatable for 60
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 60 minutes of debate on
the bill.
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 strong support of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims
of Violence Act of 2001. Under current Federal law, an individual who
commits a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman receives
an additional punishment for killing or injuring that woman's unborn
child during the commission of the crime. As a result, except in those
States that recognize unborn children as victims of such crimes,
injuring or killing an unborn child during the commission of a violent
crime has no legal consequence whatsoever.
This deficiency in the law is especially troubling, considering the
findings of a recent study of women in Maryland published in the March
21, 2001, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The
authors of this study found that homicide is likely the leading cause
of death among women who are pregnant or were recently pregnant.
Another recent study of autopsies performed on women here in the
District of Columbia revealed that an inordinate number of women who
died of violence were also pregnant. This study prompted a call for an
investigation by the General Accounting Office and the FBI.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001,
was designed to correct this deficiency in Federal law by providing
that an individual who injuries or kills an unborn child during the
commission of certain predefined violent Federal crimes may be punished
for a separate offense. The Subcommittee on the Constitution held a
hearing on virtually identical legislation during the 106th Congress,
and the bill passed the House with strong bipartisan support on
September 30, 1999, by a vote of 254 to 172.
During the current Congress, the Subcommittee on the Constitution
held a hearing on this legislation on March 15, 2001. The subcommittee
held a markup on the legislation on March 21, 2001, and reported the
bill without amendment by a voice vote. On March 28, 2001, the full
Committee on the Judiciary held a markup and favorably reported H.R.
503, without amendment, by a recorded vote of 15 to 9.
Under the act, the punishment for an offense against the unborn child
will be the same punishment that would have been imposed under Federal
law had that conduct resulted in the same injury to the mother. For
example, if an individual assaults a Federal official in violation of
18 United States Code Section 111, as a result of that assault kills
the official's unborn child, the perpetrator may be punished for either
second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary
manslaughter, for killing the unborn child, the same punishment the
individual would have received had the Federal official died as a
result of the assault. By its own terms, the act does not apply to
conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant
woman has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law in
a medical emergency.

{time} 1045

So this is not an abortion bill. The act does not permit prosecution
of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her
unborn child or the mother for any conduct with respect to her unborn
child.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 will provide just
punishment for criminals like Glendale R. Black of Wisconsin, who on
February 8, 1992, brutally beat his wife, Terry Marciniak, who was 9
months pregnant with her unborn baby, Zachariah. Little Zachariah was
just 4 days from being delivered from his mother's womb. At the
hospital, Zachariah was delivered dead.
At that time, Wisconsin did not have an unborn victims law like H.R.
503, so Black was convicted of only assault and is already eligible for
parole.
The bill would also provide punishment for criminals like Reginald
Anthony Falice, who on April 28, 1998, shot his 8-month-pregnant wife,
Ruth Croston, at least five times as she sat at a red light in
Charlotte, North Carolina. Falice was convicted by a Federal jury for
interstate domestic violence and using a firearm in the commission of a
violent crime, but because Federal law did not currently recognize the
unborn as victims, he received no additional punishment for killing the
near-term infant.
Ms. Croston's brother, William Croston, testified before the
Subcommittee on the Constitution regarding the tragic death of his
sister and the failure of Federal law to recognize the murder of his
unborn niece.
Or criminals who planted a bomb just outside of Tammy Lynn Baker's
apartment in Louisa, Virginia. Ms. Baker was near term with her unborn
child when the bomb exploded on December 3, 1997, killing her and the
child.
Nearly 3 years later, Coleman Johnson, the unborn child's father, was
arrested on a Federal explosives charge for the death of Ms. Baker and
is awaiting trial. His charges do not include the murder of his unborn
child.
A similar incident occurred in Connellsville, Pennsylvania on January
1, 1999, when Deanna Mitts, who was 8 months pregnant, returned home
from a New Year's Eve celebration with her 3-year-old daughter, Kayla.
A bomb exploded in her apartment, killing Ms. Mitts, Kayla, and the
unborn child.
Almost a year later, Joseph Minerd, the presumed father of the unborn
child, was arrested for Deanna and Kayla's murder, but is not being
held criminally liable for the harm caused to the unborn child.
This legislation would also ensure just punishment for criminals like
Gregory Robbins, an airman at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in Ohio
who wrapped his fist in a T-shirt to reduce the chance he would inflict
visible bruises, and beat his 8-months pregnant wife in the face and
abdomen, killing their unborn baby.
Military prosecutors were able to charge Robbins for death of the
unborn child by assimilating Ohio's fetal homicide law through the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. Had Mr. Robbins beaten his wife just
across the river in Kentucky, a State which has no fetal homicide law,
he would have received no additional punishment for killing the unborn
child.
By enacting H.R. 503, Congress will ensure that criminals who commit
violent acts against pregnant women are justly punished for killing
unborn children or injuring them. Without this bill, crimes against
these innocent victims will go unpunished.
I have given the Members of the House a list of several heinous
crimes. It shows the need for this legislation. It shows specifically
that killing an innocent unborn child should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law.

[[Page 6304]]

The only way to do this is to pass H.R. 503, and I urge my colleagues
to support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, Mr. Stump, I submit for the Record a letter he wrote to the
Speaker relating to the floor consideration of H.R. 503, the ``Unborn
Victims of Violence Act of 2001.''

Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC, April 23, 2001.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: In recognition of the desire to expedite
floor consideration of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act of 2001, the Committee on Armed Services agrees
to waive its right to consider this legislation. H.R. 503, as
introduced and ordered reported by the Committee on the
Judiciary on April 20, 2001, contains subject matter that
falls within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on
Armed Services pursuant to rule X of the Rules of the House
of Representatives.
The Committee on Armed Services takes this action with the
understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over the
provisions in question is in no way diminished or altered,
and that the Committee's right to the appointment of
conferees during any conference on the bill remains intact.
Sincerely,
Bob Stump,
Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join my colleagues in this discussion.
I have listened to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary begin
by describing, I lost count, about seven or eight horrible, offensive,
violent incidents in which a pregnant mother and her unborn child were
hurt or killed.
There is not anyone in the Congress that does not feel very strongly
about the violence against unborn victims. But if that is going to be
the way we get to undermining Roe v. Wade, I do not think it is going
to happen here today, because I think our job is to make it clear what
is really going on.
Just for the record, I would like everybody to know that there is
punishment for the killing of a fetus. It was stated that there is no
punishment that exists today. It is in the Federal law. It is in the
current Federal sentencing guidelines that permit the enhancement of a
sentence under the vulnerable victims guideline. So that is number one.
Number two, there is a substitute. There is a remedy to the flawed
bill that has been brought on the floor. That is the Lofgren-Conyers
substitute, which does everything, and in some instances it has more
penalty for the person that attacks a pregnant mother and kills an
unborn victim than the current bill, but it gets us around the
subversion of Roe v. Wade, and it comports with Roe v. Wade.
I am amazed that we would begin this discussion trying to skip around
the whole heart of this debate. This is not a matter of how many
anecdotes you can dig up. I have 40. The gentleman has 10. I have twice
that amount.
The question is, how are we going to deal with the subject, Mr.
Speaker. The right way to do it is through the substitute, which is
going to be dealing with a way to punish the people that violate
mothers, and by the way, it is hard to deal with an unborn victim of
violence without hurting the mother as well. So this is what we are
here to discuss today.
Let us be friendly about this. This act was designed to erode the
foundation of a woman's right to choose under Roe v. Wade by simply
elevating the legal statuses of prenatal development under Federal law,
and creates a separate offense during the commission of a crime ``. . .
which causes death to a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage
of development.'' That is a quote from the bill.
Well, that sounds okay, but what does it mean? It means that if
enacted, this would be the first time in the Federal legal system that
we would begin to recognize a fertilized egg, a zygote, a
preimplantation embryo, a blastocyst and an embryo through 8 weeks of
pregnancy or a fetus after 8 weeks which can be a person, which can be
an independent violent crime. That is what the bill is trying to do.
I did not know I would have to be the first to bring it to
discussion, since I am against it, but no sneaking around today, we are
going to have to put it all on the table, so we might as well start off
now defending the proposition that is embedded fatally in H.R. 503.
These acts against women are tragic and especially for pregnant
women. But the true aim of this legislation is not to stop violence
against women. In fact, the protections for women are notably absent
from this legislation.
So what we are here today to do is to determine whether or not we are
going to undermine a woman's right to choose by recognizing that all of
these things that have not had separate rights are now equal to and in
some cases superior to women who are worthy of the legal protection.
The Supreme Court has held, I remind all the lawyers on the Committee
on the Judiciary, the Supreme Court has held that fetuses are not
persons within the meaning of the 14th amendment. I am not going to
repeat that. If enacted, the bill would improperly inject debates about
abortion into criminal prosecutions across the country. That is
unfortunate and tragic.
I think that may be one of the purposes of why the proponents have
written the bill up in this way. They have crafted a bill that is
certain to inflame the national debate about when life begins. We do
not want to do that. We just merely want to protect unborn victims of
violence. The way to do it is by simply moving away from the notion
that we have just created another category of persons that have not
ever been recognized in the Federal legal system before now. That is
why we are going to have a fair amount of opposition to this proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to
me, and I thank him for his leadership on this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, as we conduct this debate today, we going to hear from
opponents that, for various reasons, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
of 2001 is unconstitutional. We will also hear that the legislation in
some mysterious way applies to abortion.
I want to make very clear from the beginning that these assertions
are false. In fact, these arguments only serve as a smokescreen, a
distraction from the real issue at hand.
What are the real issues? Those of us supporting this legislation
believe that when a criminal commits an act of violence against a woman
and her unborn child, the criminal should face punishment for both the
harm caused to the mother and for injuring or killing the innocent
child that she is carrying.
Opponents of the legislation feel otherwise. They believe that the
criminal should not face separate sanctions for harm inflicted on the
unborn child, even if the unborn child, a child that the mother greatly
wanted to bring into this world, is killed.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity
to address the legal issues that have been raised regarding the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act.
First, questions have been raised about Congress' constitutional
authority to enact this legislation. The challenge to the bill on this
ground is completely without merit. It is clear that Congress has such
constitutional authority because the bill will only affect conduct that
is already prohibited by Federal law.
H.R. 503 merely provides an additional offense and punishment for
those who injure or kill an unborn child during the commission of one
of the existing predicate offenses set forth in the bill. If there is
any question regarding the constitutionality of the act's reach, that
question is addressed to the constitutionality of the predicate
offense, not H.R. 503.
Opponents of this legislation also argued that it somehow violates
the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. This argument is also
without merit. To begin with, H.R. 503 simply does not apply to
abortion. On page 4 of the bill, beginning on line 9, prosecution is
explicitly precluded ``for any

[[Page 6305]]

conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant
woman has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law.''

{time} 1100

So it does not apply to abortion. The act also does not permit
prosecution ``of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant
woman or her unborn child or of any woman with respect to her unborn
child.'' So it does not apply to abortion, period. The act could not be
more clear in exempting abortion.
Moreover, there is nothing in Roe v. Wade that prevents Congress from
giving legal recognition to the lives of unborn children outside the
parameters of the right of abortion marked off in that case. In
establishing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, the Roe court
explicitly stated that it was not resolving ``the difficult question of
when life begins,'' because ``the judiciary, at this point in the
development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to
the answer.'' That is what the Court said.
What the court held was that the government could not override the
rights of the pregnant woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy by
adopting one theory of when life begins. The Supreme Court explicitly
confirmed this understanding of Roe in Webster v. Reproductive Health
Services. That was a 1989 case.
Courts addressing the constitutionality of State laws that punish
killing or injuring unborn children have recognized the lack of merit
in the argument that such laws violate Roe and as a result have
consistently upheld those State laws. For example, in Smith v. Newsome,
which was decided in 1987, the United States Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit held that Roe was immaterial to whether a State can
prohibit the destruction of a fetus by a third party.
The Minnesota Supreme Court echoed that sentiment in 1990 in the case
of State v. Merrill, holding that Roe v. Wade protects the woman's
right of choice. It does not protect, much less confer on an assailant,
a third-party unilateral right to destroy the fetus.
In 1994, the California Supreme Court held in People v. Davis that
the Roe v. Wade principles are inapplicable to a statute that
criminalizes the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent. In
State v. Coleman, a 1997 case, the Ohio court, my State, the Court of
Appeals stated, ``Roe protects a woman's constitutional right. It does
not protect a third-party's unilateral destruction of a fetus.''
Opponents of this legislation have also argued that the use of the
term ``unborn child'' is ``designed to inflame.'' They contend that the
use of this term may, in the words of those dissenting from the
Committee on the Judiciary report, result in a major collision between
the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn.
This objection reflects nothing more than the semantical preferences
of the most radical abortion advocates. It is based upon an apparent
lack of knowledge of the widespread use of the term ``unborn child'' in
the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the United States
Courts of Appeals, in State statutes and in State court decisions, and
even in the legal writings of abortion advocates themselves.
The use of the term ``unborn child'' by the Supreme Court can be
illustrated by reference to Roe v. Wade itself, in which Justice
Blackmon used the term ``unborn children'' as synonymous with
``fetuses.'' Justice Blackmon also used the term ``unborn child'' in
Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, in which the court struck
down Georgia's abortion statute.
Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have also used the term ``unborn
child'' as synonymous with fetus. These cases include City of Akron v.
Akron Center for Reproductive Health, decided back in 1983; Webster v.
Reproductive Health services, decided in 1989; and International Union
v. Johnson Controls, decided in 1991.
There are so many decisions by the United States Courts of Appeal
using the term ``unborn child'' that it would be too time consuming to
go through them all.
There are also at least 19 State criminal statutes similar to H.R.
503 that currently use the term ``unborn child'' to refer to a fetus,
and these statutes have been consistently upheld by the courts.
Even abortion advocates such as Catharine MacKinnon have used the
term ``unborn child'' as synonymous with the term ``fetus.'' In an
article that was published in the Yale Law Journal entitled
``Reflections on Sex Equality Under the Law,'' Professor MacKinnon
conceded that a ``fetus is a human form of life'' that is ``alive.'' In
her defense of abortion, Professor MacKinnon expressed her view that
``many women have abortions as a desperate act of love for their unborn
children.''
Finally, opponents of H.R. 503 have argued that the bill lacks the
necessary means requirement for a valid criminal law and is therefore
unconstitutional. This argument reflects a lack of understanding of
H.R. 503 and the well-established doctrine of transferred intent in the
criminal law.
Under H.R. 503, an individual may be guilty of an offense against an
unborn child only if he has committed an act of violence with criminal
intent upon a pregnant woman, thereby injuring or killing her unborn
child. Relying upon the doctrine of transferred intent, H.R. 503
considers the criminal intent directed toward the pregnant woman to
have also been directed toward the unborn child.
The transferred intent doctrine was recognized in England as early as
1576 and was adopted by the American courts during the early days of
the Republic. A well-known criminal law commentator describes the
application of the doctrine to the crime of murder in language that is
remarkably similar to the language and operation of this legislation as
follows: ``Under the common-law doctrine of transferred intent, a
defendant who intends to kill one person but instead kills a bystander,
is deemed the author of whatever kind of homicide would have been
committed had he killed the intended victim,'' which is essentially
what we have under this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the legal challenges to this bill
cannot withstand serious scrutiny. It is clear that this law does not
in any way impact abortion. It is especially clear that the opposition
of the bill, in fact, stems from an objection to the very concept of
unborn children. The opponents insist that a concept that is a well-
recognized one in the law is somehow dangerous and subversive. These
arguments should be soundly rejected. The only people who have anything
to fear from this bill are the criminals who engage in violent acts
against women and the unborn children that they are carrying.
So, again, let me remind my colleagues of what the true question is
before us. Do you believe that a violent criminal who kills or injures
an unborn child, a child who is loved and wanted by a mother and
usually the father, should face an additional offense and punishment
for their acts? I believe that the American people would answer that
question with a resounding yes, and I hope the House would do the same
today.
I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for his
leadership on this issue. I also thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for
his leadership.
I urge Members to vote in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot), the subcommittee chairman. I would like him to know that all
of us on our side and those that support the substitute believe
strongly that victims of violence should be punished; the victims, both
the mother and the unborn infant, the unborn victim. Okay. We all
believe that. We do not have a different view on that. Okay.
The second thing that you need to know is that, if this bill does not
deal with abortion, which I will go into

[[Page 6306]]

later, why is it coming out of the Subcommittee on the Constitution
instead of the Subcommittee on Crime?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It
is because the Subcommittee on the Constitution has jurisdiction over
this particular issue, issues of privacy, issues of civil rights, a
whole range of issues.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is a civil rights bill?
Mr. CHABOT. Pardon me?
Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman from Ohio said this is a civil rights
bill?
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I am saying that is one among many of the
other issues. I was going to say it also has jurisdiction over
constitutional amendments and all kinds of issues.
Mr. CONYERS. All right. Is it a crime bill?
Mr. CHABOT. Pardon me?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, is it a crime bill? Yes or no?
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it is an issue that clearly is a crime
against unborn children and as well as the mothers.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio is saying yes, I
take it. It is sort of a crime bill.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. It is a crime bill.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it is a crime bill as well as a
constitutional issue.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. It took a
half a minute of my time to get to that. But it is a crime bill that
comes out of the Subcommittee on the Constitution in the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Now, you think we do not know why, do you not? You think we thought
that it was tossed there by accident. But it is tossed there because it
is changing the fundamental constitutional law in the most controlling
case on abortion in current Federal judicial practice, Roe v. Wade.
That is why it went there.
So I think that we ought to put all these cards on the table and not
try to demonize the other side because we have a bill that does the
same thing as the primary bill. But the only thing that we do not do is
that we do not redefine what an embryo is. We do not change the status
of a fetus or a fertilized egg. We do not make them all persons, and
you do. There it is, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
That is the difference. If my colleagues corrected that difference, we
would all be supporting their bill.
It turned out that the Lofgren substitute is even more harsh on those
who violate women who are pregnant. So I just wanted my colleagues to
take that under consideration as we continue to debate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Millender-McDonald) who is the chairperson of the Women's Caucus.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the ranking member
for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503. As the cochair
of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I am insulted by this
misleading piece of legislation. This legislation is deceptive,
destructive, and a poor attempt to mislead and strip away a woman's
reproductive rights. This bill is extremely volatile and has the
potentiality to eradicate a woman's right to choose as recognized by
the landmark case Roe v. Wade.
This bill, in fact, undermines a woman's right to choose as cited in
the New York Times editorial yesterday, ``The Reproductive Rights Under
Attack.'' In fact, it says, ``Packaged as a crime fighting measure,
H.R. 503 is actually aimed at fulfilling a long-term goal of the right
to life movement.''
I stand firmly in the belief that women's reproductive decisions are
private and their individual freedoms must be preserved. Those who
support this bill claim that it is necessary in order to vigorously
punish offenders who harm pregnant women. If the emphasis of the bill
is to protect women, why is this not mentioned anywhere in the bill.
Assault against pregnant women is serious. Legislation that has a
separate agenda such as this one cannot provide the adequate protection
to women.
I oppose H.R. 503 because its real purpose is to erode the
reproductive rights of women. It is not intended to recognize violence
against women. In fact, it does not even reference a woman. It could
make matters worse for women by encouraging antiabortion prosecutors to
pursue charges for harm to embryos or the fetus while ignoring the
woman who has also been harmed.
Mr. Speaker, this is, indeed, a smoke screen. It is an affront to
American women who wish to have their reproductive rights left to them.
I say, if you are going to protect the rights of all other folks, the
gun owners, the oil drillers, then protect the rights of women. I
oppose H.R. 503.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has questioned
the Subcommittee on the Constitution considering this bill and has said
that this is a wholesale assault on the constitutional rights granted
women by Roe v. Wade. He is wrong.
Twenty-four States have statutes similar to the one that is being
considered today. If those statutes which protect the rights of unborn
children were such an assault on the mother's constitutional right,
every one of them would have been struck down by a Federal court, from
the District Court to the Supreme Court level. They have not been,
because it is not an assault on the constitutional right of a woman to
choose.
Then we just heard from the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Millender-McDonald) that this strips away women's reproductive rights.
I would submit to the gentlewoman from California that, if the woman
wanted to have an abortion, she would have had an abortion before the
assault took place. In these cases that this bill will protect, the
woman wants to have her child born.

{time} 1115

So she has already made her choice, and that was for the child to be
born. If someone takes away that child's right to life through an
assault or through a murder, then that person, that criminal, ought to
be prosecuted twice. You do not want the criminal prosecuted twice when
the woman has chosen to bring that child to term and have that child
born alive.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and agree with
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) that this issue has nothing to do with abortion.
Unlike the substitute that will be offered later today, this bill
specifically exempts any activity involving a legal abortion. This bill
is directed only at protecting the unborn child. It is an extension. In
fact, this bill allows for an additional prosecution after a person has
committed a violent act against the woman herself. Therefore, it does
recognize the woman. In fact, it recognizes the woman first.
Mr. Speaker, this woman that we are talking about must be pregnant,
but she must first be a victim of a crime of one of over 60 Federal
statutes that are violent acts perpetrated against the woman. Only then
will this legislation kick in, basically, as a way to also prosecute
that perpetrator for the crime done against the unborn child.
I commend to my colleagues that this is a measure that respects the
decision of the woman to bear her child. This is a measure that is an
additional ability for the Federal Government to prosecute against an
extreme act of domestic violence that causes not only harm to a woman,
but also harm and often death to her unborn child.
Mr. Speaker, as a State Senator, I worked on issues of domestic
violence, and was proud, in 1998, to support Pennsylvania's version of
this bill. In fact, the vast majority of Senators and House members in
Pennsylvania, both pro-choice and pro-life, supported this measure
because we understand that domestic violence is a serious problem

[[Page 6307]]

in this country. Unfortunately, statistics show that many of the
children, the unborn children who are killed in these cases, their
mothers are victims of domestic violence, as are they. In fact, as
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, March 21,
2001, a study that was done in Maryland recognized the highest
percentage of pregnant women who die, die as a result of homicide.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues that this is a serious issue
of violence, a serious issue of domestic violence, and it should not be
clouded by concern about future legislation or potential legislation
that some believe may try to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Our ultimate concern here should be the real victims of crime. The
real victims of crime continue to be women who are victims of domestic
violence due to an outraged partner. The real victims of crime are
their unborn children, who often are the cause of the violence directed
towards the mother.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues that this is commonsense
legislation. It is supported across the country, and it is
constitutional.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that this
Congress has apparently failed to take the opportunity to unite on
something that I think we could agree on, namely, that it is wrong to
assault women. It is wrong to assault pregnant women. It is a dreadful
crime to cause a miscarriage through an assault on a woman. Instead of
addressing these dreadful offenses we are back to that same old fight
that divides this country, abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I know that there are Members of this House on both
sides of the aisle who disagree on the question of abortion. Oftentimes
those viewpoints are rooted in one's religious beliefs. I accept the
fact that this country has disagreements about abortion.
It is unacceptable that we would use the issue of violence against
women and causing miscarriages as the entryway to having still another
fight about choice.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Unborn Victims of Violence Act will be
found unconstitutional. The gentleman mentioned that there are State
statutes that define a person as a zygote or an embryo, but those State
statutes have not been tested in the Federal courts or in the Supreme
Court, and are clearly at odds with Roe v. Wade. Instead we can adopt a
substitute that will be offered later today that assures that any woman
who is assaulted and, as a consequence of that assault, miscarries and
loses her opportunity to have a much-wanted child, occasions a separate
prosecution. We should not tolerate behavior that causes miscarriage.
Any person who has lost a child, any person who has had a
miscarriage, understands that is a devastating event that one never
forgets and never gets over. I am hopeful that we can put the abortion
debate to one side and reserve the argument about abortion for another
day and come together with the Lofgren-Conyers substitute that will be
offered later today and not entangle this very serious issue, of
harming a pregnant woman, with that other fight, about abortion and
choice.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I agree we ought to talk about abortion when an abortion bill comes
up. You are not hearing about abortion from this side of the aisle. The
other side of the aisle is bringing up the issue of abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). This has become an abortion debate
because the other side of the aisle has made it such. They are so
extreme and so afraid that they would lose their right to have an
abortion, that they would even deny those unborn children that are
killed by crime the rights that are due every other citizen in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, Members should support this bill and oppose the Lofgren
amendment because it fails to acknowledge when unborn children are
killed, they have been murdered. Life and death should not be subsumed
beneath some semantic fog. It is time that our society begin
recognizing and defending both victims who are harmed when violent
criminals attack pregnant women. Those who would artificially
discriminate between lives lost to crime within and outside the womb
draw empty and callous distinctions. All life is precious. Society must
protect every victim of crime.
Mr. Speaker, current Federal law devalues and denies significance to
unborn children. This destructive precedence has two unfortunate
consequences. First, current law accrues to the benefit of the
murderous thugs who destroy the lives of unborn children. These
criminals are not forced to atone for the young life that they have
destroyed.
Second, by denying a legal identity to unborn victims, we create a
society that is coarser, less feeling and less than it would otherwise
be. The law must not look upon a violent criminal's unborn victim with
an indifferent eye. Every young life must be acknowledged. Every young
life must be protected from predatory criminals.
Of course society through manners and custom have always deferred to
the care and comfort of pregnant women, but we would be callously
deceived if we limited our heightened attention merely to the woman's
physical condition without acknowledging a vital predicate. It is
precisely because a woman carries the miracle of life within her that
she becomes the most precious and treasured member of society. It is
because two lives exist together that society seeks to protect the
woman. And the law must protect both lives. The law cannot remain blind
on this point.
Mr. Speaker, let us take the logic underlying the opposition to this
bill and apply it to the case of an elderly victim. It would be a truly
repugnant idea to suggest that criminals should serve diminished
sentences if they preyed on elderly victims with only a few years left
to live. Fortunately, society does not draw this ugly distinction. We
value and protect life until a person draws their final breath. It is
intrinsically flawed reasoning leading to an equally gross injustice to
deny explicit protection to an unborn person who is months, weeks, or
even days from breathing his or her first breath.
Society must extend the protection of a law to every vulnerable
victim. The mothers of these murdered children see these crimes with
the proper perceptive. In an all-too-common set of horrible
circumstances, the criminal's unborn victim is actually the primary
target when a murderer stalks a pregnant woman. Under current law, when
an unborn victim is murdered, in the eyes of society, no one has died.
That has to change in our society.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to end this awful and unconscionable
oversight. This bill extends protection to every vulnerable victim in
America. Support this bill so that society will acknowledge and defend
every vulnerable American.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), and ask him to yield to me.
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say to the gentleman from
Texas, the very distinguished majority whip, before he leaves the floor
that we do recognize and make prosecutable killers of women that are
pregnant.
Mr. Speaker, we create two separate crimes, so I do not want that
misstated again unless you read the Lofgren-Conyers substitute. Two
separate crimes, both prosecutable and will be prosecutable because
they are constitutional.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill before us today because
it is unnecessary, misguided and facially unconstitutional. The Supreme
Court in Roe v. Wade clearly said, ``The unborn have never been
recognized in the whole sense,'' and concluded that ``person,'' as used
in the 14th amendment of the Constitution, does not include the unborn.

[[Page 6308]]

{time} 1130

As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) just made clear in his speech
a moment ago, as everybody I have heard on the other side has made
clear in their speeches, the whole purpose of this bill is precisely to
label the unborn fetus or zygote or blastocyst as a person in the whole
sense of the word. That is their purpose. Therefore, it is an abortion
debate, because if it is murder to cause a miscarriage of a zygote or a
fetus, then logically it is murder to perform an abortion. That is why
we are debating abortion, and that is why they are debating abortion,
whether they admit it or not.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot today about violence to
fetuses, embryos, zygotes, blastocysts. We will hear a lot about
horrific acts of violence perpetrated against women at advanced stages
of pregnancy, causing injury to the fetus. The sponsors will claim,
even though this bill addresses only violence against fetuses, that
this bill is really being considered to protect the welfare of these
women.
We should have no illusions about the purposes of this bill, that it
is yet another battle in a war of symbols in the abortion debate in
which opponents of a woman's constitutional right to choose attempt to
portray fetuses from the earliest moments of conception as children
with the same rights as the adult women who are carrying them. The
implication is that anyone who does not share the metaphysical slant of
the radical antichoice movement that a two-celled zygote is a person on
exactly the same basis and with the same rights as a child or adult
must secretly favor infanticide.
This bill, by making the destruction of a fetus or even a zygote, a
separate crime of murder without reference to the actual harm to the
pregnant woman speaks volumes about that view. If causing a miscarriage
is murder, then by implication so is abortion. Even if the sponsors
have papered over this premise with language to the contrary, no one
should be under any illusions that this is the real and only purpose of
this bill.
Let us take the sponsors at their word. In the last Congress, the
report of the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary made clear
that their concern was that ``except in those States that recognize
unborn children as victims of such crimes, injuring or killing an
unborn child during the commission of a violent crime has no legal
consequence whatsoever,'' and that the bill's purpose was ``to narrow
the gap in the law by providing that an individual who kills an unborn
child during the commission of certain Federal crimes of violence will
be guilty of a separate offense.'' Providing such a separate offense
clearly recognizes the fetus as the victim of the violence, a
proposition that is at odds with the holding of the Supreme Court in
reading the Constitution.
In fact, this legislation marks a major departure from Federal law by
elevating the legal status of a fetus at all stages of prenatal
development to the same as that of the pregnant woman or any other
person who is the victim of a crime. This is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is
against the whole scheme of Roe v. Wade, which recognizes a greater
ability of the States to regulate, a greater interest in regulation in
later stages of pregnancy, precisely because the Constitution
recognizes that a fetus is not a full-fledged person from the moment of
conception.
For anyone still in doubt about the real purpose of the bill, the
National Right to Life Committee, in a memo distributed to members of
the Committee on the Judiciary, laid it out:
They say that such a one-victim amendment, talking about the Lofgren
amendment, would codify the fiction that when a criminal assailant
injures a mother and kills her unborn child, there has been only a
compound injury to the mother but no loss of any human life. The one-
victim substitute would also enact the notion that when a criminal
assailant kills a pregnant woman, the assailant should be punished once
for killing the mother and then again for depriving her of her
pregnancy, but if there is only one victim, it shows the difference
between us.
So the radical antichoice groups acknowledge that the only difference
of opinion here is not how much to punish these offenses, because both
this bill and the Lofgren substitute would give heavy punishment,
although under certain circumstances, the Lofgren substitute would give
much heavier punishment than would this bill; the real difference is
that this bill recognizes the crime of murder against a fetus or a
zygote.
The bill is also unclear, as one of the majority's witnesses
testified in the committee hearings. Does it cover only an embryo after
implantation or at conception? Put another way, is it only murder if
you cause the miscarriage of a viable fetus? Or is it also murder if
you cause the miscarriage of a not-yet-viable fetus or of a two-celled
zygote at the moment of conception?
I think the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham), should tell us what the bill means. It is a
simple question that should have a simple, straightforward answer. Yet
I used my entire 5 minutes at the Committee on the Judiciary trying to
get an answer from the gentleman from South Carolina. He would not give
me an answer.
So I will ask him now, yes or no, is it murder to murder a two-celled
zygote under this bill or is it not?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, as I said in the Committee on the Judiciary,
the language that we adopted in the bill is exactly what exists----
Mr. NADLER. Yes or no. I do not have the time to have the whole
explanation that is taken from the language of State law. Is causing a
miscarriage murder of a two-celled zygote or not under this bill? Yes
or no.
Mr. GRAHAM. When the fetus attaches to the womb, that is what the
prosecutor has to prove.
And if I may answer your question, the definition used in this bill
is the exact same definition that the House endorsed and passed 417-0
that the gentleman from New York voted for. This is the same definition
that he voted for July 25, 2000.
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, he will not give a yes or no answer
because he cannot.
One last sentence on this whole thing. This bill is not about
violence against women. That is why all the violence against women
groups are opposed to the bill. This bill is simply to undermine Roe v.
Wade, and it will not succeed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, look at this picture of Tracy Marciniak and
her dead son. This little boy is not a zygote, not a blastocyst, not an
embryo, not a fetus, not anything but a little baby, a little child who
was brutally killed. His name was Zachariah. He was killed by his
father, a man by the name of Glendale Black, 4 days before he was due
to be born. He was beaten in the womb where he bled to death. And his
father got away with it.
Yes, Glendale Black went to jail, but not because he killed
Zachariah. He went to jail for assaulting Zachariah's mother. At the
time, it was not a crime to kill a woman's baby in Wisconsin as long as
he did it before he was born. If he had done it 4 or 5 days later, he
might have gotten life imprisonment. Instead, he is now eligible for
parole.
Wisconsin has since changed its law. If Tracy's ex-husband committed
the same crime today, he would be charged with killing her child as
well as assaulting her. But the Federal Government has no such law. In
Federal jurisdictions, that man could get away with killing again.
Look again at this picture. How can anyone say that this child is not
a human being? How can anyone say that Zachariah should not have the
same right to live as you and I have? How can anyone say that the crime
Zachariah's father committed was not more than just assault, but also
taking of human life? Or as his mother Tracy herself says, ``If you
really think that nobody died that night, then vote for the one-victim
amendment. But please remember Zachariah's name and face when you
decide.''

[[Page 6309]]

Mr. Speaker, America's first war was fought to prove that each of us
has an inalienable right to life as well as liberty and pursuit of
happiness. We need to affirm that we still believe in these principles.
We need to show that we still believe in God-given rights, the right to
life. We need to pass this good legislation. We need to pass it
unanimously. And we should reject the so-called one-victim amendment.
Pretending that nobody died the night Glendale Black beat his wife and
killed his son is to deny reality. Even worse, it is to turn our backs
on everything America stands for.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I wanted to comment on the terrible crime that we just had a
discussion of from the prior speaker. Clearly that was a horrible
thing, and the monster who did that is now free. That is the wrong
thing. That should be changed.
Unfortunately, H.R. 503 would not change a darned thing about that
case. I understand from the mother that part of the problem with the
prosecution was that the prosecutors could not prove the intent to harm
the unborn child. Under H.R. 503, there is also an intent requirement.
Otherwise, absent intent, one is limited to the term of years of the
underlying offense. In order to have Federal jurisdiction, the only
assault that is cited in the bill is assault against a Federal officer.
So passing this bill would not prevent that terrible, terrible
tragedy. I just thought it was important to note that.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
her statement, her leadership on this, and also the ranking member's.
I rise in strong opposition to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and
urge its rejection. Some Members on the other side of the aisle today
have indicated that they do not believe that it is a direct attack on
Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record editorials from the New York
Times entitled ``Reproductive Rights Under Attack,'' and also
editorials from the 1999 debate from the Washington Post, the St.
Petersburg Times, and the Seattle Times, all in direct opposition to
this bill. And all point out that it is a direct assault on Roe v.
Wade.
The material referred to follows:

[From the New York Times]

Reproductive Rights Under Attack

Congressional opponents of abortion have no appetite for a
direct and politically unpopular assault on Roe v. Wade. So
they are pursuing other legislative strategies that would
undermine women's reproductive freedom. One of the most
deceptive of these schemes is the benign-sounding Unborn
Victims of Violence Act, which is expected to come up for a
vote in the House this week.
Packaged as a crime-fighting measure unrelated to abortion,
the bill is actually aimed at fulfilling a longtime goal of
the right-to-life movement. The goal is to enshrine in law
the concept of ``fetal rights,'' equal to but separate and
distinct from the rights of pregnant women. In essence, the
bill would elevate the status of a fetus, embryo or other so-
called ``unborn child'' to that of a ``person'' by amending
the Federal criminal code to add a separate offense for
causing death or bodily injury to a ``child'' who is ``in
utero.'' The penalty would be equal to that imposed for
injuring the woman herself and would apply from the earliest
stage of gestation, whether or not the perpetrator knew of
the pregnancy.
The vote this week represents a serious test. An identical
bill passed the House last year by a 254-to-172 vote, and its
present sponsors are plainly hoping the arrival of a new
anti-choice administration will help gain passage this time
around in the Senate.
Violence against women that results in compromising a
pregnancy is a terrible crime. It may well deserve stiffer
penalties, which some states have already imposed. But the
bill's sponsors are more interested in furthering a political
agenda than in preventing and punishing criminal conduct.
Lawmakers who care for Roe v. Wade have no business voting
for this disingenuous legislation.
____

Editorials Against ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act''

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 2, 1999]

``While the bill specifically exempts abortion; it is a
clever, if transparent effort to establish a foothold in the
law for the idea that killing a fetus can be murder. What
makes this bill a bad idea is the very aspect of it that
makes it attractive to its supporters: that it treats the
fetus as a person separate from the mother, though that same
mother has a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.
This is a useful rhetorical device for the pro-life world.
But it is analytically incoherent.''
____

[From the St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 2, 1999]

``The bill's sponsors . . . claim the measure is not an
attack on reproductive freedom, but a bill to fight crime.
They point to the bill's exceptions for legal abortion
providers, medical caregivers and the mother herself as proof
that it's not anti-abortion. They are being disingenuous. . .
. The public not be fooled. This bill is about abortion, not
crime.''
____

[From the Seattle Times, Sept. 28, 1999]

``It would make sense for Congress to enhance penalties for
crimes against pregnant women, especially since pregnancy
greatly increases a woman's risk of domestic assault. It does
not make sense for Congress to exploit one critical health
issue--violence against women--to erode women's reproductive
rights. Its ludicrous to separate the pregnancy from the
woman. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that reproductive
freedom is part of the constitutional right to privacy; the
state can claim compelling interest only after the fetus can
survive outside the womb. For a quarter century, the price of
such freedom has been constant vigilance against laws like
this.''
____

[From the New York Times, Sept. 14, 1999]

``Congressional opponents of abortion rights have come up
with yet another scheme to advance their agenda. . . . [T]he
measure aims to chip away at women's reproductive freedom by
granting new legal status to unborn children--under the
deceptively benign guise of fighting crime. . . . . By
creating a separate legal status for fetuses, the bill's
supporters are plainly hoping to build a foundation for a
fresh legal assault on the constitutional underprintings of
the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. Sending the nation
down a legal path that could undermine the privacy rights of
women is not a reasonable way to protect women or deter
crime.''

We should call for ``truth in Advertising.'' The sponsors make it
sound like they want to protect the fetus. Yet the definition is so
broad that it would cover three cells. Make no mistake, this is an
attack on a woman's right to choose, and now we know clearly and
squarely where the Bush administration stands.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration
Policy on this bill.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, April 24, 2001.

Statement of Administration Policy

(This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned
agencies)

h.r. 503--Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001

(Rep. Graham (R) SC and 95 cosponsors)

The Administration supports protection for unborn children
and therefore supports House passage of H.R. 503. The
legislation would make it a separate Federal offense to cause
death or bodily injury to a child, who is in utero, in the
course of committing any one of 68 Federal offenses. The bill
also would make substantially identical amendments to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Administration would
strongly oppose any amendment to H.R. 503, such as a so-
called ``One-Victim'' Substitute, which would define the
bill's crimes as having only one victim--the pregnant woman.

I might add, why are we here today? The Bush administration has told
us that their top priority is education. Where is the education bill?
The Bush administration has told us that they care about the Patients'
Bill of Rights to protect our seniors. Where is the Patients' Bill of
Rights bill?
But what we get on the floor is an attack on a woman's right to
choose, attack on her health and on her privacy. That is what we get. I
ask my colleagues, is that compassionate?
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that this is
not a pro-life statement, it is not an attack on choice, but the
Traditional Values Coalition, on their Web site, I pulled it off today;
they state and I quote, ``Enactment of the bill would be a landmark
pro-life victory by recognizing the rights of the unborn.''
I include for the Record the pro-life organization's statement.

[[Page 6310]]

Victory: Unborn Victims of Violence Act Passes in the House

Criminals who murder or assault a pregnant woman will now
be held accountable to the violence inflicted on both
victims, the mother and her unborn child. This week the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act, sponsored by Representative
Lindsey Graham (R-SC), passed the House of Representatives by
a vote of 254-172. This bill recognizes that an unborn child
who is injured or killed during the commission of a federal
crime is a human victim, and the assailant could then be
punished for the harm caused to this most vulnerable victim.
This bill provides vital protection for expecting mothers and
their unborn children. We applaud the House for passing such
important legislation.
The House also rejected an attempt to water down the
original act by opposing a substitute amendment offered by
Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) by a vote of 201-224. This
victory is one step further in bringing justice for ALL
humans, born and unborn.
Regrettably, the United States federal criminal law does
not give unborn children the rights of personhood. Currently,
a person can attack a pregnant woman, causing the death of
her child and only be prosecuted for the assault on the
mother! It is a federal crime to attack, injure, or kill a
woman, but it is not considered a federal crime to do the
same to the unborn child of the woman. However, legislation
introduced by Representative Lindsey Graham (R-SC) proposes
to recognize the humanity of unborn children by using the
same standard to punish violence enacted upon the unborn as
any other person. This major pro-life bill would protect
unborn children from acts of violence and enactment of the
bill would be a landmark pro-life victory by recognizing the
rights of the unborn.

This bill treats a fetus as separate from the mother, though that
mother has a constitutional right to abortion. This bill does not
protect women in any way. In fact, there is nothing in the bill about
punishing the perpetrator for the crime against the woman. That is why
the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence opposes this bill.
According to experts, current Federal law already provides authority
for the punishment of criminals that harm fetuses.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the statement from Ronald
Weich, a former Special Counsel, U.S. Sentencing Commission, that goes
into further detail.

Testimony of Ronald Weich, Zuckerman Spaeder, L.L.P., Former Special
Counsel, U.S. Sentencing Commission, Before the Subcommittee on the
Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary, March 15, 2001

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is
Ronald Weich and I am a partner in the law firm of Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP. I respectfully request that this written
statement appear in the record of the Subcommittee's hearing
on H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001.\1\
In this statement I analyze the criminal law and sentencing
implications of the pending bill. I bring several
qualifications to this task. From 1983 to 1987 I worked as an
Assistant District Attorney in New York City, where I
prosecuted a wide array of criminal cases. Thereafter I
served as Special Counsel to the United States Sentencing
Commission and participated in drafting amendments to the
federal sentencing guidelines. I then served on the staff of
several Senate committees where I assisted in the development
of federal crime and sentencing policy. I am now in private
practice, but I continue to serve on the advisory board of
the Federal Sentencing Reporter, a scholarly journal in which
I have frequently published articles on sentencing law and
policy. I am also a member of the Criminal Justice Council of
the American Bar Association.\2\
After reviewing H.R. 503 in light of my experience in the
criminal justice system, my knowledge of the federal
sentencing guidelines and an examination of relevant case
law, I reach one basic conclusion: this bill is unnecessary.
Current federal law provides ample authority for the
punishment of criminals who hurt fetuses. H.R. 503 adds
nothing meaningful to the charging arsenal of federal
prosecutors or the sentencing options available to federal
judges.
Because the bill is unnecessary from a criminal law
perspective, I suspect that its purpose, instead, is to score
rhetorical points in the perennial struggle over abortion
rights. For reasons that I will explain, I object to the use
of the federal criminal code as a battlefield in the abortion
wars.
I will first describe why the bill is unnecessary in light
of current federal law and then explain why I believe it is
an unwise addition to federal law.

I. H.R. 503 is unnecessary

Current federal law already provides sufficient authority
to punish the conduct that H.R. 503 purports to punish.
At the outset it should be understood that very few violent
crimes are prosecuted in the federal courts. Most street
level violent crimes are prosecuted under state law by state
prosecutors in state courts. Under our constitutional system,
federal criminal jurisdiction only exists if the crime
implicates federal civil rights or interstate commerce--which
few violent crimes do--or if the crime occurs on a federal
enclave such as a federal office building, a military base or
an Indian reservation. Thus there are only a handful of
federal murder and assault prosecutions each year, and most
of those involve Native Americans.
H.R. 503 targets relatively rare conduct to begin with,
namely criminal assault on a fetus. And in the federal
context, that rare conduct is even more unusual. I researched
federal case law and found only one reported case in recent
years in which the victim of the offense of conviction was a
fetus. In that case, U.S. v. Spencer, 839 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir.
1988), the Native American defendant assaulted a pregnant
woman on an Indian reservation, kicking and stabbing her in
the abdomen. The woman was successfully treated for life-
threatening injuries, but her fetus was born alive and then
died. The Ninth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction
under the federal murder statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1111. Thus,
even without the help of H.R. 503, a federal defendant was
successfully prosecuted for murdering a fetus.
The Spencer decision is significant for several reasons.
First, it illustrates how rare such cases are in the federal
system--the court refers to the issue of federal criminal
liability for fetal death as one of ``first impression'' and
in the 13 years since it was decided, the issue decided in
Spencer appears not to have arisen in another reported
federal case. There is no crime wave of federal fetal
assaults crying out for a legislative solution. But should
this rare scenario present itself in federal court again,
Spencer stands for the proposition that criminal liability
may be imposed under current federal law.
The Spencer court relies on the well established common law
doctrine, developed in state courts, that fetal death
subsequent to birth due to fetal injuries may be prosecuted
as homicide. See, Annotation, Homicide Based on Killing of
Unborn Child, 64 A.L.R. 5th 671 (1998). Among the many state
cases upholding homicide convictions for assaults that
resulted in the death of a fetus are William v. State, 561
A.2d 216 (Maryland 1989); State v. Cornelius, 448 N.W.2d 434
(Wisconsin 1989); People v. Hall, 158 A.D.2D 69 (New York
App. Div. 1st Dept. 1990); and State v. Cotton, 5 P.3d918
(Arizona 2000).
The broad support for this rule in the state courts does
not argue for its necessity in the federal code, since state
law of this nature is incorporated into federal law by the
Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 13, when the crime
occurs in a federal enclave such as a military base. That was
the basis on which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
recently upheld the homicide conviction of Gregory Robbins
for beating his wife and thereby causing the termination of
her pregnancy. U.S. v. Robbins, 52 M.J. 159 (1999).
Proponents of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act had argued
in 1999 that the Robbins case, then pending, demonstrated the
need for a new federal law, but the successful outcome of the
prosecution shows precisely the opposite: current federal law
is sufficient.
Analytically separate from the question of criminal
liability is the question of punishment. Here again, current
federal law is sufficient. There is no dispute that causing
harm to a fetus during the commission of a federal felony
should generally result in enhanced punishment, and courts
have uniformly held that such enhancements are available
under the current sentencing guidelines. For example, in both
U.S. v. Peoples, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 27067 (9th Cir. 1997)
and U.S. v. Winzer, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 29640 (9th Cir.
1998), the court held that assaulting a pregnant woman during
a bank robbery could lead to a two level enhancement
(approximately a 25% increase) under Sec. 2B1.1(b)(3)(A) of
the Guidelines relating to physical injury. In U.S. v. James,
139 F.3d 709 (9th Cir. 1998), the court held that a pregnant
woman may be treated as a ``vulnerable victim'' under
Sec. 3A1.1 of the Guidelines, again leading to a two level
sentencing enhancement for the defendant. And in United
States v. Manuel, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 14946 (9th Cir. 1993),
the court held that the defendant's prior conviction for
assaulting his pregnant wife warranted an upward departure
from the applicable guideline range for his subsequent
assault conviction.
While there have been no federal death penalty prosecutions
of civilians in recent years involving fetal assaults, the
military justice system treats the murder victim's pregnancy
as an aggravating factor to be considered during the capital
sentencing phase of a trial. United States v. Thomas, 43 M.J.
550 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Ct. of Crim. App. 1995). This
holding follows state law precedents in which the pregnancy
of the victim is a statutory aggravator in capital cases.
See, e.g., Del. Code Ann. Tit. 11, Sec. 4209(e)(1)(p) (Supp.
1986).
In sum, H.R. 503 is unnecessary because federal case law
and the federal sentencing guidelines, building on well-
established common law principles, already authorize serious
punishment for the harm that the bill seeks to address.

[[Page 6311]]

II. H.R. 503 IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

To say that H.R. 503 is unnecessary does not end the
inquiry. As members of the Judiciary Committee are aware, the
federal criminal code is characterized by much redundancy,
and one more criminal law prohibiting what is elsewhere
prohibited would barely add to the thicket. But for three
reasons, H.R. 503 would not only constitute an unnecessary
addition to the Code, it would also be an undesirable
addition.
First, the bill has been drafted in a structurally unsound
manner and will lead to considerable confusion and
litigation. To be convicted under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1841, the
new criminal offense created by H.R. 503, a defendant must
have ``engage[d] in conduct that violates'' one of the
existing federal crimes enumerated in Sec. 1841(b). But must
the defendant be convicted of one of those other offenses
before he may be convicted of the separate offense under
Sec. 1841? That is a fair reading of the text, but the answer
is not without doubt. There is already considerable
controversy and resource-draining litigation in the federal
courts over whether various title 18 provisions constitute
separate offenses requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt
or sentencing enhancements requiring only proof by a
preponderance of evidence, see, e.g. Appendix v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000); Jones v. United States, 119 S. Ct. 1215
(1999). H.R. 503 would add to this confusion if there were
ever a prosecution under the new criminal provision it
establishes.
This problem could be addressed if, instead of creating a
new criminal offense, H.R. 503 merely directed the Sentencing
Commission to either establish a new sentencing enhancement
when the victim of the crime is a pregnant woman, or make
clear that a pregnant woman may be considered a ``vulnerable
victim'' under existing Sec. 3A1.1 of the Sentencing
Guidelines. As demonstrated above, the generic provisions of
the Guidelines already accomplish this result. But at least a
sentencing enhancement bill would not foster confusion and
litigation.
Second, H.R. 503 is overbroad. To begin with, it
incorporates by reference an unduly broad definition of
``bodily injury'' from 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1365. Whereas the
common law rule applied to termination of the pregnancy, H.R.
503 would make it a violation of federal law to cause
``physical pain'' to the fetus or ``any other injury to the
[fetus], no matter how temporary.'' 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1365(g)(4). That definition may make sense in the
consumer safety context from which it derives, but it is
bizarre and extreme in the prenatal context of H.R. 503.
Further, H.R. 503 applies to all fetuses, not merely those
that are viable, and explicitly applies to unintentional as
well as intentional conduct. The common law rule, evolved
over centuries of Anglo- American jurisprudence, is that an
assault causing the death of a viable (or, in the archaic
phrase, ``quickened'') fetus gives rise to criminal
liability. The rule in H.R. 503 is that an assault
unintentionally causing ``pain'' to a weeks-old fetus gives
rise to criminal liability.\3\
Third, the bill is a transparent effort to undermine Roe v.
Wade. Since H.R. 503 adds nothing meaningful to substantive
federal criminal law, its purpose is purely symbolic: to
bestow statutory personhood on fetuses, even those that are
not viable.
It is no accident that the bill says nothing about injuries
to pregnant women; instead the newly created title is styled
``Protection of Unborn Children.'' An assault on a fetus
cannot occur without an assault on the pregnant women, but
the bill is deliberately framed in terms that ignore the
woman. To be sure, there is an explicit exception to the
criminal penalties in the bill for ``conduct relating to an
abortion'' but make no mistake--this bill is just one more
step in the anti-abortion movement's methodical strategy to
humanize fetuses, marginalize women, demonize abortion
providers, and make the image of abortion less palatable to
the American people. The extreme overbreadth of H.R. 503
flows directly from that strategy.
The validity of the constitutional protections established
in Roe v. Wade exceeds the scope of this testimony and is
beyond my field of expertise. But as someone who cares about
the integrity of the criminal law, I regret that this
skirmish in the abortion wars flares up unnecessarily in the
federal criminal code. The criminal justice system is built
on ancient principles such as proportionality of punishment
and the requirement that a wrongdoer have acted with intent
to cause harm (mens rea). In ignoring these principles, H.R.
503 is an unsound piece of crime legislation.
Because I believe H.R. 503 to be both unnecessary and
unwise, I urge the subcommittee to reject it.

Notes

\1\ On July 21, 1999, I testified before this Subcommittee
in person regarding H.R. 2436, the version of the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act introduced in the 106th Congress.
Because H.R. 2436 and the pending H.R. 503 are substantially
the same, my testimony this year substantially duplicates the
testimony I previously provided. Nonetheless, I wish this
statement to appear in the record of the current hearing so
that it is available to members of Congress considering the
pending bill.
\2\ I wish to make clear that I am not testifying on behalf
of the American Bar Association or any other entity with
which I am affiliated. Nor am I testifying on behalf of any
of my law or lobbying clients. For example, it is a matter of
public record that I have represented Planned Parenthood
Federation of America (PPFA) with respect to pharmaceutical
pricing issues, but I do not represent PPFA at this hearing.
The views I express herein are strictly my own.
\3\ The bill's new Sec. 1841(a) defines the term ``unborn
child'' tautologically as ``a child in utero.'' Unless the
drafters of H.R. 2426 intend to word ``child'' to imply
viability, the bill would apply to conduct that impacted a
first trimester pregnancy. Whether an ``unborn child'' of
such gestational age constitutes a human being raises
constitutional issues beyond the scope of this testimony.

Mr. Speaker, this bill really has nothing to do with protecting a
fetus and it has everything to do with taking away a woman's right to
choose. That is why all the women's organizations, that is why all the
domestic violence organizations oppose it, but the Bush administration
supports it. It is a sham, it is aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade, it
is further aimed at marginalizing female victims, and it is plainly
unnecessary.
It is plainly wrong. I urge a no vote against this antiwoman bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, on July 25, 2000, the House of Representatives, by a
vote of 417-0, passed the Innocent Child Protection Act. This bill
would prohibit either the Federal Government or any State from
executing a woman while she carries a child in utero. That bill defined
``child in utero'' in the same language as the legislation that is
before us.

{time} 1145

We heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and others, talk
about two-cell zygotes and other terms that have been used during the
development of the Homo sapiens, but the protection that was given to
the child in utero by the bill that passed last year by a vote of 417-
0, I have the roll call here. I noticed the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) endorsed this definition when it came to the death
penalty, as did the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). Why should we not use the
same definition that everybody endorsed last year when it came to
executing pregnant women at the State and Federal level in the
legislation that sets up this separate crime?
I intend to be consistent in my votes by voting for this definition
in this bill, as I did last year for the definition in the other bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a new Member of this body in strong
support of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, offered by my
friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. Speaker, it amazes this new Member that there are those who
oppose this initiative before the House, which is simply an effort to
defend unborn children from violence. Do we not all have an interest in
protecting mothers and their children from violent attackers? Who in
this House has not read a story in the newspaper about an expectant
mother like that described by the Committee on the Judiciary chairman,
the story of Shawana Pace whose boyfriend paid to have her assaulted
and because of that abuse she lost her child? The outrage and the anger
of the public after these events demands that we take action.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition, in their zeal to prevent this bill from
becoming law, would have us believe that punishing criminals for
existing Federal crimes would compromise the rights of mothers. This
premise is simply wrong. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act
specifically targets not women or women's rights, but criminals who
cause death or harm to an unborn child while committing one of 63
existing Federal crimes.
As the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) observed, the Journal

[[Page 6312]]

of the American Medical Association published a recent study that found
that homicide is the most common cause of death among pregnant women in
Maryland. A week later, JAMA published another study that found that 6
percent of all pregnant women in North Carolina are abused while they
are pregnant.
Despite these alarming facts, Federal law does not punish criminals
who prey on pregnant women simply because they are pregnant.
The alternative to this bill to be offered later today fails to
address a central cause of violence against pregnant women because it
fails to recognize that the child is often the primary target of the
assailant.
Mr. Speaker, by protecting the child we protect the mother. It is a
fundamental axiom of Western civilization, the belief in the sanctity
of human life. By failing to recognize crimes against the life of the
unborn child, we place not only one life at risk but two. We must
correct this oversight in Federal law and ensure that criminals who
prey on pregnant women and their unborn children pay the appropriate
penalty for their crimes.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act. This Congress should seize this opportunity to extend the
protection of the law to the most defenseless in our society.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SOLIS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Solis) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham)
was the one that said that H.R. 503 is a two-victim bill. The bill on
the floor is not a two-victim bill. The bill only recognizes one
victim, the embryo or the fetus. Harm to the woman does not factor into
the bill at all. The bill does not require prosecution of the crime
against the woman, and so to call it a two-victim bill is a fallacy.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to join my Democratic
colleagues and rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503, the so-called
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. While the bill supporters claim that
they want to protect pregnant women from crime, their bill does no such
thing. Instead, the bill recognizes for the first time a fetus as a
person, with rights separate and equal to that of a woman.
I am disappointed that the sponsors of H.R. 503 would play politics
with the issue of women's safety. Of course we can all agree that
pregnant women deserve protection against crime and violence, but we
all hold very different beliefs on a woman's right to choose. Therefore
it is simply irresponsible to confuse the two issues in H.R. 503, as
this does.
That is why I am not voting for H.R. 503 in favor of the substitute
amendment, which will be offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren). The Lofgren substitute, the Motherhood
Protection Act, increases the penalty for attacking a pregnant woman.
Let us work together to pass something we can all agree on, rather than
playing politics, and let us preserve women's safety.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 503 and support the Lofgren
substitute.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, back in September of 1999, when this bill
came before us, one of the opponents of the bill said this, because the
criminal attack on a woman causing her to lose a child and an abortion
are too easy to confuse, we need to vote against this bill.
Now we are again hearing today that it is hard to distinguish between
a criminal attack on a woman which kills her baby and an abortion. But
I say, I think the American people can distinguish between the two of
those, and I think Members of this body can. We also heard today, and
we heard in that earlier argument, that this bill would do a dangerous
thing. It would recognize the legal status of an unborn child.
Now that is pretty dangerous, is it not, recognizing the legal status
of an unborn child?
Is an unborn child illegal? Are they born into the world illegal?
When do they pass from illegal to legal? I think if a mother wants to
have a child, wants to have that child born, wants to raise that child,
that child is legal.
I want to talk about something else, something else that the
opponents I do not think would want to talk about, and I think this is
particularly telling, it is an article in the March 2001 Journal of
American Medicine, and it simply says one thing, the disturbing finding
that a pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a
victim of homicide than due to any other cause. In other words, a
pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than die of
any other cause.
It compared that to nonpregnant women in the same age group, and that
was the fifth leading cause of death.
As that article asks the question, we ought to ask the same question.
Only by having a clear understanding of the magnitude of pregnancy-
associated mortality can there be comprehensive prevention.
In other words, pregnant women are victims of homicide in a far
greater percentage than nonpregnant women. We need to understand that
if we are to prevent it.
How do we prevent it? Why does one think pregnant women are five
times more likely to die of a homicide in this study and in an earlier
study in the Journal of Public Health and in two studies in obstetrics
and gynecology? I would submit that the fact they are pregnant is
making them a target. These studies certainly say that they are a
target. This bill, and I praise the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham) for offering it, it is a needed step to help what has become an
attack on pregnant women.

Remarks Upon Passage of Bill in 106th Congress

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act and opposed to the amendment.
We have heard some very interesting statements out here on
the floor today. One of the opponents of this act said we
ought to vote against this act because, and let me quote,
``because the criminal attack on a woman causing her to lose
a child, and an abortion, it is too easy to confuse the
two.''
In other words, a criminal attack on a woman which causes
her to lose her unborn child, she said the only difference in
that and an abortion is, she says, the result is the same
except for the criminal intent, and we cannot always
determine the difference.
Now, do my colleagues buy that? Do my colleagues buy that
this Congress or the American people cannot distinguish
between a criminal attack on a woman which causes her to lose
her unborn child and an abortion? I do not think so. I think
that is ludicrous.
Another reason we were told to vote against this act, we
were told that the Federal court or the Federal jurisdiction
may have jurisdiction over the mother, but they might not
have jurisdiction over the unborn child.
In other words, an FBI agent who is pregnant, we can try
someone for assaulting her or murdering her, but not her
unborn child, because that would not be a Federal act.
Well, what do we do in those cases? Do we always try those?
Would we try them, as that person who opposes it said, we
ought to try that case in the State court? Of course not.
That is ludicrous.
The final thing, which is probably the worst, is this
statement, and I say this with respect to all Members: that
this is the first occasion that this Congress or this Supreme
Court has ever recognized the legal status of an unborn
child. If we pass this act, we will be recognizing the legal
status of an unborn child.
Well I ask you, is it an illegal status? Are unborn
children illegal?
How about an unborn child whose mother has made a decision
to keep that child? She wants to keep that child. She wants
to have that child. She wants to raise that child. Is there
anything wrong with recognizing the legal status of that
child? Should that child have no status, no rights? Of course
not.
____

[From JAMA, March 21, 2001]

Enhanced Surveillance for Pregnancy-Associated Mortality--Maryland,
1993-1998

(By Isabelle L. Horon and Diana Cheng)

Complete and accurate identification of all deaths
associated with pregnancy is a critical first step in the
prevention of such deaths. Only by having a clear
understanding of the magnitude of pregnancy-associated
mortality can comprehensive prevention

[[Page 6313]]

strategies be formulated to prevent these unanticipated
deaths among primarily young, healthy women.
Death statistics compiled through the National Vital
Statistics System by the National Center for Health
Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are a
major source of data on deaths occurring during pregnancy and
in the postpartum period. Original death certificates from
which state and national vital statistics are derived are
filed in and maintained by individual states. Causes of death
on death certificates are reported by attending physicians
or, under certain circumstances such as death from external
trauma or unexplained death, by medical examiners or
coroners.
The National Center for Health Statistics is required to
use the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of a
maternal death for preparation of mortality data. According
to the WHO definition, a maternal death is ``the death of a
woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of
pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and the site of the
pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the
pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or
incidental causes.'' \1\ This definition includes deaths
assigned to the cause ``complication of pregnancy,
childbirth, and the puerperium'' (International
Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9] codes 630-
676).
Death records are an important source of data on pregnancy
mortality because they are routinely collected by the states
and are comparable over time and across the nation. However,
there are several limitations to using these data to identify
all deaths associated with pregnancy. First, the cause-of-
death information provided on these records is sometimes not
accurate. Previous studies have shown that physicians
completing death records following a maternal death fail to
report that the woman was pregnant or had a recent pregnancy
in 50% or more of these cases,^2-4 resulting in the
misclassification of the underlying cause of death. Since
these deaths cannot be identified as maternal deaths through
routine surveillance methods, they are not included in the
calculation of maternal mortality rates.
An additional limitation of using death records alone for
comprehensive identification of all deaths associated with
pregnancy is that the WHO definition of a maternal death
limits the temporal and causal scope of pregnancy mortality.
As defined by WHO, a maternal death does not include deaths
occurring more than 42 days following termination of
pregnancy or deaths resulting from causes other than direct
complications of pregnancy, labor, and the puerperium.
To address these issues, the term ``pregnancy-associated
death'' was introduced by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, in collaboration with the Maternal Mortality
Special Interest Group of the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, to define a death from any
cause during pregnancy or within 1 calendar year of delivery
or pregnancy termination, regardless of the duration or
anatomical site of the pregnancy.\5\ Pregnancy-associated
deaths include not only deaths commonly associated with
pregnancy such as hemorrhage, pregnancy-induced hypertension,
and embolism--which are captured in the WHO definition--but
also deaths not traditionally considered to be related to
pregnancy such as accidents, homicide, and suicide. The term
also includes deaths occurring 43 to 365 days following
termination of pregnancy. Since cause-of-death information on
death certificates cannot identify deaths from nonmaternal
causes or deaths occurring 43 or more days following
termination of pregnancy as associated with pregnancy,
additional sources of data must be used for complete
ascertainment of all pregnancy-associated deaths.
Previous studies on pregnancy-associated deaths have relied
largely on linkage or records ^2.6-8 or the use of
a check box on the death certificate \9\ to identify
pregnancy-associated deaths. Only 1 study (Allen et al \10\)
in New York City used death certificates, linkage of records,
and review of autopsy reports to identify pregnancy-
associated deaths. However, this study did not include all
pregnancy-associated deaths since only records for deaths
occurring within 6 months of termination of pregnancy were
collected, and medical examiner records for only certain
causes of death were reviewed.
This article, based on Maryland resident data for the years
1993-1998, presents more comprehensive data on pregnancy-
associated deaths since it includes all deaths occurring
during pregnancy or within a year of termination of
pregnancy. In addition, medical examiner records for all
women of reproductive age who died during the study period,
regardless of cause of death, were reviewed to identify
pregnancy-associated deaths.

methods

Data for this analysis were collected from the following 3
sources: (1) review of death certificates to identify those
records on which a complication of pregnancy, childbirth, or
the puerperium (ICD-9 codes 630-676) was listed as an
underlying or contributing cause of death; (2) linkage of
death certificates of reproductive-age women with
corresponding live birth and fetal death records to identify
a pregnancy within the year preceding death; and (3) review
of medical examiner records for evidence of pregnancy.
Vital records data were obtained from the Vital Statistics
Administration of the Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene. Identification of pregnancy-associated deaths
through linkage of vital records was accomplished by matching
death certificates for all women of reproductive age against
live birth and fetal death records to identify pregnancies
occurring in the year preceding death. Successful linkage of
records was achieved by matching either mother's Social
Security number or mother's name and date of birth on the
death record with corresponding information on live birth and
fetal death records. All linked records were manually
reviewed to ensure accurate matching of records.
Medical examiner records, which include autopsy reports and
police records, were reviewed for all 4195 women aged 10 to
50 years whose deaths were investigated by the medical
examiner during the study period. Maryland law mandates that
the medical examiner investigate all deaths that occur by
violence, suicide, casualty, unexpectedly, or in any
suspicious or unusual manner. Death certificates were
obtained for 116 women for whom medical examiner records
indicated evidence of pregnancy.
With the exception of 1 death to a 14-year-old adolescent,
all deaths identified through medical examiner records
occurred among women who were within the traditional
reproductive age group of 15 to 44 years. All deaths
identified through death certificates and record linkage were
among women between the ages of 15 and 44 years.
All death records that did not identify a maternal cause as
the underlying cause of death (n = 184) were reviewed by
trained nosologists to determine the underlying cause of
death that would have been assigned if a history of pregnancy
had been reported on the death certificate. Nosologists were
provided with information on pregnancy outcome and, if
available, the date of delivery, date of pregnancy
termination, or gestational age. Revised underlying cause-of-
death information was used to categorize data by cause of
death.

RESULTS

A total of 247 pregnancy-associated deaths occurring
between 1993 and 1998 were identified from the 3 data
sources. Sixty-seven pregnancy-associated deaths (27.1%) were
identified through cause-of-death information obtained from
death certificates. Sixty-two of these records listed
pregnancy complications as the underlying cause of death; the
remaining 5 certificates listed pregnancy complications as a
contributing, but not underlying, cause of death. Linkage of
records identified 174 (70.4%) of all pregnancy-associated
deaths and review of medical examiner records resulted in the
identification of 116 (47.0%) deaths (Table 1).

TABLE 1.--NUMBER OF PREGNANCY-ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY PREGNANCY OUTCOME AND SOURCES OF DATA, MARYLAND, 1993-1998
\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources of data
-----------------------------------
Pregnancy outcome Total Medical
deaths Death Record examiner
certificates linkage records
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All outcomes..................................................... 247 67 174 116
Live births.................................................... 182 46 172 60
Fetal death.................................................... 5 3 2 4
Therapeutic abortion........................................... 1 0 0 1
Undelivered.................................................... 53 12 0 50
Ectopic pregnancy............................................ 7 7 0 5
Molar pregnancy.............................................. 1 1 0 1
All other undelivered........................................ 45 4 0 44
Unknown........................................................ 6 6 0 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Deaths from any cause during pregnancy or within 1 calendar year of delivery or termination of pregnancy,
regardless of the duration or anatomical site of the pregnancy. A single death may have been ascertained from
more than 1 source, therefore columns do not sum to the total number of deaths.

Sixty-five percent (n = 160) of pregnancy-associated deaths
were identified through a single surveillance method. One
hundred two (41.3%) were identified only through linkage of
records, 45 (18.2%) only through review of medical examiner
records, and 13 (5.3%) only through cause-of-death
information provided on death certificates. Thirty-five
percent of pregnancy-associated deaths were identified
through more than 1 data source (n = 87).
One hundred eighty-two (73.7%) of the 247 pregnancy-
associated deaths identified in this study followed a live
birth, 5 (2.0%) followed a fetal death, 1 followed a
therapeutic abortion, and 53 (21.4%) occurred among women who
were pregnant at the time of death. Of the 53 deaths that
occurred among pregnant women, 7 were the result of ruptured
ectopic pregnancies and 1 resulted from a molar pregnancy
(Table 1). Eighty-four (34.0%) deaths occurred within 42 days
of delivery or termination of pregnancy, and 103 (41.7%)
deaths occurred 43 to 365 days following delivery or
termination of pregnancy. The time of death was unknown for 7
women (Table 2).

[[Page 6314]]

TABLE 2--NUMBER OF PREGNANCY-ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY CAUSE OF DEATH, SOURCE OF DATA, AND TIME OF DEATH, MARYLAND 1993-1998 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All sources Death certificates Record linkage Medical examiner records
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After delivery of After delivery or After delivery or After delivery or
Cause of death termination of pregnancy termination of pregnancy termination of pregnancy termination of pregnancy
Total \2\ During -------------------------- Total \2\ During -------------------------- Total \2\ During -------------------------- Total \2\ During -------------------------
pregnancy 42 d pregnancy 42 d Pregnancy 42 d Pregnancy 42 d
43-365 d 43-365 d 43-365 d 43-365 d
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All causes.............................. 247 53 84 103 67 12 45 3 174 0 71 103 116 50 48 16
Homicide................................ 50 23 3 24 0 0 0 0 27 0 3 24 25 23 1 1
Cardiovascular.......................... 48 5 21 18 13 2 6 1 36 0 18 18 30 5 15 8
Embolism................................ 21 5 14 2 11 1 9 1 14 0 12 2 14 5 8 1
accidents \3\........................... 18 6 2 10 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 10 9 6 2 1
Hemorrhage.............................. 17 7 9 0 16 7 8 0 5 0 5 0 10 5 5 0
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy..... 16 0 15 1 14 0 13 1 16 0 15 1 10 0 9 1
Infection............................... 16 0 7 8 4 0 3 0 15 0 7 8 3 0 2 1
Neoplasms............................... 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 0
Substance abuse......................... 13 1 3 9 1 0 1 0 11 0 2 9 4 1 2 1
Suicide................................. 7 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 3 2 0 1
All other causes........................ 26 4 10 11 8 2 5 0 19 0 8 11 8 3 4 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Deaths from any cause during pregnancy within 1 calendar year of delivery or termination of pregnancy, regardless of the duration or anatomical site of the pregnancy. A single death may have been ascertained from more than 1
source, therefore columns do not sum to the total number of deaths ascertained from all sources.
\2\ Totals include 7 deaths for which the time of death was unknown.
\3\ Includes deaths from motor vehicle collisions, falls, drowning, and other unintentional injuries.

The leading cause of pregnancy-associated death was
homicide (n = 50). All homicides were identified through
record linkage or review of medical examiner records rather
than from death certificates, as would be expected since
homicide is not a maternal cause of death. Deaths from
cardiovascular disorders, the second leading cause of death
(n = 48), were identified through all 3 data sources,
although no single source was able to identify all deaths. Of
the 26 deaths from cardiovascular disorders that occurred
during pregnancy or within 42 days of delivery and should
therefore have been classified as maternal deaths, only 8
were identified through death certificates. A substantial
proportion of deaths from other maternal causes, including
embolism and infection, could not be identified from death
certificates since the physicians filling out the
certificates failed to report that the women were pregnant or
had recent pregnancies (Table 2).
All maternal deaths, by definition, occurred during
pregnancy or within 42 days of delivery or termination of
pregnancy. This included most deaths from embolism,
hemorrhage, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as well
as a substantial proportion of deaths resulting from
cardiovascular disorders and infection. Homicide was
responsible for the majority of deaths during pregnancy (23
[43.4%]) and during the 43- to 365-day period following
delivery or termination of pregnancy (24 [23.3%]), but
accounted for only a small proportion of deaths occurring
within 42 days of pregnancy (3 [3.6%]), when obstetric causes
were responsible for most pregnancy-associated deaths.
Cardiovascular disorders (n = 21) were the leading cause of
death in the 42-day period following delivery or termination
of pregnancy and the second leading cause of death (n = 18),
following homicide, in the late postpartum period (Table 2).
Homicide, the leading cause of pregnancy-associated death,
was responsible for 20.2% of all pregnancy-associated deaths.
By comparison, homicide was the fifth leading cause of death
among Maryland women aged 14 to 44 years who had not had a
pregnancy in the year preceding death and was responsible for
457 (6.4%) of total deaths among this group (z = 7.737,
P<.001). The pregnant group was younger and included a higher
percentage of African American women than the nonpregnant
group, factors that are associated with higher rates of
homicide independent of pregnancy. However, these factors did
not explain the higher proportion of homicide deaths in the
pregnant group. While adjustment for race and maternal age
increased the proportion of deaths due to homicide to 11.2%
among women who had not been pregnant in the year preceding
death, the adjusted figure was still significantly lower than
the figure of 20.2% among women who had been pregnant (z =
4.349, P<.001).

comment

The use of multiple data sources substantially enhances
pregnancy mortality surveillance because no single source can
identify all pregnancy-associated deaths. Death certificates
are designed to collect only a small subset of pregnancy-
associated deaths. Even these deaths are frequently not
included in maternal mortality statistics because physicians
completing death certificates fail to provide the information
needed to correctly classify a maternal death. Analysis of
data in this report indicated that 30 (34.5%) of the 87
deaths meeting the WHO definition of a maternal death could
not be identified through cause-of-death information reported
by physicians on the death certificate. Data linkage is an
additional tool for identifying pregnancy-associated deaths,
but it is limited to those deaths with a reported outcome,
such as a live birth or fetal death. Medical examiner records
are the most useful source for identifying pregnancy-
associated deaths among women who have not delivered at the
time of death.
Data linkage and review of medical examiner records
contribute substantially to identification of pregnancy-
associated mortality. In Maryland, this led to the disturbing
finding that a pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more
likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other
cause. Other reports have identified homicide as a cause of
pregnancy-associated death. However, none of these studies
reported on pregnancy-associated deaths from other causes as
well, and therefore could not provide a ranking of deaths by
cause.
Although we have shown that homicide is responsible for a
greater proportion of deaths among pregnant and postpartum
women than among women who have not been pregnant in the year
preceding death, our findings do not address the issue of
whether the homicide rate is higher among pregnant and
postpartum women in general than among women who have not had
recent pregnancies. This highlights a well-recognized
limitation of proportional mortality statistics, ie, that
these statistics include only individuals who die, not those
at risk of dying. Therefore, no direct inferences regarding
increased homicide rates for all pregnant women can be made
using only proportional mortality statistics.
The question of whether the homicide rate is higher among
pregnant and postpartum women than among women who have not
had recent pregnancies could be answered by comparing
mortality rates in the 2 groups. However, a methodology for
computing pregnancy-associated mortality rates and mortality
rates for nonpregnant women has not yet been established
because of complexities in determining the number of pregnant
women in a population. Since a woman may experience more than
1 pregnancy and more than 1 pregnancy outcome (live birth,
fetal loss, or induced abortion) in a given time period, the
number of pregnant women cannot be computed by summing the
number of pregnancy outcomes. Even if the number of pregnant
women could be estimated, an additional issue that would have
to be addressed is how to adjust mortality rates to account
for differences in the time period of risk of death in the 2
populations. It is important that increased efforts be placed
on development of appropriate methodologies for calculating
pregnancy-associated mortality rates so that the questions
raised by this article may be addressed.
The findings of this article also suggest that maternal
mortality review committees should investigate homicides
occurring during pregnancy and in the postpartum period to
determine potential relationships between these events. For
example, a homicide resulting from domestic violence may be
related to the stress of pregnancy. Similarly, a suicide soon
after delivery may result from postpartum depression. By
broadening pregnancy mortality to include all possible
causes, factors previously neglected may assume increased
importance in prenatal and postpartum care.
Despite the use of enhanced surveillance techniques, it is
likely that some pregnancy-associated deaths remain
undetected, particularly those occurring in women who were
pregnant at the time of death. Since autopsies are performed
on all homicide victims, it is more likely that pregnancy
would be detected among these women than among women dying
from other causes, who are less likely to be autopsied. Since
Maryland law mandates that the medical examiner investigate
deaths among individuals who were in apparent good health at
the time of death, which describes most pregnant women, the
majority of deaths among these women should have been
investigated by the medical examiner. Autopsies were in fact
performed more frequently among women with recognized
pregnancy-associated deaths who died from causes other than
homicide (123

[[Page 6315]]

[62.4%]) than among women of reproductive age without
recognized pregnancies (6696 [30.6%]). However, it is still
possible that some pregnancies remain undetected, which could
have an impact on the total number of pregnancy-associated
deaths as well as on the distribution of deaths by pregnancy
outcome, time of death, or cause of death.
Efforts are being made in Maryland to improve the
identification of pregnancy-associated deaths. Recent
legislation mandates that health care professionals and
facilities report all pregnancy-associated deaths to the
Maryland Maternal Mortality Review Program. In addition, the
Maryland death certificate was revised in 2001 to include
questions about current or recent pregnancies. Currently,
only 17 states and New York City have a pregnancy check box
or ask about pregnancy status on their death certificates.
Use of pregnancy question by all states on the revised US
Standard Certificate of Death has been recommended to the
National Center for Health Statistics by the Panel to
Evacuate the US Standard Certificates and Reports. Such a
change, which would be consistent with a recommendation of
the World Health Assembly in the International Classification
of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10),\13\ would substantially
improve ascertainment of pregnancy on death certificates. If
approved by the US Department of Health and Human Services,
states could adopt the pregnancy question in the 2003
revision of their death certificates. This change should help
to identify deaths that remain difficult to detect, such as
deaths that cannot be identified through linkage of records
and deaths among women who had not delivered that are not
reported to the medical examiner. However, it would be a
service, as well as good medical practice, if physicians made
a greater effort to report pregnancy as a factor contributing
to death when appropriate.
Comprehensive identification of pregnancy-associated deaths
can only be accomplished by collecting information from
multiple data sources and including all deaths occurring up
to 1 year after pregnancy termination. Through such enhanced
surveillance, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene has shown that the number of pregnancy-associated
deaths is substantially higher and causes of death
substantially broader than previously believed. Enhanced
surveillance of pregnancy-associated deaths is necessary to
accurately document the magnitude of pregnancy mortality,
identify groups at increased risk of death, review factors
leading to the death, and plan prevention strategies. It is
therefore a critical step in the reduction of pregnancy-
associated mortality.

references

1. World Health Organization. ``Manual of the International
Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes
of Death.'' Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization,
1977.
2. Dye TD, Gordon H, Held B, Tolliver NJ, Holmes, AP.
Retrospective maternal mortality case ascertainment in West
Virginia, 1985 to 1989. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 167: 72-
76.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pregnancy-
related mortality--Georgia, 1990-1992. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly
Rep. 1995; 44:93-96.
4. Atrash HK, Alexander S. Berg CJ. Maternal mortality in
developed countries; not just a concern of the past. Obstet
Gynecol. 1995; 86:700-705.
5. Atrash HK, Rowley D, Hogue CJR. Maternal and perinatal
mortality. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1992; 4:61-71.
6. Starzyk P, Frost F, Kobayashi JM. Misclassification of
maternal deaths--Washington State. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.
1986; 35:621-623.
7. Jocums SB, Berg CJ, Entman SS, Mitchell EF. Post-
delivery mortality in Tennessee, 1989-91, Obstet Gynecol.
1998; 91:767-770.
8. Floyd V, Hadley C, Lavoie M, Toomey K. Pregnancy-related
mortality--Georgia, 1990-92. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1995;
44:93-97.
9. Comas A, Navarro A. Carrera A, et al. Maternal mortality
surveillance--Puerto Rico, 1989. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.
1991; 40:521-523.
10. Allen MH, Chavkin W, Jarinoff J. Ascertainment of
maternal deaths in New York City. Am J Public Health. 1991;
81:382-384.
11. Dietz PM, Rochat RW, Thompson BL, Berg CJ, Griffin GW.
Differences in the risk of homicide and other fatal injuries
between postpartum women and other women of childbearing age:
implications for prevention, Am J Public Health. 1998;
88:641-643.
12. Parsons LH, Harper MA. Violent maternal deaths in North
Carolina. Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 94:990-993.
13. World Health Organization. ``International
Classification of Diseases,'' 10th Revision (ICD-10). Geneva
Switzerland World Health Organization; 1992.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, first let me disabuse the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of his notion that those of us who voted
for the bill to bar capital punishment for pregnant women were
recognizing the fetus or the unborn child as a person.
I vote against anything to limit capital punishment. I would say to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), I am opposed to
capital punishment. I think it is barbaric whether it is against
pregnant women or barbaric against nonpregnant women.
Mr. Speaker, violence against pregnant women is first and foremost a
criminal act of violence against the women that deserves strong
preventive measures and stiff punishment.
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) referred to the article in
the Journal of the American Medical Association that said homicides
during pregnancy and the year after are the largest cause of death
among women, and they are.
Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that while these preventable crimes
continue to occur, it is a disgrace that Congress fails with this
largely symbolic legislation rather than taking affirmative steps to
deal with the problem. Why, for example, did the Republican majority
fall $209 million short of President Clinton's request last year for
full funding of the Violence Against Women Act? Why did the Republicans
on the Committee on the Judiciary vote against an amendment for full
funding of the Violence Against Women Act? If we are concerned about
violence against women and pregnant women and murders of pregnant
women, as the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates,
that is how to prevent it, by early intervention, by preventing the
crime, not by fighting about the legal definition of the fetus from a
legal point of view.
Are the Members who vote for this legislation today going to join the
rest of us in seeking full funding for the Violence Against Women Act
in the next fiscal year? Will they fight efforts to zero out for the
second year in a row programs authorized by the Committee on the
Judiciary last year to prevent such violence?
No one who listened to the testimony at our subcommittee could have
been left unmoved by the terrible story of the young woman who was
murdered by her intimate partner in the eighth month of pregnancy. I
think we owe it to her and to the many women like her to ensure that
early intervention is available that would prevent us and that States
and localities receive the full resources of the Violence Against Women
Act to prevent murders like this by intervening before the violence
escalates to that level.
We should also enact strong penalties, ones which are enforceable,
which are not constitutionally suspect, which will not lead to lengthy
litigation for these violent crimes.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill opens the door to prosecuting women
or restraining them physically for the sake of a fetus. Some courts
have already experimented with this approach. Just a few weeks ago, the
Supreme Court struck down a practice in the home State of the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) where a hospital would give the
results of a pregnant woman's blood test to local law enforcement for
the purpose of initiating legal action against them if they had used
crack. Once we recognize the two-cell zygote or even a blastocyst just
implanted in the womb as having the same legal status as a pregnant
woman, it would logically follow that the liberty interest of the
mother could be restricted to protect the fetus.
Do not believe the rhetoric that this is not an abortion bill. Women
are already being prosecuted and imprisoned by courts, including courts
in the sponsor's own State, in order to protect the fetuses.
The whole purpose of Roe v. Wade was to protect the liberty interests
of these women. The women who sit in prison today can say what the
legal consequences of making fetuses crime victims recognized in law
really are. They can say what the real agenda is. The real agenda is to
subject women's liberty to the interests of the fetus and to make the
fetus accepted as a person, and that is why this is an abortion bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the author of the bill.

[[Page 6316]]

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, this has been a spirited debate, a lively
debate. I think it is good for the country to have this debate. I hate
to interrupt good stories with facts and law, but I guess I will.
I am going to go red herring fishing. That is a hard thing to catch;
but when one catches it, they have something.
A couple of red herrings that I think have been thrown out here about
the bill: this is an abortion bill. If this is an abortion bill, it is
one of the worst-drafted abortion bills one could think of. It does a
lousy job, and let me read from the bill: ``Nothing in this section
shall be construed to permit the prosecution of any person for conduct
relating to an abortion, for which the consent of the pregnant woman or
person authorized by law to act on her behalf has been obtained or for
which such consent is implied by law.''

{time} 1200

If we are trying to outlaw abortions, we did a pretty lousy job in
that paragraph. ``Nothing in this section shall allow the prosecution
of any person for medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn
child; or of any woman with respect to her unborn child.''
Why is that language in there? The purpose of this bill is very
simple: Once the woman chooses to have the child and someone takes that
child away from her through an assault or an act of violence, we want
to put them in jail for the damage done to the unborn child.
This is not a two-victim bill. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) is right. The reason it is not a two-victim bill is because
there are laws all over the country preventing assaults against women
who are pregnant in their own States. There are 24 States that make it
a separate offense to take her unborn child's life. At the Federal
level, there is no such law. There soon will be.
That will coexist with Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade has never stood for
the proposition that the State or Federal Government cannot protect the
unborn against violent criminal activity. It stood for the proposition
that the Federal-State government cannot interfere with a woman's right
to choose an abortion first trimester and under certain circumstances
thereafter.
Why did 254 Members of this body last year vote for this bill? All of
them are not pro-life. I happen to be pro-life. Why would a pro-choice
person vote for my bill? I think they have sat down and read it, and
they understand a couple of things about the bill, and I want to
applaud them for doing it. We may disagree on a woman's right to
choose, and America splits evenly on that. If you disagree with me on
that issue, I will not question your politics, your religion, or your
patriotism. I have my view; you have yours.
But here is what I am so excited about from last year's vote, and
hopeful for this year that Congress has come together on this central
theme, that once a woman chooses to have the baby, we are going to
protect the baby and the mother. This body spends millions of dollars a
year helping women through pregnancy. Low-income women get help from
the Federal Government to make sure the child is fully developed. We
help at-risk pregnancies. That is a good thing. That is not a bad
thing. That is not about the abortion debate.
I think most Americans, even though we divide on the issue of
abortion, would come together on the issue that if a woman has the
child and some criminal takes that right away from the woman, we ought
to put them in jail to the fullest extent of the law. That is what we
do, and that is what 24 other States do.
Another red herring about the definition: The definition in this bill
is exactly what exists in 11 other States and it withstood
constitutional challenge and it is exactly what the House voted on on
July 25, 2000.
Let me tell you how important that is. 417-0, the House came together
and said we are not going to execute a pregnant woman. Why? Does that
infringe on Roe v. Wade? No. I think there would be riots in the
streets in this country, from pro-choice and pro-life people, if a
pregnant woman was executed, because nothing good is served. No public
policy is advanced by taking that unborn child's life. We have not
helped anybody. We have done a bad thing, not a good thing.
So let us come together and do a good thing. Let us put criminals in
jail who assault pregnant women to the fullest extent of the law, no
more, no less, and my bill does that.
The definition will withstand constitutional scrutiny. It is a matter
of proof. The two-cell zygote defense is a red herring. It is the same
definition the body voted on before. It is the burden of proof problem
for every prosecutor. If you said you could be prosecuted after 6 weeks
of pregnancy, you would have to prove that the pregnancy existed longer
than 6 weeks. Prosecutors can do those things, and defense attorneys
will have their objections.
This bill is well drafted. It makes a lot of common sense. It is not
about the abortion debate; it is about America coming together
protecting unborn life when we find consensus.
We should be looking for consensus, from adoption to this bill, to
partial-birth abortion, to bring life into the world where we can. And
when we have these debates about a woman's right to choose, I honor
your right to disagree with me, but that is not today. Today is about
bringing the country together, this body together, to put people in
jail that deserve to go.
As to the question does this really happen, let me tell you, it
happens more than I thought it did. When I was a prosecutor in the Air
Force, we had a handful of cases of pregnant women being assaulted and
losing their child. There was no statute to prosecute them for that.
That was frustrating. If this bill passes, they will have those tools.
Timothy McVeigh will be in the news again soon, and I respect the
view of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) on the death penalty.
I disagree with that. But we will be reminded about Oklahoma City soon.
You may not know this, but three women in that building were
pregnant. One of them was the wife of Michael Lenz. They had a sonogram
of the baby, she is showing it to office workers. The next day she goes
to work, the building is blown up, she is killed, and the baby is lost.
Mr. Lenz came to Congress 2 years ago and told us, ``That day will mark
me for life, but that day I lost two things, not one. I lost the mother
of my child, my wife, but I also lost Michael Lenz, III.''
Without this bill, there is no recognition of him as being a victim
of Oklahoma City. He should have been a victim, because he was wanted
by the family and his life was taken away through an act of violence.
That person should go to jail for that act of violence.
I will tell you later why the substitute does not get us to where we
need to go. It is not the way the law is trending here.
But read the bill, think about what we are trying to do. And to those
pro-choice Members of Congress who voted for this bill last year, thank
you. Thank you for coming together and having a rational debate on how
to protect the unborn without getting into the abortion debate. I want
to thank you very much.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to let the author of this bill, the
gentleman from South Carolina who just spoke, know that what he claimed
as a red herring really is not a red herring at all. The threat to Roe
v. Wade made in this bill cannot be made more clear because this bill
contradicts the definition of who a person is by writing it the way
they did.
The Court, in Roe, recognized the woman's right to have an abortion
as a right protected by the 14th amendment. In considering the issue of
whether a fetus is a person, the Court noted, ``Except in narrowly
defined situations, the unborn have never been recognized in law as
persons in the whole sense,'' and concluded ``person'' as used in the
14th amendment does not include the unborn. The Court declined to grant
fetuses the status of

[[Page 6317]]

person because it recognized the difficulty in finding an end point to
rights that the fetus might claim.
The current bill raises those same issues. In the 28 years since Roe,
the Supreme Court has never afforded legal personhood to a fetus; and
that, I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), is
what the problem is about the bill; that, I would say to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), is what the problem is about the bill; that, I
would say to my dear chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), is what the problem is about the bill.
The gentlemen are contradicting the definition of ``person'' by
writing it in the way that they have. That is why the gentlewoman from
California had to write a substitute, because we had to get that
corrected. As a matter of fact, we go further to prosecute an assailant
of a pregnant woman than you do.
So, let us not talk about that being a red herring. That is what the
debate is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank particularly the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for doing an excellent job
on shepherding this legislation through, as well as the chairman of our
committee.
Yesterday I had a conversation in my office with a lady who is a
student at Georgetown University; and I thought, well, I will just ask
her her view of this legislation. I said, have you looked at this, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act? She said she had.
I said what is your view on it? She said she supported it. I said are
you pro-choice or pro-life? She said I am pro-choice.
So here is a pro-choice lady, a student at Georgetown University,
very thoughtful, who recognized the importance of protecting women by
extending the protection in this instance to the loss of the unborn
child.
I asked her why, and she explained it particularly in those words,
that there is nothing more important whenever you have someone commit a
violent act against a pregnant woman than that they be held accountable
for all of the loss that occurs.
I think this is a thoughtful person. I think she describes where we
should be able to come together, whether it is pro-choice or pro-life,
that this is something we should be able to unite together on.
I believe it simply follows the leads of a variety of States that
have already given legal protection in the circumstance where a
pregnant woman is attacked and there is the loss of the unborn child.
Arkansas is a great example of that.
Many people have referred to the case of Shawana Pace. It was my
nephew, Representative Jim Hendren, who sponsored the fetal protection
law in the Arkansas General Assembly, and I am thankful that was
passed, because that law allowed the perpetrators of the violence
against Shawana Pace to be prosecuted.
It was simply an assault upon her, but it was the intentional death
of that unborn child, literally days before that child was born, with
the words saying, ``Today, your child will die.'' It was an intentional
act. Other than under the fetal protection law, they could not have
been prosecuted. So I think it does credit to the women.
The argument is made here that well, we are not fully supporting the
Violence Against Women Act. I just want to tell my colleagues I have
written to the appropriators and asked them to fully fund the Violence
Against Women Act. I joined in the news conference for that purpose. I
think it is very important, and you are right to raise the level of
attention to the importance of the Violence Against Women Act. We need
to join together. But that should not be a reason not to support this
legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman on his
latest observation. Now, with the woman that visited his office, and
his asking her unsolicited opinion, did the gentleman ask her what she
thought about the Lofgren substitute?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me continue on
with the Lofgren substitute.
Mr. CONYERS. Did the gentleman ask her?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. No, I did not ask her, sir. I did not.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
oppose this bill. I ask my colleagues to look at this legislation for
what it is, not for what it claims to be.
On its face this bill could seem as an attempt to provide protections
for pregnant women from assault and to provide prosecutors with another
tool to punish those who cause the non-consensual termination of a
pregnancy. However, on closer examination, this bill sets the stage for
a legislative assault on Roe v. Wade by treating a fetus from the
moment of conception as an individual with extensive legal rights,
distinct from the mother.
Every time a criminal causes injury or death through violence, it is
a tragedy. But we must all acknowledge that an attack against an unborn
child is necessarily an attack against a pregnant woman. Unfortunately,
rather than supporting tougher laws against domestic violence, sexual
assault and battery, we are instead debating a bill that does not even
recognize the harm to a pregnant woman.
I have heard some Members debating talk about stories of people they
have met. I remember in the Wisconsin legislature hearing the personal
story of a woman who was beaten when pregnant and lost her child. She
was also beaten right after she first got married and beaten before her
pregnancy and beaten in the early stages of pregnancy. If we had tough
enough laws against violence against women, it would not have created
that result.
I am a cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act which expands
protections for women against callous acts of violence. I believe we
would be much better served by laws to protect women, pregnant or not,
from violence, instead of establishing an entirely new legal framework
to protect fetal rights. By switching the focus of the crime, we are
diverting attention from the victimized women.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill and support
the Lofgren amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, one thing that makes America great
is its longstanding tradition to defend those incapable of defending
themselves. Our Founding Fathers acknowledged the proverb to ``Speak up
for those who cannot speak for themselves.''
It is our duty to stand up for the weaker members of society, and I
believe the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does just that. Currently,
when someone commits a crime in which a woman and her preborn baby are
harmed, the accused can only be prosecuted for harm to the mother. This
sends the wrong message. It says there is only one victim in this
situation, and nothing could be further from the truth. There are two
victims harmed in this crime, the mother and her preborn baby.

{time} 1215

My colleagues who oppose this bill want to offer a substitute that
would recognize the mother as a victim, but not the baby. I would like
to remind them again that half the States do not agree; fully 24 have
homicide laws that recognize unborn victims.
Furthermore, and I know we discussed this today, I would like to
bring to my colleagues' attention a similar act that took place in the
House last year. It was in July of last year that we voted 417-0 to
deny Federal funds to

[[Page 6318]]

execute pregnant women. This bill specifically protects a ``member of
the species homo sapien at any stage of the development who is carried
in the womb.''
If we are willing to protect preborn babies from Federal execution,
why would we let a criminal harm an innocent life without facing
specific penalty?
Let me say it again: If we are willing to protect preborn babies from
Federal execution, why would we let a criminal harm an innocent life
without facing specific penalties?
Those who say they believe in choice should be the strongest
advocates of this bill. After all, any criminal who harms a preborn
baby has interfered with a woman's choice to carry that baby to term.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to defend
those who cannot defend themselves.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, let us be candid. This debate is all about
preserving the woman's right of choice. It is about preserving a
woman's right of choice at the beginning of this debate, it is about
preserving a woman's right of choice at the middle of this debate, and
at the conclusion of this debate, it will be all about preserving a
woman's right of choice.
The women of America who are afraid of losing that right sincerely,
and rightfully so, understand this debate. They understand that if the
desire of this Chamber is to punish, to give jail time, to give long
periods of incarceration to any heinous criminal who attacks a pregnant
woman, we would pass a bill that would do that with 435 votes, and the
bill that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has brought
before us does exactly that.
Now, why cannot intelligent members of this House, 435, come together
on a bill that does exactly that? Why can we not design a bill like
that?
The reason is that certain folks who want to take away a woman's
right of choice. And I understand that their beliefs are sincere, and I
respect their beliefs, but their beliefs do not respect the U.S.
Constitution. Those folks have proposed language that is trying to set
the stage to end the right of choice in this country. It is a
calculated, concerted, and long-term plan to do that.
Let me tell my colleagues why that is important. Every morning I walk
by the U.S. Supreme Court building. I live right across the street from
the Supreme Court building, and every morning I look at that building,
and when one looks at that building, one understands that if one vote
changes, as the current President of the United States will attempt to
do, there will be no longer constitutional protection in this country
for a woman's right of choice, and that issue will be here in this
Chamber.
Those who resist the approach of the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren), those who resist the thing that would get 435 votes, those
who resist the approach that brings union, not disunion, to this
Chamber, seek to set the stage for a legislative taking away of a
woman's right of choice as soon as the Supreme Court's protection for a
woman's right of choice is taken away from American women. That is what
this debate is about.
Support the Lofgren amendment. That is the goal we want to pursue,
with 435 votes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington is dead wrong. This is
similar to bills that have been enacted into law in many States, and
anybody who is charged for killing an unborn child would have used that
constitutional argument as a defense. In no State has a Federal court
or a State court struck down a similar law.
The woman who is assaulted and whose unborn child has been killed or
maimed has already made her choice, and that is to bear that child. Why
do we not respect the choice that that woman has made?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. DeMint).
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 503, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and I commend the gentleman from South
Carolina for introducing this legislation.
Let us consider for a moment the human side of this legislation. A
friend of mine and his wife tried for years to conceive a child. They
had almost given up when unexpectedly they conceived twins, a double
blessing. If someone had assaulted or otherwise committed a crime of
violence against her that killed these children, one cannot tell me
that punishment should only occur for the crime against the woman when
the unborn children were the innocent victims of the violence. If these
two lovely children that the couple had longed for had tragically died
in the commission of a crime of violence, the criminal must be held
accountable.
This legislation takes the important step of recognizing that
violence against an unborn child against the will of the mother, taking
away the mother's right to choose, can be prosecuted in a court of law.
This is not a new concept. In fact, over half of the States in this
Nation have State laws which protect unborn victims of violence in some
form. I have with me today a list of these State homicide laws that
recognize unborn victims, which will be inserted into the Record.
This legislation would not supersede those State laws, nor would it
impose a new law for crimes which are under State jurisdiction. Rather,
this bill recognizes an unborn child as a victim in the eyes of Federal
criminal law.
Currently, if a criminal injures or kills an unborn child during the
course of a violent Federal crime, he has not committed an additional
offense, other than the violent crime. But that is not fair. If an
unborn child dies because of a violent act perpetrated against his or
her mother, then the criminal must be held accountable.
We have heard about an amendment to this legislation which would take
away the recognition that a violent crime has occurred against an
unborn child. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
vote against this weakening amendment.
The title of this bill describes exactly what this bill is about:
unborn victims of violence. This bill works to correct an unjust
situation in which the life of an unborn child is lost, and there are
no legal repercussions. I challenge my colleagues again on both sides
of the aisle and on both sides of the abortion issue to hold criminals
accountable for their violent crimes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand with me today and
vote in favor of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

State Homicide Laws that Recognize Unborn Victims

full-coverage unborn victim states (11) (States with homicide laws that
recognize unborn children as victims throughout the period of pre-natal
development)

Arizona--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of
pre-natal development is manslaughter. Ariz. Rev. Stat.
Sec. 13-1103(A)(5) (West 1989 & Supp. 1998).
Illinois--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage
of pre-natal development is intentional homicide, voluntary
manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter or reckless
homicide. Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 720, Sec. Sec. 5/9-1.2, 5/9-
2.1, 5/9-3.2 (1993).
Louisiana--The killing of an ``unborn child'' is first
degree feticide, second degree feticide, or third degree
feticide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 14:32.5-14.32.8, read
with Sec. Sec. 14:2(1), (7), (11) (West 1997).
Minnesota--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage
of pre-natal development is murder (first, second, or third
degree) or manslaughter (first or second degree). It is also
a felony to cause the death of an ``unborn child'' during the
commission of a felony. Minn. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 609.266,
609.2661-609.2665, 609.268(1) (West 1987). The death of an
``unborn child'' through operation of a motor vehicle is
criminal vehicular operation. Minn. Stat. Ann. Sec. 609.21
(West 1999).
Missouri--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage
of pre-natal development is involuntary manslaughter or first
degree murder. Mo. Ann. Stat. Sec. Sec. 1.205, 565.024,
565.020 (Vernon Supp. 1999), State v. Knapp, 843 S.W. 2d 345
(Mo. 1992), State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W. 2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D.
1997).
North Dakota--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any
stage of pre-natal development is murder, felony murder,
manslaughter, or negligent homicide. N.D. Cent. Code
Sec. Sec. 12.1-17.1-01 to 12.1-17.1-04 (1997).

[[Page 6319]]

Ohio--At any stage of pre-natal development, if an ``unborn
member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in
the womb of another'' is killed, it is aggravated murder,
murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter,
negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, and
vehicular homicide. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec. Sec. 2903.01 to
2903.07, 2903.09 (Anderson 1996 & Supp. 1998).
Pennsylvania--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any
stage of pre-natal development is first, second, or third-
degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat.
Ann. Sec. Sec. 2601 to 2609 (1998).
South Dakota--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any
stage of pre-natal development is fetal homicide,
manslaughter, or vehicular homicide. S.D. Codified Laws Ann.
Sec. 22-16-1, 22-16-1.1, 22-16-15(5), 22-16-20, and 22-16-41,
read with Sec. Sec. 22-1-2(31), 22-1-2(50A)(Supp. 1997).
Utah--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of
pre-natal development is treated as any other homicide. Utah
Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-201 et seq. (Supp. 1998).
Wisconsin--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage
of pre-natal development is first-degree intentional
homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, second-degree
intentional homicide, second-degree reckless homicide,
homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon,
explosives or fire, homicide by intoxicated use of vehicle or
firearm, or homicide by negligent operation of vehicle. Wis.
Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 939.75, 939.24, 939.25, 940.01, 940.02,
940.05, 940.06, 940.08, 940.09, 940.10 (West 1998).

partial-coverage unborn victim states (13) (states with homicide laws
that recognize unborn children as victims, but only during part of the
period of pre-natal development)

Note: These laws are gravely deficient because they do not
recognize unborn children as victims during certain periods
of their pre-natal development. Nevertheless, they are
described here for informational purposes.
Arkansas--The killing of an ``unborn child'' of twelve
weeks or greater gestation is murder, manslaughter, or
negligent homicide. Enacted April 9, 1999, 1999 AR H.B. 1329.
(A separate Arkansas law makes it a battery to cause injury
to a woman during a felony or Class A misdemeanor to cause
her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth, or to cause
injury under conditions manifesting extreme indifference to
human life and that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth.)
California--The killing of an unborn child after the
embryonic stage is murder. Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 187(a) (West
1999).
Florida--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. 782.09 (West 1992).
The killing of an unborn child after viability is vehicular
homicide. Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. 782.071 (West 1999).
Georgia--The killing of an ``unborn child'' after
quickening is feticide, vehicular feticide, or feticide by
vessel. Ga. Code Ann. Sec. 16-5-80 (1996); Sec. 40-6-393.1
(1997); and Sec. 52-7-12.3 (1997).
Massachusetts--The killing of an unborn child after
viability is vehicular homicide. Commonwealth v. Cass, 467
N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984). The killing of an unborn child
after viability is involuntary manslaughter. Commonwealth v.
Lawrence, 536 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1989).
Michigan--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. Mich. Stat. Ann. Sec. 28.554 (Callaghan 1990).
The Supreme Court of Michigan has interpreted this statute to
apply to only those unborn children who are viable. Larkin v.
Cahalan, 208 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1973). (A separate Michigan
law, effective Jan. 1, 1999, provides felony penalties for
actions that intentionally, or in wanton or willful disregard
for consequences, cause a ``miscarriage or stillbirth,'' or
cause physical injury to an ``embryo or fetus.'')
Mississippi--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. Miss. Code Ann. Sec. 97-3-37 (1994).
Nevada--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. Nev. Rev. Stat. Sec. 200.210 (1997).
Oklahoma--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, Sec. 713 (West 1983).
The killing of an unborn child after viability is homicide.
Hughes v. State, 868 P.2d 730 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
Rhode Island--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. The statute defines ``quick child'' to mean a
viable child. R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. 11-23-5 (1994).
South Carolina--The killing of an unborn child after
viability is homicide. State v. Horne, 319 S.E.2d 703 (S.C.
1984); State v. Ard, 505 S.E.2d 328 (S.C. 1998).
Tennessee--The killing of an unborn child after viability
is first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary
manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and reckless homicide.
Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 39-13-201, 39-13-202, 39-13-210, 39-13-
211, 39-13-213, 39-13-214, 39-13-215 (1997 & Supp. 1998).
Washington--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 9A.32.060(1)(b) (West
Supp. 1999).

states without unborn victims laws, which instead criminalize certain
conduct that ``terminates a human pregnancy'' or that causes a
miscarriage (7)

Note: These laws are gravely deficient, because they do not
recognize unborn children as victims, nor allow justice to be
done on their behalf. These laws are included here for
informational purposes.
Indiana--An individual who knowingly or intentionally
``terminates a human pregnancy'' commits feticide. Ind. Code
Ann Sec. 35-42-1-6 (Burns 1994 & Supp. 1998).
Iowa--An individual who intentionally ``terminates a human
pregnancy'' without the consent of the pregnant woman commits
a felony. This law also sets forth other crimes involving the
termination of a human pregnancy, such as during the
commission of a forcible felony. Iowa Code Ann Sec. 707.8
(West Supp. 1999).
Kansas--Injury to a pregnant woman during the commission of
a felony or misdemeanor which causes a miscarriage results in
specific levels of offense severity. Kan. Stat. Ann Sec. 21-
3440 (1997). Also, injury to a pregnant woman through the
operation of a motor vehicle which causes a miscarriage
results in specific levels of offense severity. Kan. Stat.
Ann. Sec. 21-3441 (1997).
New Hampshire--It is a felony to cause injury to another
person that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth. N.H. Rev.
Stat. Ann Sec. Sec. 631:1-631:2 (1996).
New Mexico--It is a felony to injure a pregnant woman
during the commission of a felony and cause her to undergo a
miscarriage or stillbirth. N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec. 30-3-7
(Michie 1994). It is also a crime to injure a pregnant woman
through the unlawful operation of a vehicle which causes her
to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth. N.M. Stat. Ann
Sec. Sec. 66-8-101.1 (Michie 1998).
North Carolina--It is a felony to injure a pregnant woman
during the commission of a felony and cause her to undergo a
miscarriage or stillbirth. It is a misdemeanor to cause a
miscarriage or stillbirth during a misdemeanor act of
domestic violence. N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 14-18.2 (Supp. 1998).
Virginia--The premeditated killing of a pregnant woman with
the intent to cause the termination of her pregnancy is
capital murder. Va. Code Ann. 18.2-31 (Michie Supp. 1998).
The unpremeditated killing of a pregnant woman with the
intent to cause the termination of her pregnancy is also a
crime. Va. Code Ann. Sec. 18.2-32.1 (Michie Supp. 1998). It
is a felony to injure a pregnant woman with the intent to
maim or kill her or to terminate her pregnancy and she is
injured or her pregnancy is terminated. Va. Code Ann.
Sec. 18.2-51.2 (Michie Supp. 1998).
New York: Conflicting Statutes
New York--Under New York statutory law, the killing of an
``unborn child'' after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy is
homicide. N.Y. Pen. Law Sec. 125.00 (McKinney 1998). But
under a separate statutory provision, a ``person'' that is
the victim of a homicide is statutorily defined as ``a human
being who has been born and is alive.'' N.Y. Pen. Law
Sec. 125.05 (McKinney 1998). See People v. Joseph, 130 Misc.
2d 377, 496 N.Y.S.2d 328 (County Court 1985); In re Gloria
C., 124 Misc.2d 313, 476 N.Y.S.2d 991 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1984);
People v. Vercelletto, 514 N.Y.S.2d 177 (Co.Ct. 1987).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just wanted to comment on the gentleman's argument about other
States having similar laws, and so why can we not do the same thing?
The reason we have not done the same thing is that many of these State
laws are obviously drafted differently. They do not use controversial
terms, some of them, as ``unborn child'' or ``child in utero.''
The second thing is that none of these State laws have been validated
or upheld in a Federal court, let alone a Supreme Court decision. They
have not been tested. So I do not think that gives us a presumption
that we can copy State law. I say to my colleagues, we should be
creating Federal law that States may want to pattern themselves after.
Then, we might want to take into consideration the experience with
State laws that have not been very favorable on this subject. Some of
these laws have been used as excuses to justify prosecuting women for
their conduct while they are pregnant. A whole host of problems arise
this way.
In South Carolina, ironically, now they prosecute women whose babies
are found to have drugs in their system; the mothers are prosecuted. In
another case, the court ordered into custody a pregnant woman who
refused medical care because of religious convictions, in an attempt to
ensure that the baby be born safely. We had a National Public Radio
case about a pregnant woman being forced into custody at a State
medical facility in Massachusetts to ensure that her baby was born
safely. In another case, a court sent a student to prison to prevent
her from obtaining a midterm abortion.
So I say to my colleagues, let us stop pointing recklessly to all of
these laws

[[Page 6320]]

in State courts as if they are giving us a reason to make the same kind
of untested legislation that they are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, despite the claims of my
colleagues who oppose H.R. 503, this legislation before us today is not
about abortion. It does not infringe on a woman's legal right to abort
her child. It does not place legal limitations upon those in the
medical profession who perform abortion. In fact, the only time this
bill even mentions abortion is to protect the woman's legal right to
have one, and the doctor's legal right to perform them. Yet, those who
oppose this bill would like the American people to believe that this is
an attempt to reverse Roe v. Wade.
This leads me to ask my colleagues who oppose this bill, why the
smoke screen? Why are they so fearful of protecting a pregnant woman
and her unborn child? Why are they standing in the way of legislation
which provides protection for a woman against violence? Recognizing the
unborn child as a victim of crime does not affect the woman's legal
right to abort the child.
Mr. Speaker, the smoke screen of abortion used by those in opposition
to this bill will not work. The majority of Congress and the American
people know that a woman and her unborn child must be protected against
criminal acts of violence. When a pregnant woman is assaulted and
bodily harm is brought about to her unborn child, there are two
victims, not one.
This bill was not introduced to erode current abortion law. Let me
tell my colleagues why this bill was introduced. Currently, under
Federal law, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant
and thereby causes the death or injury to that unborn child, the
criminal faces no consequences for taking or injuring this unborn life.
That is why this bill is introduced, and that is why it is a tragedy
that this worthwhile piece of legislation is being muddled in abortion
politics by those who instinctively reject any bill that deals with the
child in the womb.
It is unfortunate that those in opposition to this bill today believe
that a victim such as Zachariah Marciniak, whose story has been
described previously by my colleagues, was not a child or not a human
being. I wonder how many of my colleagues would suggest that when
planning for the miracle of a birth, in painting the nursery, attending
baby showers, buying a crib and clothes, often name the child before he
or she is delivered, all in preparation for a newborn, is not
preparation for a life, a life that lives within.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe, like the father who lost his wife in
the Oklahoma City bombing, that the loss was even greater. He lost his
wife and his unborn baby. In that awful tragedy, we as a nation lost
not 168, but 171 people, as three of the women killed during that
atrocity were with child. They were murdered along with their mothers.
Consider also the fact that last year the House of Representatives
passed the Innocent Child Protection Act by a vote of 417-0. This bill
prohibited a State or Federal Government for executing a woman ``while
she carries a child in utero.'' That bill, which again passed
unanimously, defined ``child in utero'' the same way it is defined in
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. If the House is, without
dissension, willing to protect unborn children from execution, why is
it controversial to also protect unborn children from a deadly assault?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, those in the gallery, those watching this debate on
national television around the Nation might assume that the reason that
we are spending these hours on the floor pursuing this legislation is
because we are trying to solve a problem, that there is somehow a
problem that exists, that out in America on Federal property women are
being assaulted, and they are losing their fetuses in those assaults,
and their perpetrators are going unpunished or going too lightly
punished.

{time} 1230

I do not think there is any evidence at all that that is the problem.
If it were, this legislation would be a priority for the police and law
enforcement officials of our country. This would be a priority for the
district attorneys in our counties. This would be a priority for the
attorneys general. This would be a priority for the coalitions against
domestic violence.
That is really not why we are here. My friend, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), is a good friend of mine. I admire him
more than I admire many Members of this Congress. He is a good man.
But I think in truth we all know that this bill is here because it is
aimed at abortion politics. This bill is strategized, is being pushed.
The grass-roots organizations that are pushing for this legislation are
pushing it because they are part of the anti-abortion part of this
country's population.
The reason they do that is because for the last 30 years abortion has
been legal in this country and because the courts have said that,
particularly in the early stages of a woman's pregnancy, the choice of
what to do with that pregnancy is hers. It is well-established law.
How do you defeat that? You do not bring an amendment to the floor to
change the Constitution in that regard. That is not popular in this
country. So we bring bills like this, which are designed to come in the
back door, and try to define a fetus as a human being, a full person.
This is brought here for the purpose of abortion politics to
establish in law under the guise, under the obviously compelling notion
that we want to protect women against violence, when its purpose is
really quite otherwise.
If those Members who are really interested in solving this problem
will support the Lofgren amendment, this really does get tough on those
who would assault a pregnant woman; it does get tough, and does not
have the ulterior motive of trying to play abortion politics with
something as critical as a woman's assault.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all
Members that it is not appropriate under the rules of the House to
refer to our guests in the gallery.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill. One of the reasons to
address a comment made by the prior speaker about there are not crimes
like this being committed out there, I want to cite the March edition
of the Journal of the American Medical Association, which published a
study revealing that the leading cause of death among pregnant women in
the State of Maryland was not health-related ailments, but rather,
murder.
This is not simply a case that might occur on Federal property, but
it covers a range of potential offenses where it is important for that
unborn child to be recognized, and if injured or killed, appropriate
punishment be given for that unborn child as well as the pregnant
mother. In kidnapping cases, that is a Federal offense; in drug deals
gone bad, bank robberies, and even the most recent example of Oklahoma
City and the terrorism there, and the fact that there were three unborn
children killed in that.
This type of violent act is exactly what H.R. 503 is designed to
hopefully deter. We can maybe deter some of these offenses from taking
place, and if necessary, if they occur, to appropriately punish them.
This bill will correct the failure of both Federal and military law
to treat a criminal assault against a pregnant woman as an additional
crime perpetrated against the unborn child. Currently, as has been said
numerous times today, even one who purposely

[[Page 6321]]

kills an unborn child, who sets out to kill that unborn child, has not
committed a Federal crime, as the law now stands.
Let me make three additional points, if I could, very quickly. This
is not an abortion vote. The sky is not falling on the issue of pro-
choice pro-life. I do not understand why people come up here and stand
and say that this is an abortion vote. I respect their opinion; but in
reading the bill, I do not understand it.
Someone maybe can connect the dots for me on this, because if this
bill is wrong, it is unconstitutional. It does not square with Roe v.
Wade. This bill is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade; this bill will be
held unconstitutional with Roe v. Wade being cited. So if there is a
problem there, this bill is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. It will
be the other way around.
This act specifically excludes abortion, an abortion procedure
consented to by the mother. It also specifically excludes any action by
the mother which results in harm to the unborn child. So all these
South Carolina cases and other cases that have been cited would not
apply here. They are not covered.
To me, it should not matter whether one is pro-choice or pro-life,
one ought to be able to support this bill. As has been mentioned
several times already, this definition is something that is not new to
this House. Last year we voted 417-0 to prohibit the death penalty
being given to a pregnant woman. We use that same definition.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my friend, who is a former member
of the Committee on the Judiciary, who assured us that Roe v. Wade was
not under attack, well, most people understand that it is under attack.
That is why the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
is opposed, Planned Parenthood Federation of America is opposed, the
National Abortion Federation is opposed, the National Women's Law
Center is opposed.
Does the gentleman think they do not understand this bill very much?
I think they do.
The National Partnership for Women and Families, they are opposed.
The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, they are opposed. The
American Civil Liberties Union, they are opposed. The Feminist
Majority, they are opposed. The American Association of University
Women, they are opposed. The National Family Planning and Reproductive
Health Association, they are opposed. The American Women's Medical
Association, they are opposed. The National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence, they are opposed. The National Council of Jewish Women, they
are opposed. The National Organization for Women, they are opposed. The
Physicians for Reproductive Choice in Health, they are opposed. The
People for the American Way, they are opposed.
Now, they do not understand what the Members are trying to do, do
they? They do not get it? They have misunderstood the bill of the
gentleman from South Carolina? All of these organizations, a dozen of
them, they should relax, Roe v. Wade is not under attack. The gentleman
in the well on the Republican side just told us so. It is okay. Relax.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in opposition to H.R. 503.
As the mother of a pregnant daughter and the mother-in-law of a
pregnant daughter-in-law, a proud grandmother of Isabel and Eve, the
sense that somehow I do not understand the incredible mystery and magic
and holiness of a pregnancy because I do not support this legislation,
I really resent that very much.
We look forward in our family to welcoming these two new babies, and
a crime against my daughter or daughter-in-law would be absolutely
devastating, and even more so because each is pregnant. We all agree on
that.
That is the part that I do not get. We all do agree that we need to
change the law to add penalties because a crime against a pregnant
woman is really devastating. Why can we not agree on that? We have the
Motherhood Protection Act, the Lofgren amendment, that does just that,
it increases the penalties. It is not their bill or no bill. We could
agree that we should increase the penalties.
I am happy to connect the dots for the gentleman on why this is an
anti-abortion bill. It creates personhood for even a fertilized egg
equal to that of a woman. That does not make any sense. Even if she
does not know she is pregnant, that fertilized egg now has equal value
to her.
We should create law that recognizes that this is a devastating
crime, and we should increase the penalties if my daughter or my
daughter-in-law is violently assaulted. We agree on that.
Why do we not, then, move forward as a body in agreement that we
should pass this amendment? It does not detract. In fact, it increases
the deterrent against violence against women at a time when more
violence than other times occurs. Pregnancy is an incentive for
violence against women. That is when it occurs more.
Let us get together and pass the Lofgren amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, most of the Members of the House remember that I served
as a prosecutor and a judge before I came to Congress. In fact, I
served as a prosecutor with the acting Speaker this afternoon in the
State of Ohio.
I hear the cry for legislation to deal with a situation that none of
us want to happen, a situation where harm comes to a woman while she is
pregnant. I hear the cry under the veil that we as Members of Congress
have to stand up for pregnant women, and we have to do things so
nothing happens to pregnant women.
But legislation is not the only answer to help pregnant women who are
harmed. There are other ways in which we can help them. In fact, the
Violence Against Women Act legislation could have helped women in this
circumstance.
But be that as it may, as we are debating legislation, one of the
jobs of a good legislator is to make sure that when we pass the
legislation that we know it will stand up to judicial scrutiny. For
those who are the proponents of this legislation, if they only look to
it, they will recognize that it has problems to the extent that a
judiciary would send this back.
As a prosecutor, I tried my darnedest to never take a case into court
if I knew the law had a problem, because how could I explain to the
victim that I prosecuted the case with the knowledge that the law had a
problem that would not stand appellate scrutiny?
Let us look at why this legislation has some dilemmas. The provision
or key phrase ``child who is in utero'' is vague. It makes it difficult
to get before an appellate court and explain the vagueness of that
phrase.
The legislation lacks a mens rea requirement, that one did not know
or have reason to know that the woman who is the victim of the crime
was pregnant.
And then even more importantly, the legislation lacks a predicate for
the offense, that the crime against the woman be first established.
Now, to my colleagues who want to push for women who are harmed while
they are pregnant, we offer them an alternative. We offer them an
alternative that we as good legislators believe will withstand the
scrutiny of an appellate court. We offer them an alternative that
provides for the same penalty, that we believe is consistent with
current law, regardless of what is happening in the other States.
As has previously been said, let us try and be 435 strong in favor of
pregnant women who are harmed. Let us step up to the plate and say that
this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, regardless of our view on choice,
regardless of our view on many other issues, and we

[[Page 6322]]

have not agreed on much since we have been here in this 107th Congress,
but let us choose this legislation to agree on; that regardless of our
position, we will support the Lofgren alternative.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act of 2001. This bill will be the first, the first
in the Federal statutes, to give separate legal status to a fetus.
The proponents of the legislation claim that they are protecting the
mother, but that is not their true intention. If it were their true
intention, why would the anti-choice right-to-life groups support the
bill, and why would the domestic violence victims advocacy groups
oppose the bill?
If people were so concerned about violence against pregnant women,
why are not those pregnant women even mentioned in the bill?

{time} 1245

If the issue is about violence to women, why do the proponents of the
bill not support the Lofgren substitute, which is concerned about the
woman and her fetus? Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans are pro-
choice and they depend on this Congress to protect a woman's right to
choose while simultaneously working to make abortion a rare occurrence.
The women of this country count on us as legislators to craft Federal
policies that are really intended to protect their health and well-
being. They rely on us to pass legislation that will protect their
reproductive choices. Women depend on us to know the difference between
legislation that is truly intended to protect them and a poorly
disguised vehicle designed to reopen the debate on Roe v. Wade.
We are not fooled by this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and, frankly,
neither are the women we represent. If Members of this House really
care about taking steps to protect pregnant women and to punish the
terrible perpetrators who mercilessly beat them, then we will all join
together, pro-life and pro-choice, and join hands across the aisle to
vote for the Lofgren substitute.
The Lofgren substitute actually, as we will hear, provides greater
levels of punishment to the perpetrators of the heinous crime of
harming a pregnant woman. In fact, there is only one difference between
the substitute and the underlying bill; and that underlying difference
reveals the true goal of H.R. 503. The underlying bill creates a
Federal criminal offense that provides a pregnancy from conception to
birth with a legal status separate from that of the mother.
Regardless of what we are hearing today from proponents of this
legislation, there is only one reason to support this new criminal
offense over the Lofgren substitute, and that is to take the first step
of defending a fetus at any stage of development as a person.
If the supporters of this legislation want to debate the merits of
abortion, I think we should do it out in the open. They should be
embarrassed about cloaking their true intent in an issue. They should
be embarrassed about cloaking their true intent on an issue that we all
agree upon and that we care deeply about, and that is protecting
pregnant women from violence.
But the fact is, this is intentional; and the reason is there is a
great reluctance on the part of the proponents of this bill to openly
debate the issue of a woman's right to choose in this Chamber.
Opponents of the right to choose know they are out of step with the
majority of the American public, and so they are working sideways to
begin to erode that right in our statutes.
We keep hearing that those who support this bill talk about two
victims. But what they are omitting is the fact that this act does not
mention women. So, in fact, the bill is not about two victims at all.
Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren substitute improves the bill. It is a good
alternative. It punishes the perpetrators. I urge adoption of the
amendment; and if the amendment is not adopted, I urge defeat of the
ill-intentioned legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of
my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee),
a ranking subcommittee member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me quickly discuss something that is extremely
private and extremely important. When I first came to this Congress, we
started discussing this concept called partial-birth abortion.
As a new Member, I was unaware of a procedure that was out of line of
a decision between mother and physician and God. But all of a sudden,
this Congress began to raise its head about something called partial-
birth abortion. It simply was a procedure that doctors were using to
save the lives of mothers who wanted to have children.
We come here today, as the New York Times has said, with another
scheme very personal for me, because I have had pregnancies that have
survived and those that have not. I wish I did not have to come to the
floor of the House to discuss this.
But I believe the Lofgren substitute speaks to the concern that we
have as Americans. How dare you assault a woman who is pregnant. How
dare you abuse her. How dare you take her as girlfriend or wife or
friend and abuse her and cause the loss of that pregnancy. The Lofgren
substitute answers that concern. If that woman is injured that results
in an injury to that pregnancy or a death, that means that that
pregnancy does not come to term, you will be faulted and convicted, 20
years or maximum life.
This is a scheme. Year after year after year, this is an attempt to
violate Roe v. Wade. Why? Because H.R. 503 does not speak to that woman
who has been violated and abused. It simply says that we are tying it
to that embryo. Why? Because we want to say to America that we are
trying to destroy Roe v. Wade. That is a privilege of the American
people. That is the constitutional law. That is the law of the land.
That is the Supreme Court decision.
In committee, I tried to offer an amendment that would suggest to us
whether the opposing side is truly sincere; and that amendment said
that replacing unborn children in H.R. 503 to violence during
pregnancy, that gets to the issue. It says that, if there is violence
during pregnancy that resulted in the loss or injury to the woman and
then the fetus, then there would be penalty.
But, no, they refused because they want to ensure that there is no
relationship to that pregnant woman, there are no feelings about that
pregnant woman. It is only to tear apart Roe v. Wade.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, this is a constitutional issue because it
comes to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Committee on
the Judiciary, and the very reason is to undermine Roe v. Wade.
I have passion and I have feelings about any woman who involuntarily
is forced to lose that child that she is carrying. There is no doubt
that our hearts are pure on both sides of the aisle. But this body is
forced to follow the law. Vote for the Lofgren substitute and defeat
that bill because this is an unconstitutional attack on the right to
choose and the privacy of every American.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition of H.R. 503, ``Unborn
Victims of Violence Act of 2001.'' This is an unacceptable attempt to
create a legal status for the unborn, which would could have enormous
adverse ramifications for women in America.

Let me be clear. I would like to express my opposition to H.R. 503,
``Unborn Victims of Crime Act'' because I believe this is a veiled
attempt to create a legal status for the unborn. While we would all
like to protect pregnant women and the fetus from intentional harm by
others, this bill seeks to create a legal status that will give anti-
abortion advocates a back door to overturning current law. I have seen
similar legislation come before our committee and I am sorry to see it
before the Congress yet again.
I believe that the cosponsors of this bill had good intentions when
it was introduced, but

[[Page 6323]]

the practical effect of this legislation would effectively overturn 25
years of law concerning the right of a woman to choose.
I sympathize with the mothers who have lost fetuses due to the
intentional violent acts of others. Clearly in these situations, a
person should receive enhanced penalties for endangering the life of a
pregnant woman. In those cases where the woman is killed, the effect of
this crime is a devastating loss that should also be punished as a
crime against the pregnant woman.
However, any attempt to punish someone for the crime of harming or
killing a fetus should not receive a penalty greater than the
punishment or crime for harming or killing the mother. By enhancing the
penalty for the loss of the pregnant woman, we acknowledge that within
her was the potential for life. This can be done without creating a new
category for unborn fetuses.
H.R. 503 would amend the federal crime code to create a new Federal
crime for bodily injury or death of an ``unborn child'' who is in
utero. In brief, there is no requirement or intent to cause such death
under Federal law. The use of the words as ``unborn child,'' ``death''
and ``bodily injury'' are designed to inflame and establish in Federal
precedent of recognizing the fetus as a person, which, if extended
further, would result in a major collision between the rights of the
mother and the rights of a fetus. While the proponents of this bill
claim that the bill would not punish women who choose to terminate
their pregnancies, it is my firm belief that this bill will give anti-
abortion advocates a powerful tool against women's choice.
The state courts that have expressed an opinion on this issue have
done so with the caveat that while Roe protects a woman's
constitutional right to choose, it does not protect a third party's
destruction of a fetus.
This bill will create a slippery slope that will result in doctors
being sued for performing abortions, especially if the procedure is
controversial, such as partial birth abortion. Although this bill
exempts abortion procedures as a crime against the fetus, the potential
for increased civil liability is present.
Supporters of this bill should address the larger issue of domestic
violence. For women who are the victims of violence by a husband or
boyfriend, this bill does not address the abuse, but merely the result
of that abuse.
If we are concerned about protecting a fetus from intentional harm
such as bombs and other forms of violence, then we also need to be just
as diligent in our support for women who are victimized by violence.
In the unfortunate cases of random violence, we need to strengthen
some of our other laws, such as real gun control and controlling the
sale of explosives. These reforms are more effective in protecting life
than this bill.
We do not need this bill to provide special status to unborn fetuses.
A better alternative is to create a sentence enhancement for any
intentional harm done to a pregnant woman. This bill is simply a clever
way of creating a legal status to erode abortion rights.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard people opposed to this bill say time and
time again that this bill takes away the right to choose, and they are
so so wrong. This bill respects the right of those who have chosen to
carry their baby to term, because they want the baby to be born.
The opponents of the bill have massed their arguments saying that we
are providing legal protection for fertilized eggs and zygotes and
blastocysts, but they ignore the fact that this bill provides
protection regardless of at what stage of development the unborn child
is.
They would turn around and say defeat this bill because this dead
child as a result of an act of violence against a woman in my home
State of Wisconsin should not be protected. This is a child that was
about ready to be born before he was murdered. The man who committed
this crime, because it was a mere assault on the mother, is now out of
prison.
We have to pass this bill so that somebody who kills a child like
this one spends a lot of time in prison to pay for his crime.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to a bill that I
find troublesome on many levels. H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act, at first glance, seems to be a compassionate piece of
legislation that harbors only good intentions towards women. However,
Mr. Speaker, this legislation has a significant impact on the Supreme
Court's findings in Roe v. Wade.
This measure would conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v.
Wade, and the Constitution in general.
An alternative measure that I have reviewed and which I can support
is the Lofgren substitute amendment.
Under the Lofgren proposal, a separate Federal criminal offense would
be created for any harm done to a pregnant woman; the pregnant woman
being recognized as the primary victim of a crime causing the
termination of a pregnancy. An offense would be created that protects
women and punishes violence resulting in injury or termination of a
pregnancy; a maximum 20-year sentence would be provided for the injury
to a woman's pregnancy and a maximum life sentence for termination of a
woman's pregnancy; and focuses on the harm to the pregnant woman,
providing a deterrent against violence against women.
This amendment, otherwise known as the Motherhood Protection Act,
provides for the full protection of expectant mothers against violent
crimes without legislating any direct conflict with the highest court
of the land.
If the supporters of H.R. 503 are truly concerned about protecting of
pregnant women, then let us craft a bill that can be supported by all
involved, and actually speaks to women's rights instead of advancing
the pro-life agenda in this backdoor fashion.
When a crime is committed against pregnant women which results in the
termination of the fetus, a tragedy has occurred. Accordingly let us
adopt legislation that recognizes this tragedy without recognizing
something antithetical to the Supreme Court's prior decision.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R.
503, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act.'' This bill continues to
demonstrate the troubling tendency in Congress to undermine women's
constitutional reproductive rights.
Since 1973 and the Roe v. Wade decision, we have seen Congress slowly
chip away at women's right to choose in an effort to ultimately nullify
this landmark decision. H.R. 503 is an ill-disguised attack on Roe v.
Wade. That is because at root it is an attempt to redefine when life
begins.
The bill seeks to create a separate Federal criminal offense for
criminal acts that cause death or bodily injury to the ``unborn''
fetus. Tellingly, it does not create any comparable offense for killing
or injuring the woman bearing the fetus. I think that makes it clear
that the real purpose here is not to protect the victims of violence,
but to try to get Congress on record as specifying that life begins at
conception.
There are serious threats to women, including women bearing children,
that we need to address. Domestic violence is the single greatest cause
of injury to women. Although the statistics vary, according to the
American Medical Association, approximately four million women were
physically abused by their husbands or live-in partners in 1998. That
means that 10,959 women on average are abused every day. This statistic
is deeply disconcerting.
Domestic violence crimes resulting in the loss of pregnancy are
terribly tragic, and these acts should be punished, but H.R. 503 is not
the proper approach to eradicating this problem. We need to concentrate
our efforts on protecting abused women by passing measures, such as the
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, to promote
protection from violence as well as increasing assistance to abused
women. That is why I support the amendment proposed by the gentlewoman
from California, Congresswoman Lofgren.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to help these victims of
violence and protect their well being. Domestic violence is a national
concern, and we need to do everything within our capabilities to make
sure that it receives due attention. Let us avoid passing any Federal
law that will undermine a woman's right to choose as protected by the
Constitution of the United States, and let us focus on the real issue
at hand--eradicating violence against women.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 503,
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
This important legislation would finally make it a separate Federal
offense to cause death or bodily injury to a child in utero in the
course of committing an already defined Federal offense. It is
imperative that we hold criminals responsible for conduct that harms or
kills an unborn child. I cannot understand the opposition to this bill.
It will not affect abortion laws, it merely affirms that a violent act
against a pregnant woman affects not only her but her unborn child as
well. There are most certainly two victims in such crimes, as 24 States
have already recognized.
I am horrified by stories such as that of Tracy Scheide Marciniak who
was only 4 days

[[Page 6324]]

from delivering her baby boy Zachariah. Four days. For 9 months she had
been eagerly awaiting his arrival, planning for his birth and life,
bonding with him in her womb. Unfortunately, her husband brutally
attacked her, targeting a few blows specifically on her abdomen.
Zachariah bled to death in her womb because of the blunt-force trauma.
Tracy nearly died herself but did recover from her injuries and had to
bury her baby boy without ever getting a chance to see him alive. At
the time Wisconsin did not have an unborn victims law so Glendale Black
was convicted on a assault to her alone and is now eligible for parole.
The law did not recognize the loss of Zachariah's life and Glendale
Black did not pay for his crime.
Ohio is one of the states where it is a crime to kill an unborn child
in a violent act. Unlike Zachariah, Jasmine Robbins' father was
prosecuted for her manslaughter. Gregory Robbins assaulted his wife
Karlene who was 8 months pregnant with their daughter Jasmine. he
repeatedly struck her in the face and abdomen. Due to the assault,
Karlene' uterus ruptured and Jasmine died. Gregory Robbins pled guilty
to assault and battery to his pregnant wife and involuntary
manslaughter for Jasmine's death.
Jasmine's murder is no less tragic than Zachariah's but at least her
mother did not have to suffer the heartbreak of not having her murder
recognized under our laws.
We live in a society that does not respect life and that troubles me.
We have children killing children in our schools, husbands beating
their wives, and other violent crimes signifying that we as a culture
do not value and treasure life as we should. A good first step towards
recognizing the miracle of life is to ensure that those who take a life
are punished for their crime.
We cannot bring back Zachariah or Jasmine or the other hundreds of
unborn children violently murdered. We can, and must, however, protect
other unborn children from the same fate. We must respect life and make
criminals pay for attacks against all Americans, born and in utero.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 503, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. While many proponents of this bill
contend that it is necessary to protect pregnant women from assault
which results in the death of her fetus, I believe that this bill could
jeopardize a woman's right to choose. I say this because H.R. 503
attempts to legally recognize the fetus as a ``person'' with rights and
interests separate from and equal to those of the woman. In fact, if
H.R. 503 is enacted into law, it will be the first time a federal law
recognizes a zygote, embryo, or fetus as an independent victim of crime
entitled to full legal rights distinct from the woman.
I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating leniency for a
perpetrator of abuse against a pregnant woman. Instead, I believe that
we need to recognize that the true victim of a violent act is the woman
first and foremost.
Last year, I supported the Motherhood Protection Act which
established a separate offense for abusive conduct against a pregnant
woman resulting in the termination of her pregnancy. This crime would
be punishable by a fine and imprisonment of up to 20 years, and if the
pregnancy is terminated, regardless of if it was intentional, the
assailant could be sentenced to life in prison. I will support this
substitute again today.
It is undeniably a tragedy when a violent act committed against a
woman results in the termination of her pregnancy. Actually, I believe
it is a tragedy when violence against women, whether pregnant or not,
is carried out. However, I believe the best way to enforce the law is
to help the woman, not unnecessarily bring the threat of rescinding the
right to choose into the debate.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.R.
503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 and in support of the
Lofgren-Conyers substitute.
While I fully support punishment for violent acts against women at
any and every time, but most especially against pregnant women, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 should be opposed. This bill as
drafted will diminish, rather than enhance the rights of women and do
nothing to protect pregnant women from violence.
Additionally, it is worthy to note, that H.R. 503 is unanimously
opposed by a plethora of groups whose mission is the protection of
women's rights and who oppose domestic violence; including Planned
Parenthood Federation of America, the Women's Law Center, the American
Medical Women's Association, National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence, National Council of Jewish Women and People for the American
Way.
I support the Lofgren-Conyers substitute because it would protect
pregnant women while upholding a woman's constitutional right to
choose. We must focus on the goals that H.R. 503 calls for, which is to
deter acts of violence against pregnant women that cause injury to
their fetuses or the termination of a pregnancy. We must do so,
however, without opening the door to overturning Roe v. Wade and making
an abortion a federal crime.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the
Record an article about Tracy Scheide Marciniak, a fellow Wisconsinite.
She was brutally beaten 4 days before she was supposed to give birth to
her son, Zachariah. I would like to submit her story for the Record.
Her husband at the time punched her twice in the abdomen and brutally
beat her. Her husband refused to call for help until it was too late.
By the time she reached the hospital, Zachariah had died from blunt
force trauma. Her ex-husband, Glendale Black, was convicted of
assaulting his wife, but not of murdering Zachariah, their unborn
child.
In the aftermath of this violent crime, the Wisconsin Legislature
enacted one of the nation's strongest unborn victim's laws. Regardless,
there is no coinciding federal law. If this incident were to happen
today in a federal jurisdiction, the killer would still only be
prosecuted for assault. This needs to change.
H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, can fix this injustice.
Passage of this bill would make it a federal crime to harm an unborn
child during a violent criminal act. Federal judges could impose the
same punishment as if injury or death occurred to the unborn child's
mother, except for the death penalty.
I disagree with those who believe that Zachariah was not yet a human
being. Had his mother gone into labor a week before her husband abused
her, Zachariah would today be a healthy and happy child. There was no
difference between the Zachariah that was in his mother's womb when she
was beaten with a Zachariah that may have been born a week earlier. He
was still a living person. There should be no exception in the criminal
code for violent acts on babies inside the womb as opposed to those who
are in their mother's arms. The current law makes no logical sense and
should be changed according to this act.
Zachariah is a biblical name. In the Bible, Zachariah and his wife
Elizabeth were faithful followers of God's commandments. They never had
any children and were both too old to do so. As Zachariah entered a
room within the temple he presided over, Gabriel appeared before him
and told him that he and his wife will have a son. God blessed this
couple for being faithful. Their child was blessed, as was Tracy's
child. In scripture, Zachariah means ``God remembers.''
We will not forget Zachariah. Because of him, hopefully violent
offenders will not only be deterred from hurting pregnant mothers, but
from harming their unborn children.

One Victim . . . Or Two?

My name is Tracy Scheide Marciniak.
On February 8, 1992, I carried within my womb an unborn
baby boy, Zachariah. We were in our ninth month, only four
days from delivery.
That night, the man to whom I was then married, Glendale R.
Black, brutally beat me. He knew that I very much wanted my
son. He punched me very hard twice in the abdomen. Then he
refused to call for help, and prevented me from doing so.
When he relented, I was taken by ambulance to the hospital,
where Zachariah was delivered by emergency Caesarean section.
My son was dead. The physicians said he had bled to death
within my womb because of blunt-force trauma. I nearly died,
but I recovered.
In 1992, Wisconsin, where the crime occurred, did not have
an unborn victims law, and state prosecutors were unable to
convict Glendale Black under a law that required them to
prove that the assault was intended to kill Zachariah. So,
Black was convicted of his assault on me, but not of any
charge that recognized the loss of Zachariah's life. He is
already eligible for parole.
In 1998, in response to my case and others like it, the
Wisconsin Legislature overwhelming enacted one of the
nation's strongest unborn victims laws.
But federal law still fails to recognize unborn victims,
like Zachariah. Even today, if Zachariah had been killed in
the same manner in a federal jurisdiction, his killer could
be prosecuted only for assault.
That is wrong. Congress should approve the Unborn Victims
of Violence Act (H.R. 503, S. 480). Under this bill, if an
unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an
already-defined federal crime of violence, that child will be
recognized as a victim.
Opponents of the bill have put forth a counterproposal,
known as the Lofgren Amendment. I have read it, and it is
offensive to me, because it says that there is only one
victim in such a crime--the woman who is pregnant.
Please hear me on this: On the might of February 8, 1992,
there were two victims. I

[[Page 6325]]

was nearly killed--but I survived. Little Zachariah died.
Any lawmaker who is thinking of voting for the Lofgren
``one-victim'' amendment should first look at the picture of
me holding my dead son at his funeral.
Then I would say to that representative, ``If you really
think that nobody died that night, then vote for the `one-
victim' amendment. But please remember Zachariah's name and
face when you decide.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted in opposition to H.R. 503,
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Since the landmark Roe v. Wade
Supreme Court decision, Congress has slowly passed legislation that has
eroded women's reproductive choices. This is a personal and private
decision that should be made by a woman, her family, her physician, and
her beliefs, not subjected to increasing levels of government
interference.
Rather than being merely a good faith effort to protect pregnant
mothers from violence, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act'' is
actually a back door attempt to interject government into individuals
private lives. Harsh penalties already exist in 38 States for crimes
against pregnant women that result in the injury or death of her fetus.
The overwhelming majority of crimes against pregnant women that cause
injury to her fetus occur in cases of domestic abuse or drunk driving
accidents, instances that are prosecutable under currently existing
state laws. H.R. 503 would do nothing to add to the existing
protections against these serious and prevalent crimes. Nearly one in
every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by
their partner during adulthood. Drunk driving accidents continue to
result in substantial loss of life in every city across the nation.
Instead of focusing on purely political measures aimed at the erosion
of a woman's reproductive freedom, we should be protecting women from
violence and increase assistance to women in life threatening domestic
situations.
I did support the Lofgren Amendment that would have enacted strict
punishments for crimes that result in the injury or death of the fetus
with out the inclusion of constitutionally questionable language. If
protecting pregnant women from violent crime were truly our priority,
Congress would have passed this amendment to H.R. 503.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503,
legislation that does nothing to end violence against pregnant women
but rather is a backdoor attempt to give a fetus the same legal status
as the assaulted woman. Specifically, this measure affords a pregnancy
at ``all stages of development'' legal rights that are equal to, and
separate from, those of the woman. Though abortion is explicitly
excluded from this bill, it clearly establishes new legal rights for
the ``unborn child'' and would be a major step toward dismantling Roe
v. Wade. The penalty would be equal to that imposed for injuring the
woman herself and would apply from the earliest stage of gestation
whether or not the perpetrator knew of the pregnancy.
In recent days, advocates of H.R. 503 have bombarded us with bone-
chilling accounts of pregnant women being subject to heinous assaults.
Clearly, no one in this body believes such acts of senseless violence
should go unpunished. I strongly believe that violent crimes committed
against women and in particular, pregnant women, should be punished to
the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, we, as lawmakers, have a
responsibility to ensure that Federal law properly addresses such
violence. That being said, H.R. 503 does nothing to combat domestic
violence. In fact, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has
come forward in opposition to H.R. 503, arguing that it would only
divert the attention of the legal system away from violence against
women. Unfortunately, this bill is a canard, a red herring, purporting
to do one thing while actually accomplishing another.
Mr. Speaker, rather than immersing this House in the theatrics of
abortion politics, as the underlying bill does, Congress can make a
difference in such heinous cases. The Lofgren substitute, known as the
``Motherhood Protection Act'' would more effectively address the
concern of violence against pregnant women, creating a separate Federal
criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman. Specifically, under the
Lofgren substitute, assaults of women that compromise a pregnancy would
be subject to a maximum 20-year sentence and, if the assault results in
termination, could mean a life sentence. Thus, under this measure,
assaults that result in injury or death of an ``unborn child'' would be
subject to the same punishment provided under Federal law as for the
violent act against the woman. These penalties would be in addition to
any punishment imposed on the assailant for the underlying offense. The
key difference between the Lofgren alternative and H.R. 503 is that it
does not create a new legal status for the ``unborn child.''
Mr. Speaker, the question at hand is what Federal law can do to
address assaults on pregnant women. I am certain that my colleagues
agree that such attacks should be punished to the fullest extent of the
law. The penalties in the Lofgren substitute are equal to, and in some
instances, actually stronger than, those in the underlying bill.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, let's put our difference on abortion aside
and enact legislation that genuinely addresses harm to pregnant women
and provides a deterrent to violence against women--the Motherhood
Protection Act.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 503,
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I commend the Gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Graham on this fine piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, there is no greater joy than seeing your child for the
first time. Personally, I would not trade that feeling for anything in
the world.
However, there is no greater pain than losing a child. I have seen
the pain in the eyes of potential parents who have suffered the loss of
their unborn children. Mr. Speaker, if you had ever seen the look in
the eyes of those parents, then you would know that you would never
want to feel that pain yourself. Especially, when the unborn child was
lost due to an act of violence. Under current Federal and military
laws, it is not a crime to end the life of an unborn child, regardless
of the circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, today this body will rise up and take a stand against
this atrocity. Today, we will make this act of violence a felony and
illegal under all Federal laws.
I urge all of my colleagues to protect the lives of the unborn, and
protect pregnant women by voting for H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, in the Minnesota State Legislature, I
worked to secure health care for families, to fight against domestic
violence, and to protect a woman's right to reproductive health
choices. In the Minnesota State Legislature, we addressed the issue of
violence against women in all stages of life--working with women, their
families and doctors.
I am particularly concerned about the legislation that we are
considering today. It appears the intention of this legislation is to
reverse the Supreme Court ruling of Roe versus Wade.
Fundamentally, this legislation seeks to redefine when life begins. I
support the landmark decision of Roe versus Wade in 1973 that
establishes a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy while
also allowing individual States to determine the legality of such
decisions as a pregnancy proceeds.
H.R. 503 fails to recognize that injury to a pregnancy is first and
foremost an injury to a woman. This bill ignores the pregnant woman
entirely, and would do nothing to stem violence against women. Crimes
of this nature are more appropriately addressed by enhancing penalties
for termination of, or injury to, a pregnancy.
H.R. 503 is said to be protection for pregnant women against a
violent crime. But the words ``mother,'' ``women,'' or ``pregnant
women'' are not even mentioned in the language of the bill.
I would proudly support a bill to prevent and punish the violent
crimes against women and especially pregnant women. This bill does not
address where and when these crimes most often occur or how to stop
them.
This bill does not help the 37 percent of women who need to receive
emergency help because of assault by their husband or boyfriend? Where
is the legislation in maintaining a restraining order when a woman
flees to another State because her life is in danger?
If we want to protect women and their children from violence, let us
debate funding for domestic violence shelters and hotlines that are
overrun by women in danger to broadly address where violence occurs.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lofgren substitute, which
recognizes that when a violent crime is perpetrated against a pregnant
woman and causes injury to or termination of her pregnancy, there is
additional harm to that woman.
Crimes committed against pregnant women are heinous and should be
punished to the fullest extent. The Lofgren substitute actually
provides harsher penalties on perpetrators of violent crimes against
pregnant women than does H.R. 503.
I strongly urge my colleagues not to jeopardize the decisions women
can make about their own bodies and to vote no on H.R. 503 and yes on
the Lofgren substitute.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided bill.
Let me make something perfectly clear from the outset: The loss or
harm to a woman and

[[Page 6326]]

her fetus is absolutely devastating to the woman and her family. Those
who injure or kill a pregnant woman and her fetus should be severely
punished, and families should have the legal tools to have their loss
recognized. We will offer a substitute that does that, and I believe
that the Lofgren substitute demonstrates very clearly that there is a
lot of common ground on this issue if we would only look for that
instead of looking for ways to disagree.
Having said that, let me explain why the approach this bill takes is
just another thinly veiled attack on a woman's right to choose.
This bill would give a fetus the same legal recognition as you or I--
for the first time in Federal law. Instead of addressing the real
issues at hand--the horrible pain for a woman who loses a pregnancy to
a cowardly, violent act--this bill is an ideological marker for the
anti-choice special interests.
Frankly, this bill is just another way of writing a Human Life
Amendment. In fact, the National Right to Life Committee admits that it
participated in the drafting of the bill, and according to the NRTL
website, ``[t]he bill challenges that [pro-choice] ideology by
recognizing the unborn child as a human victim, distinct from the
mother.''
If anti-choice members of this House want to recognize the fetus as a
person--do that. Bring a Human Life Amendment to the floor and let us
vote on it. But don't tell pregnant women in this country that you're
trying to protect them with this bill when there are existing State and
Federal laws to do that and when we are willing to join you in
addressing the tragic cases when pregnant women are attacked. The
American people are smarter than you're giving them credit for. They
know that you're proposing a political statement today, not a real
solution.
If you really want to crack down on cowardly criminals who would
attack a pregnant woman, support the Lofgren substitute. It gets us to
the same ends, without the overtly political means. And if you're
serious about protecting women in this country from violence, let's
fully fund the Violence Against Women Act today.
VAWA is the most effective way for us to help combat violence against
women. Every year, over two million American women are physically
abused by their husbands or boyfriends. A woman is physically abused
every 15 seconds in this country. And one of every three abused
children becomes an adult abuser or victim. The Unborn Victims of
Violence Act will do nothing for these women. But VAWA makes all the
difference in the world.
My colleagues, please do not be fooled. The Unborn Victims of
Violence Act is not about protecting pregnant women from violent acts.
Rather, it is yet another anti-choice attempt to undermine a woman's
right to choose.
I have stood on the House floor many times and asked my colleagues to
work with me to find ways to help women improve their health, plan
their pregnancies, and have healthier children. It is tragic that every
day over 400 babies are born to mothers who received little or no
prenatal care, every minute a baby is born to a teen mother, and three
babies die every hour. And it is tragic that 1 of every 3 women will
experience domestic violence in her adulthood.
Instead of finding new ways to revisit the divisive abortion battle,
Americans want us to focus our efforts on providing women with access
to prenatal care, affordable contraception, health education and
violence prevention. If we truly want to protect women and their
pregnancies from harm, then let us work together to enact legislation
to help women have healthy babies and protect them from violent
abusers.
Please vote ``no'' on H.R. 503.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each
branch of the Federal Government to act Constitutionally, Congress will
likely continue to ignore not only its Constitutional limits but
earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 503, would amend
title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting
unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the
class of victims to which unconstitutional (but already-existing)
Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves
yet another step closer to a national police state.
Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing
every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than
to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure
by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil,
totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of
Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against
the unborn?
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a
government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates
the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or
enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks
any authority or consent of the governed and only the State
governments, their designees, or the people in their private market
actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is
brutally clear in stating ``The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Our Nation's
history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended
to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of
historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could
reasonably portray it differently.
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to
whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply--it further entrenches
and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision (the Court's
intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect
by criminal statute the unborn's right not to be aggressed against). By
specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the
mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress
appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a
Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary
Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the
assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill
does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the
unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require
intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor.
Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist
with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution
while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child's existence is
subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (With respect to only
the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence--yet
another diminution of the unborn's personhood status and clearly a
violation of the equal protection clause.) It is becoming more and more
difficult for congress and the courts to pass the smell test as
government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some
instances and as a non-person in others.
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal
Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said ``the trend to
federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts
. . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.''
Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political
pressure to ``appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill
or sensational crime.''
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional
protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal
criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal
crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high
seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to
allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or
transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime).
``Concurrent'' jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the
past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to
be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S.
Constitution specifies that no ``person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .'' In other words, no
person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United
States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being
tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the
same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger
of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is
that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to
being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for
federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is
neither prudent nor constitutional.
Occasionally the argument is put forth that States may be less
effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those
who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the
Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the
integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via
the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as
full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those
who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal
Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which
allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal

[[Page 6327]]

Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV,
Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from
one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed
an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon
States in working with one another rather than relying on a national,
unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to
centralization of police power.
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well
as the cost. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller,
independent jurisdictions--it is called competition and, yes,
governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete.
We have obsessed so much over the notion of ``competition'' in this
country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior
products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the
dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow
someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary
exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of
scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we
further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered
by force rather than voluntary exchange.
When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal
laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a ``competing''
jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay
taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to
provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona.
If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government
intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes
more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with
one's feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments.
Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen
mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend
to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility
less and less practical.
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence
is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left
to the States' criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal,
constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to
federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the
unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal
Government's unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v.
Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 503 ignores the danger of further
federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and,
in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of
Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby
and the bathwater.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 503,
and I thank Representative Graham for introducing this legislation
again in the 107th Congress. I am a cosponsor of this bill that makes
killing a women's unborn child punishable as a Federal crime. The bill
simply states that an individual who commits a Federal crime of
violence against a pregnant woman and thereby causes death or injury to
her unborn child will be held accountable for the harm caused to both
victims, mother and child. Twenty-four States have already enacted laws
which recognize unborn children as human victims of violent crimes--
this bill simply gives the same protection in Federal jurisdictions.
Opponents of the bill have said that it is a back door to eliminating
a women's right to choose, but this bill is about choice, Mr. Speaker,
it is about respecting--and protecting--a women's choice to bring a new
life into this world. H.R. 503 will allow under Federal law for the
prosecutions of those who callously disregard that choice.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 503, The
Unborn victims of Violence Act and want to thank my colleague from
South Carolina for introducing it.
As you know, H.R. 503 would make it a separate Federal crime to hurt
or kill an unborn child during the commission of a Federal crime
against a pregnant woman. 24 States currently recognize both the mother
and the unborn child as victims of violent crimes. And in 1999, this
chamber passed this legislation by a vote of 254 to 172. However, it
was never brought up for a vote in the Senate.
I also strongly oppose the Substitute Amendment being offered by
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. Her amendment fails to recognize the unborn
child as a victim of a crime, even in circumstances when the
perpetrator acts with specific intent to kill the unborn child. Under
her amendment, a criminal could receive a stiffer sentence for
interfering with ``the normal course of the pregnancy'' while
committing a Federal crime. The premise of this approach is that there
has only been one victim, the mother, who has suffered a compound
injury. However, if an expectant mother is shot and her baby is born
disabled because of the bullet, would anyone say that only the mother
and not the child had been injured. However, if the baby dies before
being born, the supporters of the substitute amendment say only one
person has suffered. This is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit for the Record a letter from
the National Right to Life Committee in support of H.R. 503 and why the
Lofgren Substitute should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to consider
the points it raises.

National Right to Life

Committee, Inc.

Washington, DC, April 23, 2001.

RE: In opposition to ``one-victim'' substitute amendment to
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503)

Dear Member of Congress: As the House of Representatives
prepares to take up the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R.
503), the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) urges you
to reject the assertion of those who say that when a criminal
assaults a woman and kills her unborn child, nobody has
really died.
That is the callous ideological doctrine embodied in the
substitute amendment that we anticipate will be offered to
H.R. 503 on the House floor (it was offered by Congresswomen
Lofgren in the Judiciary Committee, where it was rejected).
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act creates no new federal
crimes. Rather, the bill would come into play only when
federal authorities have cause to arrest someone for an
offense against a woman in one of 68 already-defined federal
crimes of violence, by also allowing them to bring a second
charge if there has been a second victim, an unborn child. A
document circulated by the Planned Parenthood Federation of
America asserts that ``nowhere in the bill is harm against
women mentioned,'' but that is a blatantly misleading
statement. The bill really mentions harm against women 68
times, as it cites the 68 federal crimes of violence against
women in which H.R. 503 would apply.
Under the Lofgren Substitute, a criminal could receive a
stiffer sentence for interfering with ``the normal course of
the pregnancy'' while committing a federal crime, but under
the premise that there has only been one victim, the mother,
who has suffered a compound injury. This approach is
incoherent. In those cases in which the woman dies in the
assault, is it not a duplicative charge to prosecute the
assailant both for killing the woman and for doing her an
additional injury? In other cases, in which the mother
survives but the baby dies, the Lofgren Substitute would
impose a penalty of life in prison--which seems a harsh
penalty, unless somebody has died.
Consider the words of Tracy Marciniak of Wisconsin, who was
assaulted in the ninth month of her pregnancy. She was
injured and her unborn son, Zachariah, was killed. Because
Wisconsin at that time lacked an unborn victims law, the
assailant was convicted only for the injury he did to Mrs.
Marciniak, and he is already eligible for parole. Mrs.
Marciniak explains, ``This one-victim proposal is offensive
to me. Its premise is this: On the night my husband beat me,
nobody died. But that is not true. That night, there were two
victims. I was nearly killed--but I survived. Little
Zachariah died.'' Mrs. Marciniak urges House members to look
at the photo of her holding Zachariah in her arms at his
funeral, and asks, ``Can anybody honestly tell me there is
only one victim in that picture?'' (The photo is posted at
www.nrlc.org, and appears in NRLC ads that are running
various publications this week.)
H.R. 503 explicitly states that nothing in the bill ``shall
be construed to permit the prosecution of any person for
conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the
pregnant woman . . . has been obtained.'' Nor does the bill
pertain to any action by a woman that results in harm to her
own unborn child. Moreover, the laws of 24 states already
recognize the ``unborn child'' as a victim of violent crimes
for all or some of the baby's period of pre-natal
development. These laws are listed at www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/
sthomicidelaws.htm.
Numerous state and federal courts have ruled that these
state unborn victims laws do not contradict Roe v. Wade or
otherwise affect legal abortion. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme
Court in 1989 found no problem with a Missouri law that
establishes the ``unborn child'' as a legal member of the
human family for purposes far broader than those covered by
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Indeed, the April 21
issue of National Journal (page 1173) quotes Heather
Boonstra, senior public policy analyst at the Alan Guttmacher
Institute, as ``acknowledging that [Rep.] Graham's bill would
probably survive a court challenge.'' For further discussion
of the constitutional issues, see the Judiciary Committee
report at ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp107/hr042.txt.
Some opponents of H.R. 503 have objected to the bill's
recognition of the ``child in

[[Page 6328]]

utero'' as a member of the human family. Yet, on July 25,
2000, the House by a vote of 417-0 passed a bill that
contained the same definition of ``child in utero'' and that
embodied the same basic legal principle. The roll call on
that bill, and the text of the bill, are appended.
In NRLC's scorecard of significant congressional votes for
2001, a vote in favor of a one-victim substitute amendment to
H.R. 503 will be accurately described as a vote to declare
that when a criminal injures a mother and kills her unborn
child, there has been no loss of a human life. Thank your for
your consideration of NRLC's views on this legislation.
Sincerely,
Douglas Johnson,
Legislative Director.
Patricia Coll,
Legislative Assistant.

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to
H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
H.R. 503 claims to protect unborn children from assault and murder by
giving the fetus--at any stage of development from the time of
fertilization--the status of a person under the law so that crimes
resulting in the death of a ``child in utero'' can be charged
separately. The bill does not address the violence against the mother
that resulted in the harm to the fetus.
The purpose of H.R. 503 is not to protect pregnant women from
violence, it simply seeks to confer the same legal status to an embryo
or fetus as to the woman who is pregnant. In fact, this act would give
even a fertilized egg this status. H.R. 503 seeks to establish in law
the principle of ``fetal rights'' that are equal to but distinct from
the rights of pregnant women. The bill seeks to undercut Roe v. Wade,
in which the Supreme Court held that at no stage of development are
fetuses persons under the law.
I wish that the Members of this body who so fervently want to
overturn the right of women to a legal abortion would present an honest
and straightforward bill to confer full personhood on an embryo or
fetus. Let's take a vote on that.
But we should not pretend that this bill is about protecting women
from violence. If you want to protect pregnant women from violence,
then it is important to address the problem of domestic violence by
fully funding the Violence Against Women Act. The vast majority of
attacks against pregnant women are domestic violence. In fact, this
bill will only divert the attention of the legal system away from
domestic violence or violence against women. The National Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, which represents organizations and shelters
in all 50 states, opposes this legislation.
H.R. 503 ignores the fact that when harm comes to a pregnancy, it
happens to the woman who is pregnant. The bill fails to address the
need for strong federal legislation to prevent and punish violent
crimes against women.
If you want to provide for an enhanced penalty for attacks against
women that result in harm to her pregnancy, then vote for the Lofgren
amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503 would undermine Roe v. Wade by
recognizing for the first time in federal law a zygote, blastocyst,
embryo, or fetus as a ``person,'' with rights equal to those of a
woman. As a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, I am
concerned that the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act'' does not ensure
that programs aimed at taking action against domestic violence are
fully funded.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that violence against a
pregnant woman, where harm is brought to not only the mother but also
the fetus, is a most heinous offense. These acts of violence are tragic
and should be recognized by increased federal penalties for those
convicted of violence to a pregnant woman.
To accomplish this goal, I will be supporting The Motherhood
Protection Act, which creates a new, separate federal criminal offense
for harm done to a pregnant woman. This bill provides for a maximum
twenty year sentence for injury to a woman's pregnancy. Further, it
provides a maximum life sentence for termination of a woman's
pregnancy.
The underlying Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503) and The
Motherhood Protection Act achieve the exact same goal and provide
identical penalties. The only difference is that H.R. 503 includes a
legal definition of when life begins. However, medical experts and
knowledgeable scientists are still debating this issue, and I don't
believe Congress is in a position to make that determination today.
Sadly, this serious issue has been turned into an abortion debate,
which it is not. The goal of the sponsors of this legislation is to
protect pregnant women and the unborn, and The Motherhood Protection
Act, sponsored by Representative Zoe Lofgren, accomplishes this
purpose. The Motherhood Protection Act has my full support.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague on
the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Graham, for bringing this very important
legislation before the House. I commend you for your extraordinary
efforts on behalf of the unborn victims of violence.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
which promotes justice by holding violent criminals accountable for
their conduct. It is unthinkable that under current federal law, an
individual who commits a federal crime of violence against a pregnant
woman receives no additional punishment for killing or injuring the
woman's unborn child during the commission of the crime. Where is the
justice when a criminal can inflict harm upon a woman, even with the
express purpose of harming her unborn child, and not be held
accountable for those actions?
Approximately half of the states, including my home state of
Virginia, have seen the wisdom in holding criminals accountable for
their actions by making violent criminals liable for conduct that harms
or kills an unborn baby. Unfortunately, our federal statutes provide a
gap in the law that usually allows the criminal to walk away with
little more than a slap on the wrist. Criminals are held more liable
for damage done to property than for intentional harm done to an unborn
child. This discrepancy in the law is appalling.
Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, those of us who
are parents can identify with the hope that accompanies the impending
birth of a child. No law passed by Congress could ever heal the
devastation created by the loss of a child or replace a child lost to
violence. However, we can ensure that justice is done by making the
criminals who take the life of an unborn child pay for their actions.
When a mother chooses to bring a life into this world and that life
is cut short by a violent criminal, that criminal should be held
accountable under the law. Justice demands it, and so should we. I urge
each of my colleagues to join me in voting for the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 503, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
I oppose this legislation because of its implications for the future
of a woman's right to lawfully terminate a pregnancy, not because I
oppose punishing crimes against pregnant women--or anyone else--to the
full extent of the law.
Don't be fooled, this bill is an attack on the fundamental principles
of Roe v. Wade. H.R. 503 would establish a zygote, blastocyst, embryo,
and fetus as a person under federal law. Although the Supreme Court has
held that fetuses are not persons under the 14th amendment, this bill
would bestow separate rights to the fetus equal to that of the mother.
The Lofgren substitute, on the other hand, creates a separate
criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman, while maintaining the
woman as the primary victim of the crime. It also creates an offense
for violence resulting in the injury or termination of a pregnancy.
I urge my fellow colleagues to oppose H.R. 503 and to support the
Lofgren substitute. H.R. 503 dislodges the cornerstone underpinning Roe
v. Wade. In contrast, the Lofgren substitute strengthens punishments
for crimes against pregnant women without weakening a woman's right to
choose.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the Democratic Chair of the
Pro-Life Caucus, to express my strong support for the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act and to dispel some of the myths we've heard about it from
those who are opposed to this commonsense, anticrime legislation.
In recent years, 28 States have passed laws similar to the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act, allowing criminals who assault pregnant
mothers to be prosecuted for injuring or murdering the unborn child
during the attack. Unfortunately, under current Federal law, the
criminal faces no such consequences.
We have all heard the tragic stories told here today, stories of
brutal assaults on pregnant mothers which resulted in the deaths of
their unborn children. These violent acts went unprosecuted and
unpunished. For the sake of these women and their unborn children,
Congress must correct this oversight in Federal law and pass the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act. It is pro-woman, pro-child, and anti-criminal.
This bill and its goal seem pretty straightforward. How could anyone
oppose it? After all, every Member of this body wants to protect women
and children, and punish criminals. Well, Mr. Speaker, it appears that
we have a simple misunderstanding about what this bill actually does
and I want to take a moment to set the record straight.

[[Page 6329]]

Some of my colleagues are concerned that The Unborn Victims of
Violence Act prevents women from obtaining a legal abortion. This
assertion is simply not true. The Unborn Victims legislation
specifically prohibits the prosecution of women who terminate their
pregnancies through abortion. While I am pro-Life and therefore very
much opposed to abortion, I want to make it clear that this legislation
has absolutely no impact on a woman's legal ability to terminate her
pregnancy. This is not an abortion bill. It is a crime bill.
Others in this body are concerned that the act undermines the Roe v.
Wade decision by recognizing unborn children as having rights outside
of the mother. In fact, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act has zero
impact on Roe v. Wade, because the Supreme Court has stated that unborn
children already have legal rights outside the mother, specifically in
tort and inheritance cases, and these rights do not preclude a woman
from obtaining an abortion. This is not a bill which restricts
abortion. It is a bill that punishes criminals who commit brutal acts
of violence against women and their children.
Finally, we have heard from some who honestly believe that this act
is somehow antiwoman. Mr. Speaker, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
not only reinforces existing laws which protect women against violence,
but also ensures that the horrible emotional and physical anguish a
pregnant woman would suffer from the death of her unborn child would
not go unpunished due to a loophole in the law. It is hard for me to
find any legislation which is more pro-woman than this.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this
important pro-woman, pro-child and anticriminal legislation, and vote
in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Congressional Record, and
commend to my colleagues, the following document from the National
Right to Life Committee. It provides important details on H.R. 503, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Key Points on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act has been introduced in
companion bills as H.R. 503, sponsored by Congressman Lindsey
Graham (R-SC), and S. 480, sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine
(R-Ohio). The full text is available at the NRLC website at
www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/index.html.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would establish that if
an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of
an already-defined federal crime of violence, then the
assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of
the second victim, the unborn child. The bill would recognize
that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or
kills her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. The
bill would apply this two-victim principle to about 70
existing federal laws dealing with acts of violence. These
laws affect federal geographical jurisdictions, the military
justice system, protection of federal officials, and specific
acts defined by law as federal crimes (such as certain
terrorist bombings).
In current federal criminal law, an unborn child is not
recognized as a victim with respect to violent crimes. Thus,
for example, if a criminal beats a woman on a military base,
and kills her unborn child, he can be charged only with the
battery against the woman, because the unborn child's loss of
life is not recognized by the law. This gap in federal law
results in grave injustices, some real-world examples of
which were described by former Congressman Charles Canady (R-
Fl.) at a July 21, 1999 House Judiciary Constitution
Subcommittee hearing on the issue. Congressman Canady's
statement is posted at http://nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL899/
cana.html.
Twenty-four (24) states have already enacted laws which
recognize unborn children as human victims of violent crimes.
Eleven (11) of these states provide this protection
throughout the period of in utero development, while the
other 13 provide protection during specific stages of
development. For detailed information on state unborn victims
laws, see ``State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn
Victims,'' available at www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/
sthomicidelaws.htm. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would
not supersede state unborn victims laws, nor would it impose
such a law in a state that has not enacted one. Rather, the
bill applies only to unborn children injured or killed during
the course of already-defined federal crimes of violence.
The bill explicitly provides that it does not apply to any
abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the
mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical
treatment. Nevertheless, NRLC supports the bill because it
achieves other pro-life purposes that are worthwhile in their
own right: the protection of unborn children from acts of
violence other than abortion, the recognition that unborn
children may be victims of such violent criminal acts, and
the punishment of those who harm unborn children while
engaged in federally prohibited acts of violence.
It is well established that this type of legislation does
not conflict with the Supreme Court's pro-abortion decrees
(Roe v. Wade, etc.). Criminal defendants have brought many
legal challenges to the state unborn victim laws mentioned
above, based on Roe and other constitutional arguments, but
all such challenges have been rejected by the courts. (A list
of pertinent court decisions is available on request.)
Moreover, in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive
Health Services, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate
a Missouri statute that declares that ``the life of each
human being beings at conception,'' that ``unborn children
have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,''
and that all state laws ``shall be interpreted and construed
to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage
of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities
available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this
state,'' to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S.
Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had held that Missouri's
law ``impermissibl[y]'' adopted ``a theory of when life
begins,'' but the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, and
held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn
children, so long as the state does not include restrictions
on abortion that Roe forbids. The Minnesota Supreme Court
took the same view in upholding the Minnesota law: ``Roe v.
Wade . . . does not protect, much less confer on an
assailant, a third-party unilateral right to destroy the
fetus.'' [State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990)].
Some opponents have objected to the bill's recognition of
the ``child in utero'' as a member of the human family who
can be harmed in a crime. Yet, on July 25, 2000, the House
passed on a vote of 417-0 a bill that contained the same
definition of ``child in utero'' and that embodied the same
basic legal principle. That bill, the Innocent Child
Protection Act, said that no state or federal authority may
``carry out a sentence of death on a woman while she carries
a child in utero. . . . `child in utero' means a member of
the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is
carried in the womb.'' The principle embodied in the Innocent
Child Protection Act was obvious. Whatever one's position
regarding the morality of capital punishment as such, there
is only one rational reason for delaying a lawfully ordered
execution of a woman because she is pregnant--that is,
carrying out the execution would take two human lives, not
just one. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would extend
that same principle to the rest of the federal criminal code,
recognizing that when a criminal attacks a woman, injuring or
killing her and injuring or killing her unborn child, he has
claimed two victims.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act has come under vehement
attack from pro-abortion groups such as NARAL, Planned
Parenthood, and the ACLU. Even though the bill deals with
acts of violence other than abortion, the pro-abortion
lobby's ideology apparently compels it to deny the very
existence of unborn human beings in any area of the law.
Thus, during the 106th Congress, pro-abortion lawmakers
proposed alternative legislation, the ``Motherhood Protection
Act'' or Lofgren substitute amendment, which the House of
Representatives rejected on September 30, 1999. This ``one-
victim'' proposal did not mention the unborn child (by
whatever name), but instead defined as an offense
``interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy.'' This
approach would have codified a falsehood--the notion that
there is only one victim in these crimes. In the real world,
however, when an unborn child loses her life in a criminal
attack, the parents and society mourn the death of a separate
individual, rather than viewing it simply as an additional
injury to the mother.
Moreover, arguments in favor of the one-victim proposal are
internally inconsistent and illogical. Supporters of the one-
victim approach insist that when a criminal injures a mother
and kills her unborn child, there has been only a compound
injury to the mother but no loss of any human life--yet, the
Lofgren Amendment would have imposed a penalty (up to life in
prison) commensurate with loss of human life. Also, advocates
of the one-victim approach argue that when a criminal
assailant kills a pregnant woman, the assailant should
receive double punishment: once for killing the mother and
then again for depriving her of her ``pregnancy''--but if
there is only one victim, it is difficult to see why this
would not be a duplicative criminal charge, since legally
speaking a woman who has been murdered cannot herself suffer
an additional ``loss.''
Some opponents of the bill have charged that the bill would
punish harm to the unborn child ``utterly ignoring the harm
to the pregnant woman.'' Others have charged that the bill
would ``separate the mother from her fetus.'' These
objections reflect misunderstandings or misrepresentations of
how the bill is structured. In reality, the bill would allow
the government to win a conviction for harm to an unborn
child only if it first proves that the defendant violated one
of the 70 or so enumerated federal laws with respect to the
mother.
Some opponents of the bill have charged that it would allow
defendants to be convicted without a showing of intent to do

[[Page 6330]]

harm. This is false. Under the bill, it is necessary to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had intent to do
criminal harm, at least towards the mother. If such criminal
intent towards the mother is proved, then the defendant also
will be held responsible for the harm done to the unborn
baby, under the doctrine of ``transferred intent.'' As the
House Judiciary Committee report (106th Congress) explained,
transferred intent is a well-established principle in the
law. (If a man shoots at a woman with intent to kill, and the
bullet misses her, passes through a wall, and kills a child
who the shooter did not know was there, he can be convicted
of the murder of the child.) As the Minnesota Supreme Court
ruled in upholding the Minnesota unborn victims law, ``The
possibility that a female homicide victim of childbearing age
may be pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not
safely exclude.'' [State v. Merrill, 450 N.W. 2d 318 (Minn.
1990)].
In order to win a conviction under the bill, it would be
necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that a human being (1) already existed, and (2) was
``carried in the womb,'' which would be utterly impossible
until after the embryo had implanted in the womb and sent out
the chemical signals that announced his or her presence
(i.e., after implantation). Moreover, even after the
prosecution has met that burden, it must also prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that a defendant's criminal conduct caused
the death of the child in utero. The mere possibility or even
the strong likelihood that a defendant's criminal conduct
caused a baby's death would not suffice--the bill requires
proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
National Right to Life legislative staff are available to
discuss this issue with journalists and congressional
offices. Please call (202) 626-8820, or e-mail to:
L[email protected]. Extensive additional information on the
federal bill and on state unborn victims laws is available at
the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/index.html.

Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered By Ms. Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Clerk will designate
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Lofgren:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Motherhood Protection Act of
2001''.

SEC. 2. CRIMES AGAINST A WOMAN--TERMINATING HER PREGNANCY.

(a) Whoever engages in any violent or assaultive conduct
against a pregnant woman resulting in the conviction of the
person so engaging for a violation of any of the provisions
of law set forth in subsection (c), and thereby causes an
interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy resulting
in prenatal injury (including termination of the pregnancy),
shall, in addition to any penalty imposed for the violation,
be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
(1) if the relevant provision of law set forth in
subsection (c) is set forth in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of
that subsection, a fine under title 18, United States Code,
or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, but if
the interruption terminates the pregnancy, a fine under title
18, United States Code, or imprisonment for any term of years
or for life, or both; and
(2) if the relevant provision of law is set forth in
subsection (c)(4), the punishment shall be such punishment
(other than the death penalty) as the court martial may
direct.
(c) The provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) are
the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242,
245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i),
934(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121,
1153(a), 1201(a), 1203(a), 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512,
1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and
(a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119,
2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332,
2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of title 18, United States
Code.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970
(21 U.S.C. 848).
(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2283).
(4) Sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926,
and 928 of title 10, United States Code (articles 118,
119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 128).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 119, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and a Member opposed each
will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This debate this morning has been interesting, but I think it is
clear, and we need to be honest about it, that the debate and the
underlying bill is about choice and it is about Roe v. Wade. That is
why the National Right to Life Committee has vigorously lobbied for
H.R. 503 and why the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has
lobbied actively against 503.
What we are doing here today is offering a substitute that we hope
can bring both sides of the choice to come together in unity to protect
pregnant women from violent assault when that assault injures or
terminates their pregnancy.
The Lofgren-Conyers substitute does not threaten Roe v. Wade as the
underlying bill does. I have heard a lot of the arguments made here
this morning, but I think it is worth pointing out that redefining
personhood legislatively for the purposes of the 14th amendment in this
criminal statute may have the impact of allowing, even though certain
activities are carved out of the bill, for prosecutorial purposes, it
does not deal with civil actions.
Clearly the bill could outline the ability for guardians to be
appointed for fetuses or even zygotes, and that civil action and
injunctions could be based upon this bill. The Lofgren-Conyers
substitute does not do that. We do not needlessly inject the abortion
debate into the matter of criminal justice. This bill focuses on the
harm to the pregnant woman and provides, we hope, a deterrence of
violence against women and provides very tough penalties when that
violence results in injury to the fetus or a miscarriage.
This bill is tougher, this substitute is tougher than the underlying
bill; and I will give my colleagues just an example of how that would
work. Each of the measures, both the underlying bill and the
substitute, recites various Federal criminal laws as jurisdictional
offenses. One of the sections, one of the predicate offenses is section
248 of Title 18, which provides for a scheme to deter violence against
women and others who are entering clinics, health clinics.
Now, in my part of California, Planned Parenthood provides extensive
health care services. They provide prenatal care, pediatric care, and
the like. If a pregnant woman is trying to enter the Planned Parenthood
clinic through the protesters in San Jose to get her prenatal care and
is assaulted by one of the protesters and miscarries, under the H.R.
503, there would need to be proven an intent to cause that miscarriage
or in the language of the bill kill the unborn child.
Under the Lofgren substitute, no such requirement is in place. If a
miscarriage occurred, the full sentence of up to a life sentence could
be imposed. In the case of the underlying bill, the maximum sentence
that could be imposed without proving intent, which is very difficult
to do, would be 1 year or, if bodily injury was not afflicted on the
woman, it would be 10 years.
So we have a difference really with the substitute providing up to a
life sentence and the underlying bill merely 1 or 10 years. I think
that those of us who want to give a strong message to those who would
assault women would prefer the life sentence.
This is stronger as well because it is constitutional unlike the
underlying bill. I recently reread Roe v. Wade, something that I think
all of us should do from time to time. Some of us had not read it since
law school. It was good to be reminded in the language of the Justices,
their consideration, first of the personhood of the fetus, but also the
discussion of what can be regulated and when.
Clearly, and we all know this as people, the horrible situation of
the woman who was assaulted, and she was 4 days away from delivery, and
I do not want to get into the personhood argument, but she could have
induced labor. She lost her child in my view, and that was a tragedy.
Our bill would protect that. But it also protects something else. If
one is 6 weeks pregnant, the substitute that we are offering provides
the same level of protection as the poor woman who was assaulted in

[[Page 6331]]

the picture that has been used several times today.

{time} 1300

Why is that? Those of us who have experienced a miscarriage
understand this very essential truth. If a woman miscarries, whether it
be from assault or from some other reason, that woman has lost one of
life's great, great opportunities. A miscarriage is something that a
woman never forgets, and it is a major life blow. Whether the woman is
6 weeks pregnant or 6 months pregnant, that loss is acutely felt by
women who want to have a child, and it deserves the full penalty that
the law can provide and up to a life sentence.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can come together on this substitute.
Last Congress there were a number of Members of this House who are
anti-choice who voted for the substitute, understanding that the
penalties are indeed more severe and it would provide complete
protection. I urge those individuals to do so again.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Does the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) claim the time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. CHABOT. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the former chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary and the current chairman of the Committee on International
Relations.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, John Quincy Adams, in a famous summation to
the Supreme Court in 1841, spoke on behalf of 35 Africans he
represented in the historic Amistad case involving that slave ship.
Adams told the Supreme Court they would not have a more important case
before them because this concerns the very nature of man.
Mr. Speaker, today we confront the same issue only today it is the
unborn whose humanity is being threatened, not the slaves. The question
we are faced with is whether a preborn child has value; value
sufficient to warrant protection in the law from a criminal assault, or
whether the tiny, unborn infant is beneath protection, without value,
without standing, without significance. Whether this little unborn is
merely a randomly multiplying bunch of cells, a sort of tumor, like
Shakespeare's sound and fury, signifying nothing.
A famous novelist, Saul Bellow, once wrote, ``A great deal of energy
can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is great.'' To
rationalize the divesting of the little battered body of the unborn
child, divest it of its humanity, its membership in the human family,
is the ultimate indignity. My colleagues will not even call him a
victim.
In the endless debate on abortion, the term ``extremist'' is hurled
across the aisle. I cannot imagine a more extreme posture than to deny
the humanity of the unborn. If you hold the view that the unborn child
is without value, you have to explain why this House on July 25, 2000
voted 417 to zero to forbid the execution of a woman while she carries
a child in utero. That pregnancy must have meant something. So the fact
of a pregnancy makes a difference.
An obstetrician treats two patients when he treats a pregnant woman.
Specialists perform fetal surgery of incredible complexity, heart
surgery, spina bifida, exchange transfusions, all sorts of surgery to
save that baby. How many times has a young couple exhibited proudly
pictures of the sonogram? Tell these prospective parents their unborn
child is without value.
Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren substitute dehumanizes the child in the
womb. It echoes a line from a New York Times editorial yesterday, which
cannot bring itself to describe the assault that kills a mother's child
in the womb as anything more than ``compromising a pregnancy.'' Have
you ever heard a colder phrase describing the death from violence in
the womb than ``compromising a pregnancy.'' That is like saying a drug
dealer is an unlicensed pharmacist or a bank robber is a holder not in
due course.
Listen to the words of a famous obstetrician, Dr. Joseph DeLee, who
wrote in the Yearbook of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1940 as the world
was about to be plunged into a bloody war, ``At the present time when
rivers of blood and tears of innocent men, women and children are
flowing in most parts of the world, it seems almost silly to be
contending over the right to live of an unknowable atom of human flesh
in the uterus of a woman. No, it is not silly. On the contrary, it is
of transcendent importance that there be in this chaotic world one high
spot, however small, which is safe against the deluge of immorality and
savagery that is sweeping over us. That we, the medical profession,
hold to the principle of the sacredness of human life and of the rights
of the individual, even though unborn, is proof that humanity is not
yet lost.''
The need for illusion is too great to justify weeding out of the
human race the unborn. A pregnancy has not been compromised. A baby has
been killed. In the words of Willy Loman's wife, Linda, in ``Death of a
Salesman,'' ``Attention must be paid.'' Support Graham, defeat Lofgren.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note for the House Chamber,
I am here with my daughter-for-the-day, Laura Wasserman, who is sitting
next to me, who is taking the place today for my four wanted children.
Mr. Speaker, I have borne children. I have also suffered a
miscarriage; and I would like to say to the gentleman (Mr. Hyde) who
just spoke before me who talked in terms of the Lofgren amendment
dehumanizing the child, that the underlying bill dehumanizes the woman
bearing the child, and I think that point needs to be noticed. We are
talking about unborn children, and I take that very seriously. We are
also talking about pregnant women who are bearing those fetuses that
are about to become children. Mr. Speaker, I think attention must be
paid to the mothers.
I rise in support of the amendment offered today by my friend and
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), which creates
a separate Federal criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman and
specifically punishes violence against her resulting in injury to or
the termination of a pregnancy.
If we are trying to protect pregnant women, let us protect them. Let
us not insult the intelligence of women in this country by attacking
their rights under the guise of protecting their unborn fetuses.
Mr. Speaker, I have read Roe v. Wade. It was a decision of the
Supreme Court after I was a practicing lawyer. I knew Harry Blackmun,
the late Justice Blackmun, who drafted Roe v. Wade and whose experience
in this area came from his being general counsel to the Mayo Clinic. He
carefully defined a framework in that decision that includes a
definition of viability of the fetus. The underlying bill here would
interfere with that definition and undercut Roe v. Wade.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this amendment and rise in opposition
to the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 503, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Once again, opponents of choice are
making an attempt to interfere with a woman's right to choose.
Supporters of H.R. 503 claim it increases punishments for individuals
who commit violence against pregnant women. They claim it will help
protect these women--however, the protection of the pregnant woman is
never mentioned in the text of this bill.
Instead, the bill defines an unborn fetus as a person against whom a
crime can be committed. It creates ``fetal rights.'' Congress should
not be involved in defining when life begins nor should it create
``rights'' for which we do not know the full repercussions.
I strongly support the alternative offered by my friend and colleague
Zoe Lofgren, which creates a separate federal criminal offense for harm
to a pregnant woman and specifically punishes violence against her
resulting in injury or the termination of a pregnancy. If we are trying
to protect pregnant women, then

[[Page 6332]]

let's protect them. Let's not insult the intelligence of women in this
country by attacking their rights under the guise of protecting their
unborn fetuses.
Roe v. Wade establishes a careful framework which includes a
definition of viability of the fetus. H.R. 503 is a backdoor attempt to
weaken Roe v. Wade and interfere with a woman's right to make her own
reproductive choices.
Mr. Speaker, let's respect the women of this country. Let's not
undermine a woman's Constitutional right to choose. Vote no on H.R.
503!

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that
making reference to persons on the floor who are not Members of the
House is not appropriate.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren substitute amendment would provide an
enhanced sentence for a violent crime that causes an interruption to
the normal course of the pregnancy resulting in prenatal injury,
including termination of the pregnancy. This substitute clearly must be
opposed.
First, the substitute ignores the injuries inflicted by violent
criminals upon the unborn. It appears to operate as a sentencing
enhancement. A sentencing enhancement is when you get attacked and the
attacker throws you down and hurts your arm, your leg and your back,
too. The attacker's penalties gets enhanced by the additional penalties
done to the victim. But I challenge anyone to sit back and reflect on
the loss they would feel if they were a pregnant woman who lost her
unborn child or a relative of that woman. Would the loss felt be the
same as the loss of an appendix or pancreas? I think not. Would you
feel the same regret you felt for a bone if a bone were broken or a
slipped disk in one's back? Surely not.
The loss that a person would feel would be a distinct and a unique
loss, and the criminal law should appropriately reflect that loss in a
separate offense protecting the unborn children. It is our goal to
protect them and the mothers in this instance. The law does not simply
punish criminals. The law, and especially criminal law, embodies the
judgment of civilized society. As such it must credibly and fully
respect and reflect the magnitude of the loss felt when a woman loses
her unborn child to violence. This can only be done by creating a
separate offense to protect the separate unborn person.
Second, the substitute is hopelessly ambiguous. So ambiguous that it
puts in jeopardy the prosecution of any criminal for violence against
the unborn. The confusing verbiage in the substitute amendment is
incomprehensible; and if adopted, it will almost certainly doom any
prosecution for injuring or killing an unborn child during the
commission of a violent crime.
The substitute amendment provides an enhanced penalty for
``interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy resulting in
prenatal injury, including termination and pregnancy.'' The amendment
then authorizes greater punishment for an ``interruption'' that
terminates the pregnancy than it does for a mere interruption of a
pregnancy.
What is the difference between an interruption of a pregnancy and an
interruption that terminates the pregnancy? Does not any interruption
of a pregnancy necessarily result in a termination of the pregnancy; or
have supporters of the substitute managed to find a way to place a
developing human being in some sort of suspended animation.
Mr. Speaker, what does the phrase ``termination of pregnancy'' mean.
Does it mean only that the unborn child died, or could it mean that the
child was just born prematurely without suffering any injuries.
These ambiguities make the substitute almost impossible to make any
sense of. But maybe this is not what the substitute does. It is so
ambiguous that it admits of several readings. It is more like a bowl of
tea leaves.
Subsection 2(a) of the substitute amendment appears to operate as a
mere sentence enhancement authorizing punishment in addition to any
penalty imposed for the predicate offense. Yet the language of
subsection 2(b) describes the additional punishment provided in
subsection 2(a) as punishment for a violation of subsection (a),
suggesting that subsection 2(a) creates a separate offense for killing
or injuring an unborn child. Which is it? What is going on here? Let us
not support a substitute that is more like a Magic 8-Ball.
This ambiguity is magnified by the fact that subsection 2(a) requires
that the conduct injuring or killing an unborn child ``result in the
conviction of the person so engaging.'' So does this indicate a
conviction must be obtained before the defendant may be charged with a
violation of subsection 2(a); or does it mean that the additional
punishment must be imposed at the trial for the predicate offense, so
long as it is imposed after the jury convicts based on the predicate
offense.
Mr. Speaker, is a separate charge necessary for the enhanced penalty
to be imposed? The substitute amendment simply makes no sense except
perhaps to criminals who will understand its significance crystal
clear. They get away with the heinous crime.
Unlike the current language of the bill, the substitute stunningly
contains no exemptions for abortion-related conduct, for conduct of the
mother, or for the medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her
unborn child. This omission leaves the substitute amendment open to the
charge that it would permit the prosecution of mothers who inflict harm
upon themselves or their unborn children, or doctors who kill or injure
unborn children during the provision of medical treatment. This
substitute as written is a magnet for a constitutional challenge.

{time} 1315

The substitute amendment also appears to mischaracterize the nature
of the injury that is inflicted when an unborn child is killed or
injured during the commission of a violent crime. Under the current
language of the bill, a separate offense is committed whenever an
individual causes a death or a bodily injury to a child who is in utero
at the time the conduct takes place.
The substitute amendment seems to transform the death of the unborn
child into the abstraction ``terminating a pregnancy.'' ``Bodily
injury'' inflicted upon the unborn child appears to become ``prenatal
injury.'' Both injuries are described as resulting from an
``interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy.''
These abstractions ignore the fact that the death of an unborn child
occurs whenever a pregnancy is violently ``terminated'' by a criminal.
They also fail to recognize that a ``prenatal injury'' is an injury
inflicted upon a real human being in the womb of his or her mother.
For example, if an assault is committed, for example, on a Federal
employee, and her unborn child subsequently suffers from a disability
because of the assault, that injury cannot accurately be described as
an abstract injury to a ``pregnancy.'' It is an injury to a human
being. Our bill recognizes that. The substitute does not. The
substitute is thus fatally flawed and must be rejected.
The substitute amendment is so poorly drafted and ambiguous that
obtaining a conviction of a violent criminal under it will be almost
impossible. The substitute amendment is also subject to constitutional
attack because it contains no exemption for abortion-related conduct,
for conduct of the woman, or for medical treatment. And finally the
substitute amendment ignores the injuries inflicted by violent
criminals upon unborn children, transforming those injuries into mere
abstractions.
For these reasons, the substitute amendment should be rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just note that the gentleman's analysis, I thought, was both
confused and confusing. The bill is well-drafted. The reason why there
is no carve-out for abortion is that so far abortion is not a crime in
America. The bill is based on criminal conduct in the code.

[[Page 6333]]

Finally, I would just note that the gentleman may not know what a
miscarriage is, but those of us who have had one do understand it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my wholehearted support
for the Lofgren amendment and strong opposition to the underlying bill
without that amendment. We must be clear on one thing. H.R. 503, the
underlying bill, is a sneak attack on Roe v. Wade, and there is no
question whether it would threaten a woman's right to reproductive
choice. At the same time, this bill does nothing to address the real
need for Federal measures to prevent and prosecute violent crimes
against women.
Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the loss of a pregnancy through
violence to a woman is a tragedy for the woman and for her family. That
is why I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lofgren amendment. The
Lofgren amendment recognizes that a crime causing the end of a
pregnancy is a crime against the woman. If my colleagues truly care
about women and children, vote for the Lofgren amendment and vote no on
H.R. 503 if the amendment is not included.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of holding criminals accountable
for their actions that affect the unborn. The Unborn Victims of
Violence Act represents a much-needed clarification of current Federal
code to protect preborn children from violent crime.
Last year, the House voted 415-0 in favor of the Innocent Child
Protection Act. That act prevents any U.S. authority from carrying out
a death sentence on a pregnant woman. There is no difference between
the rationale of that bill and this one. If you believe in protecting
an innocent, preborn child when the criminal mother is to be executed,
you should agree that we must protect an innocent, preborn child when
its innocent mother is attacked.
This bill supports women who want to carry a child to term, and it
gives law enforcement the right to penalize someone who criminally
interferes with her ability to do so. This bill is pro-choice, if you
will. The choice in this case has already been made by the mother to
keep the child, and when a criminal act takes away that woman's choice,
there should be legal remedies to mete out punishment for that crime.
I urge my colleagues to protect the rights of the unborn and all
mothers who have chosen to carry a child to term. Support H.R. 503 and
reject the substitute.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
the Lofgren amendment.
I would like to point out to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Largent) that actually I want to hold criminals accountable for crimes
against pregnant women. Twenty-four States have higher penalties for
assault of a pregnant woman and, in Connecticut, for assault of an
elderly person. That is right and justified. If that is what this bill,
the underlying bill, did, I would strongly support it. It is what the
amendment does and that is why I support the amendment.
The amendment imposes much higher penalties, even up to the death
sentence, on people who assault a woman who is pregnant. But it does
something else.
I do find it almost unbelievable that my conservative colleagues
would advocate such a radical piece of legislation. This legislation is
truly extraordinary, because it changes the fundamental concept of law
that has governed America since its founding. What is radical about
this bill is not that it wants to punish people who assault pregnant
women; I want to do that, too. What is radical about this bill is that
for the first time under our laws, it will define fetal personhood. The
consequences are going to be extraordinary.
What happens if a woman has a miscarriage because she worked too
hard, she stayed up late, she drove herself, she did not take care of
herself, and she has a miscarriage? Is she going to be a murderer? That
may not be in this bill, but let me tell you, it is the next one down
the road. What if, for good reason, for health reasons, she has to have
an abortion? What if the doctor says, you will not survive if you do
not have an abortion? Is the doctor then a murderer?
That is the underlying goal of this bill. Do not hide it from
yourself. If you vote for it, know that you are voting for a radical
change in the American legal statutes.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, when a woman and a child are assaulted or,
even more seriously than that, the child is killed, there are two
victims. The problem currently with our law is that we only recognize
one of those victims. That is the purpose of H.R. 503 and that is the
problem with the substitute. It fails to recognize one of the victims.
The gentlewoman before me made reference to the foundational
principles of this country. What is it that is unique, that defines
America? Why is America a different nation than other nations? Why is
it that people have chosen to immigrate here? I would suggest that a
great deal of our unique character is found in a sentence that says,
``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by
their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'' That is the purpose of
our law, to create equal protection, because each life is important to
us. That is a foundational American principle, and it is not currently
in our law.
That is the purpose of H.R. 503. This substitute does not protect one
of the victims of potential crimes, and that is the problem with the
substitute.
I would urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute and to
support the very foundational principle that America is based on, that
all people deserve the protection of law.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership
on this and so many other issues important to women.
Mr. Speaker, today in this Chamber we rise again to protect a woman's
right to choose. Yes, once again. This full-scale assault on a woman's
right to choose is dangerous and it is wrong. As a woman, I am deeply
offended and angry.
First, President Bush reinstitutes the global gag rule as one of his
very first actions in office. And now we have the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act before us today. Where is the compassion for women?
I deplore acts of violence against women and stand as a strong
advocate against domestic violence and domestic abuse. However, while
this legislation claims to protect pregnant women, the reality is that
it will harm women. H.R. 503 represents a direct attack on the Supreme
Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, and therefore a woman's constitutional
right to reproductive freedom. The National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence has indicated that H.R. 503 would actually worsen the plight
of women in domestic violence situations.
This substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is equally tough
on crimes against women without weakening our reproductive freedom. The
substitute recognizes the pregnant woman as the primary victim of a
crime. However, it also allows for further punishment if that woman's
pregnancy is ended as a result of the attack.
If Congress wants to ensure safe pregnancies for both mothers and
babies, we should be passing legislation to increase access to prenatal
care and to support and strengthen WIC nutrition programs and food
stamp programs. But, instead, we are once again forced

[[Page 6334]]

to speak out to defend women's fundamental rights.
I urge my colleagues to recognize H.R. 503 for what it is, a
misguided initiative, dangerous and harmful to women. I urge a no vote
on H.R. 503 and support of this substitute.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, we have once again heard this described as an assault on
a woman's right to choose. I want to reiterate that the woman has made
her choice to keep that baby. It is the criminal that took away that
choice. We just want to punish that criminal more severely than he is
under existing law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham), a proponent of this bill.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the best way to describe how the substitute and the bill
actually works in the real world is to tell a story that actually
happened. You talk about an assault on Roe v. Wade; I am talking about
a assault on Shawana Pace, an African American woman who lived in
Arkansas. On August 26, 1999, she was kidnapped by three men, she was
pregnant, she was near her due date, she had already named the baby
Heaven once she got the ultrasound test back. She had a baby boy, and
she had already named her unborn child Heaven.
Her boyfriend, the father, former boyfriend, paid three people $400
to kidnap her and terminate her pregnancy because he did not want to
pay child support. They did that. They kidnapped her, they took her
away. She is lying on the floor and they are beating her within an inch
of her life, and one of them says, ``Your baby is dying tonight.''
Strangely enough, she was pleading for her baby's life, not hers.
The good news in this story, if there is any, is that the three
people plus the boyfriend, two of them are on death row in Arkansas
because Arkansas, several weeks before, had passed a law recognizing
the unborn child as a separate victim; and under that statute, the
prosecutor was able to bring a murder charge, not enhance the
punishment on the assault charge.
Now, I did not have the death penalty in this bill because I did not
want to get into that debate, but if this had happened in Federal
jurisdiction, there would have been no enhancing of the assault charge,
there would have been a murder charge because that is what they were
hired to do, that is what they did, and I think most Americans would
want them to be prosecuted for murder, not play some game of enhancing
punishment that ignores what really happened.

{time} 1330

They can do that without affecting Roe v. Wade. That is why I had so
many pro-choice votes last time. One can be pro-choice and still
support this bill. It happened before, and it is going to happen again
today. Those people that were hired to do a terrible thing get the full
force of the law because there is a statute on the books in Arkansas
that is just like the one that I am trying to pass here in Congress.
Rae Carruth, NFL football player, hired a person to kill his pregnant
girlfriend. She refused to have an abortion. He did not want to pay for
the child. The hit man charged $5,000 for the mother and $5,000 for the
baby, charged him twice.
Let us punish him twice. That is what this bill does.
The substitute is just an irrational way to deal with the unborn. We
can have an honest, healthy debate about abortion rights. In my bill, I
protect the right to have an abortion because it is the law of the
land; but pro-choice and pro-life people should come together when the
woman chooses to have the baby and put the full force and effect of the
law against a criminal who is paid or otherwise takes that life away.
They are not inconsistent.
It would be a better country if we passed this bill, and prosecutors
will have more tools because if one takes the murder or assault charge
off because they do not recognize the baby, the ability to fully
prosecute that case is undermined, and I think most prosecutors would
agree.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is my friend. He says
this is an assault on abortion. It is not. In his State, they passed
this same law using the same words in 1998.
People still have the Roe v. Wade rights in Pennsylvania, but people
assaulting pregnant women face stiffer penalties and more punishment
because of what Pennsylvania did.
Let us do this at the Federal level. Let us come together and make
sure that people in the future who take money or otherwise assault a
pregnant woman and destroy the unborn child are prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law, no excuses, no apologies.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just would like to note that the Arkansas statute is
inconsistent with the Supreme Court decision, Meadows v. State, in
Arkansas, and I do hope that the monster who committed that heinous
crime does not walk because the statute is unconstitutional.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Schiff), a former prosecutor and a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to attempt to speak on the
unique tragedy and trauma suffered with the loss of a child. I think
other Members have already spoken to that, and could speak to it with a
passion of familiarity that neither I nor any other male Member of this
Chamber could. Instead, I would like to speak as a former prosecutor,
someone who for 6 years went into court and prosecuted a variety of
Federal crimes, and has experience not only with the job of prosecuting
those cases but also handling the inevitable motions, the appellate
process, the habeas corpus petitions and all of the delays attendant to
litigating complex issues.
This is a criminal justice bill. This is a public safety measure. Its
ostensible purpose is to use the vehicle of the criminal justice system
to deter attacks on pregnant women, to incapacitate those who would
conduct them by lengthening the sentences, to bring about retribution
on those who would commit such a heinous act. All of the purposes of
the criminal justice system are served by both bill and substitute; but
if one has to choose as a prosecutor going into court under one law or
going into court on another, they would certainly choose to go into
court under a law that is less subject to constitutional challenge and
attack.
The bill, as it is drafted, using definitions like a member of the
species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the
womb, invites, demands in fact, constitutional litigation. As a
prosecutor, one can be assured in both motion and appeal to the highest
courts of the land they will be required to litigate when life begins
under the bill.
That is not required under the substitute. If it is our goal to give
prosecutors that extra tool, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham) mentioned, if it is our goal to allow prosecutors to take more
vigorous action to have greater penalties at their beck and call to
deter, to incapacitate, to bring about retribution for these crimes,
let us choose a substitute which makes that possible without this
unprecedented constitutional litigation.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if one would imagine
with me an infant in a nursery in a hospital on life support. There is
a terrorist bomb or an arsonist fire, and that infant and several
others are killed. Can one imagine an argument that says that those
babies that were not on life support were murdered but the baby on life
support was not murdered?
Mr. Speaker, the preborn baby, in its mother's womb, is simply on
life support through the umbilical cord. When a pregnant woman is
killed, clearly two lives are snuffed out. There are two murders. When
a woman is assaulted, sometimes with the intention of killing that
preborn child who is

[[Page 6335]]

simply on life support in her womb, indistinguishable from a baby just
born, clearly that also is murder.
This legislation is long past due. Defeat the amendment. Support the
base bill.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney), a leader in the fight for rights for women.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for yielding and congratulate
her for her extraordinary leadership on this issue and so many other
issues before the committee protecting women.
Very simply, if one wants to punish people who attack pregnant women
and injure or destroy their fetuses, then vote for the Lofgren
substitute, because that is what it does. Its penalties are stricter.
If, however, the goal is to declare fetuses to be separate people under
the criminal code and to thereby further the right-to-life movement,
then the underlying bill is what should be voted for. That is what the
difference is about. The Bush administration is clearly in the camp of
the right-to-life movement.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record the statement of
administration policy that clearly supports the underlying bill that
erodes a woman's right to choose, knocks out one of the fundamental
pillars under Roe v. Wade.

Statement of Administration Policy

(This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned
agencies.)

H.R. 503--Unborn victims of violence act of 2001 (Rep. Graham (R) SC
and 95 cosponsors)

Mr. Speaker, vote for the Lofgren amendment. Vote for a woman's right
to choose and a reasonable approach to protect her and against the
underlying bill.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, why would Planned Parenthood
and a virtual who's who of abortion activists in America so vehemently
oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and promote a gutting
substitute in its stead? Why is it that on the floor of the House on a
very pleasant Thursday afternoon that so many intelligent and talented
and gifted lawmakers, to whom so much has been given, are going to such
great lengths to deny basic protections in law for an unborn child who
has been shot, beaten, stabbed or otherwise mauled by an attacker?
Could it be that America's abortion culture, a culture of death, has
so numbed our hearts and dulled our minds that we have become incapable
or unwilling of recognizing the obvious? Could it be denial?
Amazingly, as a result of breathtaking breakthroughs in medicine,
unborn children are today often treated as patients in need of curative
procedures and healing, just like any other patient.
Is the concept of unborn child as victim really so hard to grasp,
even when we are not talking about abortion, but assault by a mugger?
Is it lacking in logic or courage or common sense or compassion? Have
the soothing voices of denial by credentialed people, especially in
medicine and the media, ripped off our capacity to think? Has the
horrific specter of 40 million poisoned or dismembered babies, legally
enabled by Roe v. Wade, robbed us of our capability to see and to
understand and to empathize? Have unborn children now become mere
objects, a dehumanizing and deplorable status that feminists once
rightly rebelled against?
Does a mugger, Mr. Speaker, have an unfettered access to maim or kill
a baby without triggering a response for a separate penalty for that
crime?
For years, Mr. Speaker, Congress has updated and strengthened laws
and stiffened penalties for those who commit violence against women,
and that is as it should be. Crafting such protections and penalties
for perpetrators are among our highest responsibilities and duties as
lawmakers.
Last year, I am happy to say, I was the prime sponsor of bipartisan
legislation, Public Law 106-386, the Victims of Trafficking in Violence
Protection Act of 2000, a $3.4 billion comprehensive package of
sweeping new laws designed to protect women from violence at home and
overseas.
Women who are victims of violence need every legal protection,
appropriate shelter and assistance a caring society has to muster; but
I would respectfully submit to my friends, so do children. A victim is
a victim no matter how small. Why is it so difficult to recognize an
unborn child as a victim who is all too capable of suffering trauma,
disfigurement, disability or death?
Unborn children feel pain. Unborn children bleed and bruise easily.
Unborn children are as vulnerable as their mothers to an assailant
wielding a knife, a gun or a steel pipe. The amniotic sac is like a
protective bubble, but it is not made of Kevlar. It pierces easily.
Earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, I met with Tracy Marciniak. Three
years ago, her husband beat her and killed her almost full-term baby.
The child, Zachariah, died from the bleeding; and this is what Tracy
has said to all of us: ``Congress should approve the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act. Opponents of the bill have put forth a counterproposal
known as the Lofgren amendment. I have read it,'' she said, ``and it is
offensive to me because it says there is only one victim in such a
crime, the woman who is pregnant. Please hear me on this,'' she goes on
to say. ``On the night of February 8, 1992, there were two victims. I
was nearly killed but I survived. Little Zachariah died,'' she goes on.
``Any law maker who is thinking of voting for the Lofgren one-victim
amendment should first look at the picture of me holding my dead son at
the funeral. Then I would say to that representative,'' she continues,
``if you really think that nobody died that night, then vote for the
one-victim but please remember Zachariah's name and face when you
decide.''
Vote for the underlying bill and against the substitute.
Mr. Speaker, why would Planned Parenthood and a virtual who's who of
abortion activities in America so vehemently oppose the Unborn Victims
of Violence Act and promote a gutting substitute in its stead?
Why is it, that on the floor of the House of Representatives on a
pleasant Thursday afternoon in April, so many intelligent, talented and
gifted lawmakers to whom so much has been given, are going to such
great lengths to deny basic protections in law for an unborn child who
has been shot, beaten, stabbed, or otherwise mauled by an attacker?
Could it be that America's abortion culture--a culture of death--has
so numbed our hearts and dulled our minds that we have become
incapable--or unwilling--of recognizing the obvious? Could it be
``Denial'' with a Capital D?
Amazingly, as a result of breathtaking breakthroughs in medicine,
unborn children are today often treated as patients in need of curative
procedures and healing just like any other patient. Is the concept of
unborn child as victim really so hard to grasp--even when we are not
talking about abortion, but assault by a mugger?
Have the soothing voices of denial by credentialed people--especially
in medicine and the media--ripped off our capacity to think? Has the
horrific specter of 40 million poisoned or dismembered babies legally
enabled by Row v. Wade robbed us of our capability to see and
understand and empathize?
Is it a lacking in logic, or courage or common sense or compassion?
Have unborn children become mere objects--a dehumanizing and
deplorable status that feminists once rightly rebelled against?
Does a mugger--like an abortionist--have unfettered access to maim or
kill a baby without triggering a separate penalty for the crime?
For years, Mr. Speaker, Congress has updated and strengthened laws
and stiffened penalties for those who commit violence against women.
And that is as it should be. Crafting such protections--and penalties
for

[[Page 6336]]

perpetrators--are among our highest responsibilities and duties as
lawmakers.
Last year, I was the Prime Sponsor of bipartisan PL 106-386,--
``Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000--a $3.4
billion comprehensive package of sweeping new laws designed to protect
women from violence at home and overseas.
Women who are victims of violence need every legal protection,
appropriate shelter and assistance a caring society has to muster.
But, I would respectfully submit--so do children. A victim is a
victim, it seems to me, no matter how small.
Why then is it so difficult to recognize an unborn child as a victim
who is all too capable of suffering serve trauma, disfigurement,
disability or death? Unborn children feel pain; unborn children bleed
and bruise easily; unborn children are as vulnerable as their mothers
to an assailant wielding a knife, or gun, or steel pipe.
The amniotic sac is like a protective bubble, but it isn't made of
Kevlar. It pierces easily.
Earlier this week, I met with Tracy Marciniak. A few years ago her
husband beat her and her almost full term baby. The child--Zachariah--
died from the beating. Her attacker was charged and convicted of an
assault on Tracy. He did minimal time. No charges, however, were
brought against the abuser for the crime--murder--he committed on
Zachariah. Why? Because Zachariah had no legal value or standing--and
could be killed with impunity.
Tracy has written:

Congress should approve the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Opponents of the bill have put forth a counter proposal,
known as the Lofgren Amendment. I have read it, and it is
offensive to me, because it says that there is only one
victim in such a crime--the women who is pregnant.
Please hear me on this: On the night of February 8, 1992,
there were two victims. I was nearly killed--but I survived.
Little Zachariah died.
Any lawmaker who is thinking of voting for the Lofgren
``one-victim'' amendment should first look at the picture of
me holding my dead son at his funeral.
Then I would say to that representative, ``If you really
think that nobody died that night, then vote for the ``one-
victim'' amendment. But please remember Zachariah's name and
face when you decide.

Anybody who thinks there is no dead baby in this picture should vote
for the ``one-victim'' amendment. But anyone who sees a grieving mother
holding her dead son should vote for the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act.
Mr. Speaker, under H.R. 503, if an unborn child is injured or killed
during the commission of an already-defined federal crime of violence,
then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of
the second victim--the unborn baby.
Of significance, 24 states have enacted laws recognizing unborn
children as victims of violent crime. In upholding the Minnesota
statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court said ``Roe v. Wade does not
protect, much less confer on an assailant, a third party unilateral
right to destroy the fetus.''
The Lofgren amendment, stripped of its surface appeal trappings and
enhanced penalty has one pro-abortion strategic objective--Denial.
Denial that an unborn child has inherent dignity. Denial that an unborn
child has worth. Denial that an unborn child has innate value. How
incredibly sad--and dangerous.
The Lofgren amendment must be rejected.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith) asked, is there unfettered access for a mother to maim her
child at any time in the pregnancy? If one reads Roe, clearly post-
viability, the ability to secure abortions is severely limited only to
those cases where a woman's health is severely damaged. I think that
that needs to be made clear.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) for yielding me this time, and for her great leadership on
this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the ranking member of the Committee on
the Judiciary as well for facilitating the Lofgren amendment coming to
the floor.
It is masterful, it really is, because it answers the concerns that
are posed by the proposers of the original bill to expand the penalty
for those who commit violence against pregnant women, and it does so in
a way that achieves that goal but is constitutional.
Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that acts of violence against pregnant
women are reprehensible and should be punished. We all agree that acts
of violence that harm a fetus are obviously unacceptable and repulsive
to us. We can all agree that we must prevent violence against women
whether pregnant or not.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who just spoke, whom I
hold in very high esteem, asked the question how could otherwise
intelligent, caring people come to the floor and be opposed to this
legislation that is being opposed by our colleagues on the other side?
He said, could it be, he had a series of could-it-be's, that we could
ignore violence against a pregnant woman?

{time} 1345

But we are not ignoring it. The Lofgren amendment addresses it very
directly without doing violence to the issue.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute proposed by my
colleague. The substitute would create a separate Federal criminal
offense for harm to pregnant women, but would not confer new legal
status on the fetus.
So I respond to my colleague, could it be that, as a woman, I know a
little bit more about this subject than maybe he does? Could it be that
as a mother of five, a grandmother of four, and hopefully more
grandchildren to come, that I understand how reprehensible violence
against a pregnant woman is?
But if that is the issue, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) has responded to it. The bill on the floor is
unconstitutional. It is a move to undo, which it cannot do, unless it
is a constitutional amendment, but it is an attempt to undo Roe v.
Wade.
In 1973, we all know the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade stated that the
unborn have never been recognized in the laws as persons in the whole
sense. The Court specifically rejected the theory that grants personage
to the fetus because it may override the rights of pregnant women that
are at stake.
I urge my colleagues to accept the solution that is here, that
addresses the problem in a constitutional way, and does not do violence
to a woman's rights.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, (Ms. Hart), a member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying bill and in
opposition to the Lofgren amendment. It does not, as is claimed by its
supporters, accomplish the same goal that those who sponsored the
original bill, the underlying bill, have. In fact, it does complicate
and somewhat confuse the issue.
Claims have been made that are quite disingenuous regarding the
underlying bill and also regarding the effectiveness of the proposed
substitute. Firstly, the underlying bill is very clear about the
violent act that must be committed against the pregnant woman. Although
those supporters of the substitute claim that the pregnant woman is not
recognized, she clearly is. Federal law recognizes violence against
everyone as a crime, and enumerates a number of different crimes which
would be the basis for the actual use of this proposal, H.R. 503.
The amendment does not refer to these particular laws. It in fact
creates a separate offense which is unclear as to its effectiveness by
prosecutors. The other legislation that has been on the books has been
prosecuted many times. Those who were not even the intended victim of a
crime would still be, those women, would still be victims, as a result
of transferred intent. It is unclear in the substitute that that
principle would be able to be used.
Mr. Speaker, I would implore my colleagues to quit hiding from the
real issue. The real issue here is actual violence against women and
children. The real issue is a way for us to actually prosecute a more
severe crime when the woman is lucky enough to survive a dreadful
assault, but the child is not.
Our goal here is to recognize reality. What our responsibility is
here as Representatives is to recognize reality and to protect the
citizens of the United States, the women who are victims and the
children who are victims.

[[Page 6337]]

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia, I would like to note that the criminal offenses in H.R. 503
are exactly the same as those in the substitute, except that we do
require prosecution and then a separate prosecution for the
miscarriage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am outraged at the use of old-fashioned abortion
politics to get at a serious problem. Let me indicate just how serious
the problem is. I participated recently in a press conference called by
the American College of Nurses and Midwives here in the District of
Columbia, now published in an AMA Journal.
In the District of Columbia, autopsies had been performed on pregnant
women. What was discovered was that there were 13 homicides of pregnant
women that had not been reported along with maternal deaths. These 13
unreported deaths accounted for 38 percent of pregnancy-associated
deaths.
Now, these women had several things in common. They tended to be very
young, 15 to 19; they were unmarried; they were murdered early in their
pregnancy. There was no category in the FBI or accepted among the
States to report these deaths. I have written to the FBI to ask that a
category be created, and I have written to the GAO asking that a study
be done of such deaths throughout the country, because clearly what we
found here is nationwide.
What is our answer this afternoon? Our answer is a clearly
unconstitutional bill that defines a fetus as a person, in direct in-
your-face violation of Roe v. Wade. There is a real problem out there.
That problem is here in the Nation's capital. It is in your districts
as well.
The substitute, the Lofgren substitute, gives us an opportunity to do
something about a horrible crime, rather than play the same old
abortion politics we have been playing ever since Roe v. Wade. In the
name of nameless murdered pregnant women, unnoted even in the crime
records, let us seize the opportunity to pass a constitutional bill
that will help eliminate a crime of immense and unspeakable
seriousness.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all
Members and persons in the Chamber that it is the Speaker's policy that
all audible devices be disabled before entering the House Chamber.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say that I respect the right of
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) to take the position she
does. But let me address it as a father myself of two beautiful
daughters and an adopted son.
If my wife was attacked and she was pregnant, or my daughters, and
they both survived, then I would support the enhancement clause that
the gentlewoman is trying to put in here. If either my wife or the
unborn child was killed, then I would want justice, not enhancement. As
a father, to know that a child that I was going to have that would not
be born in this life because of some criminal act, I feel that that is
wrong.
In Bosnia there was a Muslim that offered a private a child and says,
``Help me get my child to the hospital.'' On the way, the Muslim man
said that, ``Help me, private.'' The point is that they are all our
children.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that the Lofgren-Conyers amendment
is not a sentencing enhancement measure; it is a second offense that is
prosecuted and hopefully convicted in the case of heinous crime.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Hoeffel).
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time and for her leadership, and the ranking member for his leadership
as well.
This should be a debate, Mr. Speaker, about protecting women against
violence, specifically about protecting pregnant women against
violence, and the Lofgren amendment, the Lofgren substitute, does just
that. It makes a new and very specific crime against violence to a
pregnant woman that injures the fetus or terminates the pregnancy. That
is the appropriate way to give such protection to pregnant women.
The underlying bill politicizes this issue. I do not think it is
intended to politicize the issue, but it does, because it would give to
the fetus a legal status that the courts nor Congress have ever given.
It would give to the fetus the same legal status and a separate legal
status from the woman, and that is the heart of the abortion debate. By
writing their bill in such a fashion, they open up the whole floodgate
to the very polarizing and politicized abortion debate that has not
moved forward nor helped us deal with the issue at hand.
We should focus on potential injury to the woman, to violence to the
pregnant woman, and pass the Lofgren substitute that is carefully
written, that is constitutional, that is effective. It avoids the
polarizing debate that prohibits us from solving this problem. The
Lofgren substitute gets the job done. We should vote for it to protect
women.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503. The Unborn
Victims of Violence Act is the first volley this term by the anti-
choice legislators to restrict a woman's right to choose. This bill
would add to the Federal criminal code a separate new offense to punish
individuals who injure or cause the death of a child which is in utero,
regardless of the stage of development. It sounds innocuous enough, but
in essence it is a sham.
No one would argue that an attack on a pregnant woman that results in
a miscarriage or an injury is not a tragedy. As one of the most vocal
leaders in Congress on behalf of women and families, I have spoken on
this House floor numerous times to end violence against women and
domestic violence of all sorts.
But that is not what we are talking about here today. H.R. 503
eliminates the mother from the picture. She is of no concern. Instead,
it affords an embryo the legal status that should be hers as a human
being. Precisely the goal that the authors of H.R. 503 and the National
Right to Life Committee seek to achieve is reaching this status.
The supporters candidly admit that their purpose is to recognize the
existence of a separate legal person, separate from its mother, before
it is born. And supporters rejected a number of alternative tougher
ways to address violence against the pregnant woman, each time citing
the reason being that the alternative did not recognize embryonic
personage.
Do not be fooled. This is an anti-choice bill disguised as a crime
bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Lofgren substitute
which will provide the same penalties but does not separate the fetus
from its mother.
Last Friday, the press reported that President Bush does not intend
to launch a frontal attack on Roe v. Wade or let his Presidency become
mired in this controversy. If that is true, then we hope that we will
not see more of these bills. In the meantime, please vote for the
Lofgren substitute.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that both pro-choice and anti-choice Members of
this body will vote for the Lofgren-Conyers substitute. It provides
stronger penalties and greater protections in the case of assault on a
pregnant woman.
I note, and this is especially important to me and others who have
spoken today from personal experience, that the protection will be to
those who are in their 6th week of pregnancy, just as in their eighth
month of pregnancy, and that is enormously important to us all.

[[Page 6338]]

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 3\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank my colleague, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), for the splendid substitute
that she has let me help her work on, that we hope will bring us all
back together.
Just a couple of points: Please let everyone that is voting on this
measure know that the substitute is not a penalty enhancement. Lofgren-
Conyers is not a penalty enhancement. It provides a new and separate
offense for harm to a pregnant woman that can cause injury or
termination of her pregnancy.

{time} 1400

It contains two separate offenses. We got that out of the way.
Okay, next. The substitute is tougher on criminals than is H.R. 503.
Under the substitute, if a pregnancy is terminated, even
unintentionally, the assailant can be sentenced to life in prison. By
comparison, H.R. 503, the criminal must intentionally terminate
pregnancy in order to get a life sentence. There is a big, big
difference there.
Now, to the reality of the matter. Because the major bill, H.R. 503,
undermines Roe v. Wade, the Senate is not going to take it up. The
Senate is not going to take up H.R. 503. We must come to that reality.
They did not take it up in the last Congress; they will not take it up
in this Congress in its present form. So if my friends on the other
side of the aisle really want to protect unborn children, they will
join us in supporting the substitute. So we are begging that our
colleagues put policy above the normal abortion politics.
Now, there is still the heart of the matter here that under the 14th
amendment, as provided in Roe, ``person'' as used in the 14th amendment
does not include the unborn. We cannot change that. We are not here to
change it today. In the 28 years since Roe, the Supreme Court has never
afforded legal personhood to a fetus. So in the name of all of the
women and the men in this country that support a woman's right to
choose, please join with me in supporting the Lofgren-Conyers
substitute. We think it would be a beautiful day forward, and we will
give this bill the life that it needs to go to the other body.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of the substitute and the rejection
of the base bill, H.R. 503.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Once again, we
keep hearing the term, ``a woman's right to choose''; and I just want
to say again that the woman chose to have the baby, it is the criminal
that took away her right by killing her baby. And we are just trying to
make it tougher on those criminals and to make the penalties much
tougher and make it a separate offense if they take that child's life
or harm that life.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), a proponent of this bill.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I respectfully disagree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers), my good friend. I am asking my colleagues to vote against the
substitute and for the underlying bill.
When one writes a bill that says you cannot prosecute someone under
the bill who is performing a lawful abortion, you can never prosecute
the mother for any of her conduct, you cannot prosecute medical
providers, one would think it would not be about abortion. But some
people want to talk about that, and that is politics. That is okay.
That is the way politics works.
I want to talk about the law and common sense. If one is a prosecutor
and can pick between the substitute and my bill, I think every
prosecutor I know of would pick my bill, because you could really have
the full force and effect of the law against the criminal.
Abortion rights are not going to be enhanced by voting against my
bill and for the substitute. The only person that wins is the criminal.
In the Arkansas case, she was begging for her baby's life and the
criminal was saying, ``Your baby is dying tonight.'' Let us get
together as a Congress in saying, once the woman chooses to have the
baby and she is assaulted by a criminal who is paid to terminate her
pregnancy through beating her and her baby to death, that that is a
crime, not a fiction.
She is begging for the baby's life; the man is saying, ``I am going
to take your baby away from you tonight.'' Let us have a statute that
allows that person to be prosecuted for what they intended to do, and
that is, kill the unborn child; and in that statute, you protect Roe v.
Wade rights.
The pro-choice people who voted for my bill last year, thank you. You
can be pro-choice and not pro-abortion. People say that it is possible.
This is a case of being pro-choice, but not being pro-abortion because
there is no reason to let the criminal go or diminish their punishment
with a poorly drafted substitute, simply because one is worried about
abortion when it is not covered by the bill.
Let us focus our energies on putting criminals in jail when the
mother chooses to have the baby. America will be better, prosecutors
will have better tools, and we can go home and look pro-life and pro-
choice people in the eye and say, Congress responded to a very serious
event in a very logical way.
Please vote for the bill and against the underlying substitute. A lot
is at stake. America will be better if we could pass this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lofgren
substitute. Unlike the underlying bill before the House today, the
substitute truly addresses the serious issue of violence against women
and would impose stricter penalties for causing harm to a fetus or
forcibly terminating a pregnancy than exist today.
Surely if we can find common ground on nothing else, we should all be
able to agree that crimes against women that cause the loss of a
pregnancy are tragic and deplorable acts. These crimes ought to be
punished severely.
The fundamental problem with the underlying bill is that it ignores
where and when these crimes most often occur. H.R. 503 establishes
criminal punishments for those who harm a fetus while committing any
one of 68 specified federal crimes. The difficulty with this approach
is that few of these crimes are actually tried in federal court, and
many of the listed offenses are unlikely to result in harm to pregnant
women. For example, how many pregnant women are impacted each year as a
result of transactions involving nuclear materials? How many
pregnancies are lost each year due to assaults or kidnappings of
Members of Congress, the President's cabinet or members of the Supreme
Court? The answer is: not many.
At the same time, the bill is completely silent on the much more
prevalent problem of domestic violence. It is estimated that domestic
violence victimizes one million women a year. How can we discuss
punishment of violence against pregnant women and ignore the crimes
where this violence most often occurs?
The Lofgren substitute, on the other hand, creates legal protection
that truly helps women and punishes violence resulting in injury or
termination of a pregnancy. It provides for a maximum 20-year sentence
for injury to a women's pregnancy and up to a life sentence for violent
conduct against a woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy. It
makes it a federal crime. The substitute focuses on the harm to the
pregnant woman, providing a deterrent against violence.
I urge my colleagues to support the Lofgren substitute and oppose the
underlying bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
H.R. 503, ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001.'' I am pleased that
the ``Lofgren Substitute'' to H.R. 503, the ``Unborn Victims of
Violence Act of 2001,'' brings the real issue of who is victimized in
clear fashion. The substitute would replace the term ``unborn
children'' where it appears in the appropriate places throughout the
bill with ``violence during pregnancy.'' The result of my amendment
would essentially ensure that the legislation recognizes the pregnant
woman as the crime victim, not the ``unborn child.''
The substitute seeks to address what I believe is a veiled attempt to
create a legal status for the unborn. While I sympathize with the
mothers who have lost fetuses due to the intentional violent acts of
others, I believe, however, that H.R. 503 would obscure the rights of
women. The substitute would prevent this

[[Page 6339]]

legislation from opening the door to future legislation by which a
woman could be held civilly or criminally liable for fetal injuries
caused by behavior during her pregnancy that might have potentially
adverse effects on her fetus including failing to eat properly, using
prescription, nonprescription and illegal drugs, being exposed to
infectious disease, engaging in immoderate exercise or sexual
intercourse or using general anesthetic or drugs to include rapid labor
during delivery.
A new status of ``human-ness'' extended to the unborn fetus of a
pregnant woman creates a situation of constitutional uneasiness. While
the proponents of this bill claim that the bill would not punish women
who choose to terminate their pregnancies, this bill will give anti-
abortion advocates a powerful tool against women's choice.
The state courts that have expressed an opinion on this issue have
done so with the caveat that while Roe protects a woman's
constitutional right to choose, it does not protect a third party's
destruction of a fetus. This bill will create a slippery slope that
will result in doctors being sued for performing abortions, especially
if the procedure is controversial, such as partial birth abortion.
Although this bill exempts abortion procedures as a crime against the
fetus, the potential for increased civil liability is present. Thus,
disenchanted husbands and relatives would be able to bring suit who
exercises her right to choose.
Supporters of this bill should address the larger issue of domestic
violence. For women who are the victims of violence by a husband or
boyfriend, this bill does not address the abuse, but merely the result
of that abuse.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Lofgren Substitute. We
do not need this bill to provide special status to unborn fetuses. A
better alternative is to create a sentence enhancement for any
intentional harm done to a pregnant woman. This bill is simply a clever
way of creating a legal status to erode abortion rights.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution
119, the previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 229, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 88]

AYES--196

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--229

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Fossella
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Langevin
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Capps
Lantos
Leach
Meek (FL)
Moakley
Roybal-Allard

{time} 1427

Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, CRENSHAW, WHITFIELD, GILCHREST and PORTMAN
and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. ROSS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 252,
nays 172, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 89]

YEAS--252

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt

[[Page 6340]]

Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Fossella
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Langevin
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--172

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Rush

NOT VOTING--7

Capps
Jones (OH)
Lantos
Leach
Meek (FL)
Moakley
Roybal-Allard

{time} 1447

Mr. BONIOR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I originally voted ``yes'' on
rollcall 88. I then walked to the well thinking I was voting on 89 and
I voted ``no''. Therefore, my vote on 88 was changed to ``no'' and I
was not recorded on 89. I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall 89.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, due to a longstanding commitment to deliver
a graduation commencement address, I am unable to be present to vote
against H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act today. Had I been
present I would have voted ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 503 because
this legislation is an attack on a woman's right to choose.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was not present on rollcall Nos. 88 and 89
due to a recent death of a close friend. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 88 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 89.

____________________

AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO MAKE CORRECTIONS IN THE ENGROSSMENT OF H.R.
503, UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2001

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the
engrossment of the bill, H.R. 503, the Clerk be authorized to make
technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.

____________________

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 1051

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, pursuant to
clause 7 of rule XII, that my name be deleted as a cosponsor of H.R.
1051. My name was inadvertently added to this bill in a clerical error
by committee staff.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.

____________________

JOELLE RICE RETIRES AFTER 34 YEARS

(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, today I want to thank Joelle Rice, the
assistant manager of the cloakroom, who is retiring from the Hill after
34 years of dedicated service. Joelle is responsible for making this
House run smoothly. Day after day, Joelle keeps Members and staff up to
date on what is happening on the floor. She lets us know what we are
voting on, what time we are voting, and what time votes will end.
Members have relied on her for years for good information; and no
matter how busy she is and no matter how many phones are ringing off
the hook, she delivers.
Thank you, Joelle, for all that you have done for us. You have served
this Congress well. Joelle, we wish you and your husband, Wes, the best
in your future years together. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, thank you for yielding. On behalf of us as
individual Members, and even more importantly our offices, as Members
go through the day all day long every day trying to find out when we
are going to vote. All of our staff and all of us as Members talk to
Joelle or others in the cloakroom on an ongoing basis from morning
until late at night. As a Member who has been here for 10 years and

[[Page 6341]]

on behalf of my staff who talks to her often, Joelle has been an
invaluable asset to make our lives work, to make sure that we are here
when we need to be here, and I know how much all of the staff across
the street and all of the Members appreciate her worthwhile efforts.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to rise on behalf of all of the Members on this side of the aisle.
Joelle works for the majority. She used to work for the minority, and I
was in the majority. Joelle and I have switched places. And I have been
here 20 years, so I have known Joelle for a long, long time. I think I
speak for everybody on our side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that she is
perhaps not equally, because I do not want to get her in trouble with
the majority, but she is very helpful to us, always courteous, always
with a good word, always cheerful, and has made this institution a
better place.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us on this side of the aisle, she
has operated in a nonpartisan, bipartisan, efficient and effective way
to make this institution run better; and we all join, Mr. Speaker, in
congratulating her and thanking her for her service to this institution
and to her country.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join the Speaker for taking this
time to honor Joelle Rice, who has been of invaluable assistance to so
many of us with her warm personality and always willing to be of help.
We are going to miss Joelle. She is not only married this year, but now
retiring. We wish her health and happiness in her years ahead.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if I may close this and if I may dare speak
for the body, Joelle, we wish you Godspeed; and in the best spirit of a
Texas country western song, let me say, we miss you already, and you
are not even gone.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of informing us of next
week's schedule, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the House has
completed its legislative business for the week.
The House will next meet for legislative business on Tuesday, May 1,
at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. The
House will consider a number of measures under suspension of the rules,
a list of which will be distributed to Member's offices tomorrow. On
Tuesday, no recorded votes are expected before 6 p.m.
On Wednesday, May 2, and Thursday, May 3, the House will consider the
following measures, subject to rules: H.R. 10, the Comprehensive
Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act; and H.R. 1088, the Investor
and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act.
Mr. Speaker, this week the House and the Senate appointed conferees
for the Budget Resolution. Members should be advised that the Budget
Resolution Conference Report may become available for consideration in
the House at some point next week.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving us that
information. I understand that the gentleman said that we are going to
conference on the budget. We are not sure when it is coming back.
Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any guess as to whether, if it
comes back, it will come back Wednesday or Thursday?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
obviously we intend to do the Comprehensive Retirement Security Act on
Wednesday. That is fairly well scheduled. What we would want the House
to do is act on that conference report any day, and I think one would
realistically have to expect it may be Thursday before it comes back.
Members will be concerned about their travel arrangements; and as has
been our convention, Thursday is a day we return to our districts for
work. And Thursday we will be out no later than 6 p.m. that evening.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey),
the majority leader, for that information.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT FROM FRIDAY, APRIL 27, 2001, TO TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2001

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns on Friday, April 27, 2001, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on
Tuesday, May 1, for morning hour debates.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.

____________________

DISPENSING WITH CALL OF PRIVATE CALENDAR ON TUESDAY NEXT

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the
Private Calendar be dispensed with on Tuesday, May 1, 2001.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.

____________________

HOUR OF MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2001

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns on Tuesday, May 1, 2001, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on
Wednesday, May 2, for the purpose of receiving in this chamber former
Members of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.

____________________

DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS ON WEDNESDAY NEXT

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in
order under the calender Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday
next.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.

____________________

OUR LADY OF LOURDES ACADEMY PLACES FIRST IN ``WE THE PEOPLE . . . THE
CITIZEN AND THE CONSTITUTION'' COMPETITION

(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. Mr. Speaker, once again students from Our Lady of
Lourdes Academy, a school in my congressional district, came to
Washington, D.C. for an outstanding performance in the national ``We
the People . . . The Citizens and the Constitution'' competition. Our
Lady of Lourdes Academy represented Florida proudly, and for the second
consecutive year, placed first out of 50 competing schools from every
State in the Nation.
I warmly congratulate Katherine Almon, Yvette Cordova, Anna Fedak,
Lauren Fernandez, Roxanne Flint, Cristina Garcia, Rebecca Gidel,
Jacqueline Koch, Natalie Ladd, Alina Lopez, Stefanie Lopez-Boy,
Kristina Maranges, Natalie Merino, Arianne Plasencia, Cristina Rosell,
and Elizabeth Velez.
With the help and guidance of their teacher, Rosie Heffernan, these
young ladies demonstrated vast knowledge and understanding of U.S.
history, as well as the fundamental principles and values of our
constitutional democracy.
I ask that my colleagues in the U.S. Congress join me in commending
these

[[Page 6342]]

fine young girls and their teacher for their participation in this
program and for an outstanding victory and achievement this year.

____________________

EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS IN SUPPORT OF NATIONAL CHILDREN'S MEMORIAL
FLAG DAY

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Education and the Workforce be discharged from further consideration
of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 110) expressing the sense of
Congress in support of National Children's Memorial Flag Day, and ask
for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object, although I do not intend to object, I yield to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of National Children's Memorial Flag
Day and encourage national, State, and local agencies and private
organizations to recognize the Children's Memorial Flag. This year all
50 States, plus the District of Columbia, will either fly the flag or
recognize it in an appropriate manner.
Mr. Speaker, every year in the United States, thousands of children
die unnecessary deaths. Of these children, three a day die from
physical abuse or neglect, and unintentional accidents are the leading
cause of death in those children ages 1 to 14. Of children who died of
abuse and neglect in 1996, 86 percent were under the age of 5, nearly
40 percent were less than a year old. Our children are our future.
Mr. Speaker, this is the reason that I support the National
Children's Flag Day and would encourage my colleagues to do the same
and hope that this raises the recognition that we should take as a
Nation to ensure the safety of our children.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my
reservation, I rise in strong support of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky and the
gentleman from California for joining me to show our support for
National Children's Memorial Flag Day. The fourth Friday of every April
has come to be known as National Children's Memorial Day. This is a day
to remember the children we have lost to violence and to raise
awareness about the continuing problem of violence against children. It
is a day to fly the Children's Memorial Flag in remembrance. This flag
depicts six figures of children holding hands, and in the middle is a
chalk outline of one child. This chalk outline symbolizes the
devastating loss of lives.
Almost daily we are reminded of the violence that plagues our
children and the Nation. The statistics are startling. Among the 26
richest nations, the United States accounted for 73 percent of the
homicides in which a child was the victim. Three children a day die as
a result of child abuse or neglect. Too many children are lost to
violence. So many of these deaths are preventable.

{time} 1500

I want this day to remind us that we must do a better job of keeping
our children safe. Children are the most vulnerable members of our
society. We as a nation have an obligation to guide and protect them.
We all must work together to end the violence against our children.
Tomorrow, all 50 State governments and the District of Columbia will
participate in National Children's Memorial Flag Day. Many States are
flying or displaying the children's memorial flag on or near their
State capital. Other States are participating by issuing proclamations.
In Nevada, because of the diligence of Donna Husted of the Children's
Advocacy Alliance, the children's memorial flag is being flown over the
Nevada State capital, the Nevada Department of Child Protective
Services, City Hall in Las Vegas, the Clark County government building,
and the Clark County Child Protective Services building. I commend
Donna Husted for her efforts and thank her on behalf of all the loved
ones of the children we have lost.
This day is a community effort, a community effort that involves
everyone. It crosses racial and ethnic lines. It crosses religious
lines. It crosses party lines. I encourage all of my colleagues to
support the goals of National Children's Memorial Flag Day. It is a day
to remember, to remember the innocent lives we have lost.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman
for her statement.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague
Shelley Berkley to support this concurrent resolution that honors
National Children's Memorial Flag Day.
This concurrent resolution supports the commemoration of the 4th
Friday of each April as National Children's Memorial Flag Day. In
addition this resolution encourages national, State, and local agencies
and private organizations to fly the Children's Memorial Flag to
remember the children lost to violence and to raise public awareness
about the continuing problem of violence against children.
I support this resolution nationally because of its successful
observance in my Congressional district. In 1996, the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors adopted the Children's Memorial Flag Project, and
established a National Children's Memorial Day on the fourth Friday in
the month of April to remember children who have died by violence. I
want to commend Supervisor Gail Steele of Alameda County for her
tireless work and dedication to get this resolution adopted. In
addition, the California Assembly formally declared the fourth Friday
in April as a statewide annual observance day. The Child Welfare League
of America has adopted Alameda County's Children's Memorial Flag and
promotes it nationally.
This Congressional resolution is particularly timely in the wake of
the two school shootings in California at Granite Hills High School in
El Cajon, California and Santana High School in Santee, California.
Unfortunately, acts of violence against children happen far too often.
According to the Child Welfare League of America, three infants and
children die from abuse and neglect in the U.S. each day, and ten
children die a day as a result of gun violence. In fact, more children
lose their lives to criminal violence in the U.S. than in any of the 26
industrialized nations of the world.
We have lost far too many children in violent, preventable deaths. I
encourage my colleagues in Congress to work with renewed resolve to
ensure that our children have a full opportunity to become healthy and
productive adults. Even one child lost is one child too many.
I urge my fellow members to support the National Children's Memorial
Flag Day concurrent resolution through unanimous consent.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my
reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

H. Con. Res. 110

Whereas among the world's 26 richest nations, the United
States accounted for 73 percent of child homicide victims;
Whereas at least 3 children a day die from physical abuse
or chronic neglect in the United States;
Whereas April has been designated as National Child Abuse
Prevention Month, an annual tradition started by President
Jimmy Carter in 1979; and
Whereas the fourth Friday of each April is National
Children's Memorial Flag Day, when many State and local
governmental agencies and private organizations fly the
Children's Memorial Flag to remember children lost to
violence and to heighten public awareness of the need for
communities to help vulnerable children and families: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Congress--
(1) supports National Children's Memorial Flag Day; and
(2) encourages national, State, and local agencies and
private organizations to fly the Children's Memorial Flag--
(A) to remember children lost to violence; and

[[Page 6343]]

(B) to raise public awareness about the continuing problem
of violence against children.

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

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on House Concurrent Resolution 110.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN
EUROPE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, and pursuant to section 3
of Public Law 94-304, as amended by section 1 of Public Law 99-7, the
Chair announces the Speaker's appointment of the following Members of
the House to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe:
Mr. Hoyer of Maryland,
Mr. Cardin of Maryland,
Ms. Slaughter of New York,
Mr. Hastings of Florida.
There was no objection.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO BOARD OF VISITORS TO UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
ACADEMY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, and pursuant to 14 U.S.C.
194(a), the Chair announces the Speaker's appointment of the following
Member of the House to the Board of Visitors to the United States Coast
Guard Academy:
Mr. Taylor of Mississippi.
There was no objection.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.

____________________

ON H. CON. RES. 106, COMMENDING THE CREW OF THE U.S. NAVY EP-3
FOLLOWING THE ACCIDENT WITH A CHINESE AIRCRAFT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the crew of the
U.S. Navy EP-3 aircraft for their outstanding performance of duty
following the collision with the Chinese F-8 fighter on April 1 and
during their subsequent detention by Chinese authorities on the island
of Hainan, China.
I want to make several points about this incident. First, our plane
and its crew did nothing to precipitate this incident. They were flying
straight and level, on autopilot, at a slow speed in international
airspace. They were performing a routine and legitimate reconnaissance
and surveillance mission similar to those performed by many other
countries around the world.
It was the Chinese jet that flew in front of and dangerously close to
our EP-3 aircraft. It was the Chinese pilot who displayed poor and
unprofessional airmanship, causing his plane to collide with ours. To
me, it is simply implausible to suggest a slow and level flying multi-
engine turboprop airplane could fly into a fighter jet aircraft. I do
not think there is any question about who was really at fault in this
accident. It was the Chinese pilot.
Once the collision occurred, our pilot and crew did everything they
could do. They transmitted multiple ``Mayday'' signals to alert others
to their in-flight emergency. They tried to alert the Chinese that they
would have to divert for an emergency landing in China. And our plane
landed on Hainan Island only because it was an emergency.
Our pilot and crew deserve high praise for safely landing the
aircraft despite severe structural damage and in attempting to follow
procedures to minimize the compromise of sensitive national security
information. They also deserve credit for behaving so professionally
during the 11 days they were detained against their will by Chinese
authorities.
Beyond the crew and this incident, there are also broader issues here
about which we should all be concerned. I refer, of course, to the
Chinese demand that the United States should cease reconnaissance and
surveillance flights off the coast of China. We should not. Our flights
are lawful and are carried out in international airspace and are
important to the national security of the United States. Moreover, the
Navy EP-3 aircraft should be returned. It is clear under international
law that under the circumstances under which this collision and the
emergency landing of our plane occurred, the Navy EP-3 airplane is the
property of the United States. It should be returned to us.
Finally, if Chinese aircraft continue to intercept and employ
aggressive tactics against our airplanes when we resume our
reconnaissance surveillance flights, as we surely will, they run a
grave risk. They run the risk of jeopardizing the important
relationships that now exist between the United States and China.
Despite ideological and governmental differences between the
governments of our two countries, the last several years have shown
that our countries can get along and have beneficial relationships,
cultural, educational and economic.
The Chinese Government should realize that the beneficial relations
that now exist between our countries could deteriorate if they continue
to harass our airplanes when we are operating lawfully in international
airspace.
I have introduced a resolution, H. Con. Res. 106, that expresses my
commendation of the crew of the Navy EP-3 aircraft for the exemplary
performance of their duties. The resolution also expresses the sense of
Congress that reconnaissance and surveillance flights should continue,
that our plane should be returned to us, and that continued
interception of our flights may have broader political consequences. I
invite Members of the House to cosponsor my resolution.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are immensely proud of the 24 members of the
EP-3 crew and share the joy of their families and friends on the crew's
safe return to the United States. Our men and women in uniform make
personal sacrifices and take great risk every day to keep our Nation
free. We should not take them for granted. In this case, we should all
be grateful that the 24 service members of the Navy EP-3 have returned
safely. I applaud them for their professionalism and performance of
duty under most arduous circumstances.

____________________

HUMAN CLONING

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the
issue of human cloning.
What would it be like if we had five Michael Jordans to suit up an
entire team? Or what if there were two of you to accomplish more in a
24-hour day? The prospect of human cloning has been the stuff of
science fiction novels for years. However, on February 27, 1997, Ian
Wilmut from the Roslin Institute in Scotland cloned Dolly the sheep, a
feat which has triggered international debate on the issue of human
cloning. Since that time, scientists have cloned mice, cows and pigs.
Richard Seed announced he would clone a human being.
President Clinton called for a 5-year moratorium on human cloning and
advised the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to review human
cloning. They recommended that cloning humans for reproductive purposes
is unsafe and unethical. I would certainly agree.
If you speak to Dr. Wilmut, he will tell you that they had something
on the order of 230 or more attempts to produce Dolly, with most of
those attempts ending in miscarriage, but

[[Page 6344]]

many, many of them resulting in the birth of sheep with very, very
severe birth defects. To even consider doing such a procedure for the
purpose of creating a human being is immoral and unethical in the worst
possible way. However, cloning technology is available that could allow
biotechnology companies and researchers to produce human embryos in the
lab.
This issue of cloning human embryos, I must stress, is not an issue
of fetal tissue research or an issue of stem cell research. It is an
issue of cloning human embryos. This year, Panos Zavos of the
University of Kentucky and his Italian colleague, Severino Antinori,
have begun the work of creating a global consortium for the purpose of
producing a human clone. Dr. Brigitte Boisselier, the Director of
Clonaid, which has part of the Raelian extraterrestrial movement
attached to it, has stated that they have already been offered
substantial sums of money to begin the process of working on developing
children through the process of human cloning.
I believe the time now is right and the time is ripe for the Congress
of the United States to act, and that is why I have introduced
legislation today that would make human reproductive cloning, as well
as embryonic cloning, illegal in the United States of America.
Now, I want to stress that some people who favor embryonic cloning
like to refer to this as therapeutic cloning. Indeed, this term has
already been established in the press. I have had two reporters bring
this issue up. Therapy implies that there is some sort of useful
purpose for these embryonic clones. I would assert that if you look at
the medical literature, there is no defined therapeutic purpose for
cloning human embryos today in science. Therefore, this term is a
misnomer.
The proper term is destructive cloning, or embryonic cloning, the
cloning of a human embryo, the cloning of a human embryo for the
purpose of just merely doing research on it and then further to proceed
to just simply destroying it, or destructive cloning.

{time} 1515

I think this process displays a profound disrespect for human life,
and it needs to be made illegal in the United States of America.
Many countries in Europe have already taken action on this issue and
have made human cloning illegal. This is what my bill attempts to do.
The bill has been introduced in the Senate as well by the Senator from
Kansas, Sam Brownback.
I would encourage all of my colleagues to consider seriously getting
much more well informed on this issue and signing on to my legislation.
It is timely. It is right. We need to do it.

____________________

VICTIMS OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker: Sarkis Papazian, Elizabeth Khatchadourian,
David Khatchadourian, Haroutiun Barseghian, Annik Mugurdichian, Mari
Zadoian, Ghazar Ghazarian, Zkon Chouldjian, Takvor Kazandjian, Hagop
Kazandjian, Avedis Aghjayan, Garabed Garabedian, Tavriz Garabedian,
Shoushanig Garabedian. These are a few, a precious few, of the more
than 1.5 million men, women, and children who lost their lives in the
first genocide of the 20th century.
Ardeni Gureghian, Nazeni Kalustian, Antoine Kalfayan, Antranig
Antoian, Rouben Gureghian, Anoushig Antoian, Mardiros Alemian, Haigaz
Alemian, Hampartz Alemian, Caloust Alemian, Shmavon Tetezian, Sirpouhi
Nahabedian Tetezian: 1.5 million people whose lives were as precious to
them as our lives are to us, who loved their children and were loved;
who aspired for a better life just as we aspire for a better life for
ourselves and our families.
Nahabed Nahabedian, Hampartzoum Tetezian, Sarkis Tetezian, Kourken
Tetezian, Marnos Meneshian, Hovnan and Knar Neneshian, Aghavni
Meneshian, Elmast Meneshian, Voski Meneshian, Mgerdich Meneshian. Pray
for us, they would say, as Ambassador Morganthau recalls in his
memoirs; pray for us, they said as they left their homes, homes in
which they had lived and their ancestors had lived for 2,500 years. We
will not see you again in this life, they said, but we shall meet
again. Pray for us.
Kevork Meneshian, Hampar Meneshian, Eknadios Meneshian, Hripsime
Meneshian, Senekereem Meneshian, Edmund Kalfayan, Boghos Arzougaldjian,
Flor Megerdichian, Ohanes Nigoghosian, Karekin Sherestanian. This
administration, our administration, the U.S. administration, prides
itself for being plain spoken, for not engaging in the diplomatic
nuances that often make a moral judgment, a moral position of a nation
ambiguous.
Then let us be plain spoken. Let us call genocide, genocide. Let us
not minimize the deliberate murder of 1.5 million people by the Ottoman
Empire. In this Congress, in this administration, let us be frank. By
acknowledging the first genocide of the 20th century, we will give the
families of the victims the justice and the peace that all the
principles of humanity require.
Krikor Zohrab, Vartkes Serengoulian, Siamanto, Daniel Varoujan.

____________________

YORK COUNTY SCIENCE FAIR WINNERS AND DELTA-CARDIFF VOLUNTEER
FIREFIGHTERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of four of my
constituents from back home in Pennsylvania who were recently
recognized for their outstanding achievements. The first two
constituents are young women who have demonstrated true educational
excellence in the areas of science and engineering, while the second
two constituents are gentlemen who have dedicated most of their lives
to community service.
It brings me great pleasure to bring the accomplishments of these
four individuals before the United States House of Representatives and
our Nation.
Earlier this year, two students, Jessica Brillhart, a sophomore at
Dallastown Area High School, and Anne Jensen, a sophomore at York
Suburban High School, my alma mater, were named co-grand champions in
the York County Science and Engineering Fair.
Jessica Brillhart won her prize for a project called ``The Sound of
Music.'' Jessica picked ten categories of music ranging from classical
to heavy metal in 20 noises, such as a dog barking, a chandelier
tinkling, and water rushing.
She matched each musical style with the noises possessing similar
sound waves. A survey of 35 individuals then proved that there was, in
fact, a correlation between the noises that people found pleasing and
their favorite music.
Anne Jensen won the co-grand champion status for her project called
``Haze and Ground Level Ozone.'' Anne constructed a haze monitor to
measure the amount of sunlight that filters through the atmosphere. She
determined through calculations based on the results of the monitor
that haze and the amount of ground-level ozone were not directly
proportional, contrary to her original hypothesis.
Nevertheless, the haze monitor turned out to be a very impressive and
complex piece of machinery.
Both Jessica and Anne will now be going to California to compete in
an international science fair against 1,200 other students from
throughout our Nation, as well as 40 other nations around the world.
Jessica's and Anne's ingenuity, inventiveness, and imagination are
certainly worthy of much praise. I proudly congratulate these
outstanding young citizens on their grand champion success at the York
County Science and Engineering Fair.
Mr. Speaker, I also recently had the honor of attending the Delta-
Cardiff Volunteer Fire Company's annual banquet. At that event, I was
pleased to

[[Page 6345]]

join with the fire company's president, Mr. Bill Griffith, and many
other citizens there that evening in honoring two dedicated
individuals, Mr. John Williams and Mr. Ralph Morris, for going above
and beyond the call of duty.
John Williams, a retired Federal employee, has served as a member of
the volunteer fire company for 65 years. That is correct, he has been a
member of that volunteer fire company for 65 years. During that time,
he has held just about every office possible: ambulance captain, chief,
treasurer, and has served as a member of the board of directors. He
also served as president of the fire company for 20 years.
Mr. Williams currently serves as an administrative adviser and is
every bit as active today in the operation of the fire company as he
has been in the past. He resides in Delta, Pennsylvania, with his wife
and two grown sons, who are also active volunteers.
Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to recognize the dedicated service of
Mr. Ralph Morris, a member of the fire company for 42 years. Mr. Morris
was born and raised in Delta and has given back many years of service
to his community. A small business owner for much of his life, Mr.
Morris also served in various capacities at the fire company. He was
chairman of the board, captain, and assistant chief.
It is my understanding that Mr. Morris remains very active and often
drives the fire truck in responding to emergency calls. I know his wife
and daughter are very proud of his long record of dedicated public
service.
All four of these individuals I have recognized this afternoon would
probably never ask for this sort of individual attention and
recognition, but I was moved by the common theme they all share:
dedication, dedication to reaching a goal and dedication to their
various efforts.
In today's fast-paced world, we so often overlook giving such
deserving citizens who have distinguished themselves through hard work
a pat on the back. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do just that
here today in paying tribute to their service to our community and
their success in their academic endeavors.

Passage of Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, with my remaining time, I just want to touch
on one other issue, a very important issue, completely separate, and
that is to voice my pleasure at the support of this House in the
passage of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I am pleased
to be a cosponsor of that legislation, was proud to vote in favor of it
with the majority of my colleagues.
I can so well remember 5\1/2\ years ago seeing the first ultrasound
of my son TJ, who will turn 5 next month, at 10 weeks in utero; and
that picture from that ultrasound remains on my desk today as the first
picture of our child; not of a fetus but our child. I am delighted with
the success of H.R. 503.

____________________

OUR UNITED STATES STEEL INDUSTRY IS STRUGGLING

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I am brought to the floor by two recent
bits of news that were called to my attention, one that fills me with
foreboding and another that fills me with hope.
Yesterday, I received sad news from my district. Another local steel
company, MacInnes Steel, had filed for bankruptcy, a company that has
been a long partner and a long contributor in our community; a company
that I visited only a few weeks ago as I traveled my district to
announce my chairmanship of the Congressional Steel Caucus; a company
that is progressive and in which management has been making a major
capital investment; a modern steel company. This company had filed for
protection under our bankruptcy laws.
Their CEO called it, and I quote, ``a last resort as it struggled
with the double blow of a domestic slump in the industry and surging
energy costs.''
I must say this is not the first time recently this has happened in
my district. Earlier this year, we received the news that an employee-
owned company, Erie Forge and Steel, another long-standing institution
in our community, had filed for bankruptcy. They cited a variety of
reasons for this, including foreign dumping and a slow economy.
The fact is, this is part of a pattern we are seeing around the
country. America's steel industry is struggling. We are experiencing a
steel crisis. A major core industry of our manufacturing capacity is
being threatened, and in the process we face the risk that a major
strategic part of our manufacturing sector could be hollowed out in the
near future.
Our companies are facing predatory trade practices from our foreign
competitors, and so it was encouraging to me to read on Tuesday that
the U.S. Department of Commerce had made a preliminary determination
confirming that a number of our foreign trade competitors were dumping
hot-rolled steel in the U.S. market. I have to say this is a very
important decision and a very encouraging one. This preliminary ruling
found that 11 countries had been violating our trade laws, including
Argentina, China, India and Taiwan, and were benefiting from
countervailable subsidies as high as 40 percent.
This finding points to major infringements not only of international
trade norms but also our anti-dumping laws.
This preliminary decision is good news for our struggling domestic
steel industry. It means that beginning this week, we collected a bond
from the importers in the amount of the preliminary dumping margin,
providing immediate relief to our employers. If, in the final
determination, the decision stands that these countries are indeed
dumping on U.S. markets, anti-dumping orders will be issued.
The problem of dumping, Mr. Speaker, is not unique to western
Pennsylvania employers but, rather, is part of a bigger picture of what
is happening nationwide with the steel industry facing a cascade of
layoffs. The companies that were injured by unfair trade practices in
this decision are not only from Pennsylvania; but they are also from
Kentucky, Illinois, North Carolina, Indiana, and Ohio.

{time} 1530

This decision by the Commerce Department is an important and initial
recognition of how severe the problem of dumping is as it faces our
domestic industry.
I would like to commend the Bush administration for their quick
action in this area. It is good to know that President Bush is willing
to enforce the existing trade laws. But this is only a beginning. I
urge the administration to continue to take action to protect American
workers and their jobs when they face clearly unfair competition.
The economic slowdown in the United States and East Asia intensifies
the need for enforcement of our trade laws. Yes, there was a drop in
steel imports last month, but as we have analyzed that change, clearly
this only reflects a buildup of excess inventory. The steel industry
continues to be flat on its back facing a depression even as we debate
whether other areas of the economy are heading toward a recession.
We must be very vigilant against dumping and unfair trade practices
by our competitors. I encourage President Bush to look at all of his
options, including seeking an action under section 201 and supporting
our efforts to dramatically strengthen domestic trade laws that allow
the administration to police our markets.

____________________

REVIEWING THE PRESIDENT'S FIRST 100 DAYS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 100th day of the
Bush presidency, we have seen history made. President Bush just may
have compiled the worst environmental record in the shortest time of
any President ever.
Let us run through the milestone of the Bush administration's
environmental policy: Repealed the arsenic

[[Page 6346]]

standard; unilaterally declared the Kyoto agreement on global warming
dead; abandoned a campaign pledge seconded by his EPA administrator to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions; supported drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.
And the manner in which the Bush White House has executed its
environmental policy makes matters even worse. The President, who
repeatedly claimed during his campaign that the previous administration
had failed to author a consistent principled energy policy, seems to be
making environmental policy based on no principle at all, but rather on
the basis of what he can get away with at the behest of the oil
companies, at the behest of the mining companies, at the behest of the
chemical companies.
It is no secret that the Bush administration owes these big polluters
for the President's election last year, and they are cashing in their
chips fast.
The White House even seems to be disregarding the advice of its own
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Christie Todd Whitman.
Earlier this year, Administrator Whitman publicly acknowledged the
issue of global warming and said that President Bush would honor his
campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. She
recommended by memo that he do so, only to be publicly rebuked. It
seems Administrator Whitman was told, along with the rest of us, that
President Bush was simply abandoning his campaign pledge.
Then, earlier this week, Whitman was publicly rebuked again by her
boss. Just 2 days ago, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer appeared to chide
the EPA administrator for speaking in ``confusion'' Sunday when she
announced that a White House energy task force would not recommend oil
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. He clarified
that Vice President Cheney's task force would in fact recommend that
oil drilling be allowed in the Refuge after all.
When big oil talks, this administration listens. It is no big
surprise, considering Vice President Cheney as an oil executive last
year, in 1 year as an oil executive, made $36 million.
Strangely, it now seems possible that Christine Todd Whitman, not
necessarily a great friend of the environment when she was Governor of
New Jersey, Whitman may become the lone administration official willing
to occasionally, occasionally oppose the naked assault on the
environment.
As cochair of the Water Infrastructure Caucus in the House, the Bush
administration decision that has irked me most is his weakening of the
arsenic standard. Those of us who pushed for a stronger, safer new
arsenic standard during a 5-year administrative process know that EPA's
January decision ordering arsenic levels in America's drinking water be
reduced, strengthened, if you will to 10 parts per billion, was quite
simply the right thing to do.
EPA took this action in response to a National Academy of Science
report, not a partisan group, not an ideological group, a scientific
group, which recommended that the 1942 standard of 50 parts per billion
be reduced ``as promptly as possible.''
Arsenic's toxic properties have been common knowledge for a long
time. Two hundred years ago, Napoleon's death was attributed by some to
arsenic poisoning at the hands of the British. In 1942, there was
sufficient concern about the dangers of arsenic in our country for a 50
parts per billion standard to be put into place. But during the last 5
years, in response to the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA asked the
National Academy of Science to specifically investigate the danger
posed by smaller quantities of arsenic.
The Academy produced reams of evidence that arsenic is not only a
toxic, which we all knew, but is a potent carcinogen that causes
bladder cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, and has also been linked to
kidney and liver cancer, birth defects and reproductive problems.
Newborn babies and small children are at the greatest risk of health
problems from the arsenic in water.
By adopting an updated standard, the U.S. would not be leading the
developing world, but joining it. Our allies in Europe and Great
Britain and in Japan had already put into place arsenic standards to
protect the public's health.
In the face of all this evidence, the Bush administration still put
the new drinking water standard on hold. Score another win for
America's largest corporations.
In my home State of Ohio, 137,000 residents may be drinking water
with arsenic levels higher than the standard recommended by the World
Health Organization. This standard puts the U.S. on the same levels as
India, Bangladesh, Bolivia, and China.
When you look at the President's campaign finance reports, you see
the reason. In the last election, mining companies gave $5 million to
Republicans, the chemical industry gave $10 million. We ask the
President to reconsider.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Leach (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today on account of
touring flooded areas in home district.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Schiff) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Shows, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Millender-McDonald, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Skelton, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Brown of Ohio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Schiff, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Inslee, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Platts) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Platts, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. English, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Walden of Oregon, for 5 minutes, May 2.
Mr. Horn, for 5 minutes, May 2.

____________________

SENATE BILL REFERRED

A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

S. 350. An act 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; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, in addition to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure 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.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 37 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, April 27, 2001, at
10 a.m.

____________________

OATH FOR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Under clause 13 of rule XXIII, the following Members executed the
oath for access to classified information:

Neil Abercrombie, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Gary L. Ackerman,
Robert B. Aderholt, W. Todd Akin, Thomas H. Allen, Robert E.
Andrews, Richard K. Armey, Joe Baca, Spencer Bachus, Brian
Baird, Richard H. Baker, John Elias E. Baldacci, Tammy
Baldwin, Cass Ballenger, James A. Barcia, Bob Barr, Roscoe G.
Bartlett, Joe Barton, Charles F. Bass, Ken Bentsen, Doug
Bereuter, Shelley Berkley, Howard L. Berman, Marion Berry,
Judy Biggert, Michael Bilirakis, Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Rod
R. Blagojevich, Earl Blumenauer, Roy Blunt, Sherwood L.
Boehlert, John A. Boehner, Henry Bonilla, David E. Bonior,
Mary Bono, Robert A. Borski, Leonard L. Boswell, Rick
Boucher, Allen Boyd, Kevin Brady, Robert A. Brady, Corrine
Brown, Sherrod Brown, Henry E. Brown, Jr.,

[[Page 6347]]

Ed Bryant, Richard Burr, Dan Burton, Steve Buyer, Sonny
Callahan, Ken Calvert, Dave Camp, Chris Cannon, Eric Cantor,
Shelley Moore Capito, Lois Capps, Michael E. Capuano,
Benjamin L. Cardin, Brad Carson, Julia Carson, Michael N.
Castle, Steve Chabot, Saxby Chambliss, Donna M. Christensen,
Wm. Lacy Clay, Eva M. Clayton, Bob Clement, James E. Clyburn,
Howard Coble, Mac Collins, Larry Combest, Gary A. Condit,
John Cooksey, Jerry F. Costello, Christopher Cox, William J.
Coyne, Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr., Philip M. Crane, Ander
Crenshaw, Joseph Crowley, Barbara Cubin, John Abney
Culberson, Elijah E. Cummings, Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
Danny K. Davis, Jim Davis, Jo Ann Davis, Susan A. Davis,
Thomas M. Davis, Nathan Deal, Peter A. DeFazio, Diana
DeGette, William D. Delahunt, Rosa L. DeLauro, Tom DeLay, Jim
DeMint, Peter Deutsch, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Norman D. Dicks,
John D. Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Calvin M. Dooley, John T.
Doolittle, Michael F. Doyle, David Dreier, John J. Duncan,
Jr., Jennifer Dunn, Chet Edwards, Vernon J. Ehlers, Robert L.
Ehrlich, Jr., Jo Ann Emerson, Eliot L. Engel, Phil English,
Anna G. Eshoo, Bob Etheridge, Lane Evans, Terry Everett, Eni
F.H. Faleomavaega, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Mike Ferguson, Bob
Filner, Jeff Flake, Ernie Fletcher, Mark Foley, Harold E.
Ford, Jr., Vito Fossella, Barney Frank, Rodney P.
Frelinghuysen, Martin Frost, Elton Gallegly, Greg Ganske,
George W. Gekas, Richard A. Gephardt, Jim Gibbons, Wayne T.
Gilchrest, Paul E. Gillmor, Benjamin A. Gilman, Charles A.
Gonzalez, Virgil H. Goode, Jr., Bob Goodlatte, Bart Gordon,
Porter J. Goss, Lindsey O. Graham, Kay Granger, Sam Graves,
Gene Green, Mark Green, James C. Greenwood, Felix J. Grucci,
Jr., Gil Gutknecht, Ralph M. Hall, Tony P. Hall, James V.
Hansen, Jane Harman, Melissa A. Hart, J. Dennis Hastert,
Alcee L. Hastings, Doc Hastings, Robin Hayes, J. D. Hayworth,
Joel Hefley, Wally Herger, Baron P. Hill, Van Hilleary, Earl
F. Hilliard, Maurice D. Hinchey, David L. Hobson, Joseph M.
Hoeffel, Peter Hoekstra, Tim Holden, Rush D. Holt, Michael M.
Honda, Darlene Hooley, Stephen Horn, John N. Hostettler, Amo
Houghton, Steny H. Hoyer, Kenny C. Hulshof, Duncan Hunter,
Asa Hutchinson, Henry J. Hyde, Jay Inslee, Johnny Isakson,
Steve Israel, Darrell E. Issa, Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Jesse
L. Jackson, Jr., Sheila Jackson-Lee, William J. Jefferson,
William L. Jenkins, Christopher John, Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Nancy L. Johnson, Sam Johnson, Timothy V. Johnson, Stephanie
Tubbs Jones, Walter B. Jones, Paul E. Kanjorski, Marcy
Kaptur, Ric Keller, Sue W. Kelly, Mark R. Kennedy, Patrick J.
Kennedy, Brian D. Kerns, Dale E. Kildee, Carolyn C.
Kilpatrick, Ron Kind, Peter T. King, Jack Kingston, Mark
Steven Kirk, Gerald D. Kleczka, Joe Knollenberg, Jim Kolbe,
Dennis J. Kucinich, John J. LaFalce, Ray LaHood, Nick
Lampson, James R. Langevin, Tom Lantos, Steve Largent, Rick
Larsen, John B. Larson, Tom Latham, Steven C. LaTourette,
James A. Leach, Barbara Lee, Sander M. Levin, Jerry Lewis,
John Lewis, Ron Lewis, John Linder, William O. Lipinski,
Frank A. LoBiondo, Zoe Lofgren, Nita M. Lowey, Frank D.
Lucas, Ken Lucas, Bill Luther, Carolyn B. Maloney, James H.
Maloney, Donald A. Manzullo, Edward J. Markey, Frank Mascara,
Jim Matheson, Robert T. Matsui, Carolyn McCarthy, Betty
McCollum, Jim McCrery, John McHugh, Scott McInnis, Mike
McIntyre, Howard P. McKeon, Cynthia A. McKinney, Michael R.
McNulty, Martin T. Meehan, Carrie P. Meek, Gregory W. Meeks,
Robert Menendez, John L. Mica, Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Dan Miller, Gary G. Miller, Patsy T. Mink, John Joseph
Moakley, Alan B. Mollohan, Dennis Moore, James P. Moran,
Jerry Moran, Constance A. Morella, John P. Murtha, Sue
Wilkins Myrick, Jerrold Nadler, Grace F. Napolitano, Richard
E. Neal, George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Robert W. Ney, Anne M.
Northup, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Charlie Norwood, Jim Nussle,
James L. Oberstar, David R. Obey, John W. Olver, Solomon P.
Ortiz, Tom Osborne, Doug Ose, C. L. Otter, Major R. Owens,
Michael G. Oxley, Frank Pallone, Jr., Bill Pascrell, Jr., Ed
Pastor, Ron Paul, Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pence, Collin C.
Peterson, John E. Peterson, Thomas E. Petri, David D. Phelps,
Charles W. Pickering, Joseph R. Pitts, Todd Russell Platts,
Richard W. Pombo, Earl Pomeroy, Rob Portman, David E. Price,
Deborah Pryce, Adam H. Putnam, Jack Quinn, George Radanovich,
Nick J. Rahall, II, Jim Ramstad, Charles B. Rangel, Ralph
Regula, Dennis R. Rehberg, Silvestre Reyes, Thomas M.
Reynolds, Bob Riley, Lynn N. Rivers, Ciro D. Rodriguez, Tim
Roemer, Harold Rogers, Mike Rogers, Dana Rohrabacher, Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen, Mike Ross, Steven R. Rothman, Marge Roukema,
Edward R. Royce, Bobby L. Rush, Paul Ryan, Jim Ryun, Martin
Olav Sabo, Loretta Sanchez, Bernard Sanders, Max Sandlin, Tom
Sawyer, Jim Saxton, Joe Scarborough, Bob Schaffer, Janice D.
Schakowsky, Adam B. Schiff, Edward L. Schrock, Robert C.
Scott, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Jose E. Serrano, Pete
Sessions, John B. Shadegg, E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Christopher
Shays, Brad Sherman, Don Sherwood, John Shimkus, Ronnie
Shows, Rob Simmons, Michael K. Simpson, Norman Sisisky, Joe
Skeen, Ike Skelton, Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Adam Smith,
Christopher H. Smith, Lamar S. Smith, Nick Smith, Vic Snyder,
Mark E. Souder, Floyd Spence, John N. Spratt, Jr., Cliff
Stearns, Charles W. Stenholm, Ted Strickland, Bob Stump, Bart
Stupak, John E. Sununu, John E. Sweeney, Thomas G. Tancredo,
John S. Tanner, Ellen O. Tauscher, W. J. (Billy) Tauzin,
Charles H. Taylor, Gene Taylor, Lee Terry, William M. Thomas,
Bennie G. Thompson, Mike Thompson, Mac Thornberry, John R.
Thune, Karen L. Thurman, Todd Tiahrt, Patrick J. Tiberi, John
F. Tierney, Patrick J. Toomey, James A. Traficant, Jr., Jim
Turner, Mark Udall, Robert A. Underwood, Fred Upton, Nydia M.
Velazquez, Peter J. Visclosky, David Vitter, Greg Walden,
James T. Walsh, Zach Wamp, Maxine Waters, Wes Watkins, Melvin
L. Watt, J.C. Watts, Jr., Henry A. Waxman, Anthony D. Weiner,
Curt Weldon, Dave Weldon, Jerry Weller, Robert Wexler, Ed
Whitfield, Roger F. Wicker, Heather Wilson, Frank R. Wolf,
Lynn C. Woolsey, Albert Russell Wynn, C.W. Bill Young, Don
Young.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

1611. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Packaging and Transfer or
Transportation of Materials of National Security Interest--
received April 6, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Armed Services.
1612. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Explosive Detection Program--
received April 6, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1613. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Extension of DOE O 311.1A, Equal
Employment Opportunity and Diversity Program--received April
6, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
1614. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Security Conditions--received April
6, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
1615. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Guide of Good Practices for
Occupational Radiological Protection in Uranium Facilities--
received April 6, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1616. A letter from the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's
final rule--Industry Guidance on the Commission's Case Law
Interpreting 18 U.S.C. Section 1464 and Enforcemnet Policies
Regarding Broadcast Indecency [File No. EB-00-IH-0089]
received April 11, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1617. A letter from the Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting the Department of the Air
Force's proposed lease of defense articles to Turkey
(Transmittal No. 03-01), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2796a(a); to
the Committee on International Relations.
1618. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
certification of a proposed Manufacturing License Agreement
with Japan [Transmittal No. DTC 010-01], pursuant to 22
U.S.C. 2776(d); to the Committee on International Relations.
1619. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
certification of a proposed license for defense articles and
defense services to Norway [Transmittal No. DTC 013-01],
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee on
International Relations.
1620. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
certification of a proposed Manufacturing License Agreement
with France [Transmittal No. DTC 015-01], pursuant to 22
U.S.C. 2776(d); to the Committee on International Relations.
1621. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
certification of a proposed Manufacturing License Agreement
with Italy [Transmittal No. DTC 014-01], pursuant to 22
U.S.C. 2776(d); to the Committee on International Relations.
1622. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract to Canada [Transmittal No. DTC 008-01], pursuant to
22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee on International
Relations.
1623. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
certification of

[[Page 6348]]

a proposed license for the export of defense articles or
defense services sold commercially under a contract to
Republic of Korea [Transmittal No. DTC 016-01], pursuant to
22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee on International
Relations.
1624. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold commercially under a
contract to Italy [Transmittal No. DTC 035-01], pursuant to
22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee on International
Relations.
1625. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting copies of
international agreements, other than treaties, entered into
by the United States, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); to the
Committee on International Relations.
1626. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Special Local
Regulations for Marine Events; Approaches to Annapolis
Harbor, Spa Creek, and Severn River, Annapolis, Maryland
[CGD05-01-004] (RIN: 2115-AE46) received April 12, 2001,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
1627. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Special Local
Regulations for Marine Events; Western Branch, Elizabeth
River, Portsmouth, VA [CGD05-01-003] (RIN: 2115-AE46)
received April 12, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
1628. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Safety Zone:
Fireworks Display, East River, New York, NY [CGD01-01-026]
(RIN: 2115-AA97) received April 12, 2001, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
1629. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Safety Zone:
Mission Bay, San Diego, CA [COTP San Diego, CA; 01-002] (RIN:
2115-AA97) received April 12, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
1630. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule--DOE Facilities Technology Partnering
Programs--received April 6, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Science.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:

By Mr. MOAKLEY (for himself, Mr. Delahunt, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Rivers, and Mr. Filner):
H.R. 1594. A bill to provide for increased accountability
with respect to the education and training of foreign
military personnel, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on International Relations, 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. SENSENBRENNER:
H.R. 1595. A bill to protect innocent children; to the
Committee on the Judiciary, 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. HOUGHTON (for himself, Mr. Foley, Mr. Sam
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Rangel, Mr.
Watkins, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mrs. Thurman,
and Mr. Lewis of Kentucky):
H.R. 1596. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide a special rule for members of the uniformed
services and the Foreign Service, and other employees, in
determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a
principal residence; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Stark, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. LaTourette, and Mr.
Sanders):
H.R. 1597. A bill to repeal the Military Selective Service
Act; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. HOUGHTON (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Ramstad,
Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Foley, Mr. English, Mrs.
Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Coyne, Mr.
Nadler, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr.
Matsui, Mr. Shays, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Weldon of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Horn, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr.
Hinchey, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. McDermott, Mr.
Payne, Mrs. Kelly, Ms. Dunn, and Mr. McHugh):
H.R. 1598. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide that a deduction equal to fair market value
shall be allowed for charitable contributions of literary,
musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions created by the
donor; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL:
H.R. 1599. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to exclude from gross income amounts received on the
sale of animals which are raised and sold as part of an
educational program; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HOUGHTON (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Sam
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Crane, Mr. Armey, Ms. Dunn, Mr.
Matsui, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mrs.
Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Foley, Mr.
Ramstad, Mr. Herger, Ms. Hart, Mrs. Thurman, Mr.
Becerra, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Pomeroy, and Mr. English):
H.R. 1600. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to repeal the limitation on the use of foreign tax
credits under the alternative minimum tax; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. McINNIS (for himself, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Hayworth,
Mr. Matsui, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Ramstad, and Mr.
English):
H.R. 1601. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to facilitate electric cooperative participation in a
competitive electric power industry; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. BALLENGER:
H.R. 1602. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 to provide that an employee's ``regular rate'' for
purposes of calculating overtime compensation will not be
affected by certain additional payments; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. WELLER (for himself, Mrs. Johnson of
Connecticut, and Mr. English):
H.R. 1603. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to grant relief to participants in multiemployer plans
from certain section 415 limits on retirement plans; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BARRETT (for himself and Mrs. Wilson):
H.R. 1604. 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 Energy and Commerce.
By Mrs. BONO (for herself and Mr. Condit):
H.R. 1605. A bill to require that perishable agricultural
commodities be labeled or marked as to their country of
origin and to establish penalties for violations of such
labeling requirements; to the Committee on Agriculture.
By Mr. CLYBURN (for himself, Mr. Bishop, Ms. Brown of
Florida, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mrs. Christensen, Mr.
Clay, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Clement, Mr. Conyers, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Fattah, Mr.
Ford, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Hilliard, Mr.
Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr.
Jefferson, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms.
Kilpatrick, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms.
McKinney, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Meeks of New
York, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms. Norton, Mr. Owens,
Mr. Payne, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Rush, Mr. Scott, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Towns, Mrs. Jones of
Ohio, Ms. Waters, Mr. Watt of North Carolina, and Mr.
Wynn):
H.R. 1606. A bill to amend section 507 of the Omnibus Parks
and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to authorize
additional appropriations for historically black colleges and
universities, to decrease the matching requirement related to
such appropriations, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Resources.
By Mr. DeFAZIO (for himself, Mr. Stark, Ms. Baldwin,
and Mr. George Miller of California):
H.R. 1607. A bill to amend the Military Selective Service
Act to suspend the registration requirement and the
activities of civilian local boards, civilian appeal boards,
and similar local agencies of the Selective Service System,
except during national emergencies, and to require the
Director of Selective Service to prepare a report regarding
the development of a viable standby registration program for
use only during national emergencies; to the Committee on
Armed Services.

By Mr. EHLERS:
H.R. 1608. A bill to amend title 18 of the United States
Code to prohibit human cloning; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. ENGLISH (for himself, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Riley, Mr.
Kennedy of Minnesota, Mr. Hilliard, and Mr. Cramer):
H.R. 1609. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide for national standardized payment
amounts for inpatient

[[Page 6349]]

hospital services furnished under the Medicare Program; to
the Committee on Ways and Means, 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. ETHERIDGE:
H.R. 1610. A bill to amend the Agricultural Reconciliation
Act of 1993 to make leaf tobacco an eligible commodity for
the Market Access Program; to the Committee on Agriculture.
By Mr. GALLEGLY:
H.R. 1611. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to eliminate the marriage penalty with regard to income
limits for the IRA deduction for active participants in
pension plans; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HANSEN:
H.R. 1612. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to remove the cover over of tax for Puerto Rico; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HINCHEY (for himself, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Bonior,
Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Baldwin, Mr.
Pallone, Mr. Capuano, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr.
Filner, Mr. Markey, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Levin, Mrs.
McCarthy of New York, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Brown of
Florida, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Shays, Ms. Hooley of
Oregon, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Sanders,
Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr.
Serrano, Mr. Allen, Mr. Stark, Mr. Borski, Mr. Brady
of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Capps, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Baird,
Mr. DeFazio, Mr. McNulty, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Lee, Mr.
Weiner, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Payne, Mr. Smith
of Washington, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr.
Clay, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Holt, Mr. Evans, Mr. Kucinich,
Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr.
Gonzalez, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Matsui, Mr.
Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Inslee, Mr.
Olver, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Moore, Mr. Lewis
of Georgia, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr.
Luther, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. George
Miller of California, Mr. Kleczka, Mrs. Napolitano,
Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Ferguson,
Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Rivers, Mr. Waxman, Mr.
Crowley, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Simmons, Ms.
Waters, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii,
Ms. McCollum, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Andrews, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri,
Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Engel, Ms. Velazquez, Mrs.
Lowey, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Towns, Mrs. Kelly, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Rothman,
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Farr of California,
Mr. Leach, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Spratt,
Mrs. Morella, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Owens, Ms. McKinney,
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Frank, Mr. Clement, Mr.
Ackerman, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Jefferson, Mr.
Clyburn, Mr. Hill, Mr. Berman, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr.
Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Rush, Mr.
Honda, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Wu, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Ford, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Larsen
of Washington, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Phelps,
Ms. Sanchez, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Carson of Indiana, and
Ms. Solis):
H.R. 1613. A bill to designate certain Federal land in the
State of Utah as wilderness, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Resources.
By Mr. HOEFFEL (for himself and Mr. Maloney of
Connecticut):
H.R. 1614. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, to reauthorize and make improvements
to that Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 1615. A bill to expand the class of beneficiaries who
may apply for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act by extending the deadline
for classification petition and labor certification filings;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. KELLER (for himself and Mr. Diaz-Balart):
H.R. 1616. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to provide for the granting of United States citizenship,
through the issuance of a certificate of citizenship, to any
person who, after obtaining the status of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, completes 3 years of
honorable service on active duty in the Armed Forces, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. KUCINICH (for himself, Mr. Andrews, and Mr.
Souder):
H.R. 1617. A bill to promote youth entrepreneurship
education; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Ms. LOFGREN:
H.R. 1618. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow an individual who is entitled to receive child
support a refundable credit equal to the amount of unpaid
child support and to increase the tax liability of the
individual required to pay such support by the amount of the
unpaid child support; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. LOFGREN:
H.R. 1619. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to increase the limitation on capital losses applicable
to individuals; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. Horn, Mr.
McNulty, Mr. Deutsch, Ms. Lee, Ms. Berkley, Mr.
Berman, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Engel, Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts, Mr. Wexler, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri,
Mr. Lantos, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Rodriguez,
and Mr. McGovern):
H.R. 1620. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education
to make grants to educational organizations to carry out
educational programs about the Holocaust; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Ms. McKINNEY (for herself and Mr. Lewis of Georgia):
H.R. 1621. A bill to establish the Arabia Mountain and
National Heritage Area in the State of Georgia, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (for himself, Mrs.
Mink of Hawaii, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Solis, Mr. Andrews,
Mr. Wu, Mr. Kildee, and Mr. Hinojosa):
H.R. 1622. A bill to reduce the costs of Federal student
loans to students and their families, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. PICKERING (for himself and Mr. Chambliss):
H.R. 1623. A bill to provide for the preservation and
restoration of historic buildings at historically women's
public colleges or universities; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Ms. PRYCE of Ohio (for herself, Mr. Hobson, Mr.
Foley, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mrs.
Myrick, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Ehrlich, and Mr. Bentsen):
H.R. 1624. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide for coverage under the Medicare
Program of all oral anticancer drugs; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways
and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. RAMSTAD:
H.R. 1625. A bill to establish the Samuel Kelner Commission
on Youth; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. RAMSTAD (for himself and Mr. Tom Davis of
Virginia):
H.R. 1626. A bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide standards and
procedures to guide both State and local law enforcement
agencies and law enforcement officers during internal
investigations, interrogation of law enforcement officers,
and administrative discipliniary hearings, to ensure
accountability of law enforcement officers, to guarantee the
due process rights of law enforcement officers, and to
require States to enact law enforcement discipline, and
accountability, and due process laws; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. RANGEL:
H.R. 1627. A bill to redesignate the Federal building
located at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, in the District of
Columbia, and known as the Old Post Office Pavilion, as the
``Paul Leroy Robeson Old Post Office Pavilion''; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. RODRIGUEZ:
H.R. 1628. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act
to designate El Camino Real de los Tejas as a National
Historic Trail; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mrs. ROUKEMA (for herself and Mr. Frank):
H.R. 1629. A bill to increase the mortgage loan limits
under the National Housing Act for multifamily housing
mortgage insurance; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. SAXTON (for himself and Mr. Armey):
H.R. 1630. A bill to encourage the International Monetary
Fund to fully implement transparency and efficiency policies;
to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. SCARBOROUGH (for himself, Mr. Davis of Florida,
Mr. Shaw, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Deutsch, Mrs.
Thurman, Mr. Keller, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms.
Brown of Florida, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Bilirakis, and
Mr. Foley):
H.R. 1631. 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
Resources.

[[Page 6350]]

By Mr. SHADEGG (for himself, Mr. Armey, Mr. Sherman,
Mr. Souder, and Mr. Flake):
H.R. 1632. A bill to provide for the compensation of the
people and Government of the United States who suffered
damages as a result of the attack on, and occupation of,
Kuwait by Iraq in 1990; to the Committee on International
Relations.
By Mr. STUPAK:
H.R. 1633. A bill to reaffirm and clarify the Federal
relationship of the Burt Lake Band as a distinct federally
recognized Indian Tribe, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Resources.
By Mr. STUPAK:
H.R. 1634. A bill to provide for and approve the settlement
of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community and
the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians; to the
Committee on Resources.
By Mr. STUPAK:
H.R. 1635. A bill to provide that the first $5,000 received
from the income of an Indian tribe by any member of the tribe
who has attained 50 years of age shall be disregarded in
determining the eligibility of the member or the member's
household for benefits, and the amount or kind of any
benefits of the member or household, under various means-
tested public assistance programs; to the Committee on
Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture,
Financial Services, Energy and Commerce, Education and the
Workforce, Veterans' Affairs, and Ways and Means, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Pomeroy, Mrs. Emerson,
Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota,
Mr. Graves, Mr. Shimkus, Mrs. Clayton, and Mr. Moran
of Kansas):
H.R. 1636. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow allocation of small ethanol producer credit to
patrons of cooperative, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TIERNEY (for himself, Mr. Blagojevich, Ms.
Lofgren, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Stark, Mr. Clay,
Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Carson of
Oklahoma, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Barrett, Mr.
Hoeffel, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Evans, Mr. Kind, Mrs.
Maloney of New York, Mr. Frank, Mr. Markey, Ms.
Baldwin, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Waxman, Mr.
Pallone, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Lee, Ms. McKinney, Mr.
Capuano, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. DeLauro, Ms.
Eshoo, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. McGovern, Mr.
Meehan, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Nadler,
Mr. Olver, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Sanders,
Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Weiner):
H.R. 1637. A bill to reform the financing of Federal
elections, and for other purposes; to the Committee on House
Administration, and in addition to the Committees on Energy
and Commerce, and Government Reform, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. TOOMEY (for himself, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr.
George Miller of California, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Sweeney,
Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Watt
of North Carolina, Mr. Thompson of California, and
Ms. DeLauro):
H.R. 1638. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide that geographic reclassifications of
hospitals from one urban area to another urban area do not
result in lower wage indexes in the urban area in which the
hospital was originally classified; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. TOOMEY (for himself and Mr. Schaffer):
H.R. 1639. A bill to establish limits on medical
malpractice claims, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on the Judiciary, 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. TOOMEY (for himself, Mr. Paul, and Mr.
Schaffer):
H.R. 1640. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to facilitate the use of private contracts under
the Medicare Program; to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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. TOWNS:
H.R. 1641. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to require States that provide Medicaid prescription drug
coverage to cover drugs medically necessary to treat obesity;
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. WATERS (for herself, Mr. Bachus, Mrs. Maloney of
New York, Mr. Sanders, and Ms. Lee):
H.R. 1642. A bill to urge reforms of the Enhanced Heavily
Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. WEINER:
H.R. 1643. A bill to provide for the recognition of
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; to the Committee on
International Relations.
By Mr. WELDON of Florida (for himself and Mr. Stupak):
H.R. 1644. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
prohibit human cloning; to the Committee on the Judiciary,
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. WELDON of Pennsylvania (for himself and Ms.
DeGette):
H.R. 1645. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to designate certified diabetes educators
recognized by the National Certification Board of Diabetes
Educators as certified providers for purposes of outpatient
diabetes education services under part B of the Medicare
Program; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. BERKLEY (for herself, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Hinchey,
Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mrs.
Morella, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms.
Carson of Indiana, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr.
Honda, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Lipinski, and Mr. Stark):
H. Con. Res. 110. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress in support of National Children's
Memorial Flag Day; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. BOEHLERT:
H. Con. Res. 111. Concurrent resolution commending the
President for proclaiming May 6-12, 2001, as Global Science
and Technology Week; to the Committee on Science.
By Mr. PAYNE:
H. Con. Res. 112. Concurrent resolution regarding the human
rights situation in Sudan, including the practice of chattel
slavery; to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. PAYNE:
H. Con. Res. 113. Concurrent resolution regarding human
rights violations and oil development in Sudan; to the
Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the
Committee on Financial 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. RANGEL:
H. Con. Res. 114. Concurrent resolution expressing the
Sense of the Congress with respect to Paul Leroy Robeson; to
the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Gilman, Ms. DeLauro,
Mrs. Morella, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Serrano,
Mr. George Miller of California, Ms. Pelosi, Mr.
Lipinski, Mrs. Thurman, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr.
Frank, Ms. Lee, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Bishop, Mr.
Blagojevich, Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. McCarthy of New York,
Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Filner, Mr. Rush, Mrs.
Meek of Florida, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Sanchez, and Ms.
Norton):
H. Con. Res. 115. Concurrent resolution supporting the
goals and ideas of a National Child Care Worthy Wage Day; to
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. SHIMKUS (for himself, Mr. Cox, Mr. Lipinski, Mr.
Wolf, Mr. Borski, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr.
Schaffer, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. McNulty, and Mr.
English):
H. Con. Res. 116. Concurrent resolution recommending the
integration of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia into the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); to the Committee on
International Relations.
By Mr. CRENSHAW:
H. Res. 124. A resolution recognizing the importance of
children in the United States and supporting the goals and
ideas of American Youth Day; to the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
By Mrs. MORELLA (for herself, Mr. Tom Davis of
Virginia, Ms. Norton, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Petri, Mr.
Moran of Virginia, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Frank, and Mr.
Clay):
H. Res. 125. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the National Capital Planning
Commission should adopt a plan that permanently returns
Pennsylvania Avenue to the use of residents, commuters, and
visitors to the Nation's capital and that protects the
security of the people who live and work in the White House,
and that the President should adopt and implement such a
plan; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. RANGEL:
H. Res. 126. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that

[[Page 6351]]

Sugar Ray Robinson should be recognized for his athletic
achievements and commitment to young people; to the Committee
on Government Reform.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:

H.R. 10: Mr. Thomas.
H.R. 17: Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut.
H.R. 25: Mr. LaFalce.
H.R. 37: Mr. Blumenauer and Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 57: Mr. Baca.
H.R. 97: Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, Mr. Sweeney, Mrs.
Bono, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, and Mr. Thompson of
California.
H.R. 98: Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Green of
Wisconsin, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Sherman, and Mr.
Bereuter.
H.R. 127: Mr. Crane and Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 157: Mr. LaTourette.
H.R. 179: Mr. McInnis and Ms. Waters.
H.R. 190: Mr. Paul.
H.R. 199: Mr. Holt, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Mr. Ney,
Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Walsh.
H.R. 219: Mr. Mica.
H.R. 224: Mr. Largent.
H.R. 232: Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 236: Mr. Brady of Texas and Mrs. Wilson.
H.R. 267: Mr. Green of Wisconsin, and Mr. Rehberg.
H.R. 270: Mr. Andrews and Mr. Sabo.
H.R. 280: Mr. Gutknecht and Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 336: Ms. Waters.
H.R. 340: Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms. Brown
of Florida, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Olver, and Ms. Waters.
H.R. 436: Mr. Skelton, Mr. Nussle, and Mr. Traficant.
H.R. 437: Mr. Foley and Mr. Largent.
H.R. 458: Mr. Armey, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, and Mr.
Green of Wisconsin.
H.R. 464: Mr. Rangel, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Ms.
Slaughter, Mr. McHugh, Mr. George Miller of California, Ms.
DeLauro, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Evans, Mrs. Mink of
Hawaii, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Frost, and Ms. Kilpatrick.
H.R. 478: Mr. Frost.
H.R. 491: Mr. Lantos, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Towns, Mr. George Miller of
California, Mr. Frost, Mr. Honda, and Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 500: Mr. Bonior.
H.R. 510: Mrs. Maloney of New York and Mr. Baca.
H.R. 519: Mr. Cunningham.
H.R. 570: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. LaHood, and Mr.
Hutchinson.
H.R. 580: Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Pallone,
Mr. Frost, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Baldacci.
H.R. 583: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Thune,
and Mrs. Roukema.
H.R. 600: Mr. Bishop, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Hyde,
Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Pastor, Mr.
Rothman, Mr. Pomeroy, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, Mr.
Levin, and Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 612: Mr. Rush, Ms. Sanchez, Ms. Waters, Mr. Pence, Mr.
Stearns, and Mr. Green of Texas.
H.R. 622: Mr. Mica.
H.R. 623: Ms. Waters.
H.R. 638: Mr. Towns, Mr. Sabo, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Conyers,
and Mr. Matsui.
H.R. 654: Mr. Baca.
H.R. 659: Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Sununu.
H.R. 664: Mr. Gallegly, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Clement, Mr.
Stump, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Condit, Mr. Lampson, Ms. Solis, Mr.
Hall of Texas, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Ms. Waters, Mr. Udall of
Colorado, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Weller, Mr. Farr of
California, Mrs. Clayton, and Mr. Sandlin.
H.R. 668: Mr. Strickland, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Cunningham,
Ms. McCollum, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Ramstad, and Mr.
Tiberi.
H.R. 686: Mrs. Tauscher and Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 690: Mr. Markey.
H.R. 713: Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Wu, Mr. Thompson
of Mississippi, and Ms. Pelosi.
H.R. 716: Mr. McKeon, Mr. Ramstad, and Mr. Ballenger.
H.R. 717: Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Maloney of
New York, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Hefley, Mr.
Pastor, and Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 721: Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Shows,
Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Berry, Mr. Ortiz, and Mr. Menendez.
H.R. 752: Mr. Issa.
H.R. 770: Mr. Sawyer.
H.R. 774: Mr. Shays and Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 777: Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Shays, and Mr. Kildee.
H.R. 783: Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 790: Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 808: Mr. Ross, Mr. Regula, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Graham,
Ms. DeLauro, Mrs. Clayton, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Hoyer,
Mr. Ford, Mr. Baca, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Kerns, Mr.
Norwood, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. LoBiondo, and Mr.
John.
H.R. 848: Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Ms. DeLauro, Mr.
Rodriguez, Ms. Solis, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Rush, Mr. Conyers,
Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Shows, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Hall of Texas, and
Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 862: Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 868: Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Barcia, Mr.
Otter, Mr. Mica, Mr. Largent, Mr. Gekas, and Mr. Diaz-Balart.
H.R. 912: Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Costello, Mr. Kanjorski, and Mr.
Doggett.
H.R. 917: Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 951: Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of
Virginia, Mr. Luther, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Riley, Mr. Delahunt,
Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, and Mr. Gary G. Miller of California.
H.R. 954: Mr. Allen and Ms. Carson of Indiana.
H.R. 959: Mr. Honda and Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 964: Mrs. Lowey and Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 968: Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Oberstar, and
Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 969: Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Pitts, and Mr.
Bachus.
H.R. 978: Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Boehlert.
H.R. 984: Mr. Blunt and Mr. Filner.
H.R. 985: Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, and Mr.
Ramstad.
H.R. 1005: Mr. Osborne.
H.R. 1016: Mr. McNulty.
H.R. 1019: Mr. Cox, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Scarborough.
H.R. 1020: Mr. Cummings, Mr. Berry, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Boyd,
Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Carson of
Oklahoma, Mr. Towns, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Pascrell, and Mr.
Greenwood.
H.R. 1026: Mrs. Thurman and Mr. Ross.
H.R. 1035: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 1037: Mr. Ferguson.
H.R. 1043: Mr. Inslee and Mr. Levin.
H.R. 1044: Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 1088: Mr. Otter.
H.R. 1093: Mr. Bereuter.
H.R. 1094: Mr. Bereuter.
H.R. 1119: Ms. Millender-McDonald.
H.R. 1121: Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 1127: Mr. Ney and Mr. Barton of Texas.
H.R. 1129: Ms. Millender-McDonald and Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 1130: Ms. Millender-McDonald and Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 1134: Mr. LaHood, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin,
Mr. Moran of Kansas, and Mr. Ramstad.
H.R. 1143: Mr. Pallone, Mr. Dooley of California, and Mr.
Frost.
H.R. 1162: Ms. DeGette, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Waxman, and Ms.
Baldwin.
H.R. 1170: Mrs. Thurman, Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Ortiz.
H.R. 1180: Mr. Waxman and Mr. Bereuter.
H.R. 1189: Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
H.R. 1192: Mr. Clay, Mr. Upton, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr.
Tierney, Mr. Owens, Mr. Payne, Mr. Holt, Mr. Pickering, Ms.
Carson of Indiana, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. John, Mr. Frank, Mr.
Mollohan, Mr. Wynn, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Norton,
Mrs. Morella, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Ferguson, Mr.
Bereuter.
H.R. 1194: Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Kind.
H.R. 1195: Mr. Frost, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Bonior, and Ms.
DeGette.
H.R. 1199: Ms. McCollum, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Luther, Mr.
Ramstad, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr.
Moore, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hinchey, Mrs. Mink of
Hawaii, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 1220: Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr.
Gilman, Mr. Stenholm, and Mr. Paul.
H.R. 1252: Ms. Pelosi and Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 1256: Mr. Holt, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Frank, Mr. Towns, Mr.
Owens, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Cummings,
Ms. Berkley, Mr. Engel, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Pelosi,
Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mrs. Lowey,
Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr.
Evans, Mr. Stark, Mr. Markey, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Matsui, Mr.
Baldacci, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Pascrell, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Rush,
Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. LoBiondo, Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Reyes, Ms.
Norton, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Grucci, Mrs. Clayton, Mrs.
Mink of Hawaii, Ms. DeGette, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Walsh.
H.R. 1257: Mr. Kind, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Holden.
H.R. 1262: Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Owens, Mr. Davis of Illinois,
Mr. Payne, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Filner, Mr. Farr of
California, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 1263: Mr. Turner.
H.R. 1271: Mr. Mica.
H.R. 1280: Mr. Foley and Ms. Waters.
H.R. 1285: Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 1287: Mr. Bentsen.
H.R. 1291: Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Stearns, and Mr. Allen.
H.R. 1304: Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 1306: Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 1330: Mrs. Morella, and Mrs. Davis of California.
H.R. 1342: Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Crane, Mr. Foley, and
Mr. Goode.
H.R. 1354: Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Holden, Mr. Hilleary, Mr.
Honda, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Clyburn, and Ms. Solis.

[[Page 6352]]

H.R. 1357: Mr. Collins, Mr. Ferguson, and Mr. Levin.
H.R. 1358: Mr. Knollenberg.
H.R. 1366: Ms. Harman, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms.
Roybal-Allard, Mrs. Bono, Ms. Lofgren, and Mr. Royce.
H.R. 1367: Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 1369: Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 1372: Mr. Brown of South Carolina.
H.R. 1389: Ms. Brown of Florida and Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 1390: Ms. Brown of Florida and Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 1391: Ms. Brown of Florida and Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 1392: Ms. Brown of Florida and Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 1393: Ms. Brown of Florida and Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 1394: Ms. Brown of Florida and Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 1395: Ms. Brown of Florida and Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 1396: Ms. Brown of Florida and Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 1397: Ms. Brown of Florida and Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 1407: Mr. Sweeney, and Mr. Costello.
H.R. 1412: Mr. Spratt, Mr. Frost, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas,
Mr. Kirk, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Ney, Mr.
DeMint, and Mr. Royce.
H.R. 1434: Mr. Matsui, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. LaFalce, and Ms.
Rivers.
H.R. 1436: Mr. Frank, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Israel, and Mr.
Oberstar.
H.R. 1438: Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. Smith of
Michigan.
H.R. 1464: Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 1475: Mr. Cardin, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Ehrlich, Mr. Rush,
Mr. Schiff, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Davis of Illinois,
Mr. Levin, Mr. Matheson, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Waxman, Mrs.
Thurman, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Meehan,
Mr. Walsh, Mr. Whitfield, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Boehlert, and Ms.
Waters.
H.R. 1476: Mr. Sandlin.
H.R. 1477: Mrs. Jones of Ohio.
H.R. 1479: Mr. Barcia, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Herger, Mr.
Moran of Kansas, Mr. Pickering, and Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 1487: Mr. Isakson, Mr. Wu, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Price
of North Carolina.
H.R. 1510: Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Goode, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Frost, Mr. Petri, Mr. McHugh,
and Mr. Schaffer.
H.R. 1512: Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H.R. 1523: Mrs. Roukema, Mr. English, and Mr. Smith of New
Jersey.
H.R. 1524: Mr. Weller, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Mica, and Mr.
Cannon.
H.R. 1541: Mr. Murtha, Mr. Filner, Mr. Simmons, and Mr.
Pascrell.
H.R. 1553: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 1592: Mr. Simpson.
H.J. Res. 6: Mr. Weiner.
H.J. Res. 36: Mr. Moakley, Mr. Platts, Mr. Bryant, and Mr.
Stupak.
H. Con. Res. 16: Mr. Payne, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Meeks
of New York, Mr. Hilliard, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Towns,
Mr. Crowley, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Faleomavaega, and Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi.
H. Con. Res. 17: Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms.
Lee, and Mr. Pallone.
H. Con. Res. 23: Mr. Sessions.
H. Con. Res. 58: Mr. Gallegly and Mr. Towns.
H. Con. Res. 68: Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Stupak, and Ms.
Norton.
H. Con. Res. 104: Ms. Waters and Ms. Sanchez.
H. Res. 72: Mr. Deutsch.
H. Res. 120: Mr. Sweeney.
H. Res. 123: Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Pence, Mr. Hostettler, and
Mr. Collins.

____________________

DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:

H.R. 1051: Mr. Kanjorski.

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 26, 2001
April 26, 2001

[[Page 6353]]

SENATE--Thursday, April 26, 2001

The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
George Allen, a Senator from the State of Virginia.
______

prayer

The guest Chaplain, Rev. Monte Frohm, of Good Shepherd Lutheran
Church, Reston, VA, offered the following prayer:
Merciful Father, You are the source of all authority and power. You
hold in Your hand all the nations of the world, including our own
beloved United States of America. You have ordained the powers that be
for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of them that act
rightly.
We humbly beg You to so guide the men and women of this Senate, that
they might in due modesty and with undying hope pursue Your gracious
will and purpose. Enlighten them with Your vision for our Nation, equip
them with Your strength, instill in them a spirit of integrity that
mirrors Your truth, and grant them patience in well doing that reflects
Your long-suffering mercy.
May their labors yield a nation that is marked by justice and peace,
righteousness and unity, gratitude and hope. As each of us is created
in Your image, so let our common life reflect Your glory.
O Lord, our troubles are many, but Your strength is great. Our fears
confound us, but Your promise gives hope. Our sins are many, but Your
mercy is deep. Leave us not to our own devices, but work Your gracious
purpose through us, to the glory of Your holy name. 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.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma, the
acting majority leader, Mr. Nickles, is recognized.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today we will be in a period of morning
business until 11 a.m. Following morning business, it is hoped that the
Senate can begin consideration of S. 149, the Export Administration
Act. Senators interested in this legislation are encouraged to be
present on the floor at 11 a.m.
In addition, negotiations are continuing on the education bill, and
consideration of that bill is expected in the not too distant future.
As announced, there will be no session of the Senate on Friday.
I thank my colleagues for their attention.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to mention that I am glad we are
going to attempt to get to the Export Administration Act. I think that
is what it is called. It is a very important measure. Senator Graham
and I worked with Senator Enzi and other Senators trying to get that
considered last year and we were unable to do that. I was happy to see
in today's press--and I only read the Washington Post, and that may not
be the best paper to read, but I read it--the indication that President
Bush expressed in statements to the press several times yesterday that
he was going to have to work with us, compromise on taxes and
education.
I say this because I don't think it shows a sign of weakness of the
President. I think it shows a maturity he knows--of course, because he
worked with the Texas Legislature for 6 years as Governor--that
legislation is the art of compromise, and he is going to have to
compromise some of his positions. We will also have to compromise some
of ours. This is the beginning of, I hope, some productivity in the
Congress.
I think we did our job yesterday by passing by a 99-0 vote the
brownfields bill from the Environment and Public Works Committee. I
hope this is the beginning of a very productive session of Congress.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's comments. I
have always enjoyed working with Senator Reid. I think this can be a
very productive month. This can be a month that we finish the budget
and the tax bill, and we can finish the education bill. It is a month
in which we can accomplish a lot for the American people that will make
a difference in their lives and in their paychecks.
A lot of times people wonder what do we do and are there real results
and are there real differences in what we do. Considering the education
bill and tax measures pending, we can make a lot of difference, whether
you are talking about the marriage penalty or a $500 tax credit per
child, cutting taxes across the board, reforming education, giving more
power to parents and teachers. We can do all that this month. By
Memorial Day, we can have great, significant accomplishments by working
together. I look forward to working with my friend and colleague from
Nevada.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

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 10:30 a.m. shall be under
the control of the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, or his designee.
The Senator from Tennessee.

____________________

EDUCATION

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly this morning on an
issue about which we have heard a lot in the last few days and in which
a number of us have participated diligently over the last several
months. The subject is education, kindergarten through 12th grade, a
period of time which, as we all know, in large part determines how
successful one is later in life--how well equipped one is to deal with
challenges in an increasingly challenging world.
This important issue has caused many of us to reflect over the last
several years on what has been accomplished in the last 35 years with
Federal intervention in education. What we have found, for the most
part, is that in spite of major expenditures by the Federal
government--a small fraction of what is spent across the country but a
huge and growing investment, to the tune, in just one program, title I,
of about $120 billion focused on disadvantaged children--the results
have been disappointing.

[[Page 6354]]

They have been disappointing to Republicans, Independents, and
Democrats. They are disappointing because through careful study,
through careful documentation, people have come to realize that we have
not succeeded. By practically every single measurement, the results
have been flat.
Some people say that is a good result; we could have gotten worse.
But there is no reason in a time of economic prosperity and
increasing prominence of the United States in the world order--we are
the superpower--for results to be flat when billions of dollars are
being expended.
When we peel away the layers and look at the results, we see growing
achievement gaps between the served and underserved; between those
financially well off and those less financially well off; between
minority and non-minority. However one looks at the achievement gap
over the last 35 years, it has deteriorated; it has gotten worse.
The subject is complex. It is hard. It is not a matter of just more
money, smaller class size, or better school buildings. Society has
changed. The challenges before us have changed. Our responsibility is
to look at the last 35 years and address what has not worked and,
through debate, hearings, and discussions, come forth with a policy
that will reverse the trend of an achievement level that is flat. No
net results after an increase in attention and after an increase of
dollars is not an acceptable outcome.
From both sides of the aisle, we have heard over the last several
days--and very appropriately so--applause for President Bush's first
100 days. Education is his No. 1 policy priority. We have made
significant progress on tax relief, spending, and a number of military
and defense issues.
Now we come back to what is most important to the United States of
America--where we are today and where we want to be 5 years from now,
10 years from now, 20 years from now in what is becoming a smaller and
smaller world.
The President's top priority is education. We have heard it from all
sides; we have seen it in the newspapers and other media; and we have
said it ourselves on the campaign trail. But the message really comes
from the words of President George W. Bush, and that is ``to leave no
child behind.'' When you say ``leave no child behind,'' you look at an
individual and wonder how, in spite of 20, 50, 100, 150, 200 programs,
all well intended, coming out of a Congress that says here is another
good program to address a particular problem, we fall short. In spite
of hundreds of different federal education programs, and in spite of
$120 billion spent in a single program, title I, we continue to fail.
Leaving no child behind means we probably have to change our
targeting. Many of us believe we should channel increased resources to
the child who is disadvantaged, to raise that child's performance. That
has not been possible from a political standpoint.
In leaving no child behind, the solution means we should focus on the
child. We do not focus on bureaucracy. We focus on the child. We do not
focus on more money for still another program. That has been tried
again and again. It means we need to make sure the child, the
individual, learns.
Right now, we have testing and some general accountability measures.
People argue passionately about national standards, State standards,
and local standards. That needs to be debated. But for 35 years we
never said of the child: we will follow you over time so we can
determine whether you are failing, staying the same, or progressing
and, based on that, determine the proper action for this body.
We need to make sure kids learn. That will require increased
accountability.
How do we do that? The bill that will be put forward and marked up in
the Health Education Committee, the BEST bill, is strong on
accountability. Through the bipartisan working groups that have been
very actively involved over the last 2 months, that accountability can
be strengthened. We need to reward schools that are performing well. If
schools are not doing well, we will have to give them the tools, the
equipment, the resources, and the chance to do better. When they
repeatedly fail, year after year after year and if a child is locked
into such a school, at some point we have to reconstitute that school
or give the parents the opportunity to take their child out of that
failing environment that society has created and put them in an
environment where they have a real chance to learn.
Students in persistently failing schools should not be trapped there.
They are trapped today. We need to do something about it. We have not
been able to do anything about it in 30 or 35 years. The failure is in
part because of Federal involvement. It is in part a failure of the
current system. We need to change the system. That means make sure kids
learn, with accountability. No. 2, give parents a choice. No. 3, let's
proceed with reform.
No longer can people sit back and say: here is the system of 760
programs, let's pour more money into that system and we will be OK. We
know that will not work. Therefore, we have to have reform. We have to
have modernization of that system.
The good news is Democrats and Republicans together and from a policy
standpoint understand what modernization means today. It means
flexibility, knowing what works and what doesn't work, taking what
works and putting it on a pedestal and supporting it. Yes, that means
financially. More money will be put in education. We heard the
President of the United States say again and again and again over the
last several days, especially as we are at the negotiating table, that
he is willing to put more money than has been put into education last
year or the year before that or the year before that. This President
will invest in education if we agree to link it to reform, to
modernization, to flexibility, to accountability, to having some
element of parental involvement. Nobody cares more about that
individual child than the parents.
Global competition is one of the reasons we can stand up and say we
are failing today in spite of our good intentions, in spite of teachers
who are working hard, getting up each morning, teaching all day,
preparing through the night and working summers to become even better
teachers. In spite of their best efforts, we are failing. The National
Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, is the only test using an
accurate and careful statistical sampling from a cross-section study
across the country of what happens at a certain point in time in
various States and various school districts. It is also longitudinal,
comparing what happens after 1 year to 3 years to 5 years to 10 years
later.
A recent NAEP study confirmed that our current education system is
not working. The statistics, the data, are very accurate. As a
scientist and someone who depends on statistics, I am convinced it is
good data. The data show that the achievement gap is not closing, but
continues to widen.
I am hopeful we can address the issue of education now or next week
in a way that links that policy to the debate we are talking about,
which is how much more money it will take to succeed.
The NAEP uses four levels of achievement. They are: advanced,
proficient, basic, and below basic. You can track each of these.
Looking at the below basic category is fascinating. Take one element,
such as reading. In the below basic level, for the most part, too many
students simply cannot read. Mr. President, 37 percent of those tested
scored below basic. Even more disturbing is the fact that 63 percent--
almost two-thirds of black fourth graders, 58 percent of Hispanics, 47
percent of students in urban areas, and 60 percent of poor children--
scored below basic. That means they cannot read.
Secretary Paige--a wonderful leader--articulates through his
experience what is happening on the ground: ``After spending $125
billion of title I money over 25 years, we have virtually nothing to
show for it.''
The data also show how well we are performing internationally. Look
at math and science. I have a junior in high school; so we are thinking
about college. As a physician, math and

[[Page 6355]]

science are two fields that mean a lot to me as we predict how well
prepared people will be in this new economy fueled by technology and
dissemination of information. In math and science, we are not first in
the world. We are not fifth in the world. We are not tenth in the
world. We are not fifteenth in the world. The United States of America
is seventeenth in math and eighteenth in science.
What does that say as we go out and compete in this global economy
for jobs, for economic growth?
We have a wonderful opportunity to go forward under the leadership of
President George W. Bush. He has put on the table a very clear agenda
that stresses accountability; an agenda that focuses on what works; an
agenda that will reduce the redtape and bureaucracy that is handcuffing
our teachers; and an agenda that will increase flexibility and local
control. It is an agenda where needs can be identified locally and an
agenda that empowers parents.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to participate in this
discussion. I am hopeful we will be able to turn to the bill next week.
It means at the end of 2 weeks from now we can have a bill that will
engage in a major modernization of education, where we truly can say
that the United States of America has stepped up to that big challenge,
that challenge of leaving no child behind.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will please call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with and that I be yielded 10 minutes or until
a Senator arrives, at which time I will yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise once again to continue remarks from
a few minutes ago on education, and I will do so until another Senator
arrives to speak. I want to take a moment to bring my colleagues up to
date on the underlying bill that came out of the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions. It is a bill called BEST--I mentioned
it earlier--the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. It is a
bill we debated in the Committee and most probably will be the bill
that is brought forward once we make further progress in discussions on
the appropriate amount of money to invest.
This particular bill, which will be modified and debated and
discussed on the floor, has four principles about which I want to
briefly comment. What it does, is to embody what President Bush has
focused on and that is this very important belief, fundamental belief,
that enterprise works best when authority and responsibility are
aligned. Good results occur when responsibilities are accompanied by
latitude and flexibility so that judgments can be made on information
that is available and when those who are responsible for teaching, for
making decisions for education, for leaving no child behind, are held
accountable. Those principles are very simple. They link innovation
responsibility, flexibility, and results.
The BEST bill has four components to it. No. 1, it will increase
accountability for student performance. It is just remarkable, I
believe, and it is important for our colleagues to understand and
people around the country to understand, that we as a government are
investing taxpayer money without demanding accountability--no
measurement, no results, are required. We are pouring money into a
system and we don't know if it works. As I mentioned earlier the data
that has come out this morning shows the current system does not work.
First and foremost, accountability: States and school districts and
schools that improve achievement that eliminate or narrow that
achievement gap which we know is getting worse those entities, will be
praised, will be rewarded in the underlying bill.
The flip side of that is those schools and those districts and even
those States that continue to fail after they receive new resources and
a fair clause to show progress--they will then be sanctioned. They will
be held accountable. That is something basic. It is something we do in
our homes. It is something we do in our small businesses. We do it in
our everyday lives. But when it comes to government, for some reason
for the last 35 years we have not done it. Now is the time to do it.
And we are going to do it.
The parents will have new information on how their children are
progressing. They will no longer be limited to just assessing at night
and talking to their child, or talking to other parents at night. That
will continue, of course, but parents will know much more about whether
the schools are succeeding. For the first time, assessments can be
compared across communities and States, and across the U.S. and even to
other countries. Parents will know that their schools are being held
accountable as well.
Parental involvement is crucial, we can do a lot here in Washington,
DC, in this great Capital and this great body, but ultimately it has to
be the millions of parents who are out there holding accountable the
schools, the teachers, the school districts, and the local governments.
There are going to be annual State reading and math assessments for
grades three through eight. That is something I feel very strongly
about.
Two, the BEST bill focuses on what works. Federal dollars will be
spent on effective research-based programs and practices. Funds will be
targeted to improve schools and enhance teacher quality.
That ultimate goal has to be to have a student and a classroom that
is safe and drug free, but with a good teacher at the head. Therefore,
the ``t'' in the BEST bill means teachers. And the focus will be on
teachers.
Third, the BEST bill will also reduce bureaucracy and increase
flexibility. Additional flexibility will be provided to States and
school districts, and flexible funding will be increased at the local
level.
Finally, this bill will empower parents. Parents don't now have the
information to be able to either hold schools accountable or make
decisions. They will be given that information about the quality of
their child's progress and their child's school. Students in
persistently low-performing schools will be provided options so that
they are not locked in a bad school.
It is important as we go forward to understand what the underlying
bill is. It is a sweeping introduction of the four principles:
accountability, focusing on what works, reducing bureaucracy and
increasing flexibility, and empowering parents.
I look forward to discussing that in greater detail as we, hopefully,
get to this bill next week. I think the BEST bill is a great start for
what we all want, and that is to leave no child behind.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is
recognized.

____________________

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak with colleagues
about global warming, which quite literally is a cloud that is looming
on our horizon. As many have feared, there is evidence that this cloud
has recently grown darker and more ominous.
Over the last few months, in fact, the United Nation's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its third report on
global warming. This report was authored by over 700 expert scientists.
Their conclusions, I am afraid, offer convincing evidence of a planet
in distress, one that is slowly overheating with very serious--some
would say disastrous but certainly very serious--consequences for those
who will follow us on this Earth.
According to these scientific experts, unless we find ways to stop
global warming, the Earth's average temperature can be expected to rise
between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit during this next 100 years.
Such a large rapid rise in temperature will profoundly affect the
Earth's landscape in very real and

[[Page 6356]]

consequential terms. Sea levels could swell enormously, potentially
submerging literally millions of homes and coastal properties under our
present day oceans. Precipitation would become more erratic, leading to
droughts that would make hunger an even more serious global problem
than it is today. Diseases such as malaria and dengue fever would
spread at an accelerated pace. Several weather disturbances and storms
triggered by climate phenomena, such as El Nino, would be aggravated by
global warming and become, I am afraid, more routine.
Unfortunately, that is not the first time we have heard such
disconcerting predictions, which in their way are so extreme that they
may be hard for some to believe, although I find as I go around my
State and on occasion around the country that the public is ahead of
their political leadership on this issue--at least a lot of the
political leadership. The public has been reading these reports and
understands that something is happening with the weather that will
affect life on this planet unless we do something about it.
For years, scores of scientists from throughout the world have issued
warning after warning attesting to the harmful effect of increasing
amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. While it is true
that there have been some efforts to curb the release of these gases, I
am afraid we have spent a lot more time debating the credibility of the
warnings than doing something about them.
Truly, this new data does not end the serious debate about whether
global warming is a fact. This most recent scientific report is the
most advanced study we have had on the subject. I personally conclude
that the science is now incontrovertible.
As this latest report reminds us, the threat is being driven by our
own behavior. Remember the old Pogo cartoon: We have met the enemy and
it is us. That is, unfortunately, the case with global warming. Let me
quote the scientists in the report directly.

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
activities.

Human beings have added more than 3 billion metric tons of carbon to
the atmosphere every year for the past two decades. In fact, the
current levels of carbon dioxide are likely the highest they have been
in 20 million years of history.
In the face of this mounting evidence, what have we done? I am afraid
we have a statement from President Bush saying that he ``takes the
issue of global warming very seriously.'' But, unfortunately, thus far
the acts that have followed that statement do not match the statement.
I am afraid the only global cooling that will occur under this
administration is the cooling of our foreign relations with countries
around the world, including some of our foremost allies who are very
anxious to work with us to do something about global warming. Last
month the administration unilaterally announced, without consultation
with Congress, and apparently without consultation with our allies or
others around the world, that it had ``no interest in implementing''
the Kyoto Protocol. In doing so, the administration did not just back
away from America's signature on an international agreement. They
backed away from the process that resulted in the accord, and that
action not only undermines our global environment but it also
undermines our credibility with our allies.
This is one issue that is so serious and will so profoundly affect
the lives of our children and grandchildren and those who follow us
here on Earth that we ought to be at the head as the greatest nation in
the world of international efforts to stop this problem, to deal with
it, and not be viewed by most of the rest of the world as loners going
our own way not listening to science experts and not acting
responsibly.
I am afraid the Bush administration has also walked away from its
chief domestic initiative on climate change, which was a very hopeful
initiative, when it reversed the President's campaign pledge to adopt a
market-based trading mechanism regulation of carbon dioxide emissions
from powerplants. Those emissions account for up to 40 percent of our
Nation's carbon dioxide emissions and 10 percent--one-tenth--of the
global carbon dioxide emissions at this point coming from American
powerplants.
We have to take firm and decisive action--we ought to be taking it
together; we ought to be taking it across party lines--to address
global warming. If we act soon, we can still avoid the bleak fate that
will otherwise await our children and grandchildren on this good Earth
that the Good Lord gave us. We are visitors here, temporary visitors.
We have an obligation to act not only as good visitors but as trustees
of the planet for those countless generations that will follow.
Science is giving us a warning. We all ought to put ideology aside
and figure out a way to cooperate to respond to that warning, to
protect the planet and those who will follow us on it. Doing so will
require two things. One is global leadership, and the other is a shared
effort to change the source of the problems and deal with them through
technology and through cooperative effort.
In the clear absence of Presidential action thus far, we in the
Senate, I am pleased to say, have begun to provide some leadership on
this issue. Just before the recess, we passed an amendment to the
budget resolution that reestablished funding for all climate change
programs throughout our Government, including funding for energy
efficiency programs, funding for programs to encourage emissions
reductions in developing countries, and the funding for full and
adequate participation in international negotiations.
I hope President Bush and others in the administration will take note
of the Senate's concern about climate change, represented by this
amendment, and join with us in taking action on this problem. There
have been some strong voices within the administration that clearly
understand the dimensions of the problem and want to work to be leaders
in dealing with it. I am speaking of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr.
O'Neill, and the Administrator of the EPA, Ms. Whitman.
The alarming conclusions of the U.N. scientists' report should be of
concern to all of us. Global warming is most decidedly not a partisan
issue; it is a human problem. It is a problem for all of us who inhabit
the Earth. Neither party wants to allow the apocalyptic future
projected by the scientists' report. The evidence is compelling. Our
planet is, in fact, slowly overheating. So now we have to join together
across party lines and international borders and agree to act. This is
a challenge because we are talking about a problem whose beginnings we
can see now but whose worst effects will probably, hopefully, not be
felt until some years have passed.
So this requires leadership--political leadership--to avoid a problem
whose worst effects most of us will not experience in our lifetimes,
but it is the responsible thing to do to take such action.
Kyoto set a framework. I was at Kyoto when that agreement was
negotiated. It is not a perfect document by far. But considering the
fact that we were dealing with so many of the nations of the world,
approaching this problem from different places, it is a framework for
international cooperation.
I hope the administration, on second look, will view it that way,
will go to the international meeting in Germany in July, which is the
next step in the Kyoto process, will consult with our allies and others
in the world, and will find a way, together with us--both parties in
Congress--to move forward to deal with this problem.
We deal with serious problems every day in the Senate. It is part of
the challenge and, indeed, the excitement of the privilege we have to
serve our Nation. It is when we deal with those problems effectively
that we have together--all of us--the moments of greatest satisfaction.
This, in the long run, is one of the largest problems which any of us
in this Chamber will ever confront. The sooner we get together and make
some

[[Page 6357]]

progress to deal with it, the better will be the world's future.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will please 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.

____________________

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 149

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion and
effort over the past couple of years put into trying to address the
export administration issue. I know that Senator Gramm and the ranking
Democrats and Senator Sarbanes have worked on this issue. I know there
are a number of Senators who have reservations about this whole area
and this particular piece of legislation.
It is my understanding that the new administration has had input and
a number of previous concerns have been addressed. I understand this is
an area where we need to be careful to make sure we do it in the right
way and that we pay attention to very important security concerns.
I think one of the only ways, though, to have those issues properly
aired and addressed, and hopefully resolved, is to begin the discussion
and see if we can get a final agreement and move on this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the consideration of
calendar No. 26, S. 149, the export administration bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

____________________

EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 2001--MOTION TO PROCEED

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to S. 149, and I
understand that there are some opening statements that can be made. I
hope that we can work through the objections so that we can actually
move to the legislation. I move to proceed to the bill at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion, and
it is debatable.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for moving to
bring this bill to the floor of the Senate. As many of my colleagues
know, the Congress has not reauthorized the Export Administration Act
on a permanent basis since the early 1990s. As a result, we have been
in a period where we have sought to get multilateral action on export
controls to protect critical national security secrets, but we have had
a very difficult time having standing on those issues among our allies
when we do not even have a regime in place to monitor exports coming
out of the United States of America.
I think it is a terrible indictment of the Congress that for so many
years we were unable to enact a bill to restore our export control
authorities. I understand that these are very difficult issues, and
they are difficult for a very simple reason: the Nation has apparently
conflicting goals. We want to export high-tech items, we want to
dominate the world in new technology, we want new innovations to occur
in America, and we want to be the principal beneficiary of the
technological revolution that is changing our lives and the life of
every person who lives on the planet. And to do these things, we want
Americans to be able to sell high-tech products on the world market.
Wages in these industries are among the highest wages in the world.
They really will determine the future of economic development on the
planet, and it is a very high American priority to see that we generate
these new technologies, that we generate these new jobs, and that
Americans be the highest paid workers on the planet.
Our problem comes in that we also have an objective of trying to
prevent sensitive technologies that have defense applications from
getting into the hands of people who might, at the current time or in
the future, become adversaries of the United States of America. First
of all, I think we have to admit to ourselves that there is an apparent
conflict in these two goals and, hence, you have the difficulty in
dealing with this problem.
Now, I want our colleagues to understand that, first, the Banking
Committee has very large jurisdiction as it relates to national
security. In fact, other than the Armed Services Committee, no
committee in Congress has authorizing jurisdiction in defense that
rivals the Banking Committee.
Let me give some examples. The Defense Production Act is under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Banking Committee.
The Trading with the Enemy Act is under the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Banking Committee.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which has frequently
been used for export control purposes, is under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Banking Committee.
The Export Administration Act, which is before us today, is under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Banking Committee.
The Exon-Florio amendment, which set up the process whereby we look
at foreign ownership of defense industries, to look at the national
security implications of foreign investments and mergers, is under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Banking Committee.
Sanctions bills that imposes economic sanctions against any country,
whether it be the Iran-Libyan Sanctions Act, or whether it be any
sanction imposed in the future, would be imposed in legislation that
falls under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee.
Quite frankly, I believe some of this dispute is about jurisdiction.
I did not write the rules of the Senate, but I believe that when this
jurisdiction was put under the Banking Committee, it was the right
decision because the Banking Committee is basically the Banking and
Economic Committee. These issues have to do with economic matters that
have defense implications. I think the correct decision was made in
placing these items within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee.
We have spent 2 years exercising our responsibility in trying to come
up with a workable and, I believe, if I may say so immodestly, a
superior Export Administration Act. We have held extensive hearings on
the Export Administration Act.
I want to show my colleagues some of the studies that have been done
that we have looked at. We have had the authors of these studies appear
before our committee.
The first, of course, is the now famous Cox Commission report. This
was focused on China, and it was focused on the loss of American
defense secrets. The Cox Commission report made a series of
recommendations. Those recommendations are now embodied in the bill
that is before the Senate.
Rather than trying to go through all of the elements of this lengthy
report at this time, which obviously would empty the Chamber for
several days as I would be standing alone talking about them, given how
voluminous they are, I will share with the Senate one point that Chris
Cox made in presenting these reports to us and giving us the
recommendations which we have incorporated in this bill.
And this is critically important because I have colleagues who say
that now is not the time to do this bill because of our recent problem
with China. I say to my colleagues, we should have done this in 1995,
but given the problems we have had with China, given their
irresponsible behavior, we need this bill in place now more than ever.
If it was not the time to do this 3 weeks ago, it is the time to do it
today. I say the time to do it was 5 years ago, and we certainly need
to do it today.
Chris Cox, in looking at the loss of technology to China, cautioned
the committee on something that I think every Member of the Senate, as
we

[[Page 6358]]

begin this debate, needs to be cautious about. What he cautioned us
about was doing feel-good things, doing things where we pound our chest
and act as if we are doing something, when in reality we are not
achieving anything.
One of the things I am very proud to say about this bill is that
there is no feel-good provision in this bill. Everything we did we did
because we believed it would work, not because it simply made us feel
good to place it in the bill.
The quote I want to read from Chris Cox is the following:

We ought not to have export controls to pretend to make
ourselves a safe country. We ought to have export controls
that work, and you have to assume that if the Ministry of
State Security in the People's Republic of China can gain
access to the computers at Los Alamos, they can probably gain
access to the Radio Shack in Europe.

One of the fundamental principles of this bill is that we want to
focus our attention on technologies that have defense implications,
that are significant, and where we have some hope of being successful
in controlling those technologies. When a million copies of a computer
have been manufactured, when they are sold at Radio Shack in Bonn, when
there are a million distributed worldwide, there is no possibility that
we can keep that computer from falling into anyone's hands who might be
potentially hostile to the United States of America.
We might want to do it. We might wish we could keep an agent from a
foreign country from going into Radio Shack in Bonn and buying this
computer, but when there are a million copies of it worldwide, only
divine intervention could keep someone who wanted that computer from
having it.
So rather than waste our time and energy on products that are sold by
the millions, we try to focus our attention in this bill on trying to
deal with those technologies where we have some realistic hope of being
successful. Our current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, said it
best when he said we need to build higher walls around a smaller number
of things, and that is what we have tried to do.
The next point that I want to raise from one of the witnesses before
our committee I think reinforces what Congressman Cox said. It is from
Donald Hicks, who is the former Under Secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering and chairman of the Defense Science Board Task Force on
Globalization and Security. Here is what Donald Hicks said. He refers
to what he calls the ``utter futility of the U.S. attempt to control
unilaterally technologies, products, and services that even its closest
allies are releasing on to the world market.''
This study in my hand is the study that was done by Under Secretary
Hicks making this point.
The next quote I want to give is from John Hamre, who is the former
Deputy Secretary of Defense. We all knew him when he was the staff
director of the Armed Services Committee. Here is what he says on this
subject:

America needs effective export controls to protect its
national security. Our current system of export controls
fails that test and fails badly. In ultimately approving 99.4
percent of the requests, we are not really protecting our
security. In fact, we are diverting resources from protecting
the most important technology and products.

That is a critical point of this bill. When we have a system where we
are approving 99.4 percent of the requests for licenses, we have a
system where many things are in the system that should not be in the
system. We are granting licenses on computers that are being
manufactured by the millions and sold all over the world.
We try to focus our attention where it can do us the most good. Frank
Carlucci, the former Secretary of Defense and former National Security
Adviser, gets right to the heart of it when he says:

But we should do only that which has an effect, not that
which simply makes us feel good. Many technologies are
uncontrollable, given the access to the Internet. Others can
and will be supplied by our competitors. Our job, your job,
is to strike the right balance. Don't help our enemies. But
at the same time, allow and encourage innovation and research
to flourish.

We have spent 2 years looking at all of these studies, having the
authors of all of these studies appear before our committee, and in
each and every case their recommendation to us is quit doing things
that make you feel good. Quit forcing us into a mechanism where we are
having to deal with thousands of items, when 10 are really important.
By dealing with thousands, we are not paying enough attention to the 10
that ultimately affect American security.
We have put together a bill that I believe dramatically improves the
export control process, the export control review mechanism that is
used, and greatly enhances national security. I am proud to say this
bill is supported by the President. The President said in very simple
terms, ``I believe we've got a good bill and I urge the Senate to pass
it quickly.'' He said this in the East Room of the White House on March
28.
The bill before the Senate has been endorsed by the Secretary of
Defense, by the Secretary of State, by the President's National
Security Adviser. We gave them an opportunity when the new
administration came in, to take the bill we had worked on, and go
through it in detail. They suggested some 21 changes. We adopted those
changes. In several cases I thought the previous bill was stronger, but
we adopted those changes. I think in the process, on net, we have
improved the bill.
What does the bill do? The bill strengthens national security. No. 1,
and most importantly of all these other things, while it doesn't sound
as robust as these other things I will mention, it is actually more
important. We focus the attention of the export administration process
on defense sensitive items where we have some hope of being successful.
We set up a procedure whereby the President is given tremendous
powers to negotiate international agreements with our major trading
partners to cooperate to try to prevent sensitive technologies from
getting into potentially hostile hands.
We establish new criminal and civil penalties for knowing and willful
violations. One of our problems under the current situation we face is,
for example, that with the question of an illegal transfer of missile
technology to China, given the laws that are in place, even if the
parties are convicted, the penalties would be trivial. No one will call
the penalties in this bill trivial. The penalties in this bill begin
with $5 million for a violation. In the case of multiple violations,
the penalties could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. We
have tough prison sentences for knowing and willful violations. When we
have those penalties, we affect people's behavior, which is what we
need to do.
Again, it is very difficult to enforce these laws. It is difficult to
prove intent. Knowing it is difficult to catch people, we wanted to
have very severe penalties when they are apprehended, prosecuted, and
convicted.
We strengthened the hand of the national security agencies by, for
the first time, giving them a formal procedure by which to be involved
in this process. We were very concerned that in the previous
administration the Defense Department was in a position of not being in
concurrence with some decisions that were being made but not having an
effective way to show it did not agree. So we provided a process
whereby if any member of the review panel--and we would assume in
general it would be the Defense Department--objects, that individual,
with the concurrence of the designated political appointee in his or
her department, has the ability to object and force that decision to
the next highest review level. That is a substantial strengthening, in
my opinion, of the process.
We have greater predictability in the process, as well, which is
important both for national security and economic reason.
I will end with this: We do have a cloture motion. At some point that
petition may be filed, because it is critical to national security we
get on with this process.
I conclude by talking about the balance we are trying to establish.
We want a balance that allows us to provide for the national security
of the United States, but on the other hand,

[[Page 6359]]

we want to be able to be the dominant high-tech manufacturer in the
world.
Please remember, despite any feel-good speech we could make, most
high-tech companies have operations worldwide, so when they are
developing a new product, they can develop it in Germany or they can
develop it in Dallas. If we have an export control process that is
cumbersome or inefficient or costly or overly burdensome, they will
develop these products in Germany and not in Dallas. That is harmful to
our security, and it is harmful to people who are working in America.
This bill is good for security because it restores the expired
control authority. It adopted the recommendations from the studies I
referred to earlier, such as the Cox Commission and the commission
studying proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It protects
sensitive U.S. goods and technologies. It strengthens the role of the
national security agencies, and it toughens criminal and civil
penalties.
That is how it strengthens national security, why it is good for
national security.
Why is it good for trade and for job creation and for the economic
development and economic dominance of the United States of America?
No. 1, it streamlines controls and procedures.
No. 2, it removes ineffective controls where we know an item is mass
marketed. A million copies are sold on the world market, and an
American company trying to get market share ends up, under current
practices, being delayed for long periods of time to get approval to
sell something that is readily available on the world market. That
makes no sense and it burdens the process to such a degree that we are
not paying attention to the things that are really important when we
are doing those things. This bill changes that, it fixes that problem.
This bill brings certainty and transparency to the licensing process.
When somebody applies, they know how the process works. They know what
the timetables are. They know they are going to get an answer--yes or
no. As anybody who has ever been contacted by a high-tech manufacturer
knows, what they want to know is, yes or no. If the answer is no, they
can deal with it. If the answer is yes, they can rejoice. What they
cannot deal with is no answer, which is what the current process is
producing, even though it is eventually approving 99.4 percent of the
applications.
This bill seeks to restore the international cooperation that we had
under the cold war export control regime, where we had multilateral
agreements and where we could prevent things from being sold by one
country or another to our potential adversaries. This bill, first, sets
up the best system we can set up given we are acting unilaterally, but
it also gives the President strong new directive to go to England, to
go to Germany, to go to Japan, and try to work out multilateral
agreements, and then this bill automatically makes those binding.
Finally, it creates a framework compatible with the high-tech economy
in which we live and work. We have currently set into static law the
number of MTOPS, millions of theoretical operations per second, that a
computer could generate as a condition for export, when we know that
this number is doubling every 6 months. So what did this provision of
the law do? What it did was put American producers at a disadvantage
because they would have to go through our export control process, while
their competitors in Germany and Japan could rush right out into the
marketplace. Our producers would fool around, trying to get a
Presidential decision to update the standard, generally with legions of
high-tech people coming to kiss the President's ring and in some cases
attend his fundraisers.
That is an unworkable system. It breeds corruption. It hurts America.
It does not enhance security. So we in this bill we repeal the MTOP
limit and set out a process where the focal point is not on something
that is doubling every 6 months--we cannot change that, we cannot
legislate it away.
I do not question the sincerity of the critics of this bill. I do not
think their hearts are any less pure than mine. But I would like to say
that I don't take a backseat to anybody in America in supporting
national defense. I was in the House, and I helped write the budget in
1981 that rebuilt defense and helped fund Peace Through Strength that
tore down the Berlin Wall. I am concerned about American security. My
dad was a sergeant in the Army. I am from a part of the country that
lost a war. I understand something about national security and why it
is important. So while I do not doubt that I have colleagues who have
national security concerns, I have those concerns as well. They are
reflected in this bill and its provisions.
I believe we put together a good bill. I know that not everybody
agrees with that. We got a vote of 19-1 in the Banking Committee. I
have been the ``1'' many other times, on other committees under other
circumstances, and that didn't make me any the less right that the
other 19 people voted the other way. I understand that. But we have
come to the point where we have to make a decision.
I urge my colleagues, let's go to the bill, let's make our cases, and
I will pledge to them if they convince me that they are right--I helped
my colleagues in the committee write the bill the way we wrote it
because I thought it was best, but if there is a better way, I am
willing to support changing it. I cannot speak for other people. But if
my colleagues can convince me there is a better way of doing it, I will
do it that way.
What I do not think I can be convinced of is that the best thing to
do is to do nothing, that the best thing to do is to continue to limp
along without having an effective process in place. I am concerned
about the potential threats we face as a nation. I think we need this
bill to help meet those threats. I urge my colleagues to support the
bill, but if they are not going to support the bill, tell us how they
would make it better, let's look at it, let's have votes on it. Again,
anybody who has a way to make it better, I am willing to support it. I
do not think we have reached the perfect bill yet, but I do think we
have a dramatic improvement on the status quo.
I thank my colleagues. I thank Senator Enzi and Senator Johnson for
the great work they have done. I have never seen a Member get as
involved in issues as Senator Enzi has been involved in this process. I
have never seen a Member of the Senate who went to the actual meetings
of these agencies and sat for hours, trying to figure out what they do
and why they do it and how it works. The quality of this bill is in
large part due to the work that he did and the work he did with Senator
Johnson on the International Finance and Trade Subcommittee.
I thank Senator Sarbanes. This is a bipartisan effort. Senator
Sarbanes and I are far apart on some kind of mythical, philosophical
line. But I think the reality is that we have been very effective in
legislating and we have been effective because we have tried to work on
a bipartisan basis. If we can work in a bipartisan basis, it can be
done.
I thank my colleagues for their leadership and their cooperation. I
am hopeful we will pass this bill. I hope after the debate our
colleagues who are concerned about the bill will be convinced--not
necessarily to be for it--but will be convinced that maybe it is an
improvement over the status quo, and maybe it is not quite as bad as
they would think.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is debating the motion to proceed
to S. 149.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the motion to proceed and
give itself the opportunity to move to the substantive consideration of
S. 149, the Export Administration Act of 2001. The adoption of this
motion to proceed would enable Senators, then, to consider the bill on
its merits, to offer amendments, if they have them, to

[[Page 6360]]

alter or change the bill in whatever direction they think is desirable.
I think this is important legislation. I am frank to say I think this
bill before us is well crafted and deserves the support of the Senate.
But in any event, whatever your attitude on that question is, I
certainly think this issue, and this legislation dealing with this
issue, deserves to be considered by the Senate.
I very much hope, after we have had this opportunity for some
discussion, we will be able to move ahead and consider the bill on its
merits. I understand it is the leadership's intention to file a cloture
motion--the leadership, as I understand it, on both sides of the
aisle--in order to enable us to go to this legislation. I hope that
will not be necessary. I think there is a compelling argument for
taking up this bill and addressing this issue.
Let me say a few words about the bill itself. Earlier this year, I
was pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Enzi, Senator Johnson,
and Senator Gramm, in introducing this legislation. It was reported out
of the Banking Committee on a bipartisan vote of 19-1, so there was a
very strong majority within the committee. That was on March 22 that we
met and marked up the bill and reported it to the floor of the Senate.
The Export Administration Act provides the President authority to
control exports for reasons of national security and foreign policy. I
think there is a strong national interest in Congress reauthorizing the
Export Administration Act. If we do not do that by August, there will
be no Export Administration Act. And, in fact, we are now working under
a temporary extension of the Export Administration Act, passed in the
last Congress, which will expire in August.
Before we passed that temporary extension, we were dealing under the
International Economic Emergency Powers Act. Let me be very clear about
this because it is very important. We need to understand what the
situation has been and what the situation will be if we do not act on
this legislation. The Export Administration Act has not been
reauthorized since 1990, except for temporary extensions in 1993, 1994,
and last year. In other words, for most of the past decade we have been
operating without an Export Administration Act. We are now in the
framework of a temporary extension that expires on August 20 of this
year.
Without these temporary extensions--in other words, for over this
past decade--the authority of the President to impose export controls
has been exercised pursuant to the International Economic Emergency
Powers Act--the so-called IEEPA.
In my view, it is highly desirable for the Congress to put in place a
permanent statutory framework for the imposition of export controls.
That is what this bill will do. That underscores the importance of
considering this legislation. Export controls should not be imposed
pursuant to the emergency economic authority of the President.
One example of the reason for depending on IEEPA is that penalties
that may be imposed under export controls under IEEPA are significantly
less than those imposed by this legislation. In other words, reliance
on IEEPA and the President's extraordinary authority under that
legislation still leaves us falling short in terms of the penalties for
violations of export controls for what this legislation provides.
It is ironic that this bill is being in effect contested on these
national security grounds when in fact it does more to protect the
national security concerns than the existing IEEPA scheme.
The IEEPA scheme is also weak in the sense we are quite worried that
it will be subject to a court challenge, which in effect would make the
limited penalties that it contains inapplicable. I think that has to be
kept very much in mind as we consider taking up this legislation.
This legislation has been worked over very carefully. I think it
represents a carefully balanced effort to provide the President
authority to control exports for reasons of national security and
foreign policy while at the same time responding to the need of U.S.
exporters to compete in the global marketplace.
We have two major objectives we are trying to harmonize. I think this
legislation does it in a balanced way.
In preparation for acting on this legislation, the Banking Committee
held two hearings in this Congress. We held a number of hearings in
previous Congresses and two hearings with representatives of industry
groups and foreign and Defense Department officials. Extensive
consultation took place with representatives of the current
administration, including representatives of the Defense Department,
the State Department, the intelligence agencies, the Commerce
Department, and the National Security Council.
Prior to the markup of the legislation in the Banking Committee,
Condoleezza Rice, Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs, sent a letter to the committee. I will quote it because I
think it is important. I will quote it actually in full. The Assistant
to the President for National Security Affairs in a letter to the
chairman of our committee stated:

The Administration has carefully reviewed the current
version of S. 149, the Export Administration Act of 2001,
which provides authority for controlling exports of dual-use
goods and technologies. As a result of its review, the
Administration has proposed a number of changes to S. 149.

Actually a number of colleagues were involved in urging the
administration to seek such changes, including colleagues I see on the
floor now and who remain, I take it, concerned about this legislation.
To go back to the letter:

The Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of
Commerce, and I agree that these changes will strengthen the
President's national security and foreign policy authorities
to control dual-use exports in a balanced manner, which will
permit U.S. companies to compete more effectively in the
global market place. With these changes, S. 149 represents a
positive step towards the reform of the U.S. export control
system supported by the President. If the Committee
incorporates these changes into S. 149, the Administration
will support the bill. We will continue to work with the
Congress to ensure that our national security needs are
incorporated into a rational export control regime.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, a major effort was made by the committee
to work through the list of proposals by the administration. Those
proposals were incorporated into the bill during the Banking
Committee's markup. I thought the administration's recommendations were
a balanced set of proposals. I believe they strengthen the overall
bill.
Subsequent to that and subsequent to the committee reporting the bill
out, the President in remarks to high-tech leaders at the White House
on March 28 urged quick passage of this bill by the Senate.
In that appearance at the White House--and I will quote briefly from
the President's--actually, he started off by saying to this group:

Thanks for coming. I appreciate that warm welcome. And
welcome to the people's house. It's a nice place to live. And
I'm glad I'm living here.

That is the President talking.
He went on and said to the high-tech group:

I've got some good news and you may have been watching the
Senate Banking Committee. But after a lot of work with
industry leaders and the administration and members of the
Senate, the Export Administration Act--a good bill--passed
the Banking Committee 19-1.

He then goes on to say that ``this has been crafted as a good bill.
And I urge the Senate to pass it quickly.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these remarks of the
President in a meeting with high-tech leaders be printed in the Record
at the conclusion of my remark.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I commend very strongly Senator Enzi,
who was chairman of the relevant subcommittee in the last Congress and
chairman of the International Trade and Finance Committee, and Senator
Johnson, who is the ranking member of that subcommittee, for their
extraordinary work in developing this legislation. They worked
tirelessly

[[Page 6361]]

both in the last Congress and again in this Congress to help bring us
to this point.
I commend Senator Gramm and the staff of all Senators and the
committee staff for their strong efforts to develop a bipartisan
consensus on this legislation.
Senator Hagel and Senator Bayh, who have taken over these positions
now in the new Congress on the subcommittee, also made constructive
contributions in moving this legislation forward this year.
Let me say this about the legislation. It generally tracks the
authority provided the President under the Export Administration Act,
which expired in 1990, as I indicated earlier. But a significant effort
was made with the excellent assistance of the legislative counsel's
office to delineate these authorities in a more clear and
straightforward manner.
We made a very strong effort to inject an element of clarity and
directness into the statute which would make it easier for the
executive branch agencies to administer the statute and for the
exporters to comply with it.
The bill makes a number of significant improvements to the EAA. It
provides, for the first time, a statutory basis for the resolution of
interagency disputes over export license applications. The intent is to
provide an orderly process for the timely resolution of disputes while
allowing all interested agencies a full opportunity to express their
views.
This is very important. There is an orderly process now by which
disputes can be moved up the ladder in order to be resolved. So any
concern that any department or agency of the Government has as they
work through this interagency process can be heard and dealt with and
resolved, and, if necessary, at the final level, be resolved at the
Presidential level. This orderly process was an issue of great concern
to the administration, to the national security community, and to
industry.
I think we have reached a reasonable resolution of the issue in this
bill. This was an issue on which Senator Enzi and Senator Johnson spent
countless hours in order to try to work out arrangements that would be
acceptable to all. As I have indicated, now they are acceptable to the
agencies and the departments of the executive branch across the board.
Not one department or agency is coming in now and telling us they think
this is not a workable system under which they can operate.
The bill significantly increases both criminal and civil penalties
for violations of the Export Administration Act, reflecting the
seriousness of such violations.
The bill provides new authority to the President to determine that a
good has mass market status in the United States and should therefore
be decontrolled. This gets at this issue of, well, you can go out and
buy a store on the market. Why are we controlling this good? But the
bill retains authority for the President to set aside a mass market
determination if he determines it would constitute a serious threat to
national security and that continued export controls would be likely to
advance the national security interests of the United States. So we
retain an ultimate authority in the President with respect to this
matter.
At the particular urging of Senator Enzi, the bill contains a
provision that would require the President to establish a system of
tiers to which countries would be assigned based on their perceived
threat to U.S. national security. The intent of this provision is to
provide exporters a clear guide as to the licensing requirements of an
export of a particular item to a particular country.
The bill would also require that any foreign company that declined a
U.S. request for a postshipment verification of an export would be
denied licenses for future exports. The President would have authority
to deny licenses to affiliates of the company and to the country in
which the company is located as well.
You get a sense of the reach of some of these provisions in providing
important protections for national security concerns.
We also included a provision in the committee to make a number of
technical corrections and incorporate the suggestions made by the
administration.
The bill contains a provision from the expired EAA relating to the
imposition of export controls on crime control and detection
instruments that inadvertently had not been included in the bill as
introduced.
So, to close, let me just again underscore that this is a very
carefully crafted piece of legislation. It is a very balanced piece of
work. I believe that the Senate, when it finally is able to get to the
substance of the bill, will provide broad support for it, just as it
had broad support in the committee.
Again, I underscore that though it is asserted now that the
protections are inadequate for national security and foreign policy,
that runs so counter to the situation in which we find ourselves. If
you compare what is in this bill with the existing arrangements, or
with the previous arrangements under the EAA, this bill has done a good
job of providing clarity and providing process of procedure of the
arrangements to be followed, which gives to the exporters more
definition and more certainty in how they can proceed, what the rules
of the road are, while at the same time retaining for the
administration, ultimately for the President, very significant powers
in controlling exports.
As I indicated, it establishes tough new criminal and civil penalties
for export control violations. It strengthens our ability to control
critical technologies by building a higher fence around the truly
sensitive items. That is very important. One of the things we are
trying to accomplish is a focus on the truly sensitive items. It grants
the President special control authorities for cases involving national
security, international obligations, and international terrorism. It
promotes discipline in licensing decisions by codifying the role of
national security agencies in the licensing process and then
streamlining licensing procedures, and it encourages U.S. participation
in strong multilateral export control regimes.
We have a short timeframe to deal with this legislation this year,
given that the short-term extension of the EAA expires this summer in
August. We need to put in place a permanent statutory framework for the
imposition of export controls. I believe this legislation is that
framework. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the effort to move
to this legislation and subsequently to enact it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Remarks by the President in Meeting With High-Tech Leaders, March 28,
2001

The President. Thanks for coming. I appreciate that warm
welcome. And welcome to the people's house. It's a nice place
to live. (Laughter.) And I'm glad I'm living here.
. . . As well, I've got some good news and you may have
been watching the Senate Banking Committee. But after a lot
of work with industry leaders and the administration and
members of the Senate, the Export Administration Act--a good
bill--passed the Banking Committee 19-1.
The technology that you all have helped develop obviously
gives us an incredible military advantage, and that's going
to be important. And it's an advantage, by the way, that we
tend--want to develop, to make sure we can keep the peace,
not just tomorrow, but 30 years from now. We've got to
safeguard our advantages, but we've got to do so in ways that
are relevant to today's technology, not that of 20 years ago.
The existing export controls forbid the sales abroad of
computers with more than a certain amount of computing power.
With computing power doubling every 18 months, these controls
had the shelf life of sliced bread. They don't work.
So in working with the Senate, we're working to tighten the
control of sensitive technology products with unique military
applications, and to give our industry an equal chance in
world markets. And I believe we've got a good bill. It's a
bill that I heard from you all during the course of the
campaign. The principles we discussed are now a part of this
bill. I want to thank Senator Phil Gramm for his hard work in
working with us and industry and some members of the Senate
to make sure the bill that has been crafted is a good bill.
And I urge the Senate to pass it quickly.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I objected to the motion earlier to
proceed

[[Page 6362]]

to the Export Administration Act. I want to share some of my concerns
in why I did that.
I, too, serve on the Banking Committee. I have been on it 15 years. I
worked with Senator Gramm, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Enzi, and Senator
Johnson. It is a great committee. It is the committee of jurisdiction
for this legislation. I also happen to be chairman of the Select
Committee on Intelligence. And this is why I am concerned about this
piece of legislation today.
Yesterday, we in the Intelligence Committee spent 2 hours being
briefed on the damage to our national security from China's seizure of
sensitive technologies aboard our EP-3 reconnaissance plane, which
remains, as of this hour, in Chinese custody.
Chinese technicians are picking that plane apart, and I do not
believe they are looking for loose change under the seat cushions.
Yet today, right now, we are talking about moving to debate a bill
that will make it easier for the Chinese, and others, to get technology
like that aboard the EP-3 and other advanced technologies without any
licensing or export restrictions.
I ask my colleagues: What is wrong with this picture?
I am sure the Chinese leadership can't believe its luck. The U.S.
Senate, which until a few days ago was criticizing China's aggressive
tactics, militaristic policies, and disdain for the rule of law, is now
rushing to open the floodgates for the advanced technologies China
needs to upgrade its military.
And a few days after the administration announced an unprecedented
package of arms to help Taiwan defend itself, the Senate wants to sell
China the very technologies that will help it to overcome Taiwan's
defenses, and threaten the U.S.
The events of the last several weeks underscore a fact that has been
apparent to many of us for some time: China is not our strategic
partner. It is our competitor and could be our adversary.
Yet we are moving ahead on this bill today as if these events never
occurred. I fear the Senate is signaling to the Chinese that whatever
they do and however much we may criticize their actions, we will always
put our commercial interests ahead of our national security.
We have done this in the past, and we are reaping the results today.
Equally important is the risk of advanced dual-use technologies
falling into the hands of countries such as Iran, Iraq, or Libya.
While supporters emphasize the economic benefits of provisions in
this bill that would ease controls on exports to large markets like
Russia and China, they don't tell you that Russia and China are
routinely identified by the Director of Central Intelligence as the
``key suppliers'' of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons
technologies.
Although this bill may help our U.S. technology industry increase its
exports in the short run, I believe its impact on our national security
in the long run may be disastrous.
As a result, I cannot support proceeding to this bill at this time
until the entire U.S. Government has had an opportunity to thoroughly
review the legislation, take a fresh look at our overall China policy,
conduct an in-depth study of our export control policies, and address
the national security concerns shared by the chairmen of the national
security committees in the Senate.
In addition to these governmentwide efforts, we in the Senate must do
our homework. This is an extremely complex piece of legislation that
raises a host of extremely complex issues. They need to be debated and
looked at thoroughly.
The economic benefits of increased high technology exports are
quickly apparent and relatively obvious; the national security
implications are less immediate, less obvious, and often classified.
Therefore, before voting on this legislation, every Senator should
have the benefit of the extensive briefings that Senators Warner,
Helms, Thompson, Kyl, McCain, and I have had.
Should the Senate now vote to take up the EAA, I intend to join my
colleagues from the other national security committees in setting forth
in detail our concerns about the national security implications of this
bill.
We believe the case is compelling for those who are willing to
listen.
That is why I object to proceeding with the bill so soon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this historic
legislation before the Senate. I regret that there is resistance to the
motion to proceed. I believe it would be best to proceed to the
consideration of this legislation by the full Senate, to debate the
merits of the legislation, and, for those who object, to provide
opportunities for them to offer amendments to be debated on their
merits in the course of our consideration.
Whether we move forward today or are delayed a couple more days, it
is important that we move ahead as expeditiously as we can on passage
of the Export Administration Act reauthorization.
This legislation is the culmination of many long hours of bipartisan
cooperation to modernize America's export laws to reflect our rapidly
changing world. It was first put together last year, when I served as
ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance
of the Banking Committee. Senator Enzi, my Republican colleague from
Wyoming, served as chairman of that subcommittee. We were able to pass
similar legislation out of the committee on a 20-0 vote. This year
Senator Enzi and I have moved on to other subcommittees but have
remained actively involved in this issue.
I particularly commend Senator Enzi for his continued strong
leadership and the work he and his staff have put into this effort. The
consequence of that work during this Congress has been the legislation
before us that passed out of the Banking Committee on a bipartisan vote
of 19-1 and which has the support of the President of the United
States, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary
of Commerce, as well as the National Security Adviser to the President.
While there are some who raise the specter of diminished security
concerns, it is interesting that, in fact, not only is there
overwhelming bipartisan congressional support for this balanced piece
of legislation, but the people who are most knowing or most in the
position to advocate for strong national security in America, our
President and Secretaries of Defense and State, are all supportive of
this legislation. To raise the specter of China strikes me as something
that has been thought through very carefully by our President and our
defense establishment in the course of endorsing and supporting this
bill.
The fact is, under this legislation, our national security would be
strengthened, not diminished. Yes, sales of technology items could be
made to China but only those items which our defense establishment and
our President endorse as appropriate sales and which are otherwise
available on the open market.
I have had the great pleasure of working on a team with Senators
Enzi, Gramm, Sarbanes, and their staffs, to craft this legislation. I
thank them for their professionalism and their cooperation on this
effort. It is rare that legislation of this importance comes before the
Senate with this level of bipartisan support, and the cooperation and
support of the White House and the defense and commerce establishments
in the United States. It is a rare day that legislation of such
consensus comes before us. I had hoped we would not lose this
opportunity to advance the interests of our national security and our
economy at the same time.
I am gratified for the support of the Bush administration and their
willingness to express their support for the legislation.
I also note with appreciation the role Senators Gramm and Sarbanes
have played. We have had constructive participation across the board,
and that spirit contributed to the construction

[[Page 6363]]

of the newly amended version of S. 149 that is before the Senate today.
As my colleagues know, we live in a truly global economy. America has
enjoyed unprecedented growth in recent years in large part because of
the expansion of our marketplace overseas. American businesses look
well beyond our borders for customers, and exports play a critical role
in keeping our economy strong. We have also seen enormous changes in
the goods, services, and the technologies American companies produce.
Back in my home State of South Dakota, we have seen a 172-percent
increase in high-tech employment over this past decade. Our workers
have benefited from the good jobs and fair salaries that the high-tech
sector brings. The goods, the services, and the technologies they
produce are in tremendous demand throughout the world.
However, we must not be naive. Certain products and technologies can
be used for the wrong purpose. But we must not allow fear to prevent us
from crafting laws that face those issues head on and establish a
balance between economic growth and national security, and our other
needs.
The Export Administration Act is a thoughtful, balanced bill. EAA is
an important step toward ensuring our continued ability to export
American goods to the rest of the world. At the same time, EAA includes
the necessary safeguards to ensure that our export policy protects our
vital national security interests.
Since EAA's expiration in 1990, Congress has declined numerous
opportunities to reauthorize the EAA. I lament those missed
opportunities, and strongly urge my colleagues not to squander the
opportunity before us today.
Reauthorization has become still more urgent as the courts consider
the legality of our reliance on an expired EAA, and on the annual
temporary extensions we provided in the underlying legal authority
claimed under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. I fear
the day that one of these challenges will ultimately succeed and strip
this Congress of any control over sensitive dual-use technologies.
Contrary to what some of my distinguished colleagues may argue,
reauthorization of the EAA in fact greatly enhances our national
security.
We had a simple goal when we embarked on this effort: reduce or
eliminate controls on exports with no security implications, and
tighten controls on exports that raise security concerns. These
principles are not controversial; yet crafting legislation that puts
these principles into practice has been difficult to accomplish.
We worked very closely with concerned Senators, the national security
establishment, the administration, and the impacted industries. I
believe we addressed the major concerns in a balanced manner.
We increased the penalties on export violations, so that violators of
export control laws will pay a real price for breaking the law. We made
realistic assessments with respect to what items should be decontrolled
based on foreign availability and mass market standards.
It does us no good to be trying to limit the export of items that can
be found anywhere on the open market throughout the world.
In one respect, however, I am disappointed. I am disappointed that we
were forced to drop title IV, which lifted the practice of using food
and medicine as a weapon against rogue nations. It is my understanding
that a majority of the national farm groups believe our language could
potentially delay regulatory actions with respect to the lifting of
sanctions.
But as important as that legislation is, I also acknowledge that
there are other forms, other vehicles, legislatively for those issues
to be taken up at a time when we need to focus primarily on the export
of high-technology products and the defense implications of those
exports in the course of this debate. I am confident there will be
other opportunities to raise the larger issue of economic sanctions on
agricultural and medical products throughout the world.
My colleagues, the Export Administration Act is a good bill. It is a
balanced bill. It is good for America and for Americans.
S. 149 strengthens our national security--it doesn't weaken it. To
those who argue against this legislation in light of recent events with
China, I respectfully refer to them to the Cox Report that specifically
recommended reauthorization of the EAA as a way to strengthen our
national security with respect to exports to China. The EAA is a
strategic, intelligent response to the real threats that face America.
America benefits when our businesses prosper. Exporting technology
has long been an American success story. The high-tech field will lead
our economy into the next century. We understand, new technologies
could prove dangerous in the wrong hands, and our national security
depends in part on limiting access to limited specific goods, services
and technologies. That is the balance we seek to strike, and I believe
S. 149 does that.
That is the balance that has caused this broad-based, bipartisan
support, and the support of the White House, for this effort.
I look forward to a vigorous debate of these important issues.
Passage of this EAA bill will make a significant contribution to our
national security and will help bring transparency to our export
control system. I encourage my colleagues to join this bipartisan,
balanced approach to these critical issues.
I regret that we may not proceed today on the motion. If that is the
case, I have great confidence that with the cloture motion we will be
back on this legislation within a very short period of time.
Again, in closing, I commend the leadership of Senator Enzi, my
friend from my neighboring State of Wyoming, and his staff for the work
they have devoted to this effort, as well as to Chairman Gramm and the
ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, who have worked with us and with
their staffs throughout this entire effort.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I support the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, who objected to proceeding at this time on this
bill. First of all, I wish to state my reasons for supporting an
objection to proceeding at this time.
I do not think this bill is going to be delayed indefinitely. It is
not my wish to do that. I think the Export Administration Act ought to
be reauthorized. I have thought that for a long time.
The question is, What is going to go in the act when we reauthorize
it? We have had a vigorous bipartisan debate inside the Senate, and I
would venture to say also inside the House, among our Members, as to
what we ought to do about controlling or decontrolling certain
sensitive items in this country. We all have the same goals, but we
have markedly different views regarding certain aspects of how to
achieve those goals. We now are being--after having about 24 hours'
notice--asked to take up a piece of legislation which has national
security implications, which is controversial, which is going to take
some time in order to consider amendments which we think can benefit
and strengthen the bill. It is going to take some time in that regard.
It is simply not something that we should be fitting in in the middle
of a week for a day, or day and a half, and either dispose of it or
continue it on to another time. We ought to try to get together and set
aside some time, a reasonable time--I would be in favor of a time
agreement to do that--so amendments can be heard and we can debate the
merits of the bill.
This is not the time to do that. It is going to take more time than
what we have right now. At the outset, perhaps in some respects in a
very general sense, balancing our concern over commerce with national
security is what we are about. But that is not what the Export
Administration is all about. That is not what export controls are all
about.
It is pretty clear that what that is all about is national security.
It doesn't say anything in this bill or anything in the legislation on
the books now that we should engage in this balancing act

[[Page 6364]]

of commerce versus national security. What it says is that you protect
national security. In the bill before us, the purposes are set out. The
purposes of national security export controls are the following: To
restrict the export of items that would contribute to the military
potential of countries so as to prove detrimental to the national
security of the United States and to stem the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction.
That is what this bill before us states is the purpose of these
controls. That is with what we are dealing.
As we proceed, I hope we do not think we should strive so hard to
draw a 50-50 balance with regard to the considerations involved because
they are heavily weighted, to say the least, toward national security.
That, of course, is the basis of our concern.
In terms of the timing, it is my understanding that a part of the
administration's position is they want to draft an Executive order that
will strengthen the visibility and the voice of other Federal agencies
in the interagency dispute resolution process that will give the
Department of Defense greater visibility and a major role in the
commodity classification process and ensure that deemed exports are
covered, which are not covered by this law. Those are three very
important provisions that the administration says it wants to address
by means of an Executive order.
I think we are entitled to see that Executive order. I believe we
would want to consider whether or not to make them a part of the
legislation. They are very important items, as important as several of
the items that are in the legislation.
It is only proper, considering the severity of the issues with which
we are dealing, that we have all of the cards on the table and that we
deal with them in an appropriate manner.
Also--and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee alluded to
this--this is the wrong time to bring this up for another reason. It
has broad ramifications and broad applications with regard to many
different items and many different countries, but this is, in many
respects, a China trade bill.
Much of the impetus among the commercial world for getting this
passed has to do with decontrolling previously controlled items, many
of which are high-technology items, many of which have potential
military application, and many of which would be going to China. They
have a vast potential market. Only about 10 percent of the items we
export to China are controlled items. So it is not a large part of what
we are doing with them right now.
Apparently the idea is, with China's concentration on high tech and
their need for our supercomputers and other sensitive matters, that
trade will pick up and the desire among industry is to more easily
export without having to apply for a license, that trail of what
granting a license entails. That is what this is all about.
At a time when the Chinese leadership is issuing belligerent
statements with regard to our policy toward Taiwan, right after they
detained 24 American crew members and, as the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee pointed out, we are feverishly trying to destroy
computers aboard those airplanes and other items of hardware and
software, at a time when the Chinese are engaged in a rapid military
buildup and have 300 missiles on their coastline that can be used
against Taiwan, at a time when they are detaining Chinese American
scholars against their will, I do not think this is the time to send
the message to China that we are going to engage not only in business
as usual but become even more liberal in our policies of sensitive
exports. We had best wait until that dust settles a little bit before
we take it up.
We have had a policy in this country for some time of controlling
certain matters that fall into the sensitive category with regard to
supercomputers, milling machinery, centrifuges, and a host of items
which have dual use, both civilian and potential military use.
It has always been a concern as to how far we can go in allowing
civilian trade without the items being used by the military. We find
from time to time, on the rare occasions we check on them, that China
has diverted from civilian to military use. The Cox Commission points
out to us that they are using our high technology to benefit their
military. It is not that we have to speculate about that.
This Congress has responded in various ways with regard to high-
performance computers which can be used for simulation, for nuclear
testing, reliability, and without actually doing the testing of the
bombs. They can use computers nowadays to test the efficacy of their
bombs by use of high-speed computers. So Congress in 1998, as a part of
the National Defense Authorization Act, provided, with regard to these
high-speed computers, that there should be a national security
assessment to see to what extent we might be harming ourselves.
That act also provided for postshipment verifications for tier III
countries, such as China; in other words, to see how these computers
are actually being used in China.
It also required congressional review with regard to notification
thresholds. We require our exporters to notify the authorities when
they are doing certain things at certain levels. If the President is
going to change that notification threshold, he needs to notify
Congress.
The bill before us would basically do away with all of those
requirements and would abrogate those requirements that Congress set
down in 1998. If we take these broad categories of items totally off
the books and say there is no licensing at all, there will be no
monitoring even of what is being shipped to whom. There will be no
ability for a cumulative effect analysis. This particular item or that
particular item does not have a serious effect but the cumulative
effect of all of them might. That is a requirement of the law that has
not been observed in the last decade, as far as I know.
This is going to be the basis of the discussion. That is not to say
we should not reauthorize the act. That is not to say we cannot improve
and close some of these openings that I believe are unfortunate and
uncalled for and deleterious to those issues on which we all agree.
We hear all this talk about building bigger fences around a smaller
and smaller number of items, but I do not see where the fences are. I
would like to have explained to me how we are building higher fences by
this act, because this is a decontrolling, in large part. There are
certainly other provisions, but I see nothing where there is a
tightening of the process in building higher fences. We are winding up
with more openings in that fence instead of building a higher fence.
Substantively, the bill before us is a good improvement over the
first draft last year. We had certain concerns about it. We had a lot
of discussions about it. It was vigorously defended.
The administration has come in and just within a few days--they have
two people confirmed in the Department of Defense right now. That is
with what we are dealing. When we talk about the administration and all
these various agencies that have a piece and a part of this as we go
through the licensing process, let's keep that in mind.
It will be the better part of a year before this administration is
intact because of the scandalous difficulty we have in getting people
through this process in our Government. It has been going on for a long
time.
A lot of these things require input of people who are appointed by
the President and confirmed by the Senate. If this bill was part of the
law today, as far as defense is concerned, as far as appealing
something, for example, in the export control process, it would either
have to be Mr. Rumsfeld or Mr. Wolfowitz because they are the only ones
who fit that criteria. That is totally unworkable.
Another reason not to rush is that we do not have an administration
that is fully staffed in the relevant departments.
One of the key provisions involves foreign availability, the idea if
under the Secretary's determination, after consulting with others, the
Secretary of Commerce determines there is foreign availability of an
item, they will

[[Page 6365]]

lift controls, the idea being it will not do any good to try to control
that.
There is probably some truth to that. It very well may be we are
trying to control more than what can be controlled. The real question
is not whether or not we on this side of the issue or our colleagues on
the other side of the issue can sit here and determine what ought or
ought not be controlled. The question is, can we come up with a
procedure where on the questionable items, we know they will get full,
fair, and complete consideration by people who ought to be considering
the products. That is the question. We are not talking about things all
over the world, through Radio Shacks around the world. Keep in mind, we
are not talking about restricting any of these items from being
exported. We are talking about whether we ought to have a license
requirement.
Most of these items are going to be exported anyway. The difference
is whether or not it will take 30 or 45 days or whatever the normal
amount of time is. Sometimes goods are held up longer than that.
Sometimes they are held for national security reasons and this cannot
be explained to the person making the application. There is a bit of
delay there. In most cases it is not a great delay.
Some say our competitors are so hot on our trail, our European allies
are so close to us in technology that the month delay will mess up a
large number of sales. That is not very credible as far as I am
concerned. We have the lead in so many areas that going through the
licensing process, if it goes through as it should and is supposed to,
is not going to make the difference in terms of this commercial
activity.
We need to think through the foreign availability argument. If the
genie is out of the bottle and none of these things can be controlled,
why do we still have restrictions on rogue nations? If we furnish
Saddam with the computers, wouldn't that be better than having somebody
else furnish them, if he is going to have them anyway, or the
centrifuges or the milling machines--they are sensitive--that go to
make nuclear items? There are certain good arguments, good reasons to
be made that he will have it anyway; why not supply it with our
companies so we know exactly how it works.
I find it a bit inconsistent to say none of this stuff is
controllable. It is out there; you can't do anything with it. But we
want to make real sure we keep these controls on rogue nations--Iran,
Iraq, and the bad guys. Clearly there is a limit. Clearly there is a
line. Maybe we have not drawn the line in the right place in times
past. Maybe even the old end top criteria is out of date. It has been
going so rapidly up it has become almost irrelevant. Many have been
critical of the Clinton administration for raising it so rapidly and
now it will be done away with altogether. We are having to take a new
look at that. People say you cannot regulate computing power. You have
to regulate or deal with the software. You have to deal with the
application being made with the use of the computer. It is a different
kind of world with which we are dealing.
We have to be careful. While acknowledging that technology has
greatly expanded and there are more things in the world that perhaps
can't be controlled, there are still some areas where we do not want to
open the floodgates. The question is, What are those areas and what
kind of procedure will we have to ensure that those are not sent along
with the rest? When we deal with thousands and thousands of items, it
is not an easy answer.
The President, it has been pointed out, under this bill, can have a
set-aside if there is a threat to national security. On this business
of balancing commercial interests over national security, get a load of
this: The set-aside provides the President can take this action only if
there is a threat to national security, not because it has national
security implications. I assume this is a direct threat. I don't know.
But the President cannot do this until there is a threat to national
security. Then once he makes the determination that there is a threat
to national security, he has to leap more hurdles than if he were in
the average track meet. If he makes the designation, he has to report
to Congress and justify himself. Then under this bill he is required to
pursue negotiations to try to get the countries making this available
to quit making it available. He has to notify Congress about that. Then
the President has to review this matter every 6 months.
Remember, this is a matter that is a threat to national security. He
is required to review this every 6 months so it can be lifted if the
circumstances change. He has to report that to Congress and justify not
lifting it. Then the President, after having gone through all of that,
if the set-aside is still standing, has to relinquish his set-aside if
there is still not a high probability that there will be any changes
made in terms of the foreign availability picture, and if there is no
agreement under any circumstances after 18 months, the President has
this authority. We make the President do a lot of things and place
burdens on him to do that.
As far as mass marketing is concerned, it has to be a serious threat
to national security. Foreign availability, he can set it aside with a
threat to national security. For some reason, if the item in question
is mass marketed, just in the United States, presumably, the President
has a set-aside if there is a serious threat to national security.
We will want to debate and see whether or not we can improve that
language, whether or not we want to set that high standard for a
President to stop an export, that it has to reach that extremely high
standard when we know already that the Chinese are using our high
technology to benefit their military.
The penalties are great in this bill. There is no question about
that. But before an item has already been decontrolled, there is no
danger of any penalty coming into play.
My concern is this: We have a couple of basic trends going on in this
country. One is that we are moving pell-mell to decontrol. The genie is
out of the bottle. There is no question about that. The last
administration certainly liberalized our control procedures. The
Chinese and others certainly took advantage of that. We are still
moving in that direction. Perhaps we should, to one extent or another.
But there is no question that using the word ``decontrolling'' with
regard to matters of high technology, with regard to matters of dual
use, with regard to matters that have military significance, we are
saying, ``What, me worry?'' and rapidly decontrolling. This would
enhance that process and take it to another level.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. THOMPSON. I am glad to.
Mr. McCAIN. Is there any doubt in the Senator's mind that over the
past 8 years of the previous administration--is there any doubt in his
mind that sensitive technology that affects American national security
was transferred to China, Iraq, and other nations?
Mr. THOMPSON. No, there is no doubt in my mind, Senator.
Mr. McCAIN. So my further question is, If sensitive technology which
affects American national security was transferred to China, to Iraq,
and perhaps other countries, are we going in the right direction with
this legislation or are we going in the opposite direction of loosening
these controls, according to this legislation?
Mr. THOMPSON. There is no question that we are loosening. There is no
question that it will inure to the benefit of the Chinese, who are well
known to be concentrating especially on high-technology matters,
building up their military, building up their missile capability--both
ICBMs and shorter range missiles.
I think the best witness on this, Representative Cox, has been quoted
a few times. The Cox Commission stated in July 1999:

The People's Republic of China was diverting U.S.
manufactured high-performance computers for unlawful military
operations. Specifically, it was using American-made
computers to design, model, test, and maintain advanced
nuclear weapons. The commission clearly stated that the
illegal diversion of high-performance computers for the
benefit of the People's Republic of China military is
facilitated by the lack of effective post-sale verifications
of the locations and

[[Page 6366]]

purposes for which the computers are being used. High-
performance computer diversion for PRC military use is also
facilitated by the steady relaxation of U.S. export controls
over the sale of high-performance computers. The committee
added that U.S. origin high-performance computers have been
obtained by PRC organizations involved in the research and
development of missiles, satellites, spacecraft, submarines
and military aircraft, just to name a few.

Mr. McCAIN. If there is no doubt in the Senator's mind, and I think
it has been clearly established in several cases--I think one was the
case of Loral where the Chinese missile technology was increased
through the transfer of technology--I am curious, if it is a severe
problem, and obviously our relations with China have not improved
recently, to say the least, our sanctions efforts against Iraq have
been eroded by the disappearance or dramatic reduction in the coalition
that imposed sanctions on Iraq, yet we are now trying to pass
legislation in very short order that reduces these controls that
inhibit our ability to examine these systems and their export to these
countries.
Finally, could I ask the Senator, how much involvement have the
sponsors of this legislation allowed the Senator from Tennessee and my
colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, and Senator Shelby? Have they
tried to involve you in negotiations, conversations, or amendments?
Mr. THOMPSON. We have had extensive conversations on this over the
past, I guess, year and a half. My desire would be that--this has been
off the table now for some time. Until yesterday, I did not know it was
going to be brought back up. But now that it has been brought back up,
it is back on the table, as we all knew it would be and should be, that
we would sit down again on some proposed amendments to see if we could
agree on some. We might be able to.
As I say, I think they have improved the bill. It is all in the eye
of the beholder. The thinking was it was a bill right where it ought to
be. The administration came along and made 20-some-odd suggestions. I
understand they were adopted. Presumably, it is a better bill. Maybe it
can be even a better bill.
Up until yesterday, the negotiations did not go the way I would have
liked for them to go, frankly, but I cannot complain about not having
been included in discussions. We have had a lot of discussions.
What I would like to do is address the question of the Senator,
though, a little bit more directly, the other question he asked. The
question is: Why? I think the answer would be that for some of these
items, there is foreign availability. If they are out there and France
or someone, or Russia, let's say, is supplying China with these items,
why shouldn't we?
It raises a question--I did not plan on getting into the substance of
the debate as much today as we will later on--as to whether or not
there is a moral dimension to our foreign policy, whether or not there
is a moral dimension to our export policy, whether or not, because some
other entity is supplying somebody with something they should not have
that hurts our national security potentially--and these items I am
talking about, some of them, are serious threats to our national
security, as acknowledged in the bill, if it is mass marketed--whether
or not, even if they would get them, we ought to be supplying them.
I would not feel any better to find American troops shot down with
technology supplied by American companies if I knew there was mass
marketing of those products. In the last year, the PRC reportedly was
illegally using American supercomputers to improve their nuclear
programs. Just 2 months ago, we learned that Chinese technicians were
installing fiberoptic cable for Iraqi air defenses, a clear violation
of U.N. sanctions.
Worse yet, this assistance and technology which were provided to
Chinese companies by American firms when President Clinton decontrolled
this equipment over the objections of NSA in 1994 aided Saddam Hussein
in his quest to shoot down American and allied pilots.
I don't know if it proved whether or not this very strand of
fiberoptic was used down there or not. But what apparently is pretty
clear is that we took this Chinese company from a startup and, because
of business that we did with it, put it in a position where they could
go down to Iraq and help Saddam Hussein better shoot down our pilots.
That merits serious consideration. It does not merit a day or a day and
a half of discussion in some kind of desire to balance what we are
talking about with our commercial interests.
Mr. McCAIN. May I ask a final question--and I would like to state I
agree with Senator Thompson. This is a very serious issue. It brings
into question the influence of big money and big business in American
politics. But would the legislation that we are discussing have
facilitated the ability of the Chinese to acquire that technology and
transfer it to Iraq or would it have been made more difficult?
Mr. THOMPSON. I have not thought it through. I think after it was
decontrolled in 1994, over the objections of the National Security
Agency, the cat was out of the bag. I am not sure it would have made
any difference.
I think the point is that what we are dealing with today would
further decontrol a host of additional items that heretofore you had to
have a license to get.
Some of those--I would venture to say the large majority of those
things--would be harmless. But my concern is whether or not we have a
procedure to catch the ones that are not harmless. That is what we are
trying to deal with here. I hope we can move in that direction.
Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. THOMPSON. I will be happy to.
Mr. JOHNSON. I am interested, given his remarks today, whether the
Senator views President Bush's support for this legislation, support
expressed by our Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State, as
reflecting an inadequate consideration of the implications relative to
China and inadequate consideration of the moral dimensions of our trade
policy in the United States and certainly an inadequate consideration
of the national security fundamentals of our Nation. Does the Senator
suggest the Bush administration is in error in their support of this
legislation?
Mr. THOMPSON. I would respond to the Senator that my concentration
has to do with my own obligation. I respect the members of this
administration who have taken a look at this in a few days, and with
the few people they have had take a look at it.
I respect their opinion. I weigh it very seriously. We are another
branch of Government. We have obligations also. The Senator from Texas
points out that the Banking Committee has a lot of jurisdiction. That
is true. The chairman of the Intelligence Committee has a lot of
jurisdiction. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has a lot
of jurisdiction. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee has a lot
of jurisdiction. They are all concerned about this. I am concerned
about it.
I would like to always be in agreement with all of my friends.
Sometimes it is difficult to do.
I referred to the Cox Commission report. As I say, he has been quoted
in regard to this piece of legislation. I am not sure where he stands
on this piece of legislation. I am sure he supports the Export
Administration Act reauthorization, as I do, but it has been said that
the bill addresses the major findings and recommendations of the Cox
Commission report. Upon closer examination, many of the Cox
Commission's conclusions are not addressed. For example, the Cox
Commission recommended that the Government conduct a comprehensive
review of the national security implications of exporting high-
performance computers to the PRC. Yet S. 149 does away with that
requirement.
The Cox Commission also recommended reestablishing higher penalties
for violations, which was done, but the evidentiary standard was
lowered and promotes the sale of high-performance computers to the PRC
for commercial but not military purposes

[[Page 6367]]

provided the PRC establishes an open and transparent system to conduct
on-site inspections of the end use of these machines.
This bill takes these recommendations in an opposite direction. We
are going to have an opportunity to go through in detail the extent to
which this comports with the recommendations of the Cox Commission.
The Rumsfeld Commission, of course, points out that one of the more
serious concerns that we have had in Congress for some time is the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Even though it was
significant to learn the extent to which some of these rogue nations
have the ability, or rapidly developing the ability to hit the United
States with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, and the fact that
they were getting a lot of their capability from China and Russia, I
think perhaps the most significant and troubling part was the fact that
our intelligence was not aware of the extent of these things.
Intelligence is not perfect--nobody's intelligence and no country's
intelligence. I think they do a good job on most occasions, but they
were behind the curve on this.
I simply reiterate that in matters of this importance it is not
something we ought to take to the floor and discuss in general terms,
talk about balancing, and do in a day and a half. We need to be
concerned about what else is not going to be caught by this process. We
need to be concerned about the big picture, and we need to be concerned
about the little details that have to do with the interagency dispute
resolution.
For example, as was pointed out, if someone disagrees with a
determination as to whether or not an item ought to be controlled, it
can be escalated by a majority vote. But it can only be escalated by
someone who has been appointed by the President and has been confirmed
by the Senate.
Hopefully, we will have these Departments staffed. We have Defense,
we have Commerce, and we have several other Departments that have a
place in this. But they are grossly understaffed and will be for some
time.
Incidentally, the process has never been taken to the President of
the United States in the history of process, if you want to know about
the practical application of this thing. But it looks pretty good on
paper, and maybe it can work.
Do we really want to have that escalation done only by someone
appointed by the President? Shouldn't he be able to delegate that
somewhere for someone to handle that kind of paperwork on the thousands
of the items that are going to be coming to the floor? Is the intention
to make it such a high level to escalate that there will be much less
escalation so that people who may have concerns and objections will not
bother under that kind of a system? I think we have seen that before.
We had extensive hearings before the Governmental Affairs Committee
with our inspector general, who looked at all of this. They came to the
conclusion at that time that the Defense Department was under the
impression that there was inadequate input by the Defense Department.
Will this cure that? I do not know. It looks to me as if it is more
difficult under this regime to raise a question. They are supposed to
be included under the bill. Are they really going to have a practical
voice? Those are the kinds of things we need to look at.
Again, my objection to doing this now after having learned about the
consideration of it yesterday was not because I necessarily opposed the
reauthorization of the Export Administration Act. I do not. The world
is not going to come to an end if we don't consider this now. It has
been in this condition for several years now. It can wait a little
while longer until hopefully the dust settles down in terms of our
relationship with some of the people to whom we are going to be sending
all of these additional items. Wait until the administration becomes a
little better staffed so they can deal with these things.
I respect the administration and the people handling it. I respect my
colleagues who have pushed this because I think they have legitimate
interests in making sure we are not unnecessarily hurt in terms of our
economy.
But we have to make sure in the present environment--I read as well
as anybody else about the tremendous interests out there that have been
brought to bear on getting this done, and we have to make sure we
listen to their legitimate points but that we don't lean too far too
fast in that direction until we have thoroughly explored the
alternatives. Hopefully, we will have some amendments that will improve
upon this, and maybe we can even agree to some amendments.
But, again, we are on a motion to proceed right now. It has been
objected to. I agree with that objection for those reasons.
This is not the kind of issue we should consider in short order and
in the limited amount of time that we have now, unless we can reach
some time agreement that I will agree to right now after consulting
with my colleagues who have other amendments in order to have a
thorough debate on this issue. It is going to come.
We cannot and will not hold this up. I know which way the wind is
blowing. I can guess probably what the outcome is going to be. But
hopefully it will be done after a thorough and deliberate consideration
in this Chamber of all of the ramifications and with a fair
consideration of some amendments.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gentleman from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of all the Members
who preceded me. It has been a very nervous situation to have to sit
through all the statements when I would like to have been contributing
all along. Over 2 years of my life I have invested in extensive
meetings on this bill. I figured I could wait a little longer.
I support the motion to proceed. I unequivocally support the motion
to proceed. I am sincerely disappointed that we didn't get the motion
to proceed. I would be happy to agree to a time agreement. What we are
faced with right now is unlimited debate on whether we get to debate.
So I would like to have some kind of a time agreement, if we got
passed this motion to proceed--which is unlimited debate on whether to
debate--then we have unlimited debate on unlimited amendments. So there
is the capability of doing extensive debate on any amendment that
anybody wants with no time limits on any of those amendments or debate
on the entire bill. So I would be just delighted if we could proceed
and look at those amendments.
I appreciate the Senator from Tennessee's response about the
extensive meetings that we had previously. I am sure he has noticed
that in this bill there are extensive changes that resulted from those
meetings. The most particular one is the Presidential set-aside, the
Presidential set-aside that allows the President ultimate authority
over every bit of national security, which is what the President should
have. We did allow that in every instance. We think it is
constitutional. We did not think it had to be in the bill, but it is in
the bill now. We think that change alone makes the biggest difference
in national security in the history of the United States, but
particularly in the history of export administration.
We have some things in this bill that are absolutely crucial. We have
some things that need to be done for national security. I am not
talking about a balance. I am talking about basic national security,
where everybody who looks at national security says we need this Export
Administration Act. We do not need a temporary extension of it. We
definitely do not need to be operating under the President's Executive
order, the IEEPA process, in order to have some control over our
national security. That is what has led to the national security
problems we have had since the act expired in 1994.
These problems we are talking about in relation to China--and I am
glad we are having that discussion--you will recall we said, bring this
bill up any time; we do not care what kind of international crisis
there has been with

[[Page 6368]]

China; it is a good time to discuss national security, no matter what
the timing with China. We did not expect it to be quite this timely,
but we are willing to work with that because we want to make sure this
country's secrets are not taken.
Most of what has been referred to happened after the act expired in
1994. When it expired in 1994, we were faced with an Executive Order
and the President using some of his emergency powers. What is the big
difference with that? Penalties are the big difference with that.
Penalties dropped down to $10,000 a violation. On the multimillion-
dollar contracts we are talking about around the world, $10,000 is less
than a contingency. It is less than the cost of an ad in many cases.
Mr. President, $10,000 is not a penalty. It is not a deterrent.
Penalties are an important part of this act. The penalties expired in
1994. We have them under a short extension of that old bill that lacks
a lot of the security we need, purely by an agreement that we would
extend it until August 20 of this year. That means on August 20 of this
year we are back to the same old bind where companies can violate
national security for less than the cost of an ad. It should never
happen in our country.
When I became chairman of the International Trade and Finance
Subcommittee, with Senator Johnson as the ranking member, and found out
that the main piece of business we had to face was this Export
Administration Act, we started digging into it. We have kind of lived
together for a couple years, going to meetings, meeting with anybody we
possibly could who had an interest in it, trying to find out how the
process worked, looking at what had happened to it before. There were
12 previous attempts to get this passed. How could something that is
this important to the country not make it through on 12 successive
attempts? Well, I am getting a better and better idea every day. Part
of the reason is that we are so security minded we would lock up all
exports in exchange for security. But that will not provide security.
So we need a system that will work. Bringing everybody together on a
mechanism that will work has been an interesting and difficult process.
I do thank my colleagues on the Banking Committee for their support
and their recognition that this legislation is needed to strengthen our
export control system. I do appreciate the support of the
administration. President Bush and his team immediately realized that
the reauthorization of EAA was vital to the national security and the
economic interests of this country.
With the few changes that were made by the Banking Committee during
markup, the bill received the written endorsement of President Bush's
national security team. That includes the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Adviser. Those are
people who are in place. I know they have had advice from people who
have been working on this issue for years.
On March 28, 2001, not very long ago, President Bush called the
committee's action good news and urged the Senate to pass it quickly.
You have heard the longer versions of that earlier in this Chamber.
Mr. JOHNSON. May I put a question to the Senator from Wyoming?
Mr. ENZI. Certainly.
Mr. JOHNSON. Given the support of this legislation by the Bush
administration, including the Department of Defense, the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of Commerce, it has been noted in this Chamber
that somehow the Bush administration is not yet staffed up. Do you
believe that the Bush administration would endorse legislation of this
consequence and of this importance if they felt that somehow their
counsel had been inadequate or had been short? Or do you believe that
the Bush administration felt very comfortable about its familiarity
with the details of this legislation in issuing its recommendation for
passage?
Mr. ENZI. I am certain that the Bush administration has felt the
importance of getting the EAA reauthorized. They have been looking at
the documents that have been mentioned on the need for this for several
years.
I was very pleased during the campaign that President Bush addressed,
as part of his campaign, this Export Administration Act. He had looked
at a number of the principles. In fact, on his Web site he has listed
what he thought ought to be included in the Export Administration Act.
It gave me a lot of confidence that he had looked at the Export
Administration Act that you and I worked on because it went point by
point on it. I was pleased with the diligence with which the
administration and their staff spoke to me and my staff. We were able
to go through a lot of the points and a lot of the questions and a lot
of the past discussions and a lot of the past meetings we had had with
other Members to be sure to cover as completely as possible those items
of national security.
Mr. THOMPSON. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?
Mr. ENZI. I will. I was hoping to finish my statement.
Mr. THOMPSON. I am sorry.
Since my comment was referred to, I want the Senator to be aware, if
he is not, that my reference was meant to be with regard to staffing,
not with regard to making the recommendations that they have made. It
was with regard to carrying out the bill once it has been enacted. It
has to do with personnel, people appointed by the President and
confirmed. My concern is, these various departments, they have a
skeleton crew of people that fit that description.
So my reference to a lack of staffing has to do with their ability to
effectuate the appeals process, and what have you, once this is
enacted.
Mr. ENZI. I am glad the Senator raised that point because we have
export security that is being executed at the moment. We do not need
this bill for export security to begin. It is happening right now. The
people who are in place right now are in charge of our national
security under export administration. They are having to deal with
inadequate legislation to be able to do what needs to be done.
So while the staff isn't there, they are still having to comply with
licensing. I do not know how they are doing it except that there are
still many civil service employees who have been around, and will be
around, and are dealing with these problems. But the problem goes on
right now. It does not matter whether this bill is in place or whether
we are operating on the extension of the old one.
There are some definite improvements in this Export Administration
Act that absolutely need to be in place to provide for our national
security. I hope that, first of all, we do not have to continue to
operate under that old Export Act, regardless of who is in place, and,
secondly, that that old Export Act does not expire on August 20 without
a backup bill that does something extensive such as this bill does.
I congratulate the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Gramm.
He has probably been more involved at a member level on this bill than
perhaps any bill Banking has done. He has involved all of us in that
process; at least whenever Senator Johnson and I have asked him to be
at a meeting, he has been at the meeting. He has been willing to
participate, learn the bill in tremendous detail, and work on it that
way.
The same is true with Senator Sarbanes. There has never been a time
Senator Johnson or I have invited him that he did not show up to help
out in the process. He has been involved with this particular bill for
about 20 years and understands it to a higher level than most of the
people we have run into who have been involved. His comments have been
extremely valuable, and a couple of times he has even reined in my
enthusiasm a little bit, making very good points that needed to be
incorporated. He has been one of the Senators who contributed very much
by listening to the other side in the debates to make sure we got these
processes included.
I have already mentioned Senator Johnson and his help on the
subcommittee. I don't know how many panels we served on, answering
questions about how this works and how it could work better. That has
always

[[Page 6369]]

been our approach to the bill: How can we make it better? How can we
improve it so that it works?
This legislation is unfinished business left from the 106th Congress.
The activity Senator Johnson and I engaged in didn't happen this year.
As soon as we got chairmanships, we started working on the bill. That
was our prime emphasis for the 2 years of the last session. It took all
of that time. It took all of that time to go through the process of
understanding exactly how the bill works, reviewing previous failures,
visiting the Department of Commerce. Of course, the Cox report we have
referred to several times came out during this process.
One of the actions I took was to go over to the Intelligence
Committee and read the Cox report when it was still a secret document.
I am always amazed that just by being elected a Senator, one gets a top
security clearance. I understand why that is and I am glad that it
happens. I understand we have had a pretty good review of our
background by the time we get elected, whether we want it or not. I
went over and received a briefing and read the document. I wanted to be
sure the ideas we were generating for solving the problem followed the
direction of the people who were really concentrated on the Export
Administration Act and the security of the country, particularly as it
related to China.
I was convinced and am convinced that we did what can be done
legislatively. There are a lot of other processes that need to go on,
particularly in the executive branch, to deal with this, but that is
not legislation. We deal with the legislative part.
We also lived with people from the Departments of Defense, Commerce,
and State for a long time. I have to thank Dr. Hamre and Secretary
Reinsch for their dedicated devotion to coming up with a solution. Both
of them had worked intensively on this issue from their own positions
in Defense and Commerce. Without their interaction and daily meetings
and telephone calls, we would not have been able to get to the
reasonable position that we have.
I was able to get some people on my staff for a very short time who
had dealt with license applications. We wanted to know what the person
putting in the license had to go through. Then following that, because
of the concern over enforcement and particularly the postshipment
verification, I brought somebody into my office who was an enforcement
officer, somebody who had actually done some of these things on site,
somebody who knew how to calculate old penalties under IEEPA versus the
penalties under EAA as we propose it. It was fascinating, absolutely
crucial to what we are doing.
Of course, this was reviewed and endorsed by the Clinton
administration. Now the Bush administration has taken a look at it, and
it has been endorsed by them. We have many people from both sides of
the aisle who have been looking at this, working on it, and hoping that
at some point, after extensive debate and amendment, it would come to a
vote.
What we are debating today is whether or not we ought to proceed. We
could save a lot of time if we proceeded to offering amendments. All of
those amendments won't be debated on the floor. If there are some that
deal with a top secret security, those will be dealt with as we do with
that kind of an amendment. If some of the discussion or parts of the
discussion cannot be in the Chamber, it will be held in one of the
rooms designed for that kind of discussion. We have done that before.
In fact, two of the hearings we held were done under those
circumstances so that the people in the intelligence community who
needed to communicate some of the problems they saw could get those
problems directly to us.
We invited every Member of the Senate, but we haven't had every
Member of the Senate listen to it. Those of us who have attended, who
have worked on this bill, think we have incorporated the solutions that
were brought out in the hearings into this bill.
What happened on it last time? We ran out of time. It is pretty easy
to run out of time on a bill, I am finding. This one is in trouble of
running out of time. I am hoping, because we were able to bring up this
version at this point in time, that that will not be the case.
We need this bill. I emphasize, the reauthorization provides
authority to control exports for commercial or dual-use items. I need
to mention that because we are not talking about munitions here. That
is a separate process. That needs to be reviewed, too. In fact, one of
the suggestions we had was that the fines in this bill should not get
out ahead of the fines in the munitions bill. This is way out ahead of
the fines in the munitions bill. It was our suggestion that maybe if we
cut the fines back a little bit, that the munitions bill could be
brought up to this so that there were sufficient fines in that bill.
At any rate, we don't want the two confused. I don't want to talk
about that very much because that has been one of the difficulties with
this. It gets confused with munitions and satellites. These are the
dual-use items. These are items that, yes, there could possibly be a
military application for them. If there is a military application that
would be detrimental to the security of this country, we have put in
the provision that the President of the United States can set aside any
other permission, any other possibility of licensing, and protect that
item. We have included that national security aspect.
It does establish the modern effective framework recognizing items
available in foreign or mass markets that are not effectively
controlled. It puts stronger controls over a few items, which should
equal more effective controls. We are talking about building a higher
fence around fewer items. I will talk about that, too.
I did have the fortunate opportunity to cochair and work with
Congressman Cox on the study group to enhance multilateral export
controls for U.S. national security. Together we released the study
group's final report on Tuesday, April 24. That was this week. There is
a need beyond the export and included in the Export Administration Act
to enhance multilateral controls. What we do as a country by ourselves,
if it is being done everywhere else, isn't going to cut it. We need to
have everybody who has that item working with us to make sure it
doesn't get in the wrong hands.
That is what the report we released on Tuesday dealt with. Mr. Cox
referenced the fact that we need a commonsense export control policy.
He said that we should not make the mistake of confusing a more
burdensome system with the more effective system. He went on to mention
that the current export control system has ``an instinct for the
capillary rather than the jugular.'' In other words, the current system
often has the tendency to put the same focus and expend the same amount
of energy on the more trivial items, as opposed to concentrating on the
truly dangerous items. That is what we are trying to do. That is what
we talk about in building higher fences around fewer things, but being
able to control them. If we try to control absolutely everything and
expend an equal amount of effort on each item that the United States
produces, we don't stand a chance of keeping up. So this bill focuses
and gets some concentration and handles the problem.
I do happen to agree with Mr. Cox that S. 149 is structured in a way
that will focus on the jugular, not the capillary. As everybody is
aware, Mr. Cox chaired the Select Committee on U.S. National Security
and Military Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China. I
mentioned that before. It investigated several export-control-related
problems concerning China and offered recommendations to improve our
export control systems. He noted during his testimony before the
Banking Committee last year that:

We ought not to have export controls to pretend to make
ourselves safe as a country. We ought to have export controls
that work.

That is what S. 149 aims to do. It will make export controls work. It
will make export controls effective.
The bill would establish a strong, but flexible, export control
framework that can adapt to our national security needs in today's
globalized and uncertain world. Recent events tell us that

[[Page 6370]]

as situations change, the administration should be provided with the
flexibility it needs to adapt to that change. S. 149 does not lock the
U.S. into a policy position toward any particular country or any
particular item. It sets the framework that the administration would
carry out. The Congress would then have the appropriate oversight
responsibilities.
The bill provides the President with authority to control items
beyond current law. Section 201(d) of the bill--and I have mentioned
this before--grants the President special control authorities for cases
involving national security and international terrorism, as well as
international commitments made by the United States. Section 201(c)
allows controls to be imposed based on the end use or end user of an
item if it could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.
I remind my colleagues that these two provisions could be used
regardless of foreign availability or mass market status of the item.
Other national security items are also included in the bill. For
example, it requires that whenever items are to be taken off the list,
the Secretary of Defense concur with the decision. In addition, country
tiering would be made by the President. He would be the one to
determine where a country is assigned to a tier for each controlled
item or group of items. The President is to take into consideration
several risk factors, including the present and potential relationship
of the country to the U.S. and the country's weapons of mass
destruction capabilities and compliance with multilateral export
control regimes. In other words, if they are cooperating with us and
our allies, they will be rated better. If they are a rogue state, they
will be rated terrible, and that can vary as we find out things about a
country. There is no country referred to by name in this bill, and that
is so that the President and the Congress have the total flexibility in
dealing with any country as they become friends or as they become
enemies.
Additionally, it will establish tough new criminal and civil
penalties for export control violations much greater than are in the
current law. Those penalties were outdated and needed to be enhanced,
and they have been enhanced dramatically. These penalties will deter
potential violators, rather than be computed as part of doing business.
The bill establishes a program to increase compliance with the
freight-forwarding firms--the people shipping the items. This will in
turn allow enforcement to detect and interdict possible illegal
shipments. That is an improvement over the old system. It increases the
overseas presence of enforcement agents who conduct prelicense and
postshipment checks.
A very important part of the bill is its emphasis on multilateral
export controls--the report that we put out this last Tuesday. Many
dramatic changes have occurred over the past decade that present
additional challenges to the effective control of sensitive technology.
The U.S. now is rarely the only producer of militarily useful high-tech
product. The effects of globalization, such as increased flows of
trade, foreign investment, and international communications have
contributed to the more widespread production and availability of high-
tech products. The threats are now different and more diffuse.
Therefore, the bill urges the administration to strengthen the existing
multilateral export control regimes. Multilateral export controls are
has to exercise its leadership in this area now more than ever, and the
bill provides a mechanism for encouraging and, in fact, forcing that.
Our position of world leadership in stemming the transfer of weapons
of mass destruction is compromised by our failure to enact a more
permanent national vehicle to authorize our export control program.
Passage of S. 149 will reaffirm U.S. leadership in the area of export
controls. U.S. leadership in this area has been lacking in large part
because of Congress' failure to reform and reauthorize EAA. If we don't
have good controls in place, it is very difficult for us to talk to our
allies and ask them to join us in these multilateral processes.
I look forward to the President signing this bill. It is essential
that the EAA be reauthorized and reformed this year before August 20.
Passage of S. 149 will advance both our national security and our
economic objectives.
Is this the final answer? No. There is always going to be more work
that is needed to be done on national security. Times change. We have
had a drastic change in the times. The Iron Curtain came down. But this
bill operates the same way. We always have to be working on it, but we
have to have something in place now. We ought to be proceeding to the
debate on this bill. We should be talking about those amendments that
were referred to earlier and debating them now. We should be proceeding
on the debate.
If we can proceed on the debate, we can reach a logical conclusion
that will solve the security problems of the United States, or at least
begin the process. I could answer some of the other things, and I
should answer some of the other things that were mentioned. Computers
is one of the items that was brought up, and it was mentioned that we
are taking out a provision that has been present for a decade. Well,
the way the computers operate now, as everybody in the country knows,
has changed dramatically. They are not the same mechanism they once
were. They are being linked in unusual ways to provide capabilities
using older machines or less capable machines than some of the brand
new machines.
Another discovery: I sat by a guy on the airplane and he was talking
to me about supercomputers. I had to check out what he said. He said
the U.S. was no longer producing any supercomputers; that Japan is the
only country producing them. Do you know that he is right? We have some
special linkages of computer chips that provide as much or more
capability than the supercomputer that Japan makes. But if you are
talking about a single computer, Japan makes the supercomputer; we
don't. That takes out some of the mechanism for measurement that we
used to have. We need to have a knew measurement. That is recognized by
the Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce and the
Department of State and the security agencies. So that is why we have
made some provisions to do something with computers.
Foreign availability: A lot of what was talked about isn't current
law. The change in foreign availability is that we have a Presidential
set-aside. We give the President authority to set aside in national
security instances. We change the word ``significant'' down to
``detrimental'' so it would be easier. But we are talking about the
President of the United States.
Who determines whether the President of the United States sets it
aside for a significant security reason or a detrimental security
reason? Actually, the President of the United States determines that.
So whatever he says is detrimental or significant would be detrimental
or significant. It is very easy for him to justify any of his actions.
We also call for multilateral controls when foreign availability is
put in place so it is not just the United States saying what cannot be
done, it is all of the countries that produce that product saying it
cannot be so. That is the only way to solve that problem.
I have to talk a little bit about the appeals process because there
is some confusion on that. I suspect a lot of the reason we are not
debating this right now, why we are not proceeding to this legislation
is that there is some confusion.
I have a little trouble with the suggestion that we are moving ahead
too fast. We did it last year. We met extensively last year. We brought
it up this year. We talked to all of the parties--all of the parties--
who were willing to sit down and talk again this year. We brought it to
committee. We debated it in committee. We had amendments from the
President's staff. Those were circulated, and the people who were
opposing our motion to proceed had meetings with the President.
When we passed it out of committee, everybody had to suspect that at
the first possible moment we could bring

[[Page 6371]]

up this bill, particularly in light of the August 20 deadline, that we
would bring it up for the security of this Nation. We wanted to bring
it up as soon as possible.
This is one of those gaps in legislative time that came up. We were
asked: Do you want to bring it up now, particularly in light of what
has happened with China?
We said: We need to bring this up at any time we can, particularly in
light of what has happened with China, both now and in the past.
We are not afraid of any amendments. There are ways that a bill can
always be improved. That is why we have this legislative process in
which 100 people participate. It is so everybody can have a say from
their perspective. The group as a whole can determine whether that is
something that needs to be a part of whatever legislation is being
considered at that time.
I ask unanimous consent that, following my remarks, the summary of
EAA discussions that me and my staff have had with different groups be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, under the present appeals system, for
someone to appeal a decision on licensing at the committee level, they
have to talk to their boss and educate their boss enough about that
particular license so their boss can file the appeal. There has to be a
lot of tension, particularly in the military, of someone having to
disturb somebody further up the line over a decision. Uniformly people
agreed there was some difficulty with that.
We have provided for an appeal in the first round by the person
sitting on that committee. He prepares the documents now. As it gets up
to the decision level, then the decision has to be made by people who
are in office.
Did China get our secrets? Yes, China got our secrets. Does this bill
stop that? This bill stops it to the best ability I know, and it is
certainly better than doing it under an Executive order, an emergency
provision by the President.
This bill is needed. We should be debating it. We should be
proceeding with whatever amendments are needed. The country desperately
needs this bill.
Again, I thank Senator Gramm, Senator Sarbanes, and particularly my
ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator Johnson, for all of the
hours they have spent on this legislation. We are still willing to
spend hours. We want to have a debate. We want to proceed.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Summary of EAA Discussions, 1999-2000

Jan. 20, 1999, 10 a.m.--Subcommittee on International Trade
and Finance--Hearing on the Reauthorization of the Export
Administration Act.
Jan. 28, 1999, 3:30 p.m.--Enzi staff meets with Thompson
staff to discuss issues regarding reauthorization of EAA.
Feb. 8, 1999, 10 a.m.--Enzi staff meet with Gary Milhollin,
Wisconsin Nuclear Arms Control Project.
Feb. 8, 1999, 2 p.m.--Enzi staff meet with NSA staff.
Feb. 9, 1999, 10 a.m.--Enzi staff meet with Senate
Intelligence Committee staff member (Joan).
Mar. 16, 1999, 9:30 a.m.--Subcommittee on International
Trade and Finance--Hearing on the Reauthorization of the
Export Administration Act and Managing Security Risks for
High Tech Exports.
Mar. 18, 1999, 3 p.m.--Enzi staff meet with WMD Commission
staff.
April 14, 1999, 10 a.m.--Subcommittee on International
Trade and Finance--Hearing on the Export Control Process.
April 28, 1999, 1 p.m.--Enzi staff meet with Kyl staff.
June 7, 1999, 9 a.m.--Banking staff meet with Cox
Commission investigator.
June 10, 1999, 10 a.m.--Banking Committee Hearing on Export
Control Issues in the Cox Report.
June 17, 1999, 10 a.m.--Banking Committee Hearing on
Emerging Technology Issues and Reauthorization of the Export
Administration Act.
June 22, 1999, 10:30 a.m.--Enzi meets with John Barker,
State Department.
June 23, 1999, 10 a.m.--Banking Committee Hearing on
Reauthorization of the Export Administration Act: Government
Agency Views.
June 24, 1999, 10 a.m.--Banking Committee Hearing on
Reauthorization of the Export Administration Act: Private
Sector Views.
June 28, 1999, 4 p.m.--Enzi staff meet with Mack staff.
July 29, 1999, 9:30 a.m.--Enzi staff meet with Kyl staff.
June--July/Sept. 1999--Numerous meetings with
Administration (BXA, State, Defense, intelligence), industry,
Senators and staff to discuss draft EAA.
Sept. 16, 1999, 9 a.m.--Banking Committee staff meet with
AIPAC staff.
Sept. 23, 1999, 10 a.m.--Banking Committee Votes 20-0 to
Approve Export Administration Act of 1999.
Sept. 27, 1999, 11 a.m.--Banking Committee meets with DoD
staff to discuss S. 1712 issues.
Oct. 6, 1999, 10 a.m.--Banking Committee meets with AIPAC
staff.
Oct. 10, 1999, 10 a.m.--Enzi meets with Cochran. Cochran
says he will not hold up consideration of the bill.
Oct. 20, 1999, 11:30 a.m.--Enzi meets with Kyl. Kyl says we
did not listen to his staff at all when putting bill
together.
Oct. 25, 1999, 4:15 p.m.--Warner meets with Gramm/Enzi.
Warner staff (SASC Joan) says she has not seen the reported
bill. Warner commits that his staff will review the bill and
get back to us.
Oct. 28, 1999, 4 p.m.--Gramm/Enzi meet with Lott to discuss
consideration of bill. Lott says window is narrow. Will
consider if it will only take one or two days.
Nov. 1, 1999, 6 p.m.--Banking Committee staff meet with
SFRC staff (Marshall Billingslea). He provides us with
extensive list of concerns, mostly jurisdictional in nature.
Nov. 4, 1999, 3 p.m.--Banking Committee staff meet with
SASC staff. SASC says they don't know how the bill will
impact military since military now incorporates more off the
shelf commercial items.
Nov. 5, 1999, 1:30 p.m.--Banking Committee staff meet with
SASC staff, Hamre, NSA.
Dec. 14, 1999, 11 a.m.--Banking Committee staff meet with
Thompson staff (Curt Silvers introduces Chris Ford, new
staff).
Fri., Jan. 21, 12:30 a.m.--Banking Committee staff to meet
with Marshall Billingslea.
Wed., Feb. 2, 10 a.m.--Banking staff meets with SASC staff.
Wed., Feb. 9--Senators Warner, Helms, Shelby, and Thompson
send a letter to Senator Lott expressing concerns with S.
1712 and requesting referral to the Committees on Armed
Services, Foreign Relations, Governmental Affairs, and
Intelligence.
Wed., Feb. 9, 3 p.m.--Senators Gramm and Enzi meet with
Senator Lott in the Leader's office.
Thu., Feb. 10, 5 p.m.--Senators Gramm and Enzi meet with
business community in Senator Gramm's office.
Fri., Feb. 11, 10 a.m.--Lott staff holds meeting with
Gramm, Enzi, Warner, Helms, Shelby, and Thompson staff in
Appropriations Committee room [3 hours].
Tue., Feb. 15, 11 a.m.--Lott staff schedules staff meeting/
canceled by Lott staff.
Wed., Feb. 16, 12 p.m.--Lott staff holds second meeting
with Gramm, Enzi, Warner, Helms, Shelby, Thompson and Kyl
staff in Leader's office [2.5 hours].
Thu., Feb. 17, 3 p.m.--Banking staff hold informational
briefing re S. 1712 for all Senate staff in Banking hearing
room.
Fri., Feb. 18, 1 p.m.--Lott staff hosts third meeting with
Gramm, Enzi, Warner, Helms, Shelby, Thompson, and Kyl staff
in Leader's office; Gramm/Enzi staff provide document
outlining provisions that may be accepted. [45 min].
Tue., Feb. 22 9:30 a.m.--Senator Lott meets with Senators
Gramm, Enzi, Warner, Kyl, Shelby, and Thompson in Leader's
office; Senators Gramm and Enzi identify three key issues in
contention; agree to provide Managers' Amdt.
Wed., Feb. 23--Gramm and Enzi staff provide Managers'
Amendment CRA00.098 to other senators' staff.
Fri., Feb. 25--Gramm and Enzi staff provide pullout
CRA00.120 regarding three issues to other senators' staff.
Fri., Feb. 25--Senator Thompson sends a letter to Senators
Gramm and Enzi, cc'd to Senator Lott and the other senators,
expressing ``grave concerns'' about S. 1712.
Mon., Feb. 28, 4 p.m.--Senator Warner holds SASC hearing on
EAA; Senators Enzi and Johnson among witnesses.
Mon., Feb. 28, 6 p.m.--Warner staff host impromptu meeting
with DOD and DOC officials and Enzi and Johnson staff in SASC
hearing room; walk through differences [4 hours].
Tue., Feb. 29, 10 a.m.--Warner staff host meeting with DOD
and DOC officials and Gramm, Enzi, Sarbanes, Johnson, Levin
staff in SASC hearing room [2.5 hours].
Tue., Feb. 29--Senators Warner, Helms, Shelby, Kyl,
Thompson, Roberts, Inhofe, and B. Smith send a letter to
Senator Lott to express ``continuing concerns'' with S. 1712,
stating that ``even with its proposed managers' amendment''
the bill fails to address concerns, and objecting to its
consideration.
Tue., Feb. 29--Senators Abraham and Bennett send a letter
to Senators Lott and Daschle urging that they make Senate
consideration of S. 1712 a priority.
Wed., Mar. 1, 2 p.m.--Gramm, Enzi, Sarbanes, Johnson staff
meet with business community in Banking hearing room.

[[Page 6372]]

Fri., Mar. 3, 2 p.m.--Senators Gramm and Enzi meet with
Senators Warner, Helms, Kyl, and Thompson in Senator Gramm's
office; walk through their concerns [3.5 hours].
Mon., Mar. 6, 11 a.m.--Senator Gramm meets with Senator Kyl
in Senator Gramm's office to discuss concerns [1 hour].
Mon., Mar. 6, 1 p.m.--Senators Gramm, Enzi, Johnson, with
Sarbanes staff, meet in Senator Gramm's office to discuss
concerns raised [1 hour].
Mon., Mar. 6, 3:30 p.m.--Senators Gramm and Enzi meet with
Senators Warner, Helms, Shelby, Kyl, and Thompson in Senator
Gramm's office; finish walking through their concerns [2
hours].
Tue., Mar. 7, 8 a.m.--Senators Gramm and Enzi meet with
business community in Banking hearing room to discuss ongoing
member negotiations.
Tue., Mar. 7, 4:30 p.m.--Gram and Enzi staff meet with
Warner, Helms, Kyl, Thompson, and Shelby staff; walk through
4-page Managers' Amendment document [1.5 hours].
Tue., Mar. 7, 5:45 p.m.--Senator Lott brings up EAA by
unanimous consent (Senator Thompson raises concerns on floor
but does not object).
Wed., Mar. 8, 11 a.m.--Senators Gramm and Enzi meet with
Senators Warner, Helms, Shelby, Kyl, and Thompson at those
senators' request. Members agree to suspend floor
consideration of EAA until details agreed; Gramm/Enzi provide
revised 4-page Managers' Amendment document and ask for
comments by the end of the day [1 hour].
Wed., Mar. 8, 12:30 p.m.--Senator Gramm takes EAA off floor
via special UC agreement among Senators Lott, Daschle,
Thompson, Reid, and others.
Wed., Mar. 8, 4 p.m.--Gramm and Enzi staff provide other
senators' staff with revised Managers' Amendment CRA00.262.
Thu., Mar. 9, 3 p.m.--Senator Warner gives Senators Gramm
and Enzi misdated letter with attachment of proposed
amendments to Managers' Amdt.
Thu., Mar. 9--Senators Warner, Helms, Shelby, Kyl, and
Thompson send another letter to Senator Lott expressing
``continuing concerns'' with S. 1712 and objecting to moving
to its consideration.
Fri., Mar. 10, 12 p.m.--Senator Gramm meets with Senator
Warner (other senators represented by staff); gives him
Gramm/Enzi final response document; asks for final decision
from senators.
Week of Mar. 13-17--Gramm/Enzi staff wait for response re
3/10 document.
Thu., Mar. 16--Senator Gramm schedules members' meeting for
10 a.m. Fri. 17th to get response to 3/10 document; postpones
to following week after being told that Kyl/Helms/Shelby not
in town and Warner and his staff both ``unable to attend.''
Mon., Mar. 20--Senator Gramm schedules members' meeting for
2 p.m. Tues. 21st to get response to 3/10 document; postpones
to later same week after being told that Shelby not back til
Tues. night and that the senators first need to meet to
confer.
Week of Mar. 20-23--Gramm/Enzi staff continue to wait for
response re 3/10 document.
Tue., Mar. 21--Senator Warner announces sudden SASC hearing
for Thurs. 23d; cites ``considerable differences'' remaining
between Banking and other senators.
Wed., Mar. 22, 1 p.m.--House International Relations
Subcommittee on Economic Policy reluctantly removes Senators
Gramm and Enzi from their witness list, and instead holds
hearing solely with industry witnesses; hints at marking up
narrow EAA bills.
Wed., Mar. 22--[Other senators apparently hold meeting to
confer].
Thu., Mar. 23, 10 a.m.--Senator Warner holds second SASC
hearing, at which he presses GAO witness to say S. 1712
``must'' be strengthened, and states that ``the four chairmen
have not received some legislative language which we feel is
essential to making our decisions on this.''
Thu., Mar. 23--Senator Reid gives floor statement urging
Senate passage of S. 1712, noting that its sponsors ``tried
to move a bill . . . but frankly, the majority is unable to
join with us to allow us to move this bill forward.''
Fri., Mar. 24--Two weeks from the date on which they gave
the other seniors their final offer, Senators Gramm and Enzi
receive a letter dated March 23 from Senators Warner, Helms,
Shelby, Kyl, and Thompson. The letter stated:
``As you know, on March 6 [sic], 2000, we provided you with
a package describing the issues that we consider critical to
reaching an agreement on the proposed reauthorization of S.
1712 [sic], the Export Administration Act. We were
disappointed that you were only able to agree to at most four
of the eighteen issues we identified, and were unable to
agree to some issues on which we believed we had previously
reached agreement in principle. Accordingly, we cannot agree
at this time to return the bill to the Senate floor under the
terms of the unanimous consent agreement filed on March 8.
``There are important issues remaining to be resolved, and
we feel that negotiations should continue in order to for
there being hope for achieving an Export Administration Act
that successfully balances the needs of industry and national
security.''
Week of Mar. 27-31--Gramm/Enzi staff do not hear from other
senators' staff.
Week of Apr. 3--Gramm/Enzi staff do not hear from other
senators' staff.
Tues., Apr. 4--Senator McCain holds hearing on S. 1712, at
which he expresses concern that the bill does not adequately
protect national security. Senators Thompson and Enzi
testify.
Tues., April 11--Gramm staff call the staff of other
senators to alert them that Senator Lott planned to make a
pro forma effort to bring up S. 1712 by UC on Wed., at which
point Senator Gramm would object pursuant to the gentleman's
agreement made with the other senators on Mar. 8; and that
Senators Lott and Gramm then would file a cloture on a motion
to proceed to S. 1712.
Wed., Apr. 12--At Senator Lott's request, Senators Gramm
and Enzi give Senator Lott two cloture petitions (one on a
motion to proceed to S. 1712, and one on S. 1712); both were
signed by 16 Republicans representing a broad diversity of
states and of Senate Committees (including SASC, SFRC, SGAC,
and SCST).
Wed., Apr. 12--Senator Thompson holds SGAC hearing on
multilateral export controls.
Apr., May--Gramm/Enzi staff do not hear from other
senators' staff.
Thurs., May 25--Senators Thompson and Torricelli hold a
press conference on S. 2645. According to press reports,
Senator Thompson said that in his opinion, legislation to
reauthorize the Export Administration Act is probably dead as
a stand-alone measure in 2000; when asked whether he was
partly responsible, he replied, ``Let's just say that truth
and justice were served''.
Fri., May 26--Senator Thompson holds SGAC hearing on mass
market/foreign availability; no Administration witnesses are
invited.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, what is the time arrangement? Is Senator Enzi
controlling time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no control of time.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to support the Export
Administration Act of 2001. I support the effort to move this debate
along for all the reasons my distinguished colleagues have mentioned.
I am an original cosponsor of this bill. I have participated in a
number of the hearings over the last 2 years, so I have some sense of
the thoughtfulness and the depth of the hearings, the testimony taken
and the analysis given to this bill. I do want to make some brief
comments, but as I lead into those comments, I want to make a couple of
general observations.
First, Senator Enzi said a few minutes ago that the previous
administration supported this bill and the current administration
supports this bill. The current administration consists of Vice
President Cheney, who has some practical and working knowledge of
national security as he served with great distinction in the House of
Representatives, was the No. 2 Republican there for years, and he was
our Secretary of Defense at a very critical time in the history of this
country.
Secretary of State Powell supports this bill. Secretary of State
Powell's entire life has been about national security as he served as
National Security Adviser to President Reagan, as he served as Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Reagan and Bush; two
tours in Vietnam, decorated. I do not think there is a question about
whether Secretary Powell or Vice President Cheney would risk national
security for the dynamics of any legislation, but yet they strongly
support this bill.
Our current Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld--we all recall that
Secretary Rumsfeld is on his second tour of duty as Secretary of
Defense. I ask the same question about Secretary Rumsfeld: Would he, in
fact, be supporting a bill that would jeopardize the national security
interests of this country? I do not think so, nor do I think President
Clinton would have risked the national security interests of this
country, nor do I believe President Bush would risk the national
security interests of this country.
So this talk about national security not being well thought through
and not being advanced and prioritized, that somehow we are selling out
to big business and commercial interests, with all due respect, that is
nonsense. That is complete fabrication.

[[Page 6373]]

Senator Enzi talked a bit about the current law, the current rules,
restrictions, and regulations that we are dealing with today. Does it
enhance our national security? Is it relevant to today's challenges?
No, it is not. This update, this new bill makes our export control
regime relevant to the challenges of a very complicated new world.
America is faced with a very challenging dilemma. We live in an
unpredictable and dangerous world. Part of our dilemma is a result of
the fact that America leads the world in products and technologies that
can be used for the best possible technologies, ends, and purposes and
also the worst technologies, ends, and purposes.
Again, there is no higher interest for America than our national
security interest. We all agree America's national security interest is
its most fundamental interest, so let's not cloud this debate about
that.
While always putting our national security first, our responsibility
and challenge is to develop a workable and relevant balance that allows
America's economic and trade interests to be protected as well. That is
the challenge. In fact, our economic and trade interests are very much
integral and part of our national security interest. They are not
separate. You do not deal with trade and economic interests in this
vacuum and national security interest in this vacuum. It doesn't work
that way.
The Export Administration Act of 2001 is a very important piece of
legislation. It represents an effort to deal with this balance, to come
to grips with the realities of this balance: How do we ensure we
continue to sustain our economic growth and yet ensure, as best we can,
that Saddam Hussein and other dangerous tyrants on the world stage do
not gain access to our technologies that could aid in advancing their
weapons programs, detrimental to our national security interests and
the national interests of the world.
We will begin to build a missile defense system in the near future
because of the real and growing threat posed by infant ballistic
missile programs in other nations. The world's collective failure to
prevent nuclear proliferation is a constant threat to civilization. We
need an export control regime that recognizes the real threats to this
Nation, to our allies, to all the world and, at the same time,
recognizes the utter futility of trying to control everything.
This bill is based on the premise we need to build a higher fence
around a smaller number of items, just as Senator Enzi said a few
minutes ago. In the 1970s, you could track high-performance computers
worldwide because there were fewer of them, less sophisticated, less
powerful, easy to do in a bipolar world--the Soviet Union and the
United States. Today, computers with nearly unlimited power, far more
powerful than anything we saw in the 1970s or the 1980s, with far more
capacity and capability, are available at Radio Shack. Are we going to
shut down Radio Shack? Let's get real with a sense of economic sense in
how we deal with this.
Many components manufactured and sold in the United States are
reproduced by foreign competitors with little lapse of time or effort.
The world is simply too integrated. Some may not like that, but it is a
fact of life. Capabilities abroad advanced so far to put the old system
in jeopardy are not working, and we are dealing now with an old system
that, in fact, is not effective. It is no longer relevant to today's
global economy and national security interests and world threats.
Our exports must recognize the realities of today's worldwide
interconnections. The President of the United States, Secretaries of
Commerce and Defense, our entire intelligence community, and our
business community can all work within this legislative structure to
provide a flexible export regime and continue to protect our national
security interests. This bill establishes a system which meets both our
security and commercial concerns.
Only a control regime that raises the fence on the most critical
dual-use technologies makes any sense. Our dilemma on exporting
technology can only be solved by making control of critical technology
a critical issue. Exporters and national security officials need
clarity.
We should not treat exporters as unpatriotic or unconcerned about
proliferation or our national security interests. I have heard in the
Senate over the last year not so veiled charges to that point. I have
heard in the Senate things such as the almighty dollar is most
important for many of the corporations of America. My goodness, what
are we saying?
I come from the business world. I am a businessman personally
offended by that kind of statement. I don't know one businessman--there
may be a businessman out there--I do not know one responsible corporate
citizen in this country who would say to me privately or publicly that
the interests of his or her company are more important than the
national security interests of this country. It isn't true. Be careful
about throwing around loose language, saying many of America's
companies and corporations are more concerned about their bottom line
than the national security interests of this country. That is not
correct.
This legislation provides a structure that will allow our exporters
to be partners in the overall objective of helping to prevent weapons
development by the world's most dangerous and irresponsible dictators.
We need to work more closely with our allies to continue to enhance
multilateral controls and reporting on the movement of sophisticated
technologies.
America continues to provide the leadership and the negotiating
process, as we have from the beginning, for more effective,
multilateral controls. This bill ensures continued U.S. participation
in multilateral export control regimes that support U.S. national
security objectives. The United States will continue to exercise its
leadership in export controls worldwide under this bill.
In conclusion, I acknowledge Chairman Gramm and Senators Enzi,
Sarbanes, and Johnson. These four have worked tirelessly, effectively,
over the last 2 years to bring together a responsible, relevant piece
of legislation of which we can be proud, and I am proud of being part
of it. They have developed a commonsense and strong proposal for
improving the current system. I look forward to continuing to work with
them to get this legislation enacted so we can update America's
approach to export controls for this hopeful new world where all 6
billion people reside together. That is doable. Let's get on with the
work at hand.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a
document I received from the White House and their Office of Management
and Budget, a statement of administration policy expressing support for
S. 149 and also clarifying that there is minimal pay-go consequence to
this legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Statement of Administration Policy

The Administration supports S. 149, as reported by the
Senate Banking Committee. The bill provides authority for
controlling exports of dual-use goods and technologies. The
Administration believes that S. 149 would allow the United
States to successfully meet its national security and foreign
policy objectives without impairing the ability of U.S.
companies to compete effectively in the global marketplace.
As reported, S. 149 includes a number of changes that the
Administration sought to strengthen the President's national
security and foreign policy authorities to control dual-use
exports. The Administration will continue to work with
Congress to ensure that our national security needs are
incorporated into a rational export control system.

pay-as-you-go scoring

S. 149 would affect receipts and direct spending;
therefore, it is subject to the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO)
requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA)
of 1990. OMB's preliminary scoring estimates is that the
PAYGO effect of this bill is minimal. Final scoring of this
legislation may deviate from this estimate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first, I express regret the Senate is being
asked

[[Page 6374]]

to take up this legislation at this time. As pointed out earlier, the
Export Administration Act, which this bill reauthorizes, with changes,
has not been reauthorized for over a decade. It is not as if there is
an emergency to do it this week. We have lived without a reauthorized
bill for over 10 years.
What we have done is reauthorized it on a year-to-year basis from
time to time--most recently, last year. I believe it is in October that
reauthorization runs out, so we have to take some action before that
time. I believe we should. I believe the Senate should act on this
legislation before that time. I suspect there will be some amendments
offered. I suspect there will be a healthy debate.
But at the end of the day, in one form or another, the bill will pass
and the Export Administration Act will be reauthorized as significantly
modified. President Bush, when campaigning, campaigned on that promise,
and he has made good on that promise by supporting this legislation. I
appreciate that effort on his behalf. But I think it would be wrong to
suggest that it was the administration that requested the bill be
considered at this time.
The administration was asked by a group of Senators who have
expertise in national security matters to evaluate the bill that is
before us. In less than a 2-week period that evaluation was complete,
and it was done largely by people about whom Senator Thompson was
talking this morning, who are not new additions to this administration.
Meeting this morning with Secretary Rumsfeld, we found that there are
only two confirmed positions in the Defense Department--Secretary
Rumsfeld and the No. 2 person in the Defense Department, Secretary
Wolfowitz: That is it. So it is not as if a new Bush team has evaluated
this legislation, has had the time to give it the kind of critical look
I had hoped it would be able to do.
Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KYL. I would like to continue making a point. The Senator has had
quite a bit of time. I will note, however, I have heard the questions
of my colleague. The question is the same: Essentially, as a good
Republican, why wouldn't you support the Republican administration with
all its expertise on this? I guess part of my answer is if the Senator
from South Dakota is willing to abide by the expertise and
recommendations of this administration on all matters from here on, I
would almost be persuaded to sit down and to pocket his votes on the
tax cuts, education bill, all the defense matters that come before us,
and everything else.
The fact is, reasonable people can differ. The Senator from South
Dakota can agree with the administration on some things and disagree
with them on others, just as people on this side of the aisle can do.
So it is no great argument to say if you belong to the party of the
President, you have to walk in lockstep with the President or somehow
there is a suggestion that your position is tainted.
But let me go on with my point.
Mr. JOHNSON. If I might respond?
Mr. KYL. I will be happy to yield for a moment.
Mr. JOHNSON. I will be very brief. I appreciate the Senator's
thoughtful remarks. I do not want to delay his proceeding with those.
The question is not whether the Senator supports the White House on
each and every issue. The question simply is, Does the Senator support
the administration and Colin Powell and the defense establishment of
this administration on this specific issue?
The point the President has made is that he wished this legislation
would be brought up in a very timely, very expeditious manner. The
question is not whether he supports the President--of either of our
parties, all the time. Certainly we do not. The question is whether
there was a disagreement with the defense establishment of this
administration on this specific issue.
Mr. KYL. I appreciate the question being reasked by the Senator from
South Dakota, and my answer is as I indicated and as I will continue to
demonstrate in my remarks. I think it would be a mistake for us to take
the position on either side that this is an all-or-nothing proposition.
It is not.
I respect, for example, the work of Senator Enzi from Wyoming, a
member of the Banking Committee, who has worked very hard on this
issue, and in good faith, and his chairman, Senator Gramm. There is no
one in this body for whom I have greater respect than Senator Gramm,
the chairman of the committee. Because they are putting this
legislation forward at this time, and some other Senators disagree on
national security grounds as to whether it is exactly the right bill to
be passing at this time, I would think it absolutely appalling that
anyone would question in any way their commitment to national security
because that would simply be wrong.
By the same token, it would be wrong for anyone to question the
sincerity or the knowledge of those who may oppose every jot and tittle
of this legislation on the grounds that they are somehow either not in
synchronization with the administration, not in favor of free trade, or
somehow caught in cold war legislation, or something of that sort.
Anytime you get that kind of personal suggestion in a debate, it
lowers the tone of the debate and is not productive to a rational and
constructive solution to the problem.
What is the problem? We need to reauthorize the law in a way that
properly melds both the trade and national security ramifications.
There are those in this body with a great deal of expertise in national
security matters who have come to the conclusion that the bill that
came out of the Banking Committee would in some respects be inimical to
national security and have asked for an opportunity, a greater
opportunity, to try to work out some of the differences they have with
the sponsors of the bill.
These are not people without expertise. We are talking about
committee chairmen of every committee in this body that has
jurisdiction over national security matters; specifically, Senator John
Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who I believe is
going to be here within the hour to speak to the issue; Senator Shelby,
who is chairman of the Intelligence Committee on which I sit; Senator
Thompson, who chairs the Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee
that had the jurisdiction to look into Chinese espionage and other
matters; Senator McCain, chairman of the Commerce Committee and also a
member of the Armed Services Committee; and Senator Helms, chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee. All of these Senators have extensive
experience in matters relating to our national security.
I have not added up the combined years of wisdom represented by them,
but it is not inconsiderable. They have all raised a red flag. None of
them has said they are opposed to reauthorization of an Export
Administration Act. All of them assume we are going to do this. But all
would like to do so in a way that accommodates both interests. These
Senators simply are not of the view that we have had the opportunity to
do that yet.
I spoke to the issue of timing a moment ago. There is another reason
I think it is unfortunate that the legislation is brought up right now.
Not only is it not critical that it be done this week or even this
month, I am fearful that having this kind of debate at this time could
very well send the wrong signal to China. China is very much in the
news today. It holds our reconnaissance aircraft. It improperly held
American crewmen for 11 days. Its pilot wrongly and accidentally
endangered the lives of our crew members, in the process of which he
lost his own life. China has been making extraordinarily belligerent
comments in recent months. It has continued to hold and has arrested
people, some of whom are U.S. citizens or relatives of U.S. citizens,
without much explanation, and it has acted very negatively to the U.S.
response to these actions.
This is all in the context of a buildup of military might across from
Taiwan, accompanied by threats that if Taiwan does not negotiate its
return as a province to mainland China, there is a possibility that
China would use force

[[Page 6375]]

against Taiwan to achieve that reunification.
This is all quite troubling, and it is a circumstance that requires
great care on the part of the United States. We want to live in peace
with China. We expect we are going to be able to do that for decades
and decades. We would like very much to have good trading relationships
with China. But we also understand that there are some tensions in our
relationship.
Part of the reason for these tensions is, I suspect, misunderstanding
between the leaders of our two countries--misunderstandings, frankly,
between the peoples of our two countries. It is frequently said we just
do not understand the Chinese well enough and we do not deal with them
very well as a result. I suspect the converse is true as well. So there
is a great deal of talk about sending messages. I think it is important
for us not to send the wrong messages.
I think in this regard the President was masterful in his handling of
what was a serious crisis. A country was improperly holding U.S.
citizens. The President, in a very understated but very firm way, was
able to effect the return of our people and I hope not send any
negative messages and in fact send some pretty positive messages, at
least designed to elicit cooperation from China.
He was very sensitive, in other words, to the notion of what kind of
messages were being sent. He sent another message when he decided to
sell defensive arms to Taiwan--arms necessary for Taiwan's defense in
the face of an attack by the PRC. That has grated on the PRC. And they
reacted publicly to it. But he was very candid and clear about
obligations of the United States in this regard. Again, he sent the
right message: We mean you no harm. Obviously, we want to avoid
conflict.
The best way to do that is to ensure that Taiwan can defend itself
because, obviously, we wouldn't want the PRC to be tempted to engage in
any kind of belligerent activity toward Taiwan.
Messages that are sent are very important. My fear is that by acting
on this legislation at this time, whatever we end up doing, we are
going to end up sending the wrong message. To the extent that this
debate boils down to a question of whether or not those who are in
favor of enhancing trade prevail over those who are involved in trying
to preserve our national security--a very false dichotomy--but to the
extent that is the way it is played--and it will be played that way by
the media--we send a very bad message to our friends in China. It is a
message that trade trumps national security. That is wrong. It would be
an incorrect interpretation. But that is a message that I guarantee you
will be in the headlines and in the papers to the extent that people
pay attention to this debate.
I am trying to bend over backwards not to characterize it that way.
The people who are sponsoring this bill are very interested in national
security, and they believe they have crafted a bill that meets national
security requirements, as does the administration.
There are others who very much believe in free trade and expanding
our trade with China but who believe there are additional changes that
need to be effected in this legislation and that it can best be done
before the bill is brought to the floor for the amendment process.
It will be a wrong message, but it will be, nonetheless, a message
that will be delivered, and I guarantee you that the longer this debate
goes on the more of us are going to be called by the talk shows. They
are going to call, for example, the Senator from Wyoming and myself.
They are going to say: Will the two of you debate trade versus national
security? Both of us are going to say that we really do not want to
debate this issue in those terms because that is a false dichotomy. But
that is the way it is going to be interpreted. It would be the wrong
message at this crucial time in our sensitive relations with China.
China represents only something like 1 percent of our trade and much
less than that relates to dual technology.
In some sense, this whole question about what kind of export controls
to put on dual technology items is much overblown. It is not nearly as
important as a lot of people would have us believe. We are not talking
about an amount of trade that is going to affect the U.S. economy, or
even any specific segment of our economy. We are talking about a very
small number of items.
I happen to agree with the authors of the bill that there are many
items that can be decontrolled. That is the word we use. It is now
possible because of the evolution in technology to take items that were
at one time deemed to be sophisticated off the list because they are
simply no longer state of the art, and they are no longer all that
useful if applied to military weaponry.
That is one of the features of the bill that I think is good. I think
we all agree with that. But I also think it would be a big mistake to
assume that just because the cold war is over there is no longer any
concern or shouldn't be any concern on our part and any justification
on national security grounds for controlling the exports of
technologies which have dual uses; that is to say, both civilian uses
and military uses. It would be just as wrong to characterize the
proponents of this legislation as believing in that.
There is a middle ground. I think one of the problems with the
legislation that has not been adequately addressed is the fact that a
new regime has been introduced. The regime is that if these items are
readily available, either domestically or on the foreign market, then
they are no longer subject to the same kinds of stringent controls that
they were before. That something has a dual application to both
civilian use and military use, by definition virtually everything that
we are concerned about will, therefore, have applicability because it
will be available either in the United States or on the foreign market
for civilian uses, and, therefore, for military uses as well.
That is the definition of dual-use technology, and that is the
concern we have. The mere fact that something is available to be
purchased in the United States or abroad for civilian purposes doesn't
necessarily mean we should forget about any kind of restrictions with
respect to its export, irrespective of whether its export might result
in its use in military equipment that could be used against the United
States. It doesn't mean that at all.
Yet because of provisions of this bill, it is going to be very
difficult to regulate the export of items which one can argue are
available either in the United States or abroad.
Why is that argument so important?
When it comes to U.S. military equipment, we have always had superior
technology, and while it is possible that a particular item might be
available in another country--I am just speaking hypothetically. But
let's say the French manufacture it, the Israelis manufacture it, and
maybe the Germans manufacture it as well as the United States. It
doesn't necessarily stand true that all of those items are equal and
that purchasers of those items are indiscriminate with respect to from
whom they buy it. If that were the case, it wouldn't much matter unless
the U.S. products were a whole lot cheaper. These other countries are
going to be able to export their products, in any event.
The truth is that in most cases, even when U.S. products are more
expensive--in some cases much more expensive--they are the items that
are sought because other countries understand that for various reasons
the U.S. product is superior. Some of these products have intelligence
components associated with them. They know that in certain cases other
countries have certain capabilities with respect to that equipment that
makes their use suspect. Not so with the United States. They know they
can buy these products from the United States and have no worry about
being compromised through their use. They cannot be so sure with
respect to the very same item that they might buy from someone else.
Just because an item is available someplace else doesn't necessarily
mean that it is comparable, or that the United States should allow our
product

[[Page 6376]]

to be exported even when we know that its use will be embedded in
military equipment and it could be used against the United States in
the future.
That is part of the problem. While the legislation itself grants to
the President, and only the President, the ability to waive certain of
these requirements, even the President is limited. He can only do it
three times. He can only do it for 6 months at a time, and after 18
months even he can't control the item or require an export license for
it.
There are some significant concerns that I think we have to be aware
of before we just necessarily assume that because we are all for free
trade--and most of us are for free trade--therefore, we ought to adopt
this legislation.
The very fact that the President just this week announced the arms
sales to Taiwan because of the threat that China poses to Taiwan should
give us some pause. China is the same country which bought fiberoptic-
cable technology items from American companies and then was found to
have helped the Iraqis imbed those fiberoptic cables in Iraqi air
defenses causing the United States enough concern that in February the
President ordered U.S. jets--and British jets accompanied ours--to
carry out airstrikes against those very same Iraqi air defense systems.
It was because of the upgrade through the installation of the
fiberoptic cable provided and installed by China.
Fiberoptic cable is a dual-use item, and it is of considerable
strategic importance. Its export to China is permissible under Senate
bill S. 149. Let there be no mistake, fiberoptic cable not only
increases the amount of data that can be transmitted, virtually
exponentially, but it is also extraordinarily difficult to intercept
signals in fiberoptic cable as opposed to, for example, through
microwave transmissions or through regular copper wire.
This is an item that is in clear use all over the United States. You
can buy it on the market. But when it is applied to certain kinds of
military uses, such as military equipment, it can become very dangerous
to the United States. We have actually taken action against it for that
very reason.
Why should we liberalize its export to countries? If Iraq could have
gotten that equipment and China could have gotten that equipment from
anywhere else in the world, why didn't they? They buy it from the
United States because we have the best products. If we deny that for
military use to countries in the world that we do not want to have it,
then they are going to have to accept an inferior product, one which
presumably, at least, hopefully, we would be able to deal with much
better than our own particular product.
Let me try to also put in perspective what all the bill relates to.
There are literally thousands of items on the list of dual-technology
materials or services that could be, in effect, decontrolled through
this legislation. I certainly do not have time to go through all of
them. Let me give you some ideas of what some of these are. I have a
very lengthy report which, given the time, I will be happy to go
through in some detail because I think it is most illustrative in
relation to those who believe there is not much of a problem. One of my
colleagues said that you can buy it all from Radio Shack. The truth is,
you cannot buy all this from Radio Shack. Yet it has enough
availability to escape the requirements of an export license.
We talked about the Chinese company that helped Iraq outfit its air
defenses with fiberoptic equipment. This results in high-speed
switching and routing. That equipment is all provided by U.S. companies
which, by the way, would like to sell some additional items, various
communications technology, to the very same Chinese firm that provided
this technology to Iraq. Is that what we want to be doing? I am not so
sure. I think we want to think about this very carefully.
We ought to have the ability to deny an export license for this kind
of dual-use technology to a company such as the Chinese company that
bought it in this case. Yet under this bill these technologies would be
determined to have foreign availability because of their marketing
abroad, and they would meet the mass market criteria in the bill.
Therefore, unless the President himself exercised the authority that I
talked about, they would be eligible for export.
That is a very recent example. Let's go back to look at some other
examples. There were news stories at the time of ball-bearing grinders
purchased from the United States. Since then, there have been quite a
few public reports, although much of it is classified. But the fact is,
in the 1970s the Soviet Union purchased ball-bearing grinders from the
United States ostensibly for its use in civil industry. It used them,
in fact, to produce pin-sized bearings for use in the SS-18 guidance
system.
The SS-18 is the most fearsome weapon on the Earth today--a nuclear-
tipped intercontinental ballistic missile. These ball bearings are
crucial to produce the guidance system capable of ensuring the very
high degree of accuracy which this missile possesses. Those are the
missiles that could incinerate every American living today. The
guidance systems are perfected because of the ball bearings produced by
equipment that the United States sent.
These precision machine tools and ball bearings are controlled by the
Commerce Department under the authorities granted by the Export
Administration Act. But under the legislation pending here, these items
would be available to foreign sources. The bill prohibits export
controls on them unless the President is able to set aside the
determination. And he can only do that for 6 months at a time.
Submarines have to be quiet in order to be effective. The advantage
of United States submarines is that they are the quietest submarines in
the world. The other side cannot detect them, and we can pretty much go
where we want to at will.
The dual-use technology control list contains numerous technologies
that can be used to make submarines quieter. This technology is, to
some extent, available from foreign suppliers. Its export should be
regulated to prevent nations such as China from freely purchasing it
from American companies.
While foreign submarine manufacturers such as Russia and Sweden have
made great strides in submarine technology, we think U.S. technology is
superior, and it is unique to U.S. submarines, and, if nothing else,
its export could compromise the vital capability of U.S. submarines.
There are those in Government who also like to talk about something a
lot more mundane. I am choosing examples almost at random, but this
caught my eye: a variety of devices that can be used to torture
prisoners.
We are now talking human rights, folks. These devices that can be
used to torture prisoners--some of which are as mundane as electric
prods and shock batons and shackles, and so on--are controlled for
export due to human rights considerations. You can get these on the
open market. If you are a bad guy, and you go shopping for them, you
can find them somewhere in the world.
Should the United States be selling them to countries that we know
engage in human rights abuses? That is the kind of consideration that
distinguishes America from many of the rest of the nations of the
world. We just do not sell equipment and items to other countries that
we know will be used to hurt people improperly, even though that
equipment can be obtained from other places.
It is perhaps a small point, but I think it makes a big difference.
Even if people can buy something from someplace else, it is not
necessarily a good idea for the United States to be selling it, again,
partially because of the signals that we send.
I may, if I have a little time later, also discuss in greater detail
about technology that relates to the production of nuclear weapons,
nuclear reactors, tritium plants, fissile material, liquid and solid
propellant rocket engines, chemical and biological processing
equipment, encryption software, flow-forming machines for a variety of
production applications. All of these are items that are on the dual-
use control list.
I am going to talk a bit about maraging steel and gas centrifuges in

[[Page 6377]]

just a moment. But suffice it to say, on this list there is page after
page after page of items that have dual uses; that is to say, perfectly
permissible civilian uses and also very sophisticated and, in some
cases, very dangerous military uses.
The question is, just because you can buy them for civilian purposes,
should the United States be allowing the export of these items, without
some control, to nations of the world that we believe would or could
use them against us?
In some cases, we use the export control regime for the purpose of
not prohibiting the export but providing some conditions on it or
limiting it in some way. Part of the ability to calibrate what we allow
to be exported is lost as a result of the specifics of this
legislation.
I am sure my colleagues would agree with me--those who are supporting
this legislation--that in some cases we may want to ultimately grant
the export license but to have certain conditions on them.
One of the conditions we have had in the past, for example, has to do
with who the end user is. There are some fairly well-known cases of
situations in which we thought that the end user was a civilian entity,
and it turned out not to be the case. I have in mind two cases. One of
the cases is where McDonnell Douglas--a very prominent company; a
company that was formerly in my State, as a matter of fact--thought it
was selling machine tools for the manufacture of civilian aircraft, and
it turned out it went to China for the production of military aircraft.
We also had some very sophisticated computers that we did not want to
go to a military end user in China. It went, I think, to a research
institute. But it ended up in the wrong hands. My recollection is, in
that case, because of some limitations we had put on the export
license, we were able to pull it back.
There are cases where if you have some ability to regulate the
specifics of how the license is granted, you can actually prevent items
from falling into the wrong hands.
I haven't talked about computers yet. We know that high-performance
computers are one of the main areas of contention here because the
evolution of the technology is so rapid now that something that was
really leading edge a year or 18 months ago is relatively passe today,
overtaken by much more high speed and capable computers. U.S. computer
technology exceeds that of all foreign competitors, yet our
manufacturers argue for more and more liberal ability to export, to the
point that the Clinton administration, for all practical purposes,
eliminated controls on high-performance computers without any
compelling evidence that reasonably comparable foreign systems were
seriously sought by foreign customers.
That brings up another question. There isn't any real definition in
this bill of what we mean by ``availability.'' It is a very subjective
term. One wonders why or how it is that we are going to judge something
to be available. If the market that they really want to buy from is the
U.S. market, then maybe the availability of a so-called comparable
foreign product isn't as great as we might think it to be. That is an
element that needs a further look.
There is a very interesting example that was pointed out by Gary
Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. He noted
that high-precision electronic switches needed to detonate nuclear
weapons would be decontrolled under the act because of their civil
application in medical instruments. I believe this device is used in
the lithotripters, the equipment now that can actually blast apart gall
stones so you don't have to painfully extract them from an individual.
They are blasted apart and taken out like little bits of sand. The
electronics of that are the very same electronics that are used in the
nuclear detonation components of weapons.
Similarly, he points out that glass and carbon fibers are used in
ballistic and cruise missile construction as well as in the enrichment
of uranium for nuclear weapons and that they could be decontrolled
because of their use in the manufacture of skis and tennis rackets and
boats and golf clubs. We have heard recent reports in the news about
the possibility that different countries--Iraq comes to mind--might be
buying some of these items off the shelf in fairly huge quantities.
Everyone asks: Why would they be buying so many of those? The
speculation is, of course, that it just might be because they want to
apply them to one of their military uses.
I mentioned maraging steel before. This is a very special kind of
steel that is used in the manufacture of solid rocket motor cases,
propellant tanks, and interstages for missiles as well as in the
enrichment of uranium. It would be decontrolled because its application
in commercial rocketry and also the fact that in many forums it is
available in other countries. There are many other items.
I will summarize a couple: Corrosion resistant valves used in the
enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons; they are also used in the
commercial paper, energy, and cryogenic industries. This is a list of
pretty deadly serious military applications of items that nonetheless
would be decontrolled under this legislation because of their
applicability to civilian uses as well.
I talked in the beginning about a concern I had that this legislation
is being debated at the wrong time. I hope I am not, by articulating
this list of items--and again, we can talk about a lot more--leaving
the impression that there is no role for the approach of this
legislation to get rid of a lot of items on the list that have both
civilian and military applications. The legislation moves in the right
direction because there are a lot of items that don't need to have this
kind of regulation. There are some that do. The question is, have we
discriminated properly in drawing the dividing line between those that
do and those that do not?
There is another provision of this bill that has to do with another
way we can judge whether or not something would be automatically exempt
from the export control regime. It has to do with how much value an
embedded component has. On the surface, you would say, what difference
should that make? If you have a very highly classified component and it
represents only, let's say, 10 percent of the cost of an item, simply
because it is only 10 percent of the cost of the overall item, should
that mean that the entire item is decontrolled and another country has
the ability, then, to reverse engineer the entire component so that it
can take out the part that is highly classified?
That is what this legislation allows. It says that if only a certain
percentage of the value is in this very highly controlled component,
you can go ahead and sell it. There is sort of a presumption that it
can't be all that big a deal if it is only a small percentage of
value--10 or 25 percent. A case that I don't think is included in this
legislation, because of action that the Congress took last year to take
it out of the Commerce Department and put it back with the State
Department, but which obviously we had to act on or it would have been,
is the case of rocket motors. I shouldn't say rocket motors, rather,
the so-called kick motors that are in many cases embedded in
satellites. These are very highly classified items. We take a satellite
that we want to launch, and when it is kicked into its final orbit by
this little motor, it can actually perform the way we want it to
perform.
In the case of China, for example, the Chinese have made it a
condition for some companies doing business in China that those
companies allow China to launch a certain percentage of the satellites
that they want to launch. So those companies, in order to do business
in China, have to agree to that, and they have. These satellites are
supposed to be under the control of Americans at all times because they
are very sophisticated. We don't want them to fall into the wrong hands
and to be reverse engineered. We don't want our technology to be stolen
from them. That certainly applies to an item such as the kick motor
embedded in the satellite.
We recall that a couple years ago there was a great deal of evidence
of

[[Page 6378]]

the fact that certain American companies had allowed satellite launches
in China without adequate security, the result of which was that we
believe there was some compromise of American technology by the
Chinese. It is not only the kick motors. There are other components,
too. Had Congress not acted last year to retrieve those satellite items
from the Commerce Department and put them back on what was called the
munitions list, where the State Department would have the authority to
require license, we wouldn't have had the same degree of control over
them that we do today. This is the kind of thing that can happen.
Again, the timing is wrong here because we are forced to talk about
situations involving China over and over and over again. I don't
particularly care to do that. This is a time when it would be nice if
we could kind of lower the rhetoric and try to develop a relationship
with China which very clearly states our goals and tries to deal with
China in a way that doesn't result in more belligerency on their part.
By the authors of the legislation being insistent on bringing it up
now, some of us have no choice but to use examples that are,
unfortunately, very real examples of where we believe that sensitive
technology has been either sold to or acquired by China in ways that
this legislation would not prevent. I wish we didn't need to talk about
that at this time, but since they are very real examples, we will talk
about them. Again, I hope the message isn't misunderstood. This is not
about either having trade or national security. The authors of this
legislation agree with me and I with them that we can do both. We have
to do both. We will do both. But this will be portrayed as trade
trumping national security. That would be a mistake.
With the indulgence of my colleagues, I will continue now to discuss
some of this other technology that I mentioned would be impacted by
this legislation. I talked before about maraging steel. Here are some
of the countries where this product is of particular interest. This,
again, is the high-alloy steel that has very high yield strength.
Pakistan has used it for uranium enrichment centrifuges; India for its
polar satellite launch vehicle; Russia and Iran, special alloys for
missiles.
I talked before about the bearings and gas centrifuge. There are
military applications for high uranium production, and there is some
evidence that China has sold this technology to Pakistan for the
production of nuclear weapons in Pakistan. The centrifugal isotope
separation plant, equipment and components, the military applications:
Russia's uranium isotope separation plant has played a significant role
in warhead production. The plant is primarily a centrifuge enrichment
facility, and it has produced about 40 percent of the Soviet Union's
enrichment uranium. I talked about explosive detonators earlier.
Aluminum alloys is another very interesting case. This is obviously
very useful in rocket technology and missile technology for casings.
China has developed a welded aluminum alloy used in the design of the
torpedo hull. It manufactures aluminum alloy casings. India is
manufacturing heavy-duty aluminum alloy extruded composition and has
conducted studies on this that are very significant relating to its
satellite launch vehicle.
All of these are items that would be impacted by this legislation.
The ceramic composite materials are a new and increasingly important
kind of material because they don't conduct electricity. Therefore,
they have some very unique military applications. They have been used
in ballistic missiles and reentry vehicle antenna windows, for example.
They are produced, by the way, by companies in France, Germany, India,
Japan, Russia, as well as the United States.
Laminates: Again, missile parts are often made from these other kinds
of materials. Composite structures and laminates are materials used in
rocket systems, including ballistic missiles and space vehicles, and
they are produced in a whole variety of countries, including the United
States.
There are military applications to something called crucibles. These
are used to melt and reduce and cast uranium and plutonium for nuclear
explosive devices. I realize when I read these, people may say: Wait a
minute; we are not talking about just putting these things on the open
market. What I am saying, folks, is they would be items that are no
longer controlled under the dual technology control regime under the
old Export Administration Act, which everybody would like to see
reauthorized, with some changes. Because of the liberalization under
this act, these items, in effect, become decontrolled.
In the early 1990s, for example, the U.S. was licensed to sell a
significant volume of this equipment for making crucibles for high-
performance furnace systems. It found its way to Iraq and to Iraq's
nuclear missile and chemical weapons program, and for its nuclear
weapons design and research center. This particular item at that time,
because of a law that existed, was stopped by Presidential order. That
would not be possible today if this legislation were to pass.
Guidance sets for missiles--you might think this is pretty technical
stuff that we should not be selling on the open market. But there are
items here that have dual uses. So ballistic missile guidance sets are
often built to fit into a particular missile to be used in a hostile
environment, and it would perform with a high degree of accuracy. It
could have both civilian and military uses. They are produced in a
whole variety of countries, in addition to the U.S.
There are services as well as products--and I will not go into all of
these. We are not just talking about the military applications of
specific pieces of equipment. We are also talking about certain kinds
of services showing people how to do certain kinds of things.
We talked about propulsion systems and components. Here are some of
the military applications of that. On one occasion, they were disguised
as automotive spare parts on the airwaves of a certain country and were
destined for Libya. This was very recently, by the way. Some of the
paperwork indicated that the seized shipments had already reached
Libya, I might add.
The China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, which was
sanctioned by the U.S. in August of 1993 for missile proliferation
activities, designed and researched propulsion systems, among other
things. Russia aided Iran with the design of guidance and propulsion
systems, some of which found their way into the Shahab 3 and Shahab 4
ballistic missiles for Iran. There are a variety of examples that I can
give you.
Reentry vehicles--we are familiar with those--for both commercial and
military applications. These, too, would be subject to the provisions
of this legislation.
And I hate to talk about China again, and I wish we didn't have this
debate right now. Chinese engineers were arrested for trying to steal
some blueprints from a plant in the Ukraine. Yet these very items would
be subject to sale because they are produced by a variety of countries
and have dual applications.
Without getting into a lot of detail, I will indicate the nature of
some of these other activities or products. Propellant additives,
propellant control systems, propellant production equipment, radar
software--you can easily understand why that could be a dual item--
radiation-hardened computers. The applications here for military use
are obvious.
Ramjet engines: The military applications there, I think, are fairly
obvious; rocket motor mounts and sounding rockets as well. These all
have to do with space, and also aircraft, such as airborne radar,
navigational systems, depleted uranium, fly-by-wire flight control.
Obviously, that is the way our commercial aircraft is now designed. It
is also a very important military design. We have various kinds of
noise reduction and acoustic mounts and valves and other kinds of
things that are used in quieting for the Navy, primarily.
Precision tracking systems: We are all familiar with how we are able
both

[[Page 6379]]

in civilian and military applications to precisely track using the
global system. Yet many of those items would also be covered by this
legislation and no longer require license: side-looking airborne radar,
sonar signal processing equipment, underwater breathing apparatus, wind
tunnel applications.
Mr. ENZI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KYL. Yes.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, is the Senator aware that we are not doing
away with the control list and any item on the list continues to stay
on the list unless it goes through the process? Is the Senator aware
that we have added country tiering so that rogue states are taken care
of that way?
Mr. KYL. Yes. Is China defined as a rogue state in the legislation?
Mr. ENZI. It could be.
Mr. KYL. But it is not.
Mr. ENZI. It doesn't say any particular state.
Mr. KYL. I answer the Senator that I am aware that the items are not
automatically decontrolled. But by virtue of what I talked about
before--and I think the Senator was here--because of availability for
commercial purposes, the items will also be available under the dual
technology regime that is contemplated by the legislation.
Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, the legislation specifically
gives the President the authority to continue to control any item. I
don't think the items the Senator is listing would be mass market items
under this legislation. But even if one or a few were to be sold
classified, the President has the authority under this legislation to
deny that category and to continue to control the item.
Mr. KYL. First of all----
Mr. SARBANES. I don't understand.
Mr. KYL. Does my colleague want an answer to his question?
Mr. SARBANES. There are examples that happened under the previous
regime. This bill will actually improve the regime.
Mr. KYL. The Senator has mischaracterized what I said. I pointed out
a couple of instances in which these items got into the wrong hands in
the past. But under the previous law, we had the ability to pull them
back. I did cite some examples. We would not have that authority under
the legislation as the Senator has written it. Moreover, I am perfectly
aware that many of these items would not necessarily be mass marketed.
Yet every one of them would be subject to the definition of
availability, foreign availability, or U.S. availability.
That is precisely why I picked these items because under any
reasonable definition, you would have to say, yes, those are available
someplace. Now, if the Senator is telling me some of those look serious
and I don't think we would want to consider them available, then I say
we have to be more careful about how we draft this legislation.
On that point I agree with the Senator, but as to the first point,
the Senator raised the suggestion--I heard it made several times: The
President has the authority to waive this. No, the President does not
have the authority to waive this. The authority is very constricted.
The President, and only the President--as if he did not have anything
else to do--can three times for 6 months only, for a total of 18
months, waive the applicability of that section.
Mr. GRAMM. That is not right.
Mr. KYL. That is absolutely correct, and I would be happy to cite the
provision of the legislation. To think it is going to work very well--
--
Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator do that for us?
Mr. KYL. To think it would work very well to have a regime in place
where the President is going to have to continually be waiving its
requirements I think is going at it the wrong way.
Therefore, while it is important for any President to have a waiver
component--we frequently have national security waivers of one kind or
another--if you set up the presumption that it is going to be sold and
require only the President to stop it, you are going to be putting a
pretty big burden on him.
In the past, the presumption has been effectively the other way. Part
of this is due to the fact that there is no really clear way of
defining availability. I talked to that before the Senator arrived.
Mr. President, my colleague from Wyoming may wish to join in this. If
so, that is perfectly fine with me. I stand corrected. The
authorization for this current extension of the EAA runs through a date
in August--August 31?
Mr. ENZI. August 20.
Mr. KYL. Not October. We will either have to pass a resolution
extending the date beyond that, which I presume would be relatively
easy to do, or act on the reauthorization of the EAA in some form prior
to that time.
Frankly, that is fine with me. As I have said now several times, the
effort of the Banking Committee to rewrite this legislation in light of
changed circumstances in the last decade is a laudable effort, and
there are a lot of changes that need to be made in the legislation.
There is no argument about that. That, frankly, is what President Bush
campaigned on and what he said he was for. That is perfectly
appropriate.
We are talking about details. It is evident that reasonable people--
or at least I hope the chairmen of these committees would be deemed to
be reasonable; certainly my friends in this administration are
extraordinarily competent on these matters. I believe with a little bit
of time reasonable people will be able to resolve whatever differences
exist. I know some are not quite that sanguine about those prospects.
I also am aware of the fact that the administration has an idea which
is a good one. That is, not everything in this regard ought to be put
in the legislation itself, which can become relatively inflexible. As
we have seen, it is a little bit harder to change than an
administrative action. Therefore, the administration has in mind
developing an Executive order that would implement this legislation and
related legislation in such a way as to provide the President with a
little more flexibility to handle particularly those situations that
arise very quickly.
The shelf life of some of the equipment we are talking about is very
short, and therefore sometimes there may be a need to act with
alacrity. Under the provisions of the bill, it may be too slow, though
they intend to speed it up.
There are also intelligence considerations which I cannot go into at
this point, but they, too, can be dealt with by means of an Executive
order.
I applaud those members of the administration who raised this as a
possible way of dealing with some of these issues. The fact is they
have not had time to do this, and I fully appreciate that. Those of us
who have concerns about the legislation would very much appreciate the
opportunity to await the drafting of that order. As I said, I suspect
that will remove many of the concerns some of us have just about the
bill itself.
That said, I go back to the point I made in the beginning, which is,
this is the wrong time to bring up this legislation.
I also, again with some trepidation, make the following point: Some
of my colleagues have said: Look, bringing it up now actually helps you
because you are able to talk about a situation that has rubbed the
American public pretty raw these days, and that is a belligerent and
overly hostile China. In fact, China has obtained a lot of its
technology in the past, not all of it properly so, as pointed out
before. So actually this is a good time to bring this up because you
will be at your strongest in arguing we should not be passing this
legislation right now when it could only make it easier for China to
obtain this equipment.
At the same time, some of these folks say: Look, this legislation is
actually tighter; it is more strict; it is more conservative than ever
in the past. We are actually tightening the law; we are enhancing
national security. Mr. President, you cannot have it both ways. It is
my view the legislation is not tight enough, that it could result in
technological acquisition by countries that would use that technology
against the United States and that we do not want

[[Page 6380]]

to do that; there are ways to prevent that.
Our argument is over some relatively narrow points. If we appreciate
that, then we can also appreciate that it is possible to come together
on those, come to closure on those without necessarily engaging in a
great long public debate which I really do not think serves anybody's
purpose at this point in time, especially given the circumstances that
exist with respect to our current relationship with China.
My hope is the authors of the legislation on this Thursday afternoon
will say, all right, let's talk about this for a little bit, get a date
certain to bring up the legislation, and see what additional fixes are
needed, if necessary, and get additional amendments that might be
offered so we can persuade colleagues, if there are certain changes to
make, we can do that and take it up at a time when perhaps nerves are
not quite as raw.
Frankly, I fully expect the administration to engage at that point in
time because they have a great deal of expertise and they are all
people whom I know people on this side of the aisle respect a great
deal. So we will be taking their views very much into consideration.
That is my hope. I hope our leadership will focus on elements of this
President's agenda of which everybody on our side of the aisle is very
much in favor, including this tax cut and education proposals.
By virtue of the fact I had to be on the floor, I missed discussion
of the tax proposals that I very much hoped to attend because we are
trying to put together the final package that will effectuate President
Bush's campaign promise of tax relief for all Americans. I hope we can
take that up next week. If not, we will take up education reforms next
week and take the tax bill up the week after that.
If we are stuck debating the Export Administration Act, all of that
gets delayed. That is not good for the American people. My hope is the
authors of the legislation will be willing to work with us and defer
this until we take care of these other items that are a little bit more
important, in my view, and then come back to this with plenty of time
to do it prior to the time the authorization expires. If need be, we
can clearly do a temporary resolution extending the time of the EAA
until we are able to act upon it later this year.
With that, I relinquish the floor at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I need to answer some of the items that have
been raised. I appreciate the Senator correcting the date on which the
present extension of the EAA runs out. I know that confusion came from
me. I am involved in another bill with a sunset at a later date, and I
mentioned the wrong date. August 20 is the drop-dead date on the Export
Administration Act.
Can we extend it again? It was extended last time under a unanimous
consent agreement in both Houses. That won't necessarily happen again.
Unanimous consent is not the easiest thing to get. We were running out
of time under appropriations last time and believed that was an
appropriate action to take. However, it is not necessarily the same
action that will be taken again.
We are running out of time to solve the export administration
problem. Education will be coming to the floor. I am on the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. We did the education bill. It
actually went through committee faster than any other ESEA bill of
which I am aware. Normally it takes a couple of weeks for debate. It
went through the committee in 2 days. Normally the bills come out of
that committee along party lines. It came out unanimously. There are
still details on which to work.
I think we will have an Elementary and Secondary Education Act
reauthorized shortly. I would not want to stand in its way. However, it
is not ready or we would be debating that now. There are still details
being worked out.
That leaves a window. It was mentioned that taxes need to be debated.
I am one of the proponents of the tax cut and have been working
steadily to get that and would not stand in the way of a tax cut.
However, the tax cut isn't ready for floor debate. It will be.
Education will be ready. Taxes will be ready. And then something else
extremely important to this country--appropriations will come out. We
have to pass 13 appropriations bills. That is supposed to be over by
October 1, but that usually takes us well into October, sometimes into
November. That is past October 20, without an opportunity to do this
extensive debate that is purported to be needed.
One of the things we have done is killed 4 hours--not really
``killed'' because everybody needed to make their statement and get
their stance out on the Export Administration Act. I am glad we have
done that. From this point forward, the time we are taking is time we
could actually be debating these amendments.
I have had some Members on the other side say, we know what will
happen to those amendments. That is how education works around here. If
you don't have the majority of the vote, you lose on your amendment.
There is a point to which people see amendments as being reasonable and
helping national security, but there is a point where they see it as
stopping all trade.
There is a balance. We still intend to be a country that has a good
economy--not just a country that is militarily capable of being the
best in the world. This bill has been a deliberate and timely attempt
to reach that kind of situation.
What we need is the amendment suggestions through the debate process.
I submitted the list earlier. It is in the Record. You can look at all
the meetings we have had--probably not all of them, but the ones we
recorded as having. Those produced the suggestions in this bill.
Now a perfect bill will prevent any law from being in place. There
isn't such a thing as a perfect bill. When I was legislating on the
State level, as well as here, I had a pretty good idea when I was
holding hearings on a bill that there was somebody in the audience who
knew a loophole to that bill and they were not about to share it until
they had taken advantage of it. However, we hope to catch as many of
those as possible when it is being considered. That is why we have 100
people, we have 100 different opinions--at least 100 different opinions
from 100 different perspectives contributing to a bill.
When we debate whether we go ahead and debate, we are not making any
progress toward a final solution.
On the China issue, there probably isn't a time that could be more
sensitive. But the ones who are talking about greater security than
what this bill provides would have it to their advantage to talk about
it because of the timing of the situation with China.
We don't have any problem debating it. We don't have any problem
considering amendments to this bill, even in light of the China
situation. The reason we don't is that we are sure we have addressed
those issues. If we missed something, we need to know about it and take
action.
Everybody keeps saying there are a very small number of items that
need to be regulated. How do we go about doing that? Give me a
suggestion if you have one other than the way we are doing it.
There was a comment that there is a new regime, that we are talking
about things readily available in either foreign or mass markets; that
these other countries have access to all of those things and we will
give up all of our control. Not true. We have tried to address keeping
control in every possible way. There still will be a control list. We
didn't get rid of the control list. The wording in the bill says any
item that is controlled now will continue to be controlled until the
committee makes a decision otherwise. So if it is controlled now--and a
bunch of the items mentioned were controlled and were against the law,
but they were done anyway.
How did somebody get away with that? I imagine things will still be
done illegally no matter what kind of bill we

[[Page 6381]]

pass because we don't handle ethics and morals; we just handle the law.
One of the problems we have under the law is, for about a 6-year
period we did not have sufficient findings to get anybody's attention
of the fines and penalties and prevention, more so than beating
somebody up after it happens--although that has to be there for the bad
actors.
We have a number in this bill that will get people's attention. For
those people who are talking about this bill not having enough
security, the last version, the one we could have done at the end of
last year, had penalties that were twice as big, but we were asked to
reduce those to get them more reasonable, to make it closer to what the
munitions list has. If anything ought to have fines and penalties to
get the attention of people, it ought to be the munitions list. We
would not agree to go to that low a level.
In fact, there is even jail time involved in this one. I think some
of the those things are needed to keep people's attention. So we have
tightened up the bill.
We talked a little bit about Iraq. We have to trust that the
administration will rate Iraq as one of those countries that should get
a very poor rating under the tier system--the worst. I suspect they
will. I will not dictate which ones ought to be the bad guys and which
ones ought to be the good guys. I have been contacted by a number of
countries that wanted to be specifically mentioned in the bill as one
of the good guys. I said: No, the administration makes that decision
based on your relationship with the United States and your involvement
in making and selling weapons of mass destruction. We have some
criteria by which you are considered a good country. I have no doubt
the administration will adequately do that rating on those countries.
That is something brand new, too. We did not have the tier system
before. Now we have a tier system so countries that are adverse
countries will not get items. We have a control list so that items we
do not want people to get they cannot get. So some countries are going
to be prohibited both for being on the control list and being a country
to which we will not sell that kind of item. I do not know how you
could make it tighter than that.
Then--and this was at the suggestion of the people who are asking we
not be allowed to go ahead and debate this motion--that the President
be able to have total control over absolutely any item that can be
sold. This is a Presidential enhanced control. Yes, it says the
President has to do it. We know the President will get a suggestion
from somebody along with all the backup reasoning on why it ought to
happen. Some of those decisions will be pretty pro forma. I do not
think we are talking about a huge expenditure of time on the
President's part. On those items that are really a national security
issue, I hope the President is personally and timely involved.

But the President can control absolutely everything. How much
documentation, how much review does he have to do? That is for a little
transparency, so we know what is being controlled. But the President is
the ultimate authority on all of it. We have given him that
constitutional right. We have now put it in writing.
We also have some extra control authority, which are on page 183 of
this little document that is on every single desk for the end use and
end user controls. And then the most important paragraph, the enhanced
controls. So if somebody has a suggestion on how to make it tighter
than that and still be able to sell to our allies the things that we
want our allies to have that would be beneficial to them and to us,
tell me how to do that; present an amendment.
Of course, we cannot present an amendment until we get past this
debate about how long we are going to debate about whether we get to
debate.
I have been here before on this bill. I have to say it is a lot
easier to defeat a bill than it is to pass a bill--I noticed that
through my legislative career, as well as my senatorial career--because
if you create a little confusion, confusion goes a long way.
We have heard a lot of confusion. I think we can address everything
that has been mentioned to this point. We can show where it has been
covered in the bill. But it is easier to defeat a bill. I have to say
in the Senate it is even easier than that because we have this thing
called filibuster and that is where you stop the motion to proceed and
have people debate on whether to debate for a long period of time.
I understand the other side understands how many people there are who
have been working on this bill, been involved in this bill, who will
vote for this bill. If we file cloture, we will get cloture. It is just
a long process and a way of delaying it. But it is a route that can be
taken.
We had the signatures for that last year but ran out of time. I only
mention this time again to get back to the original point, which is
August 20 is when the bill runs out. If we have not solved it by that
time, we may not be able to solve it. So I ask that we get past this
motion to proceed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reluctantly I rise to differ with my good
friend from Wyoming. I come from the perspective of chairing the
Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I have
looked carefully at some of the problems over the last 8 years in a
couple of respects. First of all, we are dramatically and grossly
underfunded in most of our accounts for our military relative to the
threat that is out there. We have gone through a difficult time with
China and hopefully it is coming to an end now. If we go back to 1995
when we started getting some of the very first comments made by the
Chinese that have been very threatening to the United States, it was
during the elections not long ago in Taiwan when the Chinese were
demonstrating their missiles in the Taiwan Strait and the statement was
made ``we are not concerned about the United States coming to the aid
of Taipei because they would rather defend Los Angeles.'' That is at
least an indirect threat.
Most recently there have been statements made from more than one high
Chinese official saying war with America is inevitable. Over the last 8
years, we found that half of our nuclear secrets--we had a total of
16--were compromised during the Clinton administration, 8 of them were
compromised prior to the Clinton administration. We found out in 1999
that way back in 1995 the other 8 nuclear compromises took place. There
was an informant who came in, in 1995, and informed us these
compromises had taken place. This was covered up, I am sorry to say, by
the administration until the Cox report discovered it and released it
in 1999, 4 years later.
We look at those things that have taken place, the transfer of
technology to the Chinese, and we now see a massive military buildup by
the Chinese. This is the same country that is saying war with America
is inevitable. We know they made some purchases of SU27s and SU30s.
They will have aircraft that is better and more modern air-to-air
aircraft than anything we have in our arsenal, including the F-15. We
are looking at a percentage of their budget that is going now to
buildups. We also know they have virtually all--at least those 16--of
our nuclear secrets.
We have been facing also, during the Clinton administration, the
signing of waivers. In order to make it easier to transfer technology,
they took the waiver process out of the State Department and put it
into the Commerce Department, only to reverse that later on when we
found out that many of the transfers had taken place.
We remember regretfully the time President Clinton signed a waiver to
allow the transfer of guidance technology that was produced by the
Loral Corporation. That is something that would be very dangerous for
the other side to have.
Considering what little we do have left in terms of technology, I
cannot imagine a worse time in our Nation's history to be making it
easier to transfer technology from a pure national security standpoint
than right now. So I

[[Page 6382]]

am hoping my colleagues will look at what has happened over the last 8
years, look at what has happened over the last 2 weeks, and come to the
conclusion that maybe this is a good idea for sometime in the future.
It is not a good idea for this time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ENZI. 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. THOMPSON. 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. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we have had considerable discussion
about the President's authority under this proposed legislation. The
point has been made that we have a fail-safe provision--that the
President can always intervene and stop some item from being exported
that should not be exported. But I think if you examine the
legislation, you would have to conclude that through this legislation
the drafters have made it difficult for the President to intervene and
step in under those circumstances even in matters that constitute a
threat to the national security.
If you look at section 212, which gives the President the right to
set aside the foreign availability status--as you recall, under this
legislation, something that heretofore has been controlled required a
license. If there is a determination made by the Commerce Secretary
that it is a matter of foreign availability under the criterion that
they come up with, it will be decontrolled. They will be able to send
it to China, Russia, or any of the other what have been tier III
countries in times past. But there is a provision in here that the
President can step in and exercise a set-aside.
Here is what the set-aside language says. It says if the President
determines that decontrolling or failing to control an item constitutes
a threat to the national security of the United States, and export
controls an item which advances the national security interests of the
United States--I will skip some of what I don't think are particularly
pertinent provisions--it says the President may set aside the
Secretary's determination of foreign availability.
Then it goes on to say that the President may not delegate the
authority provided in this paragraph.
In the first place, we make it so that the President and only the
President must deal with this matter, considering all the matters that
he has to deal with, especially as I would again point out while he is
trying to build his administration and while he is trying to get his
people in place.
Then the act goes on to say that the President shall promptly, if the
President chooses to use their nondelegation authority, notify the
Congress. He shall promptly report any set-aside determination as
described along with any specific reasons for the determination to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on International Relations in the House.
In other words, if the President chooses to intervene for reasons of
a threat to national security, he must justify that to the Banking
Committee and to the Committee on International Relations in the House.
Then he must publish the determination in the Federal Registry.
That is not all the President has to do. Then the President has to
engage in negotiations with foreign powers. It says in any case in
which the export controls are maintained on an item because the
President has made a determination under subsection (a), the President
shall actively pursue negotiations with the governments of appropriate
foreign countries for the purpose of eliminating such availability.
It may be a desirable thing. It might have been a desirable thing to
negotiate with foreign countries even before somebody wanted to export
something under this act to get them to try to do the right thing. But
do we want to require the President to enter into negotiations with
foreign countries? I assume we can do that under the separation of
powers doctrine, if we choose to do so. But it is a rather significant
step--all, again, under the rubric of the conditions that the President
must comply with if he is going to step in and exercise this authority
that we say he has to stop something from being sent abroad that
constitutes a threat to the national security of this country.
That is not all the President has to do. It says he then has to
report to Congress. Not later than the date the President begins
negotiations, the President shall notify in writing the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Development of the Senate and the Committee
on International Relations in the House of Representatives that the
President has begun such negotiations, and why the President believes
it is important to the national security that the export controls on
the items involved be maintained.
Again, the President is required not only to enter into negotiations
but to justify to the Senate Banking Committee and to the International
Relations House Committee as to why he thinks this is important. But
that is not all that we impose on the President if he wants to
intercede on behalf of national security because of a threat to the
Nation.
There is a periodic review of determination provision. It says the
following:

The President shall review a determination described in
subsection (a) at least every six months.

Here he has made this determination that this item constitutes a
threat to the national security, and now he must review it every 6
months. Promptly after each review is completed, the Secretary shall
submit to the committees of Congress a report on the results of the
review together with the status of international negotiations to
eliminate the foreign availability of the item.
Again, the President has to make the review every 6 months. Then the
Secretary has to go back to the committee and give them a report about
the review, and then the status of negotiations. The President, through
his representative, has to give the committee a status of these
negotiations that have been imposed on the President.
But that is not all we require the President to do in order to
intervene on behalf of national security.
There is an expiration of Presidential set-aside time. It says the
determination by the President described in subsection et cetera shall
cease to apply with respect to an item on the earlier date--that is 6
months after the date on which the determination has been made--or if
the President has not commenced international negotiations to eliminate
the foreign availability of the item within that 6-month period; B, the
date on which the negotiations described in paragraph 1 have terminated
without achieving an agreement to eliminate foreign availability; C,
the date on which the President determined that there is not a high
probability of eliminating foreign availability on the item through
negotiation; or D, the data is 18 months after the date on which the
determination described in subsection et cetera is made if the
President has been unable to achieve an agreement to eliminate foreign
availability within that 18-month period.
In other words, after setting up all of these obligations on the
President, in order for him to intervene on behalf of national security
because of a direct threat to this country, the determination that has
been made will go away and the thing can still be shipped unless he
complies with the provisions I just read--if at the outside it is an
18-month time period, unless he can report back that they have
concluded their negotiations successfully.
So then it says:

Action On Expiration Of Presidential Set-Aside.
Upon the expiration of a Presidential set-aside under
paragraph (3) with respect to an item, the Secretary shall
not require a license or other authorization to export the
item.

Then we get to the final point. If the President, after going through
this process, has not followed each of these items in any way, then the
item is still

[[Page 6383]]

shipped even though he originally made a determination that it
constituted a threat to national security.
My point is this. I do not particularly object to any particular
provision. I have not thought about it enough, quite frankly. I did not
realize yesterday we were going to be having this debate in this much
detail. But my point is this. Clearly, we are making it kind of tough
on the President to intervene on behalf of national security, even when
there is a threat to the national security of the United States.
He is going to look at this--and somebody on his behalf, hopefully,
will look at it beforehand--and look at the onerous requirements,
including entering into negotiations with foreign countries, reporting
requirements time after time to congressional committees and
certifications, in effect, as to what they are doing, giving up-to-date
reports on how negotiations are going.
The President has to make the determination himself because under the
act you cannot delegate. He has to do it himself. This is a burden on
the President. While it is true that the President, under some
circumstances, can intervene on behalf of national security, it is not
an easy path for the President to take. That has to do with regard to
matters of foreign availability status.
There is another section--I am not going to put you through the
entire section 213, but there is another section called the
``Presidential Set-Aside Of Mass-Market Status Determination.'' So even
though there is a determination that an item is mass marketed in this
country:

If the President determines that--

And I am reading from the provision--

decontrolling or failing to control an item constitutes a
serious threat to the national security of the United States,
and
export controls on the item would advance the national
security interests of the United States, or [et cetera]
the President may set aside the Secretary's determination of
mass-market status with respect to the item.

Why it requires a threat to national security under the foreign
availability set-aside, and a serious threat to the national security
for the mass-market status determination, I do not know. But there is
that distinction.
So here, even more than was applicable in the preceding discussion we
had, it focuses our attention on a matter where the President of the
United States could make a determination that something is a serious
threat to the national security and still ``[i]n any case in which
export controls are maintained on an item . . . the President shall
promptly report the determination.''
He must give reasons for the determination to the committees that I
just mentioned and ``shall publish notice of the determinations in the
Federal Register not later than 30 days after the Secretary publishes
notice of the Secretary's determination that an item has mass-market
status.''
The President shall review a determination made under subsection (a)
at least every 6 months.
Here is a President who has made a determination that something is a
serious threat to the national security of our country, and we, as a
Congress, require him to review that because we want to make sure the
President did not make a mistake and say something was a serious
national security threat when it was not, presumably. He is required to
review it every 6 months. I quote:

Promptly after each review is completed, the Secretary
shall submit a report on the results of the review to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, Urban Affairs of the Senate
and the Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives.

So, again, my point is not that there is anything intrinsically wrong
with any particular part of what I just read. It is that clearly this
legislation is designed to make things more easily subject to export.
It is clearly designed to decontrol even to the point where we give the
President authority to step in. We are setting up several steps for the
President to go through over a period of time before he can do that.
So I want to make sure anyone who might be listening to this
understands that, yes, the President can step in under some
circumstances with regard to certain determinations but that he cannot
snap his fingers, and he cannot pick up the phone, he cannot write out
a memo; he has to go through a procedure that is a long-drawn-out
procedure involving several steps if he wants to do that.
One of the things we are going to have to ask ourselves when we deal
with this in a little bit more detail is whether or not, in matters
involving a serious threat to this country, it is so important for us
to lower the export standards that we are not willing to give the
President a little more leeway, that maybe even if he justifies it to
Congress and we do not agree with him, are we not willing to give the
President perhaps a little more leeway in making a determination that
under the words of the statute is a serious threat to our national
security?
That is a serious question. That is one question that we are going to
have to answer. That gets back to why we are in this Chamber today. We
are still on a motion to proceed today. That is why we do not believe
it is appropriate to notify us 24 hours in advance, and to try to push
for a resolution of this matter in such a short timeframe, when
amendments have not been fully drafted, when the Executive order that
the administration is working on has not been drafted.
These are serious matters, serious questions. I may be overly
concerned about what I just talked about. I am not sure. I have not had
a chance to really digest it. All I know is that it is not enough to
say that the President can step in and, lickety-split, there is no
problem; he has taken care of the problem. It is not that simple at
all.
Mr. KYL. Will the Senator from Tennessee yield for a question?
Mr. THOMPSON. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. KYL. Apart from the steps the President has to take if he is
going to obtain this national security waiver, so that the item would
be controlled, how long does that order last? And isn't there a
limitation so that he can only issue that three times, for 6 months at
a time, after which the President no longer has any control? In other
words, the longest period of time he can control an item is 18 months.
And after that, even the President has no authority.
Mr. THOMPSON. That gets back to the provisions in subsection (3) (A)
(B) (C) and (D) on pages 200 and 201 in the document I think we are all
looking at. It talks about the expiration of the Presidential set-
aside. It says: ``A determination by the President described in
subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii) shall cease to apply with respect to an
item. . . .'' and it sets up conditions under which it ceases to apply
with respect to the earlier of several dates. The Senator is right,
there is an 18-month maximum period.
If some of these things happen earlier than 18 months, it would cease
to apply then, as I understand it.
Mr. ENZI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I will.
Mr. ENZI. I am beginning to see the problem. We have ignored page 183
which is the section that, when we went through those extensive
negotiations, we added that supersedes all of these 18-month, 6-month
paragraphs about which we have been talking. Those are options. But
undoubtedly the option the President would take would be the one on
page 183, which allows the President to override anything in section
204, which are provisions that deal with components we have heard about
earlier, and 211, which is the foreign availability and mass market
status determination. This is a much easier section for him to use.
It does mention significant threat, but the President gets to
determine significant threat. Nobody has the right anywhere in this
bill to override whatever the President thinks. There is a reporting
requirement, but that is all it is. He reports to the committees that
have some jurisdiction on foreign availability and mass marketing. It
doesn't say that the committee can challenge anything he says.
There is no recourse for the Congress other than knowing that he did
it, and

[[Page 6384]]

we asked for the transparency through the process. That paragraph
overrides, at your request, the sections on foreign availability and
mass marketing. I was hoping that had taken care of the problem and was
of the understanding that that did eliminate the problem.
Mr. THOMPSON. This is very good, if I may respond. We did indeed talk
about this. I was interested to see whether or not it was your view
that this provision you just described did in effect override what I
just read. If so--and I ask the Senator if he will agree with me--are
these pages I have been discussing with regard to criteria for
Presidential set-aside under 212--does that not make those requirements
under 212 superfluous or irrelevant, and in what case would 212 apply
when the enhanced controls provision would not apply?
Mr. ENZI. We had the language in section 212 in the versions when we
were discussing it before. The President could use that. It is a
mechanism. We thought that that provided Presidential control, even
before we had our discussions. But we were specifically asked for
sections 204 and 211, that we do something that was more overriding and
more comprehensive, and we did.
Mr. THOMPSON. But 212 is not discretionary. The language of 212, and
in certain important respects, requires the President to do certain
things--the President shall actively pursue negotiations, et cetera. So
if the language remains there, it is mandatory language, and it seems
there might be some inconsistency there. I am wondering whether or not
one of the things we might talk about is maybe paring this thing down a
little bit in terms of some of this language in that it does appear--if
my friend agrees that the enhanced control provisions are overriding.
It does appear that this language would be superfluous and, if it
remains, would be contradictory. I am wondering if perhaps that would
be the basis of some discussion.
Mr. ENZI. It wasn't our intent to make it contradictory, but it was
language that was already in there. The request was to override those
sections, and we did that by putting in another one. Perhaps there
could be a way to address this.
Mr. THOMPSON. With all due respect, I suggest there is more to it
than that. It is not a matter of shortening it or making it more
difficult. We have one provision here that says the President can
intervene and override, in effect, if he goes through several steps,
including negotiating with foreign countries. Then we have another
provision--although the standard is a little bit different--that lets
him do the same thing without going through all those steps.
Mr. ENZI. The criteria you mentioned of foreign availability is
current law. That is what the President is forced to do at the moment.
Mr. THOMPSON. I am not saying I necessarily object to any portion of
this. I am saying there is an inconsistency here.
Mr. ENZI. We were trying to get the administration, whatever
administration it was, to work more on multilateral controls because
everybody agrees that multilateral controls have more impact than
unilateral controls. That is why we were encouraging the President to
negotiate with the other governments to get them to fall in line on the
controls so that we would have an effective multilateral control
process as well. That was covered in the report we put out last
Tuesday.
Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I understand it might be desirable for the
President to do that. For my part, I would rather leave it up to the
President to decide when he wants to negotiate with foreign leaders on
these matters.
I will also suggest that when the President makes the determination
under this enhanced control provision, that you just pointed out, that
an item on one of these lists would constitute a significant threat to
the national security, he ought to be given quite a bit of leeway. It
might be a good idea to negotiate with foreign leaders; it might be a
good idea to do a lot of things. We have to ask ourselves how many
hoops we want the President to jump through if, in fact, he makes a
determination that it constitutes a significant threat to national
security.
I am not trying to negotiate the details of the bill with my friend
today. This is one of the benefits of discussing this today and one of
the reasons we are not ready to put a bill to bed. I don't claim to
have all the answers to it. I haven't had a chance to think all the
details through. But I believe we really need to ask ourselves how many
hoops we want the President to have to jump through before he can
exercise some authority when he makes a determination that there is a
significant threat to the national security.
All these requirements I read a while ago having to do with the
President negotiating, with reporting to Congress, having the thing
expire--it even expires under that set of provisions--that is greatly
different from the enhanced control provision that doesn't put any of
those requirements on him if he determines that there is a significant
threat to national security.
We don't want a court 2 years from now having to be the one to decide
what we meant when we drafted this legislation. We need to decide here
in this Chamber, after thorough debate and consideration, just exactly
how that ought to be worded and whether or not we want to have what
appears to me to be inconsistent provisions in the legislation.
I thank my friend for his comments. It is the basis for some
discussion, as far as I am concerned, in an attempt to reach some
resolution. I was not aware we were going to debate all the details. I
welcomed the opportunity to have done that. The issue before us today
is whether or not this is the right time, in the midst of everything
that is going on in the country right now and everything that is
happening internationally, to choose to signal to the world that we
want to liberalize our export policies with regard to dual-use, high-
tech, military-related items when we know the primary beneficiary of it
is going to be China.
It is not a good time, and that is the reason I join my colleagues in
opposing the motion to proceed. I do look forward, when we have had a
chance to draft our amendments and hopefully have had a chance to look
at the administration's Executive order that is supposed to fill in
some of the areas that are a little bit sparse, to coming up with an
Export Administration Act that is reauthorized but one that does what
the Export Administration Act was designed to do--not to balance
commerce with national security but to protect national security and do
those things that are reasonable.
Nobody is intent on trying to protect things that are unprotectable.
Nobody is intent on basing the legislation on yesterday's technology.
Everybody knows that the world has changed. But that does not mean we
should, without very careful consideration, change a policy we have had
in this country for decades in terms of controlling those kinds of
items and go to something that might sound reasonable and logical: The
genie is out of the bottle; they can get it anywhere else; our friends
will sell it to them; we might as well sell it to them. I am not there
yet.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Wyoming might
respond to a question I have. As I read the bill, the section that he
cited before, which relates to an override of sections 204 and 211,
does not apply to section 213. Section 212 has to do with foreign
availability, 204 deals with incorporated parts and components. The
mass marketing section is 213.
As I read the President's authority under enhanced controls in that
section the Senator referred to, on page 183, it deals with sections
204 and 211 only.
Mr. ENZI. Section 211 covers both foreign availability and mass
market status. You are talking about the set-aside of the mass market
status.
Mr. KYL. So the significant threat override authority would apply to
any of the three items that we just talked about--mass marketing,
foreign availability, or component parts; is that correct?
Mr. ENZI. Yes.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.

[[Page 6385]]

Mr. ENZI. We are hoping that adequate information will be given to
the Senate for their oversight and their understanding of what is going
on. We have always wanted that.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator for his information.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join Senators Thompson, Shelby, Kyl, and
other members in objecting to the rushed consideration of the Export
Administration Act of 2001.
This legislation, which governs the exports of sensitive technology
to overseas buyers, has critical ramifications for American national
security. Republicans in Congress rightly raised grave concerns over
the Clinton Administration's export control policies, which had the
appearance of being linked to campaign donations, and which we know
improperly enhanced Chinese and Iraqi military capabilities. This
Republican Congress, and our Republican Administration, must ensure
that our national security controls on sensitive exports prevent
powerful technology from falling into the hands of those who would do
America harm.
This bill does not yet meet that threshold. Since the beginning of
this year, six Senators, including Senator Kyl and the Chairmen of the
Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Governmental Affairs,
and Commerce Committees, have sought and continue to hope to work with
the sponsors of this bill, and with the Bush Administration, to ensure
that S. 149 strikes the proper balance between our country's commercial
and national security concerns.
I will save my specific, technical concerns about this legislation
for the full floor debate on this measure, whenever it should occur. At
this time, let me say that the bill's restrictions on presidential
authority to regulate national-security related exports, the enhanced
role given the Secretary of Commerce in the national security decision-
making process, and the liberalization of exports of all goods, however
dangerous to U.S. security interests, that may be otherwise available
for sale in the United States or overseas pose problems that need to be
resolved before the Senate can properly address this legislation.
As Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and as a strong supporter of
free trade, it comes as no surprise to me that American businesses
dominate world markets and have propelled the Information Age. Unlike
businesses, however, we in this body have responsibility not only for
the prosperity of this country, but also for its security in an
uncertain and hostile world.
Let's be clear, far less than 1 percent of total U.S. exports fall
under the jurisdiction of the EAA. Within that small proportion of
exports that are sensitive, we have an obligation to ensure that these
goods are appropriately controlled so that the peace and prosperity we
enjoy are not threatened.
Have no doubt, our enemies, be they foreign nations or terrorist
groups, have no qualms whatsoever with buying dual-use American
products and putting them to military use. In this time of peace, let
us work to sustain the dynamism of our economy while safeguarding our
people by striking the right balance between the commercial and
national security provisions in this bill. We have much work to do.
That is why I join my distinguished colleagues in objecting to
consideration of this measure until we have had the chance to prepare
amendments and continue our work with the Administration to improve the
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I don't want to interrupt the flow of
debate. I have a matter I would like to discuss that doesn't pertain to
the matter before us. I see my good friend from Virginia. He may want
to comment on this debate. If that is the case, then I will yield for
this discussion to go forward, since I don't want to necessarily
interrupt the flow.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have joined my colleagues for the
purpose of contributing to the debate at hand. I think maybe I need 10,
12 minutes. Much material has already been covered. I don't wish to be
redundant, but there are some points I would like to make.
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I reflected, as I approached the Chamber,
that in my 23 years in the Senate, I don't know if I have ever opposed
my leader on a motion to proceed. But, reluctantly, I do so this time
because of my fervent belief that the views I have and share with a
number of my colleagues are in the best interests of our Nation's
security. With that in mind, I have tried for over 2 years to work with
my distinguished colleagues, who have been speaking for some time, to
resolve disputes within this legislation.
These disputes have cut to the very essence of how the United States
plans to protect its national security in an era of rapid globalization
and proliferation of technology--most particularly technology related
to weapons of mass destruction.
On many occasions over the past year, I have joined others and have
thought that we were close to obtaining a resolution on how to proceed
on this bill. But each time, details have derailed us, regrettably, and
those details indeed have overwhelmed the ability to compromise. I say
``details,'' but I think they are very important points.
My goal has been to strike, together with others, the proper balance
between national security and commercial interests. This is a
complicated issue that cuts across the jurisdiction of six committees.
Five committee chairmen with the responsibility for national security
matters in this country are together on this issue. I think that
carries a subtle message in and of itself.
We have continuously expressed opposition to this bill in a
respectful manner. I will not list the others because they are in the
Record in the course of this debate. In addition, Senator Kyl, although
not a chairman, has taken a leading role. He has sort of been the
``Paul Revere.'' Each time this matter is approaching, he sounds that
alarm and we respond.
This is an effort that requires careful thought and deliberate
action. All of our committees should be united in an effort to reform
our export control laws. If we do not obtain that type of unanimity--
and I say this respectfully to my good friend from Wyoming and my good
friend from Texas--we could be doing a disservice to our country.
At the present time, I believe it is premature to move this bill
through the Senate, for two very good reasons: First, we need to give
the administration, our new President, sufficient time to provide
Congress with the promised details on how it plans to implement this
legislation. I know full well that it has been stated--and I believe it
is factually correct--that the administration has contributed a number
of suggestions--which I think is 21--in the Banking Committee. The
distinguished manager of the bill is present, and they have
incorporated all of those. But when I look at it and listen and talk
with the administration, those areas in which we have special concern
are to be brought forth in an Executive order.
Very simply, we are just saying allow time for the administration to
do the Executive order. Otherwise, we risk spending a lot of time on
the floor with amendments if we should go ahead with the bill and
proceed in addressing issues that may be better left to the discretion
of the executive branch.
Secondly, moving this bill at this time without establishing
consensus sends a wrong signal and could complicate a very difficult
and tenuous policy toward China, which is still evolving. I cannot
think, therefore of a worse time to pass legislation that could result
in an increase of exports of high technology to China. I think we
should listen carefully to the people in this Nation on this issue.
This China policy is not just reserved to the bureaucrats in
Washington--I say that respectfully--the executive branch and the
Congress. The people of this Nation have very deep-rooted concerns
about our relationship with China, and this subject goes to the very
heart of those relationships.
I have serious reservations about bringing up the bill at this time,
as I

[[Page 6386]]

said. We are still awaiting specifics from the administration on how it
will implement this bill. We need to give the administration enough
time to respond to our inquiries and deliver on their promises of
additional information.
The administration reviewed this bill at the request of myself,
Senators McCain, Shelby, Thompson, Helms, and Kyl. We had one meeting
with the National Security Adviser on this issue. While the review was
conducted without the benefit of working level political officials in
place with responsibility for export control issues, I am confident the
administration did the best it could given the timeframes and the
people with whom they had to do the job.
Based on this review, the administration came up with a series of
legislative changes that the Banking Committee included in its bill.
This was a positive step, and I commend them. I support it, although I
would have preferred this review take place with the benefit of the
full administration package; that is, these amendments that have been
adopted, together with other commitments that they have made to
Congress on other issues.
More remains to be done. We have not received specific comments or
recommendations from the Department of Defense. That input, in my
judgment, is critical. The Banking Committee's bill, including the
changes made to the bill at the request of the administration, provides
for even less protection for national security than changes proposed to
us by the last administration.
When the National Security Committee chairmen of the Senate were
briefed on the results of the administration review, we were informed
at that time that an interagency agreement had been reached on how the
administration would enhance national security controls during
implementation of the bill. We were then informed that the national
security protections that we have sought would be included in an
Executive order that would implement S. 149.
Despite several inquiries on the part of my staff and others to get
the information that we sought, we have not been able to get any
specifics on what is in this interagency agreement or what might be in
the Executive order.
This information is critical in helping this Senator, and I think to
not only the team we have put together, but many others, in order to
make an informed judgment on this important piece of legislation.
Therefore, I most respectfully urge our majority leader and sponsors
of the bill to wait until we have more information from the
administration about how it intends to implement the national security
protections.
Many of my concerns, as well as those of my colleagues, may be
alleviated by the details of the administration's implementation plan.
If, however, we do not get an answer from the administration in a
reasonable amount of time, I urge the majority leader to chair a
working group of interested members to work to clear as many amendments
as possible prior to taking the legislation up on the floor, so as not
to waste a great deal of time.
At this time, in the absence of additional information from the
administration, I have fundamental concerns with this bill. This bill
continues the trend of dismantling our export control structure. During
the height of the cold war, this Nation had a carefully formulated and
carefully crafted export control process. There was a consensus--both
here at home and with our allies--that we needed to protect our
Nation's technology. The bottom line: It must never be used against us.
This consensus has broken down with the end of the cold war.
Technology is proliferating, and this bill will continue that trend. If
our pilots are shot down over Iraq or put in harms' way due to enhanced
communications and computing technologies that enhance Iraqi air
defense capabilities, we need look no further than to the lack of will
and leadership over the last decade to control this technology. While
this proliferation of technology may be inevitable, we need to
understand the implications of any decision that leads to freer trade
in advance technology. With that understanding, we then must do
whatever it takes to protect our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines
as they face these new threats.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have witnessed a slow demise of
the cold war consensus on export controls. I make three observations:
First, we have seen a dramatic liberalization--primarily through
Executive orders of successive Presidents--of export controls. We are
only controlling about 6 percent of what we controlled during the
height of the cold war.
Second, because of the decline in defense R&D, technology innovation
is primarily advancing in the commercial rather than the defense
sector. This makes dual use export controls covered by the EAA even
more critical in protecting our national security.
Finally, as a result of both of these developments, we are witnessing
the global spread of advanced technology that was once solely in the
military realm. This threat will require a significant investment in
defense capability to counter.
Simply put, our export control policy has gotten out of balance. The
Export Administration Act before the Senate, as currently drafted, tips
the balance even further toward meeting commercial needs versus
national security needs. There is a predominant emphasis in this bill
on export decontrol, without, in my judgment, an adequate assessment of
the national security impact of that decontrol. The bill now gives the
Commerce Department the predominant role. I believe that this must be
brought back into balance with enhanced DOD authorities and discretion.
As now drawn, this bill also unnecessarily limits the President's
discretion to control items for legitimate national security reasons.
At a minimum, we must address in this bill:
No. 1, the need to protect militarily sensitive technology. DOD and
the intelligence community need to be able to protect sensitive
technology from falling into the hands of potential adversaries.
Technologies which, if proliferated, would undermine U.S. military
superiority must be controlled. The national security agencies must be
able to block any decontrol or export that might harm national security
now or in the future. For example, hot section engine technology and
other technologies that DOD and the intelligence community consider
critical need to be protected.
No. 2, the need to enhance the role of the Secretary of Defense and
the intelligence community in the export control process, given the
limited amount of items we are now controlling, and provide for a
workable national security waiver for the President. At a minimum, the
concurrence of the Secretary of Defense should be required in matters
relating to which products should be controlled, the process for
reviewing export licenses, the rules for any interagency dispute
process, and regulations implementing dual use export controls; and
No. 3, the need to ensure that the national security impacts of any
proposed decontrol are well understood and articulated before
decontrols are allowed to proceed. This assessment should be based on
how this technology can be used as part of, or to develop, a foreign
military or intelligence system or capability. Ongoing assessments need
to be made to assess the cumulative impact of decontrols and the
proliferation of technology.
This last point is critical. Congress needs to look at the impact on
national security of export decontrol and the global diffusion of
technology. We need to assess the degree of technology proliferation
that is occurring and the risk that our adversaries will use this
technology to gain some type of asymmetric advantage over our forces.
Global technology proliferation could put at risk our military
superiority. Future historians may look back on the rapid decontrol and
leakage of western technology as the biggest national security lapse of
the post-cold-war period.
I also want to ensure that unnecessary restraints on the ability of
the private sector to compete in the global marketplace are removed. It
is in our

[[Page 6387]]

interest that U.S. businesses are able to maintain their commercial and
technological edge over foreign competitors. However, when hard
decisions must be made, national security must always be the paramount
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SMITH of Oregon). The Senator from
Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I came to speak on an education matter, but
I have enjoyed the last 45 minutes. I thank my colleagues from
Tennessee, Virginia, and Arizona. I serve on the Banking Committee and
have great respect for my colleague from Wyoming who chairs the
subcommittee that deals with these issues.
The committee had extensive hearings going back into last year. The
Senator from Wyoming deserves a great deal of credit--I know my
colleagues share these views--for his tireless efforts to bring forth a
bill that reflects not only the desires of exporters, but also takes
into consideration the very important national security issues that our
colleagues from Virginia, Tennessee, and Arizona have raised this
afternoon.
The committee sent out this bill in March after seven different
hearings with extensive testimony. I have been supportive of this
effort.
I say to my colleague from Virginia, that he raises some very good
points. This is not a debate that is going to attract nightly news
attention. It can get rather detailed, as the Senator from Tennessee
pointed out when he started talking about various provisions and what
is intended by them.
As I listened, I clearly heard the spirit with which my colleagues
raised these concerns, and they are concerns to which we should all pay
attention. I know my colleague from Wyoming does. I, for one, thank
them. I do not know what is going to happen with the debate. I hope my
colleagues can address some of these concerns. Some amendments may be
necessary. I suspect they will get broad-based support.
So, I came over to give a speech about education and I got educated,
myself. I thank my colleagues, and I appreciate the points they raise.
They are very valuable. The point raised about China is worthy of
valuable note.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesies as
always. It is a very simple equation. The bill got the attention of the
administration. It is a new administration. Secretary Rumsfeld, for
example, has in place today only three persons who have reached the
full confirmation process and are now sworn into office. Six more have
been processed by the advise-and-consent procedures of my committee and
will come before the full Senate next week.
The administration is struggling to put together this highly
technical response. I think they should be given a reasonable period of
time before we plow into a legislative process in this Chamber.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague from
Virginia.
Mr. President, I am not going to take much time. I see my good friend
from West Virginia who always has worthwhile information to share with
this body. I see my colleague from Louisiana is here as well.
I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

EDUCATION

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am here to continue to raise my voice and
express concerns about the forthcoming debate regarding elementary and
secondary education.
During almost my entire service in the Senate, I have been fortunate
to serve on what now is called the Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee.
I have had the privilege of serving with many wonderful Members,
Democrats and Republicans, over the years, who have dedicated
themselves to improving the quality of public education in America:
Senator Pell, Senator Stafford, Senator Kennedy, the present ranking
member, Senator Jeffords, the present chairperson of the committee.
Each of them deeply committed to seeing to it that this Nation provides
our children the best educational opportunities possible. I believe
that the Members of the Committee, today, are anxious to continue that
tradition.
I do not know exactly when this matter will come before the Senate
for consideration, but I am troubled that during the process of
negotiation, while we are trying to work out our differences, not all
the issues are on the table for discussion.
It has been most worthwhile for us to deal with the issues of
accountability. Our colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, has
for years championed the cause of the accountability of our schools
across America, both as a Member of this body, and earlier as a Member
of the other body. He brings to this debate years of experience and
knowledge and I am particularly grateful to him for his help.
Over the years, we typically have passed education bills that enjoyed
broad support, 90 or 95 votes, to support our elementary and secondary
schools. I enjoyed being part of those truly bipartisan efforts.
Every day, about 50 million children attend public schools in the
United States. Many of them, through Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, depend on Congress to provide them with
resources that they need to help them get the education they need and
deserve. Yet, we spend only about 2 cents of every Federal dollar on
public education. In my view, we have not been a very good partner with
our local communities in helping to improve the quality of education.
Another--probably surprising--fact is that the Federal government
contributes only about 7 cents to every dollar spent on education. Our
small towns, cities, counties, and States provide the other 93 cents
education.
So, for all we talk about what needs to be done about public
education, we really haven't put our money--your money --where our
mouth is. A couple weeks ago, we debated the budget of our country. The
great debate was over the size of the tax cut that the President has
proposed. Virtually every Member, in fact, virtually everyone I know,
believes that a tax cut makes sense given the budget surpluses
projected.
But how much of a tax cut? The President wants $1.6 trillion, based
on ten-year economic projections. I don't know of a single economist
worth his or her salt who believes that we can project with any degree
of certainty what America's and the world's economic situation will be
a decade from now. Yet the President of the United States and those who
support him on this matter want to spend $1.6 trillion of this budget
over the next 10 years on a tax cut. And, Mr. President, $680 billion
of that $1.6 trillion, will go to individuals who presently earn more
than $300,000 a year. Over that same period, the President would
increase spending on education by $42 billion, or about one-sixteenth
of what he would spend on tax cuts for the wealthy.
I think in that context that we really ought to do better than
spending only 2 percent of our budget to support America's educational.
The administration and others say that full funding for title I of
ESEA, which provides Federal dollars to the most needy school districts
in America, is just too costly; that full funding for special education
is just too costly; that we just can't afford it. But, we can afford
$680 billion for a tax cut for people who make more than $300,000 a
year which by the way is about twice as much as the Federal, State, and
local governments combined spend on education in this country.
I represent the most affluent State in America on a per capita income
basis. Some of my constituents want a tax cut. I have represented my
State for more than two decades in the U.S. Congress. I am home almost
every weekend. I have a fairly good idea of how people in Connecticut
feel on issues.
On this issue, the overwhelming majority of my constituents,
including those from the most affluent communities, tell me that we
don't need this

[[Page 6388]]

size tax cut, in light of the economic forecast and the many needs that
America has. And, these are the people who would be the direct
beneficiaries of the proposal the President is advocating.
This tax cut threatens to throw us back into the situation I
encountered when I arrived in this body 20 years ago. I had been here a
year, I say to my colleague from West Virginia, when I was asked to
vote on a tax cut proposal that I thought was dangerous then. I wasn't
sure. I was a new Member.
I was one of 11 people who voted against the tax cut proposal, and as
I look back over 20 years of public service in this body, I don't think
I ever cast a better vote. And I don't know many Members who were here
that day who wouldn't like to have that vote back because of the great
harm it did to our country, throwing us into a deficit that took our
national debt from $900 billion to almost $5 trillion in a little less
than a decade.
Today, we have come out of that situation for a lot of reasons which
I will not go into this afternoon. We have been given a second chance
not to make the same mistake we did two decades ago. In the midst of
this, we are going to have a debate about educational needs. The
President has said many times that this is his No. 1 priority. How many
times during the past year did we see the President campaigning in from
of a banner that said ``Leave No Child Behind.''
I supported Al Gore for the Presidency, but I liked that the
President said he was committed to leaving no child behind. And, part
of me said that maybe he would take the right track. But, I am sad to
report after 100 days that the ``Leave No Child Behind" administration
will do just that, if we adopt their education program that imposes
strict new mandates on local communities--that they can't afford on
their own--but won't commit the resources to match.
Unlike the defense authorization or the agriculture bill, which we
consider every year, we won't consider the elementary and secondary
education bill again for seven years. This is our one chance to
establish our educational priorities as we start the new global
millennium.
A child entering an elementary school in Connecticut today is not
competing with a child from Louisiana or West Virginia or Oregon. They
are competing with children from Beijing, Moscow, Australia, South
Africa, and Europe. We are in a global economy. We have to produce the
best educated, best prepared generation America has ever produced. And
in no small measure what we do in the next few weeks will determine
whether or not we are successful in that endeavor.
We talk about testing teachers and testing students. Well, we are
about to take a test, ourselves. The test is whether we can get beyond
politics in discussing an education bill, as we used to do around here.
It is an embarrassment that we spend only two cents of each dollar of
the national budget on education, when the President says that
education ought to be our top priority. I agree with the President on
that, but not on the resources he is willing to devote to education.
I am very worried that, during the ongoing negotiations, as we talk
about testing and accountability, which I agree have and merit, we have
not reached a consensus about how we will support real improvements in
the schools. Tests are measurements, not reforms. We also need to
support the real reforms that the tests will measure.
An educator in my home State of Connecticut said the other day:
Taking someone's temperature three times an hour does not improve their
health, medicine does. Or, as my good friend and colleague from
Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, said the other day: Resources without
reform are a waste of money. But reform without resources is a waste of
time.
That is about as good a statement I have heard in this debate over
the last number of weeks. She is exactly right.
I would like to place on the table, in addition to accountability and
testing and the other things we are discussing, the principle that we
ought to have resources committed to school construction, and other
issues. It is a disgrace that the average American child goes to school
in a building built in the 1950s. And, we need to help schools get
class sizes down to a level where teachers can teach and kids can
learn. That ought to be a part of this negotiation.
Teachers do a magnificent job every day. I am somewhat biased in
this. My oldest sister has been a teacher for about 30 years in the
public schools of my State. She taught in the private schools; in the
Montessori system of teaching before that. I have a brother who taught
25 years at the university level and my father's three sisters taught
for 40 years apiece in the public school system in my State. All three
are now gone, but they prided themselves on that and dedicated
themselves as teachers. One of them was a Fulbright scholar. She taught
in the Hartford Public High Schools. So I come to this debate and
discussion, I suppose, with somewhat of a bias in that I have grown up
with two generations of my family dedicated to teaching young people.
Nothing makes me more angry than when I hear people suggest that
teachers do not care. Maybe there are some, but I have never met one.
The ones I have met, the ones I know, could have chosen other career
paths in their lives and been financially rewarded to a far greater
extent than they were as teachers. But they were dedicated to improving
the educational quality of their pupils.
This Nation is built on a number of great things. One of the best is
a commitment to education by a group of people who educate succeeding
generations of Americans. Those teachers embrace the values
incorporated in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
We ought to applaud them every single day and thank them.
I listen to teachers talk about what needs to be done. We all ought
to pay attention to that. We ought to listen to our PTAs and school
boards, people who work every day with these issues. When I talk about
class size, school construction, afterschool programs, teacher
quality--these are not my ideas; these are not issues the Senator from
Louisiana or the Senator from West Virginia or the Senator from Oregon
thought up on our own. We were back listening to the folks at home who
told us this is what is needed to make the system work better.
In the remaining hours and days here, before we begin a debate on
this subject matter, let us not be co-architects of a plan we will come
to regret. There are those who are anxious to see the public
educational system of this country disappear. I know that sounds like a
radical thought, but there are those who believe it. I believe we may
be setting up a system that will have a self-fulfilling prophecy
ingrained in it, to produce the result that schools do not work and
that we have to come up with alternatives to those to educate people in
this country.
That is not an answer. Mr. President, 55 million children went to
school today: 50 million went to a public school, 5 million went to a
private or parochial school, 5 million. There is no way in the world we
are going to create a private or parochial school system to accommodate
the educational needs of generations of Americans for the 21st century
and beyond. We have an obligation, every one of us here and at home, to
weigh in and to make our schools better. We need national leadership
that is going to put their shoulders behind that effort. And you cannot
do it on the cheap. You cannot go around the country and talk about it
every day and show up in classrooms for photo opportunities and come
back here and say: We just cannot afford to do this, but we can afford
to spend $1.6 trillion on a tax cut, nearly half of which goes to the
most affluent.
I hope my colleagues in the coming days will find that common ground
and put these items on the table. Let's negotiate these items as well
before we come to the floor with an education bill that runs the risk
of testing kids and holding schools accountable but not providing the
resources that our most needy schools require to implement reforms.

[[Page 6389]]

I apologize to my colleagues for taking a bit more time than I
thought I would, but I thank you for your attention, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague on his speech
this afternoon. I share his thoughts, so beautifully and so eloquently
expressed on this Senate floor. I salute him, and I will be working
shoulder to shoulder with him to advance the education of our children.
During a recent break, I read a book by Sir Francis Bacon. The book
is entitled, ``The Advancement Of Learning.'' He was talking about some
of the same things we are talking about today: the need for equipment
in our educational institutions; the need to pay, the need to
remunerate the people who teach in these schools. So I think we are--I
was about to say ``walking in good footsteps.'' I hesitated because Sir
Francis Bacon was impeached and went to the tower for a while. But
anyway, I congratulate my friend.
Mr. President, I understand my friend and colleague from Louisiana is
also interested in speaking. May I ask her how much time she would
need?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I could probably use 5 minutes, if the Senator could be
so gracious to allow that, for comments on education.
Mr. BYRD. I have three speeches. I am not noted for brevity in my
speeches, but I do not worry about that too much because Cicero was
once asked which of Demosthenes' speeches, he, Cicero, liked the best.
Cicero's answer was, ``the longest.'' He liked the longest of
Demosthenes' speeches the best. Of course his speech ``On the Crown''
was probably the greatest speech ever made.
I wonder if the distinguished Senator will let me do my first speech,
which will require less than 10 minutes. Then I ask unanimous consent
that I may yield to the Senator for her remarks, and that I retain the
floor so I might complete my other two speeches.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

SENATOR STROM THURMOND

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this morning's Washington Post contained a
front page story on our distinguished colleague, Senator Strom
Thurmond.
I am the Senator in this body who has served longest with Senator
Thurmond. I served with Senator Thurmond when Senator Thurmond was a
member of the party on this side of the aisle. So, having served with
Senator Thurmond all of these long years, I began reading the story,
thinking how nice it was that the paper would devote time and space to
take notice of the longest serving U.S. Senator in American history,
Senator Thurmond, who has cast more than 15,800 votes. He is a man who
loved his country so much that he gave up his draft exemption status
during World War II in order to enlist in the U.S. military and take
part in the invasion of Normandy and the liberation of Europe. I salute
Senator Thurmond for his patriotism. He didn't have to do that, but he
did it.
As I read the story, I was filled with dismay, then revulsion.
Contrary to my expectation, what I was reading was a demeaning drivel
filled with denigrating language and insensitive images.
As I read, I kept asking myself, what is the point of this story? Is
there any purpose to be served by it?
This is certainly not a news story. Yet, it is on the front page of a
major national newspaper--a newspaper that is read around the world
everyday, a newspaper that is a great newspaper.
I can see neither a point nor a purpose to the story other than a
pathetic attempt to demean an outstanding man and a long serving,
distinguished federal lawmaker.
Every senior citizen in America ought to be offended by this orgy of
pejorative blather which aims only to viciously exploit something as
normal as the human aging process.
We are all going to be old one day, if we live long enough. We ought
to be conscious of that fact. We should be conscious of it every day
regardless of what pursuit we follow in life.
Is there no decency anymore?
Is there no respect for anything anymore?
The people of South Carolina continue to place their confidence and
their trust in Senator Thurmond. They elected Senator Thurmond to
represent their State in the U.S. Senate. And they have elected him and
reelected him many times. That is their judgment to make, and I respect
their judgment, and so should everybody else.
The Senate is a collective body of 100 men and women who have been
elected by the people of their various States to make the Nation's
laws. We are a unique body. One-thousand, eight hundred and sixty-four
men and women have served in the Senate since the first day it met in
1789.
We are a special body. While we may have our disagreements on this
floor, I believe that the Members of this body for the most part
respect each other off the Senate floor as well as on the Senate floor.
However, midway through the story, the Post journalist quotes a
Senator who ``agreed to speak candidly only if he was granted
anonymity.''
I am speaking candidly today, and I don't do so with anonymity.
At any rate, the story quotes the unnamed Senator as saying, in
talking about Senator Thurmond, ``At what point do you draw the line?''
That is the question I kept asking myself as I read this
inappropriate, tasteless, cheap-shot piece of journalism: At what point
do you draw the line?
That is the very question the Washington Post should have been asking
before they chose to print their tabloid tripe: At what point do you
draw the line?
May I suggest that the real story here is not Senator Thurmond's age.
The real story should be that he loves this institution so much and
loves serving the people of South Carolina so much that he, at the age
of 98, continues to serve and have the courage to carry on, and that he
loves his country so much that he was willing to set aside his exempt
status in World War II and participate in that dreadful landing on the
beaches of Normandy and risk his life, as so many others risked their
lives. And many of them never returned. Senator Thurmond continues to
serve and have the courage to carry on, in spite of non-news, deeply
offensive stories such as the one in today's Washington Post.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.

____________________

EDUCATION

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia
for his heartfelt and wonderful remarks. I thank him for yielding just
a few minutes this afternoon to me to speak about the subject of
education to follow up on many of the things our colleague from
Connecticut, Senator Dodd, said so eloquently just a few minutes ago. I
appreciate the Senator from West Virginia yielding.
I could actually spend over an hour speaking about this subject
because it is so important to our Nation, and it is so important to the
State I represent, Louisiana. I will come back often during this debate
to try to help focus our attention on some of the aspects of this
educational debate that is so important.
Let me begin by simply saying that we are spending a good amount of
money on education today. We are spending about $18 billion. That is a
lot of money. It is a lot of money to the people of Louisiana. And
title I is $8.6 billion with a ``b''--not a million but a billion. That
is a huge amount of money, but, unfortunately, I am here to say today
that it is not enough to do the things we know we need to do to help
reform and improve our schools and to truly give every child in this
country a chance to succeed.
As the Senator from West Virginia knows, there are no guarantees in
this life. The Government cannot guarantee every citizen a good life.
But our Constitution, the formation of this country, and the reason we
come to work I think every day as Senators and Members of this body is
to try to provide at

[[Page 6390]]

least equal opportunity and an equal chance to succeed, to be a part of
this great Nation.
There are many ways we can try to do that. But one fundamental way is
through the process of formal education--providing excellence in
education to every child, whether they be born into a wealthy family,
or a poor family, a black family, or a white family, whether they are
born in California or New York or Louisiana or Minnesota.
Today, as a nation, we believe we have an obligation. We did not
always believe that because prior to 1965 education was a very local
enterprise. But since 1965, this Government has recognized that the
Federal Government does, in fact, have a role to play, not only in
helping States with dollars but, hopefully, now helping them with
direction, and moving them to reforms into excellence because while
some of our public schools are working, too many of them are failing.
So as we speak about this education debate, yes, we are spending a
significant amount of money, but it is not nearly enough. In fact, you
can look at how our money has really not increased.
For the record, let me share with you that the title I portion, which
is $8.6 billion of the $18 billion total, since 1965, has barely kept
pace with inflation. So while every year we come to Washington and say
education is our No. 1 priority--the polls most certainly indicate that
on the Republican side and Democratic side--our budgets have not
reflected that because when items are a No. 1 priority, they get
greater than an inflationary increase. They get significant increases
in the budget to reflect that No. 1 status. That is simply not
happening in the area of education, particularly in title I.
So we want to fight for reform. We want to fight for accountability.
But we must have those investments to make those reforms real or it is
an empty promise and we are going to be leaving many children behind--
millions of children, as Senator Dodd said.
Let me just share with you, first, a chart that shows that money does
matter. There have been hundreds of studies done, but let me just share
one with you. This is a New York study that was recently done that
links the rises in school financing to test scores.
In New York, 39 low-performing schools were targeted. These are
schools that were failing to meet academic standards. These schools
were targeted, and they were given a set of reforms: higher standards,
testing, all of the things that we want to do; and, in addition, money,
anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million was invested, for smaller class
sizes, longer school days, and teacher training.
Do you know what happened. Children began to learn because the
reforms were matched with the dollars. In this particular study, we saw
an increase of 7 percent in reading, and 3.5 percent in math, based on
the reforms and the investment.
I could share with you hundreds of studies and case examples in
Louisiana, New York, and California where it proves the point that
money matters. Will money correct the problem by itself? Absolutely
not. We could triple the amount of money in education under the current
system, and we probably would not see much in the way of results. But
we are on the threshold of mandating rigorous tests, very high
standards, and real consequences for failure.
I believe passionately that if we do not match that historic
commitment to excellence and accountability with an historic increase
in funding, we are going to leave many millions of our children behind,
disappoint communities around this Nation, with unfunded mandates and
broken hearts and broken promises. We simply cannot do that. We need to
increase funding substantially.
Let me share another number for the record. The proposed tax cut will
return $69 billion this year. The current education budget provides
only $2 billion extra. Mr. President, with $69 billion for investments
in tax cuts, $2 billion for investments in education, it is not nearly
enough.
The three R's bill that I have been supporting and promoting asks for
an $8 billion increase in education. That would be a significant
start--more than the rate of inflation. Not only would the increase
help to match our commitment to reform and accountability, but the
targeting aspect is also important.
Let me share one other chart today.
One of the problems, as I have tried to outline, is the lack of
adequate funding and the real need to match these new accountability
standards--new testing standards and new standards of excellence--with
real dollars to help our schools to meet these new targets. But equally
important as the amount of the funding is the way the funding is
distributed.
Right now, we are missing the mark. We are missing our targets. The
Federal Government provides a portion of education dollars to the
State, and all of us agree--Republicans and Democrats alike--that the
primary role of the Federal Government is to help level the playing
field so that whether you are in a poor community or a poor State, you
have an equal opportunity for an excellent education. Regardless of the
fact that he or she might live in a district where there is no capacity
for raising taxes, that student should still have a chance for a good
education.
Our targets are missing the mark. Depicted in the center of this
chart are the schools that are up to 100 percent of poverty. After 35
years, we are still not funding 100 percent of the poorest children in
our Nation. We have not reached them. We have tried for 35 years, but
we are not reaching the target. When you move out to those schools that
are between 50 and 75 percent of poverty, we are only reaching 80
percent of our children. When you move out further, to those schools
that are between 35 to 50 percent of poverty, we are reaching less than
50 percent of our children. We need 100 percent for the poorest of our
children. We need 100 percent for those schools between 50 and 75
percent of poverty. And we need at least 75 to 100 percent for those
schools at 35 to 50 percent of poverty. If we do not, the promise that
we make to help the poor children in this country, many of whom live in
States such as Louisiana, West Virginia, California, and New York--and
they exist in every part of this Nation--will simply be empty. It is
not fair.
As I conclude, let me just say that not only is it not fair; it is
not smart because our Nation will not function at its highest capacity.
We cannot remain the supereconomic power that we are. We cannot provide
our industries with workers who have had skilled training if we do not
make a commitment at the national level to not only increase the amount
of funding for education significantly, over and above the inflation
rate, but that we also target those extra dollars to the communities
that need the most help, hoping that wealthier communities and affluent
communities could step up to the plate and do the job, but communities
that are poor and disadvantaged, the Federal Government would help.
In conclusion, let me be clear that we want to help every child in
every district in every State. In our formula that we are
recommending--and I am going to be offering an amendment that will
certainly do that--every child, every community, and every school
district will get help from the Federal Government. But we will give
special help to those districts that need it the most. This is not just
about taking temperatures; it is about having the medicine to give to
our children to help get them well and to give to our schools to help
make them excellent. If we raise the standards and do not help our
children meet the standards, we are going to have a high level of
frustration, anxiety, and pain across this Nation.
So I commend the President for wanting to move to a system of greater
accountability. I have supported that. My State of Louisiana is leading
that effort. But if we do not couple that new accountability with
increased targeting and increased investment, we will be making a very
bad mistake that our Nation will pay for dearly in the decades ahead.

[[Page 6391]]

Let us start this new century with a renewed commitment, with renewed
vigor, with a commonsense approach; yes, with more accountability and
reform, with real dollars to match, targeted in a way that will really
bring the promise of this great Nation to each child, whether they live
in West Virginia or Louisiana. We can do it. We have the money to do
it. The question is, Do we have the will? I believe we do. With the
President's leadership, with bipartisan support, we can find the will
to do right by our children in their schools and in their communities.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I share
her enthusiasm for education. I am grateful that she is a Senator who
is using her foresight and vision and talents to advance the cause of
education.

____________________

TAKE YOUR DAUGHTER TO WORK DAY

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia should
note what for all of us is a special day on Capitol Hill. It is Take
Your Daughter to Work Day. While my own precious little 3\1/2\-year-old
daughter is not with me today because she is not quite old enough to
appreciate the significance of this day, I do have nine beautiful
little girls from Louisiana whom I have adopted for the day and a whole
Girl Scout troop here from Capitol Hill, Troop 4062. I will submit
their names for the Record.
I want the Record to reflect that they were here today working with
us to help make this Senate and this country a better place. I wish
them all much success. I am glad that so many of our Senators and staff
invited the young girls today to share this experience with us.
I thank the Senator for yielding the time and ask unanimous consent
to print the names in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Louisiana Girls

Jillian Willard, Tricia Boh, Caitlin LeBlanc, Kristin
Scianna, Katie Scianna, Brooke Holmes, Katherine Klimitas,
Adriana Klimitas, Ashlyn Wink, Rebecca Wink.

Girl Scouts--Troop 4062

Vicki Faling, Savannah Jameson, India Teal, Daniella
Harvey, Skye Dantzler, Sabina Tarnowka, Danielle Flynn,
Sharae Hughley, Casey Beasley, Maeve Wiegand, Blaire Laney,
Sybil Bullock, Moredia Akwara, Samantha Snow Marsh, Clara
Wiegand, Lakisha Campbell.
Troop leader: Sandy Lelan.
Assistant troop leader: Connie Jameson.
Mothers of Girl Scouts: Carrie Campbell, Mary Ann Snow.

____________________

THE ROLE OF TELEVISION

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to discuss an
issue that I have addressed several times before on this floor--that
is, the role of television in the lives of the American people. Today's
television would have you believe that the television program ``How to
Marry a Millionaire'' is a guide on how to find the perfect mate; that
``Temptation Island'' is a guide to stable relationships; that Al Bundy
is a paragon of parental nurturing, while his wife, Peg Bundy is
reflective of virtuous American womanhood; that ``Who Wants To Be a
Millionaire?'' is educational television.
I am ashamed and embarrassed that according to a survey by the
Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, 70
percent of the parents surveyed regard ``Who Wants To Be a
Millionaire?'' as educational television.
I regret to say that the sorry state of television is becoming the
sorry state of America: 59 percent of Americans can name the three
Stooges, but only 17 percent of the American people can name three
Supreme Court Justices; only about 50 percent of the American people
could identify the Vice President of the United States, but 95 percent
could identify Homer, Bart, and Marge Simpson.
Three years ago, I came to this floor to express my shock and utter
amazement at the details of a story in Time magazine entitled,
``Everything Your Children Already Know About Sex.'' The story told how
our children are learning their sexual values from television programs
like ``Dawson's Creek,'' which boasted of a character who lost her
virginity at the age of 12 while drunk. There was ``Buffy the Vampire
Slayer'' in which a male vampire turned bad after having sex with 17-
year-old Buffy.
``Why are we letting our kids watch this morally degrading,
thoroughly demeaning, junk on the airwaves?'' I asked.
But from that low point, television has only continued to degenerate.
It seems that many television programs are busily intent on answering
the question, ``how low can you go?'' with the fare that they put
before us.
The land, the society, the country that once produced the works of
James Fenimore Cooper, Herman Melville, and Nathaniel Hawthorne, now
gives us the works of Howard Stern and Jerry Springer. No wonder the
late Steve Allen, a pioneer in the television industry, complained that
television had become a ``moral sewer.''
When I think of television today, I seriously wonder whether Charles
Darwin's theory of evolution is being stood on its head by popular
culture. Evolution implies progress. Going from the musical
accomplishments of Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart to the groans and moans
of HBO's ``Sex in the City'' is anything but progress.
By the age of 18, the average American child will have viewed about
200,000 acts of violence on television. Before that child leaves
elementary school, that child will have watched, on the average, about
20,000 murders and more than 80,000 other assaults. This means that
during their most formative years, our children will witness
approximately 100,000 acts of violence.
But the problem with television is more than the content of the
programs alone. It is the nature of the beast--or should I say, the
nature of the boob tube. There are 102 million TV homes in the USA; 42
percent of them have three or more sets. The average American spends
four hours of each day--that amounts to two full months of each year--
staring at the boob tube. Forty percent of the American people stare at
the boob tube even while eating.
The negative impact of too much television is becoming more and more
apparent as more and more studies have demonstrated: the link between
television violence and real violence; the link between television and
increasing obesity among young people; the link between television and
declining interest in the fine arts; the link between television
viewing and low academic performance. To put it bluntly, Mr. President,
television is helping to create a morally irresponsible, overweight,
lazy, violent, and ill-informed society.
Mr. President, this week, April 23-29, is national ``TV Turnoff
Week.'' Turn it off! Let's have more turnoff weeks; make it 52 weeks of
the year, national ``TV Turnoff Week.'' This is an effort sponsored by
the TV-Turnoff Network, a grass-roots organization that has organized
thousands of schools, clubs, community organizations, and religious
groups to get the American people to turn off or limit their television
viewing for one week to discover that there is actually life beyond the
boob tube. The group has won the support and endorsements of dozens of
powerful organizations, such as the American Medical Association. They
have certainly won my support and my hearty endorsement. Hallelujah!
Turn off that TV.
The organization's motto is, ``Turn off TV. Turn on life.'' Their
point is well taken. Life should be more rewarding and interesting than
sitting in front of a box and becoming mesmerized with morally
degrading, mind-numbing nonsense. That is what it is.
Instead of sitting in front of the television for 4 hours a day, get
some exercise! Get out-of-doors. Go for a walk, a hike, a bike ride, or
swim. It will be far better for your health.
Instead of sitting in front of the television for 4 hours a day, read
a good book! Read Emerson's Essays, Carlyle's ``History of the French
Revolution,'' read history, read the Bible, read Milton's ``Paradise
Lost, Paradise Regained.'' Read ``Robinson Crusoe.''

[[Page 6392]]

Read something that is worth reading. I ask, which will make one a
better person, spending hours watching ``Survivor,'' ``Big Brother,''
and ``The Weakest Link,'' or using the time to read a great literary
work by Shakespeare, Dickens, or Goethe. Groucho Marx said that he
found television to be very educational because, ``Every time somebody
turns on a set, I go into the other room and read a book.'' I like
that. I say, ``be like Groucho.'' Let's have more Groucho's. Simply
turn off the television set and read a good book.
Instead of sitting in front of the television for 4 hours a day,
spend some time with the family. Family members can use the opportunity
to take a trip together to the local museum or art gallery, or simply
talk to each other during dinner. Make your family the center of home
life, not the television set. Studies by professor Barbara Brock at
Eastern Washington University found that in TV-free families, parents
have about an hour of meaningful conversation with their children every
day, compared with the national average of 38 minutes a week. Here
would be an opportunity for parents to emphasize their values--not
Hollywood's--to their most precious asset--their children.
I don't want to leave the impression that all television is bad. I
have seen some very educational, very informative, very uplifting, very
good pictures, shows, and plays on television. There is much
programming that is truly educational. I have been to one movie since I
have been in Washington. I have been in Washington now 49 years. I have
been to one movie. I left that movie. I didn't stay and watch it
through. I became bored and I walked out. Yul Brynner was, I think, the
main player in that movie. I walked out. But just within the last few
weeks, I watched a picture in which Yul Brynner played. I believe it
was--I am trying to remember now. I have watched some good pictures
recently. I watched ``The Ten Commandments,'' which was a good picture.
That may have been it. Yul Brynner plays in it and I liked him in it.
He played well. So I don't want to leave the impression that all
television is bad. I think that C-Span, PBS, and the History Channel
provide worthwhile viewing to the audience. I also believe that
programming like Ken Burns's series on the Civil War is quality
programming that expands our knowledge and deepens understanding.
But I do want to emphatically stress that there is much more to life
than the boring, degrading, demeaning fare on the boob tube. I urge the
American people to use this week to break your addiction to television.
Just say no! As the TV-Turnoff Network urges, ``turn off TV, turn on
life.''
In addition to becoming healthier, both mentally and physically, one
might be able to name three Justices on the Supreme Court.
One might even be able to name the Vice President of the United
States.
Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of the TV-Turnoff Network and
urge them to keep up the good work. And I urge my colleagues and the
American people to participate in national ``TV Turnoff Week.''
Mr. President, I have another statement I want to make. But I am very
conscious of the fact that my favorite U.S. Senator on this side of the
aisle has been on the floor waiting. I am very willing to set aside my
speech and listen to my colleague before I proceed further.
(Mr. ENZI assumed the chair.)
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, I thank the Senator from West
Virginia, who is typically courteous, as always. I am very grateful for
his thoughtfulness. I welcome the opportunity to continue to listen to
his very fine statements. There are many important things that are
happening in the Nation's Capitol and around this country today, but I
think if the American people will pause and listen to the good advice
of my friend and colleague about the importance of reading as opposed
to television, in his excellent presentation, I think this would be a
wiser and more thoughtful country. I commend the Senator for his
statement and the subject matter. I look forward to continue listening.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. But I want to give him
a second chance. I want to give my friend a second chance. I want to
warn him that this is poetry month. I am all ready to talk about
poetry, and I am ready to at least render my memorization of at least 8
or 10 or 12 poems. So I will give my colleague one more chance. If he
would like to make his speech now before I start, I would be happy to
yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator may be even more reluctant to interfere. We
have a good prospect of listening to him quote poetry. All of us are
enormously impressed that when the Senator travels back to West
Virginia, he takes time to learn and to memorize poems. As a result of
that experience, and a very long and distinguished career in the
Senate, he has an enormous reservoir of knowledge of poetry and an
incredible encyclopedic memory for poetry that always seems to be right
for every special occasion. I look forward to hearing some of those
this afternoon.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy. I really have
enjoyed my long service with the distinguished senior Senator from
Massachusetts. I have learned a great deal from him, and I prize that
friendship.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, does the Senator intend to
mention that wonderful poem about the ambulance in the valley? That was
always one of my favorites. I don't know whether the Senator planned to
include that.
Mr. BYRD. I did not plan to include it, but I will be happy to try to
do that.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. That is very thoughtful of him and
very good of him. I appreciate his interest in that particular poem,
among others. Let's do it this way. I will make my speech and do the
poems that I have included, and then I will give the Senator a chance
to make his speech, and if he is still interested in my giving that
poem, I will be happy to, or I will be happy to wait until another day.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

____________________

A CELEBRATION OF POETRY

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is entitled ``Looking Up At Him'':

I asked the robin, as he sprang
From branch to branch and sweetly sang,
What made his breast so round and red;
Twas ``looking at the sun,'' he said;
I asked the violets, sweet and blue,
Sparkling in the morning dew,
Whence came their colors, then so shy;
They answered, ``looking to the sky'';
I saw the roses, one by one,
Unfold their petals to the sun,
I asked them what made their tints so bright,
They answered, ``looking to the light'';
I asked the thrush, whose silvery note
Came like a song from angel's throat,
Why he sang in the twilight dim;
He answered, ``looking up at Him.''

Mr. President, this month, our nation recognizes National Poetry
Month, a celebration of poetry and its place in American society. Like
spring, poetry offers man a rebirth of his inner spirit. Poetry
expresses our humanity, and, through meter, makes music of the spoken
world as it rhythmically sways and floats through our imaginations. It
is the laughter of children, the gentle rustle of an autumn breeze, and
the pitter-patter of a sun shower. Poetry, simply put, is beauty
defined.

Man comes a pilgrim of the universe,
Out of the mystery that was before
The world, out of the wonder of old stars.
Far roads have felt his feet, forgotten wells
Have glassed his beauty bending down to drink.
At altar-fires anterior to Earth
His soul was lighted, and it will burn on
After the suns have wasted on the void.
His feet have felt the pressure of old worlds,
And are to tread on others yet unnamed--
Worlds sleeping yet in some new dream of God.

Whether constructed with long cadenced lines or intricate stanzas,
conventional or openhanded sonnetry, light quatrains or heavy ballads,
or the age-old epic yarns of Homer and Virgil, the power of poetry
surrounds us. It tells of love, of death, of things temporal or
spiritual, and of the hereafter. It speaks of the most common of
occurrences and the most revealing of emotions, and it flows like a
symphony, its

[[Page 6393]]

meter enhancing the expressiveness of its words. These virtues can be
seen in Alfred Tennyson's ``Crossing the Bar'':

Sunset and evening star,
And one clear call for me!
And my there be no moaning of the bar,
When I put out to sea,
But such a tide as moving seems asleep,
Too full for sound and foam,
When that which drew from out the boundless deep
Turns again home.
Twilight and evening bell,
And after that the dark!
And may there be no sadness of farewell,
When I embark;
For tho' from out our bourne of Time and Place
The flood may bear me far,
I hope to see my Pilot face to face
When I have crost the bar.

I have often found that a good poet helps me to examine my inner self
through the poet's use of words, meter, and rhyme. Such poets enable
their readers to look within and to confront their own vexations and
perplexities, and then sort out the wheat from the chaff and deal with
the inevitable dilemmas of life. An example of this can be seen in
Robert Frost's ageless masterpiece, ``The Road Not Taken:''

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that, the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Frost's words sing, and at the same time, as I reflect on his deft
metaphor for the choices we all make in our lives, they burn in my
mind. For 83 years I have encountered diverging roads, some in the
beautiful woods of West Virginia and many here in this Chamber. The
choices that I have made at these crossroads have, in fact, made all
the difference.
Speaking of roads, there are many bridges also that we have to cross
in this great country of ours. It brings to my mind a poem by Will
Dromgoole. One might think this is a man who wrote this poem--Will
Dromgoole, but it is a female author:

An old man going a lone highway
Came at the evening, cold and gray,
To a chasm vast and wide and steep,
With waters rolling cold and deep.
The old man crossed in the twilight dim,
The sullen stream had no fears for him;
But he turned when safe on the other side,
And built a bridge to span the tide.

``Old man,'' said a fellow pilgrim near,
``You are wasting your strength with building here.
Your journey will end with the ending day,
You never again will pass this way.
You've crossed the chasm, deep and wide,
Why build you this bridge at eventide?''

The builder lifted his old gray head.
``Good friend, in the path I have come,'' he said,
``There followeth after me today
A youth whose feet must pass this way.
The chasm that was as nought to me
To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be;
He, too, must cross in the twilight dim--
Good friend, I am building this bridge for him.''

The lines of a poem contain the timeless power of concentrated
thought. Whether a poem is as ancient as the ``Aeneid'' by Virgil or as
straightforward as the verses of Emily Dickinson or Ella Wheeler Cox,
poetry can evoke the full range of human emotions from joy to sadness.
Poems are, as William Butler Yeats once said, ``monuments of unaging
intellect.'' Poems may also be monuments to historical eras--speaking
for every man and woman of the time. One such poem, ``The Right to
Labor in Joy,'' by Edwin Markham, captures the discord and tension of
the era when the grasp of European despotism began to weaken:

Out on the roads they have gathered, a hundred-thousand men,
To ask for a hold on life as sure as the wolf's hold in his
den.
Their need lies close to the quick of life as rain to the
furrow sown:
It is as meat to the slender rib, as marrow to the bone.

They ask but the leave to labor for a taste of life's
delight,
For a little salt to savor their bread, for houses water-
tight.
They ask but the right to labor, and to live by the strength
of their hands--
They who have bodies like knotted oaks, and patience like
sea-sands.

And the right of a man to labor and his right to labor in
joy--
Not all your laws can strangle that right, nor the gates of
hell destroy.
For it came with the making of man and was kneaded into his
bones,
And it will stand at the last of things on the dust of
crumbled thrones.

Whether introspective, political, or pastoral, all poetry is intended
to elicit an emotional response. Some poems use free-flowing meter and
cleverly crafted verse to bring a smile to the reader's face. But, very
often such verses also embody simply universal truths which make us nod
our heads in agreement. One such example is the poem, ``Trees,''
written by Joyce Kilmer.

I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree

A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the earth's sweet flowing breast;

A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;

A tree that may in Summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair;

Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
who intimately lives with rain.

Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.

Other poems delve into more complex and profound regions of the human
experience. These poems resonate deeply and touch the deep chords of
our senses, echoing through our imaginations over and over again.
Thomas Moore's ``The Scent of the Roses,'' comments on love, death, and
poignant memories.

Let fate do her worst, there are relics of joy,
Bright dreams of the past that she cannot destroy,
That come in the night-time of sorrow and care,
And bring back the features that joy used to wear.

Long, long be my heart with such memories filled,
Like the vase in which roses have once been distilled,
You may break, you may shatter the base if you will,
But the scent of the roses will hang round it still.

Nothing has the capacity of poetry to condense the pain and the
beauty of living and to reach the spiritual side of our natures. A
talented poet can elicit tears with only a few lines of verse, while
the novelist must reach for plot twists and character development to
garner a similar response. In no form of expression is the choice of
each word so important. Listen to William Earnest Henley's ``Invictus''
and its description of the author's triumph over an infection that
almost cost him his only leg and threatened his life.

Out of the night that covers me
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud;
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the Shade,
And Yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

In plain and simple words, William Earnest Henley draws from courage
and the depths of his soul a supreme strength of human will, while in
the crucible of excruciating pain and under the shadow of death.
Poetry has always been a passion of mine, and a form of art which I
hold dear to my heart. Consequently, I have sought to discipline my
mind through the memorization of lines and verses of poetry. Many
people jog today in the exercising of their bodies. I do little of
that. But I mostly try to jog my mind, jog my memory, give it exercise,
keep it busy. I have memorized poem after poem, trying to capture the
beauty and wisdom of each one. Poetry has been my consummate companion
over the

[[Page 6394]]

years, and the verses that I have committed to memory are not only a
delight to my ears, but a balm to my soul as well. I try to be
selective in the poems I memorize. It does take time. It takes effort.
It takes energy. It takes determination. It takes discipline to
memorize poetry. I frequently make use of these poems in my speeches,
carefully choosing a verse that captures the essence of my message,
always assured that its beauty will deliver in the keenest sense what I
try to convey. One such poem which has served me well is by Henry
Wadsworth Longfellow: ``The Building of The Ship.''

Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
We know what Master laid thy keel,
What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,
Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,
What anvils rang, what hammers beat,
In what a forge and what a heat
Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!
Fear not each sudden sound and shock,
`Tis of the wave and not the rock;
`Tis but the flapping of the sail,
And not a rent made by the gale!
In spite of rock and tempest's roar,
In spite of false lights on the shore,
Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!
Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee,
Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears.
Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,
Are all with thee, are all with thee!

Can one think of a more beautiful description of the promise of
America, and of what we as Senators have a duty to protect? We have
nothing less than the hopes of mankind in our charge!
Poetry is man's attempt to reach up and out of his human skin, and
connect, just for a moment, with something perfect and eternal.
Edwin Markham's, ``A Workman To The Gods,'' could be seen as a
tribute to the perfection sought by the poet.

Once Phidias stood, with hammer in his hand,
Carving Minerva from the breathing stone,
Tracing with love the winding of a hair,
A single hair upon her head,
Whereon a youth of Athens cried,
``O Phidias, why do you dally on a hidden hair?
When she is lifted to the lofty front
Of the Parthenon, no human eye will see.''
And Phidias thundered on him:
``Silence, slave: Men will not see, but the Immortals will!''

Like the carving of Minerva that Phidias so carefully chiseled into
the relief of the Parthenon, a well crafted poem lifts all of humanity
and is an undeniable testimony to the immortal nature and exceptional
beauty of the human soul.
A poem is a symphony of words just waiting to be played, and, like
any good piece of music, it only improves with the playing. My own
repertoire of poems has provided me with great spiritual enrichment and
the special comfort of finding meaning in my own experiences which I
might not otherwise have easily discerned. I applaud the efforts of the
Academy of American Poets and the programs that they have organized for
the sixth annual National Poetry Month. Through celebrations such as
this, I hope that poetry will come to be appreciated by a new
generation of Americans so that they might enjoy the deep spiritual
enrichment that poetry has provided to so many. I should mention that
great English novelist and poet, Rudyard Kipling, who received the
Nobel Prize for literature in 1907 and about whom I was reading when I
was yet in high school in the early 1930's
In his ``Recessional'' and similar pieces, Kipling addressed himself
to his fellow countryman in times of crises. Today I shall only quote
from Kipling's ``The Heritage'':

Our fathers in a wondrous age,
Ere yet the earth was small,
Ensured to us a heritage,
And doubted not at all,
That we, the children of their heart,
Which then did beat so high,
In later time should play like part
For our posterity

Then, fretful, murmur not they gave
So great a charge to keep,
Nor dream that awestruck time shall save
Their labor while we sleep.
Dear-bought and clear, a thousand year
Our father's title runs.
Make we likewise their sacrifice,
Defrauding not our sons.

I shall close with one of the poems by Henry Van Dyke, another poet
and essayist popular in the closing days of the 19th century and the
early decades of the 20th century. This poem, ``America For Me,'' has
been very popular with my own constituents for whom I have quoted it so
many, many times during my travels in the West Virginia hills.

Tis fine to see the Old World, and travel up and down
Among the famous palaces and cities of renown,
To admire the crumply castles and the statues of the kings,
But now I think I've had enough of antiquated things.

So it's home again, and home again, America for me!
My heart is turning home again, and there I long to be,
In the land of youth and freedom beyond the ocean bars,
Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of
stars.

Oh, London is a man's town, there's power in the air;
And Paris is a woman's town, with flowers in her hair;
And it's sweet to dream in Venice, and it's great to study in
Rome
But when it comes to living there is just no place like home.

I like the German fir-woods, in green battalions drilled,
I like the gardens of Versailles with flashing fountains
filled;
But, oh, to take your hand, my dear, and ramble for a day
In the friendly western woodland where Nature has her way!

I know that Europe's wonderful, yet something seems to lack:
The Past is too much with her, and the people looking back.
But the glory of the Present is to make the Future free,
We love our land for what she is and what she is to be.

Oh, it's home again, and home again, America for me!
I want a ship that's westward bound to plough the rolling
sea,
To the blessed Land of Room Enough beyond the ocean bars,
Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of
stars.

Mr. President, Senator Kennedy was planning to speak. While we are
waiting for Senator Kennedy, I shall quote another poem:

I saw them tearing a building down,
A group of men in a busy town;
With a ``Ho, heave, ho'' and a lusty yell.
They swung a beam and the sidewall fell.

I said to the foreman, ``Are these men skilled
The type you'd hire if you had to build?''
He laughed, and then he said, ``No, indeed,
Just common labor is all I need;
I can easily wreck in a day or two,
That which takes builders years to do.''

I said to myself as I walked away,
``Which of these roles am I trying to play?
Am I a builder who works with care,
Building my life by the rule and square?
Am I shaping my deeds by a well-laid plan,
Patiently building the best I can?
Or am I a fellow who walks the town,
Content with the labor of tearing down?''

Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO JIM ENGLISH

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor a very
special person. His name is Jim English. He is the Democratic staff
director of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. In the course of
the 30 years he has worked in the Federal Government, 23 of which were
right here in the Senate, Jim has served the Senate and the American
people with great distinction.
I have had the privilege of working with and getting to know Jim well
as he carried out his responsibilities on one of the most important
committees of the U.S. Senate, the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Very few people I have encountered in my time in the Senate--be they
members or staff--have made as big a difference in the lives of
everyday working people. Throughout his Senate career, Jim has
constantly and consistently done what is best for the American public,
regardless of their political persuasion and social status.
Although he worked directly for our colleague, Senator Byrd, Jim has
always had time to listen to and help deal with the needs and requests
of any

[[Page 6395]]

Senator who came to him seeking assistance. I have seen first hand his
patience, his expertise, and his willingness to lend his considerable
talents to help Member after Member do right by their constituencies.
Perhaps the greatest tribute one can pay to Jim's professionalism and
expertise is that he has managed to attain the absolute trust and
confidence of Senator Byrd. Suffice it to say that such a feat is as
major as it is rare.
During his time in the Senate, Jim has set a standard of conduct and
accomplishment that will be exceedingly difficult to match. In my mind,
Jim has come to symbolize what we mean when we use the term public
servant. I thank him for choosing to spend part of his life with us. We
are all better off as a result.
I wish him well in whatever he chooses to pursue in the next stage of
his life and hope that others who follow in his footsteps remember the
lofty standards he established.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I came to the floor and I heard Senator
Byrd and Senator Daschle speak about Jim English. The only thing I can
say about Jim English--not nearly as well as the two of them have
spoken about him--is, No. 1, he has worked for and with the master,
Senator Byrd. I think he knows almost as much as Senator Byrd does
about the appropriations process--maybe not quite as much. But I can
tell Senator Byrd that I think Jim is a lot like Mike Epstein, my
former deputy. I came here and I knew so little. Maybe I now know a
little more. I still have a lot to learn.
Jim is just so gracious and so willing, when people are just rushing
and rushing, to take time and mentor you and to be your teacher. Jim
worked for Senator Byrd, but in a way I believe he was there to work
for all of us. He certainly helped me a lot. At the beginning I
hesitated to ask him. I knew of his expertise. When he was so gracious
and so obliging and never made me feel as if I was a fool, then I
believed he was a great teacher, willing to answer more questions. I
have asked him many, many questions. He has answered those questions.
He has helped me. He has helped a lot of Senators.
He truly represents the very best of public service. We are going to
lose a great man. The country is going to lose a great man. There is no
question about it.
I thank you, Jim.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am delighted to have the opportunity to
join my colleagues in this well-deserved tribute to Jim English, who is
retiring from the Senate after 30 years of outstanding service. Jim has
done a brilliant job over the years as both a majority staff director
and a minority staff director on the Senate Appropriations Committee,
and we will all miss him very much.
Jim was talented and always helpful, and he was an enormous source of
advice and counsel for all of us on so many aspects of the
appropriations process. Whatever the issue, and however complex the
process, especially as the annual deadline neared, Jim was always a
steady hand and a remarkable source of inspiration and wise counsel.
Jim's name may not be well known to the citizens of our states, but
over the years, the people of all 50 states have benefitted immensely
from Jim's skillful work.
It is a tribute as well to our distinguished colleague, Senator Byrd,
that he has had the remarkable service of such an outstanding member of
his staff over the years. We will all miss Jim very much. We thank him
for his extraordinary services to the Senate and the nation, and we
extend our best wishes to Jim and his family for a long and happy
retirement in the years ahead.
Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think it is essential that we go forward
with our education reform package. A lot of good work has been done in
the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Senators on both
sides of the aisle--Republican and Democrat--have worked hard. They
reported out a bill overwhelmingly from the committee. A great deal of
negotiation has gone on since then between members of the committee,
the House and Senate, both parties, and the administration. A lot of
the reform language has been agreed to, with a lot of understanding
about the amount of funds that will be necessary to implement this
legislation.
But the important thing is that we go forward. I do not think you
could ever get every detail worked out and agreed to in advance. It is
called the legislative process. You go to the Chamber, you have debate,
you have amendments, you have votes, you get a result, and you pass the
bill.
Over the past couple years, I have quite often been criticized that I
would not let the Senate work its will. And now, for a week, the
Democrats have been blocking going to the bill, blocking the motion to
proceed to the education bill.
This is the highest priority for this President, I believe for the
Congress, both parties, and for the children.
I believe that if we go forward and have a good debate and have
amendments that we will get a result that will be good in improving the
quality of education in America.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to
the consideration of Calendar No. 23, S. 1, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, I say to the majority
leader that where I would dissent from his remarks is that actually
there is a lot of negotiation going on. I think Senators on our side
have made some very basic points. One is, it is important what is in
the bill before it comes to the floor. Two, I think we are quite far
apart, although hopefully we at some time will be together about
whether or not, in fact, there will be the investment in children, to
make sure that the children and the teachers and the schools have the
tools to succeed. This is really a choice between whether or not you
want to put so much into, I say to the majority leader, Robin-Hood-in-
reverse tax cuts, with over 40 percent of the benefits going to the top
1 percent of the population, or you are willing to make the investment
in education and children.
I am so pleased the President has announced the goal of leaving no
child behind. But it cannot be done on a tin cup budget. We are looking
at the whole issue of kids with special needs, the IDEA program, the
title I program, afterschool programs, teacher recruitment, smaller
class size, and doing something about these dilapidated buildings.
So my hope is we will be able to resolve what I think are important
questions. But I think the Democrats are very committed to this
discussion about education, very committed to doing it right. If, in
fact, we are going to call this piece of legislation, as the President
has, the BEST, then we ought to be doing our best for children. I have
no doubt that the people in Minnesota and the people across this
country are looking for a real commitment of resources and the Federal
Government living up to its obligation. We should be accountable. Just
as we call for the teachers and the children to be accountable, we
should be accountable as well. That is what we are going to be strong
on.
I object.
Mr. LOTT. To clarify, does the Senator object to bringing up and
going forward with the education bill?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I said I object to going forward with the education
bill while we are in negotiation, while we do not know what is in the
bill, while

[[Page 6396]]

we do not have a commitment yet on the investment of resources and the
Federal Government and the Senate and the House living up to our
commitment to children and education in the country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now withdraw the pending motion to proceed
to S. 149.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The motion is
withdrawn.

____________________

BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

Mr. LOTT. I now move to proceed to S. 1, the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
I say to the Senator from Minnesota, there have been many days of
negotiation. A lot of progress has been made. Everybody acknowledges
that. But this bill should have been taken up in March. Now here we are
almost in May and we are still negotiating. If we are going to have
everything wrapped up before it ever comes to the floor of the Senate,
there would not be much for the Senate to do around here.
Ordinarily, you get as much of an agreement as you can, get a bill
reported out, and bring it to the floor. Negotiations are not going to
end. They are going to continue. But on some of them we are not going
to be able to reach an agreement.
I say to my colleague, in a State that is trying to improve
education, and, again, as a son of a schoolteacher, if just money would
solve the problem, we would have a higher quality of education in
America than we do today.
We have spent well over $130 billion over the past several years for
the title I program. I don't want to demean that program. It has done
some good and can do more good, if we give a little more flexibility at
the local level where the money can be used, where it may be used
differently in Minnesota than it would be in Texas, give a little
flexibility to make sure you are addressing the needs of those title I
children in an appropriate way.
But just money is not enough. We have to have some real reforms.
Money is part of it. I admit that. The President has asked for more
money for the reading program. The President has indicated he supports
more funding for title I and for IDEA and for bilingual education.
We are making progress. He is moving in the right direction. But I
don't know if we can ever come up with enough money in this area or a
lot of the other areas to suit every Senator. They can always find some
way--it is easy--to say ``give me more.''
One of the reasons we ought to have tax relief is to let the people
keep a little bit more of their money to help the children with their
needs. That is why I think we ought to double the child tax credit; let
the parents get more of the benefit of their money to help their
children with their needs. Let them decide if they need a little
tutoring, if they need a computer, whatever it may be.
One of the reasons parents can't always do what they need for their
own children is that they don't get to keep enough of the money they
earn. Why in the world would we take from the mouths of labor the bread
that they have earned? That is a quote from Thomas Jefferson--a great
line.
At any rate, some Senators are adamant about objecting to proceeding
to the education bill. I think that is a mistake. I think we ought to
move forward. I suspect that some of the amendments that would be
offered--and maybe the Senator from Minnesota would support and I would
oppose--probably will pass. What are they worried about? We can bring
this to a satisfactory conclusion that would be good for everybody.
This is a win-win-win opportunity. Let's not blow it.

____________________

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to the
pending motion to proceed so that we can get under way. I have let the
Senate basically mark time now for the last week without achieving any
real progress or closing the negotiations. I think it is time we
guarantee that we can get on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The cloture motion having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 23, S. 1, an original bill to extend
programs and activities under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965:
Trent Lott, Jim Jeffords, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Kay
Bailey Hutchison, Don Nickles, Tim Hutchinson, Strom
Thurmond, Frank Murkowski, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback,
Jeff Sessions, Mike Crapo, Judd Gregg, Susan Collins,
and Jesse Helms.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have consulted with Senator Daschle and
advised him that I would be filing cloture. This is not a surprise on
his part. I know Senator Kennedy was aware of it. I am sorry he was not
on the floor because he has been working very hard doing a good job.
Under the rules, this vote then would occur on Tuesday. I ask
unanimous consent that this cloture vote occur at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday
and that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

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

____________________

REPORT ON FOREIGN TRAVEL

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to make a statement on a recent
trip I have made to the Mideast. I want to alert my colleagues to the
fact that beyond what is available in the news media, the situation in
the Mideast is so serious it is really hard to describe. The concern I
have is that the violence is likely to move beyond the borders of
Israel where Hamas and Islamic Jihad may be targeting other
installations, perhaps even U.S. installations.
I had an opportunity to talk with the Israeli leaders, including
Prime Minister Sharon, who has the understandable position that he is
not going to negotiate for peace until the violence has ended.
I had an opportunity to talk with Palestinian Authority Chairman
Yasser Arafat, who makes representations which simply are not true.
Arafat makes the contention that he has issued an unequivocal edict for
the Palestinians to cease the violence, citing as an example a speech
he made at the Arab summit. When that speech is examined, it is so
conditional as to be meaningless.
We had an opportunity to travel as well to Damascus where
conversations were held with Foreign Minister Shara.
The situation between Israel and Syria is very tense. Israel
retaliated against a Syrian radar installation because of the Hezbollah
attacks against Israel from southern Lebanon Hezbollah being backed by
Iran with the concurrence of Syria.
The trip I made occurred during the past Easter recess, and I will
describe it in some detail in the course of this floor statement.
Upon coming back to the United States, I have written to the
President urging him to appoint a special representative in the
Mideast, just as that had been the practice going back to the days when
Henry Kissinger shuttled for President Nixon, special envoys being
appointed by President Jimmy Carter, President Ronald Reagan, President
George H. W. Bush, and President Bill Clinton.
Mr. President, from April 7 to April 21, we traveled from New York
City to London, Florence, Ashkelon, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Cairo,
Damascus, Beruit, Souda Bay, Crete, and Rome en route to Philadelphia.

[[Page 6397]]

In London, we met at the British Ministry of Defense with Ian Lee,
the Director of the NATO and European Security Policy Department, and
Deputy Director, A. D. Richards. The meeting touched on a range of
issues. Among those were President Bush's position on missile defense,
the British outreach to rogue nations, the viability of NATO absent a
Soviet threat, plans for the proposed European defense force, and the
British thoughts on the War Crimes Tribunal and the International
Court.
Mr. Lee stated that the British reaction to President Bush's position
on Missile Defense and its effect on the ABM Treaty was one of general
support. They have an appreciation for the risks and agree with the
United States on the threats. However, they are waiting to see what the
actual proposal would be.
Mr. Lee stated that the United Kingdom was at a different stage than
the United States in regards to its relation with several rogue
nations. Its mission in Iran is moving toward having an ambassador,
while it continues an effort to establish diplomatic ties to Libya.
I next met with Mr. Emry Jones Parry, the Political Director and
Deputy Undersecretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Also attending was Mr. Jonathan Darby, the U.S. Desk Officer, Foreign
and Commonwealth Office, and Mr. Mort Dworken, the Charge d'Affaires at
the American Embassy.
When questioned about the proposed European Defense Force, Mr. Parry
offered insight as to why Mr. Blair, who is a strong supporter of NATO,
had come out in favor of an European defense force. According to Mr.
Parry, Mr. Blair apparently believes that by putting a European flag on
the force structure, European nations will be more likely to put money
into it as well as spend the money on what they should in a NATO
context.
Mr. Parry noted the idea of a European defense force has been around
since 1952. He said it is not designed to remove the U.S. from the
theater, but make it more likely to have the U.S. there because the
Europeans would be pulling more of their own weight.
On the issue of the International Criminal Court, Mr. Parry stated
that the U.K. is generally in favor of it. It believes there is a need
for a forum to hold those accountable who would otherwise escape
justice because of a lack of interest in their home jurisdiction. He
was surprised when I told him that War Crimes Tribunal Prosecutor Carla
Del Ponte was thinking of indicting General Wesley Clarke and other
NATO officers for targeting civilians and for recklessly endangering
them in targeting military objectives. Mr. Parry said it was his
understanding that British troops could not come under indictment
because of provisions that the United Kingdom would take care of its
own.
When I asked why we are putting so much into NATO in light of the
loss of the Soviet threat, Mr. Parry replied that NATO's actions in
Kosovo show that it is still necessary.
Our conversation then turned to the U.K.'s actions with Iran and
Iraq. Mr. Parry noted that Britain was looking to keep a relationship
open with the nations, and then if firm action was later required, the
relationship could be adjusted accordingly.
I then asked Mr. Parry if the Europeans might eventually be on board
the idea of missile defense. He responded that the assumption in
Britain was the United States would go ahead and deploy a missile
defense system, if it would work. The British position is that they
will do what is necessary to ensure its success, but would like it to
be ``arranged in such a manner as to generate greater solidarity on the
issue.''
We then had substantive discussions in a working tea with the
Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs with ministerial duties
including North America. Over tea at the House of Lords, we discussed
the American/British relationship. She also described her background
and how she came to be in the House of Lords.
After having tea in the House of Lords, we then walked across
Parliament to the House of Commons Central Lobby, where I was met by
the Rt. Hon. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, MP, with whom I had a wide ranging
discussion of issues. Smith and I had debated in November 1949 when he
represented Oxford and I was on the Penn team.
Later that same day, we met with the country team headed by Mort
Dworken, Charge d'Affaires, who brief-
ed us on the latest information regarding foot and mouth disease,
fallout from the Administration's position on the Kyoto Accords,
European security policy and the status of US/British relations.
In attendance were Mort Dworken,
Charge d'Affaires; Tom Hamby, Foreign Agriculture Minister-Counselor
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Ed Kaska, Economic Affairs
Officer; Captain Stu Barnett, USN, Defense Attache; and Sonya Tsiros,
Political Officer.
We initially asked about the current status of the foot and mouth
epidemic and were told the disease was still not under control. The
British Government was undertaking a massive control program to try and
isolate the virus. This included the slaughter of over 1 million head
of livestock with another half million yet to be killed. In addition,
the government was restricting movement in the countryside including
the closure of such historic sites as Stonehenge.
Tom Hamby, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, noted that the
U.S. currently has sixty veterinarians in the country both to help as
well as become educated on successful ways to combat the disease. He
described the effort much like a military campaign so that if the virus
gets to the U.S., we will have people trained and on the ground to
fight it.
We inquired into the political and economic effect of the disease and
found that both had been affected. Prime Minister Blair postponed the
national elections until June 27th due to the severity of the disease.
Economically, the disease had yet to show its full weight. Although the
UK has less than 2% of its Gross Domestic Product in agriculture, the
closure of the English countryside had a clear economic affect in
regards to tourism. At the time, there was no definitive number on the
economic impact.
Early the next morning, we traveled to Florence, Italy where our
first meeting was with a trio of lawyers with the famed Ferragamo
family businesses to discuss trademark protection. During the meeting,
we were told that the majority of Ferragamo products which are
illegally copied originate in Asia. We asked how counterfeiting was
detected, and whether there were any trouble in distinguishing the
quality between counterfeit and non-counterfeit goods. The answer was
yes, there often is a difference in the quality of the leather and
accessories. But that is not always the case. Now counterfeits can
often be of a very good quality, and be very difficult to
differentiate.
We were surprised that the Italian government doesn't do more to stop
this form of theft, especially since so many of the top designers are
from Italy, and asked how much litigation they are involved in to
protect the Ferragamo name. Most litigation, it turns out, is of a
civil nature and is injunctive in nature. Even though most actions are
civil, it is very difficult to get damages based upon the design of
Italian law.
As for criminal actions, it is recognized as a form of larceny, but
the criminal courts consider it to be of nominal value and not as
important as other crimes. We were told that in one case often cited by
the courts, a customer went to buy a ``Ferragamo'' purse and paid a low
price for it. The court reasoned that since the price was so low, the
purchaser had to know it wasn't a real Ferragamo purse, and therefore
no fraud occurred. I commented that by prosecuting a few white-collar
crimes, a real deterrent effect could be achieved.
Later that day, we discussed a wide range of US/Italian/European
issues over lunch with Consul General Hilarion Martinez at his home
above the American Consulate. During the course of our discussion, he
stated that

[[Page 6398]]

although American students widely participate in education programs in
Florence and all throughout Italy, it was difficult to get Italian
students to come to the U.S. because Italian Universities often do not
recognize the credit hours bestowed by American Universities, absent a
one on one agreement between the institutions.
Early the next day, we set out to visit the Georgetown campus in the
hills above Florence. Upon arrival, we were greeted by Ms. Heidi
Flores, the Director of the Georgetown program. The campus is located
on a beautiful villa overlooking the whole of Florence, and was
established in 1981 when the facility was donated to the university. It
has 27 students currently enrolled and 6 faculty. Other similar
programs in the area include New York University, Syracuse, Smith
College, California State, Florida State, Stanford, and the
Universities of Michigan and Wisconsin.
We asked them who it was that we could talk to about producing a
reciprocal agreement between the U.S. and Italy which would seek to
recognize credits equally. The Minister of Universities was identified
as the appropriate individual. He could give substantial background
information regarding the problem.
During my visit at the Georgetown campus, we met Cuffe Owens a
student and a nephew of my colleague Senator Joe Biden.
After returning to the city, we met with Mr. Patrick McCormick, the
Director of Communications for the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre on
Piazza SS. Annunziata. Mr. McCormick gave me a brief on the activities
of his center which was founded in 1988 ``to strengthen the research
capability of the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, and to
support its advocacy for children worldwide.'' We touched on several
areas including an ongoing study in West Africa on trafficking in
children, religious persecution in the Sudan and child protection. His
first-hand accounts of children as young as five being used as soldiers
and camp slaves in Sierra Leone were quite troubling. His organization
continues to push for the education of young children which they see
``as central to poor countries economic well-being.''
After leaving UNICEF's Research Center, we participated in a press
conference at the Florence City Hall, Palazzo Vecchio, regarding a
joint effort between Italian Police and Microsoft in Livorno, Italy, in
which a large counterfeiting operation was uncovered. Attending were
representatives of Microsoft, and local government officials.
At the news conference, the Microsoft representatives stated that
counterfeiting was most prevalent in Tuscany so they had started a law
enforcement action in Florence. They said that the reproduction or
cloning was so good that it took Microsoft experts some 15 minutes to
tell the difference between a counterfeit product and a genuine
product. They also stated that they had located in the past year in
Europe some 25 million Microsoft counterfeit products on the market at
a loss of 1.7 billion dollars.
According to Microsoft, the national (Italy) rate for illegal/
counterfeit Microsoft sales was in the 31-37 percent category. In
Brescia, the illegal reproduction was 65 percent before passage of the
copyright law in 1999, and have since been reduced to 29 percent. The
law provides for fines and a jail sentence and also has provisions for
search and entry. There have been some efforts to apply the copyright
infringements to internet apparently to online sales.
We had an opportunity to discuss with the attorneys whether there had
been any criminal prosecutions brought under the new law. They
responded with a lengthy description of the process. Apparently, there
had been no criminal prosecutions. We then asked if there had been a
use of the search and entry law, and he said that they had one such
case where counterfeit products had been transported from Singapore to
Holland to Milan. The Microsoft experts aided the police in the search
and entry, helping to identify counterfeit products.
In Israel, we met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, former Prime
Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Our first
meeting was with Mr. Peres whom I first met in Tel Aviv in 1980 and
have seen him on many occasions since, both in the United States and in
Israel.
Minister Peres was in good spirits, displayed his great sense of
humor, proceeded to give a comprehensive discourse on the state of
affairs in the Mideast, and to respond to our questions. Minister Peres
started our conversation by saying that terrorism was as un-American as
communism used to be. The topic of conversation on our minds was the
escalating violence on the border with Gaza, and the northern border
with Lebanon. Peres was firm in his conviction that when the time to
negotiate comes, everything must be on the table, no impositions on the
Israelis, and no impositions on the Palestinians.
Peres then asked me to explain to Palestinian Authority Chairman
Arafat whom I was scheduled to meet later in the trip, that some of
Sharon's words are very tough, but that the Israelis have several
guiding principles. They will respect signed agreements as long as both
sides respect them. Israel, he said, is ready to make painful
compromises for peace, including redeployment in the territories. He
also added that the final proposal offered under former President
Clinton is dead since he left office. He stated that he thought it was
a big mistake on Arafat's part not to accept that deal.
Peres stated that it is currently very hard to negotiate because of
all the anger. Arafat's delivering of ``impossible'' speeches only
makes it more difficult as well. His view is that the Palestinians
think Israelis are militarily harsh in the territories, and that in
order to move forward, a different climate must be created there. The
best thing that could happen is to change the conditions there. The
answer for the Palestinians is not the battlefield, but the bargaining
table--as it has historically been.
I asked Minister Peres whether Arafat could control terrorism. He
replied he could do a lot by making a strong and unambiguous
declaration against it, and prevent the police force participation in
the violence. Minister Peres stated that the current situation was not
one of absolutes, except that the Israelis seek absolute effort. The
first expression of that effort is an unambiguous, unconditional and
strong statement rejecting violence delivered in Arabic.
Following our meeting with Foreign Minister Peres, we walked a block
to a meeting with former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. I had first met the
former Prime Minister when he was just out of the army, and starting to
become active in labor politics, perhaps five or six years ago. I have
met him on several occasions subsequently, including his visit to the
White House in July 2000 where President and Mrs. Clinton hosted a
large dinner in his office in his honor, in a big tent on the South
Lawn.
Mr. Barak was also in good spirits considering the strenuous
campaign, his recent election defeat, and the difficult negotiations
and tenure as Prime Minister. The former Prime Minister spoke at length
about his extensive three-way discussions involving President Clinton,
Arafat and himself. He spoke about, as he put it, his ``contemplation''
as to what might have been encompassed in a settlement, but emphasized
that none of the discussions about Jerusalem or the concessions on land
were final offers until the entire deal was complete.
I told him that I had met in Washington several weeks ago with the
Egyptian Foreign Minister who said he knew I had a trip planned to the
Mid-east and urged me to meet with Arafat. I told him I would consider
it. When President Mubarak was in Washington in early April, he also
urged me to meet with Arafat and I agreed to do so providing the
meeting took place in Cairo. In my discussions with President Mubarak,
I had anticipated his being present during my meeting with Arafat. As
it worked out, Mubarak was not in Cairo for my scheduled meeting with
Arafat. His deputy Osama El-Baz joined me in the meeting.

[[Page 6399]]

The former Prime Minister stated that he thought it would be very
useful for me to meet with Arafat, so Arafat would understand the
thinking of a member of the Senate. I asked Mr. Barak about the
prospects for the peace process from this point forward and he said he
thought it would be very difficult for the immediate future. He
emphasized that he had great admiration, respect and friendship for
Prime Minister Sharon whom he has known for decades, and emphasized he
would do anything in his power to help the new Prime Minister.
Mr. Barak asked me about Israel's standing in the United States. I
replied that U.S. Congressional support for Israel was continuing, and
I thought that the new Bush Administration would similarly be very
favorably disposed. We talked about the evenly divided Senate, and he
was very interested to know about our recent budget battle and the
significant role played by Vice President Cheney. He asked about the
economy which we then discussed at some length.
Upon leaving my discussion with former Prime Minister Barak, I met
with Ambassador Uri Lubrani, the Lebanon Coordinator for the government
of Israel at the Ministry of Defense Headquarters. Joining us was the
former Foreign Minister to Iran, Zidma Divon, Deputy Director General
of the Foreign Ministry, and John Scott, Counselor for Political
Affairs at the American Embassy. They expressed real concern with
Iran's backing of the Hezbollah movement in South Lebanon. During the
course of our discussion about Iran, Ambassador Lubrani showed me a
quote from a report of a British Ambassador to Tehran in the sixties,
at the end of his tour of duty: ``The Iranians are people who say the
opposite of what they think and do the opposite of what they say. That
does not necessarily mean that what they do does not confirm to what
they think.''
After our meeting with Ambassador Lubrani, we drove from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem where we met the next morning with Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon. Also in attendance was Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, the Minister of
Defense, and Daniel Ayalon, the Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime
Minister.
Our meeting was conducted with a backdrop of an escalating conflict.
During the previous evening, Israeli planes had bombed a Syrian radar
installation in Lebanon in retaliation for the actions of Hezbollah in
south Lebanon. I started my conversation with the Prime Minister by
noting that the Egyptian Foreign Minister had asked me to talk to
Chairman Arafat. Prime Minister Sharon wasted no time in delivering his
message. The policy of the Israeli government would be to draw a
distinction between the civilian population and terrorists, supporters
of terrorists and instigators. He stated that he plans to ease the
conditions in the territories. And at the time, he stated he was ready
to show flexibility except in one area, under no circumstances will he
be flexible with the security of the Israeli citizens.
Although Sharon did express some willingness to negotiate, it was
clear that in his eyes the plan pushed by President Clinton in his
waning days in office is dead. ``Peace is more painful than war,'' he
said, ``because you have to make concessions for peace.'' ``I have a
true desire to move the process forward, not the process that has
already failed.'' No negotiations would occur, Sharon assured me, under
the ``threats of terror.'' The violence must stop. The Prime Minister
noted the violence occurring in Gaza, and stated that the violence
could not continue. The Israelis wouldn't accept it. ``We are very much
interested in stability in the Middle East, but we are not going to pay
for it. We have the natural right to exist and defend ourselves.''
I told Sharon that we were planning on driving from Damascus to
Beirut as part of our trip. He said the current situation that exists
in south Lebanon, is not what was contemplated by the withdrawal
agreement. Hezbollah wasn't supposed to occupy the positions they
currently hold.
Sharon then stated that Iranian influence continued to grow in the
area, with the approval of Syria. ``Iran is building an independent
center of international terror, which could not have been done without
the support of Syria. Syria could have stopped them.''
Sharon then noted that the actions of the previous evening in bombing
the Syrian facility was a warning to Syria. He wanted to send a signal
that Israel would not accept the possibility of Israeli soldiers being
killed in Israel. Negotiations do not currently exist with Syria. First
must come the Palestinian question. ``Israel can't negotiate on two
fronts when peace requires painful concessions.''
Our talk concluded with Prime Minister Sharon noting that the
immediate threat to stability in the region remained Tehran, and that
only the United States could lead the anti-terror struggle in the free
world.
After our meeting with Sharon, we flew to Cairo, Egypt and at
approximately 6 p.m., had a meeting with Dr. Osama el-Baz, advisor to
President Mubarak. Dr. el-Baz and I talked at some length about the
current situation in the Middle East, the U.S. role, and about my
meeting with Chairman Arafat later that evening. During that meeting,
some issues arose as to U.S. intelligence questions, so I called CIA
Director George Tenant in Washington to get the current status report.
Dr. el-Baz arranged a boat ride and dinner for us on the Nile river
where we met with a variety of Cairo's leading citizens including
journalists, professionals, businessmen and industrialists. I was
questioned about why the U.S. continued to support Israel when Israel
has responded with disproportionate force to the actions of the
Palestinians. I responded that the U.S. was trying to carry out the
Camp David Accords in which their great President Anwar Sadat had
invested so much time and effort, and that Israel had agreed to discuss
peace once the violence had stopped.
Shortly before 10:30 p.m., we arrived at Chairman Arafat's guest
house. After meeting quite a number of his colleagues Dr. el-Baz,
Chairman Arafat and Arafat's chief deputy, Saeb Erakat and I went
upstairs to a private room so we could have, as Osama el-Baz said, a
tete-a-tete. Arafat and Erakat were visibly disturbed about the status
of the violence between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. They were
especially distressed because, as they told us immediately upon our
arrival, Israel was taking forceful military action against Gaza as we
spoke.
During the course of our discussion which lasted more than an hour,
we were interrupted six or eight times by Arafat's men who came in and
handed Arafat written messages. Arafat spoke in Arabic which was
interpreted by Erakat on detailing the action being taken by Israeli
military with helicopters and missiles.
Arafat and Erakat described the situation as very serious recounting
the number of Arabs who had been killed and wounded and then reciting
the number of Israeli casualties which showed a much larger number of
Arab casualties. Erakat was especially fervent in pleading for some
help as to a way to break the impasse.
After a considerable discussion, I said that I would venture a
possible approach which was not a recommendation because I thought that
would not be appropriate. I then said that one approach might be for
Arafat to make a public statement that the cycle of violence was
untenable, and that while he would much prefer to have a joint
statement made by Sharon and himself with a schedule on a comprehensive
approach, he would make a unilateral statement directing all
Palestinians to stop any acts of violence. I said to Arafat that the
instruction to stop any acts of violence would be in accordance with
his famous letter of September 9, 1993 which was the inducement for
Prime Minister Rabin and Peres to meet with Arafat at the White House
on September 13, 1993. In that letter Arafat renounced the use of
violence and said he would take disciplinary action against any of his
people who violated his direction.
Arafat then said that he had said all the things that I had
mentioned. Erakat then said that not only had Arafat made these
statements in a

[[Page 6400]]

speech at the Arab summit, but that Shimon Peres had asked Arafat to
make these statements from his own lips, and that Arafat had done so.
Dr. Osama el-Baz and I both stated that we had not heard any such
statement. If any such statement was ever made, it was doubtless in a
long speech and was followed or preceded by many conditions.
I told Arafat that there was considerable anti-Palestinian Authority
sentiment in the Congress with some 87 members of the Senate and over
200 members of the House writing a letter urging action that the
Palestinian Authority be ousted from its Washington office.
At one point I asked Arafat why he had not accepted the very generous
offer from Barak on territorial concessions on the West Bank and
significant concessions on Jerusalem. Arafat replied that he had
accepted that offer on a number of occasions including his meeting with
President Clinton at the White House. Again, Arafat's statement did not
comport with the facts since he had imposed so many conditions.
I said that my staff and I had met with Prime Minister Sharon earlier
that day and that Sharon had said, among other things, that peace was
more painful than war because in peace you had to make concessions. I
thought from that, it was apparent that Sharon was interested in peace
talks.
Erakat commented that he had expected a call from an Israeli contact.
I told Erakat that I would call the contact which I did the next day.
When I telephoned Erakat later in the day, he confirmed that the
Israeli contact had called him.
I further told Arafat that Sharon had told me earlier in the day that
he was prepared to allow Palestinians to come into Israel for work
providing there was no security risks. Sharon had specified that he was
not doing this in exchange for anything from the Palestinian Authority
because he did not want it viewed that Israel was making concession or
buying peace in any way.
I asked Arafat if there was any substance to the contention that the
Palestinians had been firing out of Gaza into Israel. Arafat replied
that he did have a report of three such mortar shots, but that as soon
as Arafat found out about it, he had ordered it stopped with the people
doing the shooting to be arrested. In the course of the next several
days there was repeated mortar shelling into Israel by Palestinians.
Contrary to Arafat's assertions, our intelligence sources advised he
had authorized the shelling.
From Cairo, we departed for Beirut by way of Damascus. Climbing up
the mountains on the way to Beirut, we passed the location of the
Syrian Radar site that Israeli forces destroyed in a raid just a few
days earlier. The U.S. Embassy compound in Beirut is the most heavily
fortified embassy in the world. Standing in the middle of the compound,
as a stark reminder, are the remains of the prior Embassy that was
destroyed by a bomb.
While remaining in the compound overnight, we received an in-depth
briefing on the current situation in Beirut and Lebanon, with insight
provided by Ambassador David Satterfield, and his Deputy Chief of
Mission David Hale. As Ambassador Satterfield pointed out, Lebanon was
very badly divided because of its charter (its form of a constitution)
which divided authority between three Lebanese factions. He commented
about how Beirut had the potential to regain its status as ``Paris of
the Mideast,'' but that there would have to be major economic reforms.
He also commented that the Prime Minister Rafik Hariri had been
discussing with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund about
ways to get financing which could lead to a revitalization of Beirut.
Satterfield also noted that Hezbollah was a very strong force in
Southern Lebanon, with only a few hundred fighters.
Beirut still shows the scars of its savage civil war with its once
beautiful hotels reduced to shells. There is a rebuilding effort,
however, and its central business district has been rebuilt to some
extent.
We drove back from Beirut to Damascus. Ambassador Ryan Crocker hosted
a dinner for visiting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern
Affairs Edward Walker and our party. We had a wide-ranging conversation
about the current state of affairs in the Mid-East. I reported on our
trip to Beirut, which Ambassador Ryan noted with some interest as he
was the Ambassador to Beirut when our embassy was last bombed.
The next morning we met with Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara
and Deputy Foreign Minister Walid al-Mu'allim. At the start of our
meeting we discussed my last visit to Syria, which was for President
Assad's funeral. I told Foreign Minister Shara that my fellow Senators
were very interested in Syria, and then mentioned that I had just been
to see Chairman Arafat in Egypt. I discussed my recent travels in the
area, and related that everyone would like the violence to stop. The
Foreign Minister asked me what Israel was seeking, and I told him of my
discussions with Prime Minister Sharon, who stated that he is
determined to avoid Israeli loss of life and will act accordingly. I
also told him that the Israelis intended to ease up on the borders as
long as there were no threats to security; the Israeli government
position was that all the violence must stop prior to any talks taking
place. I then encouraged him to talk to the Israelis.
Foreign Minister Shara said I had persuaded Syria, or perhaps, more
accurately been a factor, to enter into negotiations with Israel in my
numerous discussions with former President Hafez al-Assad during the
1980's and 1990's. I had first visited Damascus in 1984 and had met
with President Assad almost every year from 1988 to 1998. Minister
Shara stated that only after beginning discussions with the Israelis
did it become apparent that they didn't want peace. I reminded him that
both sides came very close on the Golan and that a dialogue must
continue.
Our attention then turned to Iraq, China and recent American politics
as well as efforts to exchange Parliamentarians with Iran.
We left Damascus and flew into Souda Bay, Crete, which houses the
U.S. Naval Support Activity Souda Bay, and Fleet Air Reconnaissance
Squadron Two, VQ-2, a unit responsible for reconnaissance missions for
the Mediterranean, and which is the counterpart to the unit that was
involved in the recent mishap with a Chinese pilot in international
waters off the coast of China.
I was met by Captain Steve Hoefel, the Base Commanding Officer and
was set up in quarters for the night. That night, Rear Admiral Steve
Tomaszeski, the Commander of the Mediterranean Air Fleet, flew in for a
brief to be held the next morning.
On Friday, April 20, we received a classified brief on the mission of
the base and its reconnaissance aircraft. The base's main
responsibility is to support and resupply the forward-deployed Navy and
Marine Corps forces. It has the largest fuel storage facility, largest
ammo storage facility and the deepest port in the Mediterranean, and is
strategically located near the Mid-east.
We toured the base, and the port facility located nearby. A large
amount of construction was occurring on the dock with the installation
of new facilities designed to give sailors and Marines all the
amenities of home when they dock. I was pleased to find two
Pennsylvanians among the many Navy Construction Battalion sailors
working on the structures.
We also had the opportunity to tour an EP-3 aircraft similar to that
which remains in China, and were briefed on the various station's
responsibilities during flight operations, as well as talk to several
of the crew members. We also had the opportunity to see an E3 AWACS on
the runway.
From Crete we flew to Rome where we received a brief by the Charge
d'Affaires William Pope, and Margaret Dean, Minister-Counselor for
Economic Affairs. We discussed the effect of the European Union on
NATO, reviewed the current areas of work for the embassy, and the
effect of the strong U.S. dollar on tourism. In addition, I briefed

[[Page 6401]]

them on parts of my visit to Florence including our meeting with the
attorneys for Ferragamo, and our visit to the Georgetown campus.
Margaret Dean was familiar with the case that the Ferragamo attorneys
had told us about in which a person purchased counterfeit goods at such
a low price that the judiciary reasoned the purchaser could not have
believed the goods to be authentic, and therefore found no fraud in the
sale. She stated that often, because of that case, sellers of
counterfeit goods often go so far to label the goods as ``fake'' to
avoid prosecution.
The Embassy reported that it doesn't have anyone overriding area that
it concentrates on. It has several areas of concentration which include
tourism, trade disputes, military issues, and the Mideast situation.
Charge d'Affaires Pope reported that Italy had changed a lot and had
become a fairly different place in the last decade. He reported a
recent high-tech emphasis that has helped propel the country's economy
to the 6th largest in the world. The country has also benefitted from
the increase in tourism generated by the strong American dollar.
On April 21, we flew from Rome to Philadelphia.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a ``Commentary'' on the mideast peace process.
There being no objection; the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Apr. 27, 2001]

Mideast Peace Process Must Resume

(By U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter)

Escalating violence has deadened the Middle East peace
process. As usual, all sides look to the United States to
influence the parties to end the violence and resume the
quest for peace.
In mid-April, at the request of Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak, I met with Palestinian Chairman Yasir Arafat in
Cairo. When I arrived for our 10:30 p.m. meeting, Arafat said
that as we spoke, Israeli helicopters and missiles were
attacking Palestinians in Gaza. He did not mention that the
Israeli action was in retaliation for mortars fired into
Israel earlier that day.
Our discussion, which lasted until nearly midnight, was
interrupted every few moments by aides bringing him the
latest dispatch on the fighting. I told Arafat I was
convinced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would not
resume the peace process until the violence ended.
Since the sequence of events demonstrated that Israel was
responding to Palestinian provocation, it was up to Arafat to
demonstrate his best efforts to stop the violence. After all,
it was Arafat's famous letter of Sept. 9, 1993, that induced
then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon
Peres to shake Arafat's hand at their historic meeting with
President Clinton on the White House lawn four days later. In
that letter, Arafat renounced violence and promised to punish
any Palestinian who violated that commitment.
Arafat responded that he had made an unequivocal
declaration at the recent Arab summit. When his statement was
examined, it was obvious it was so conditional as to be
meaningless. I then asked Arafat why he had rejected former
Prime Minister Ehud Barak's generous settlement offer on
major concessions on Jerusalem and additional territory on
the West Bank. Arafat said he had accepted the Barak
proposal. Again, on examination, there were so many ifs, ands
and buts that his response was meaningless. Our meeting ended
with no realistic hope that any significant action could be
expected from Arafat.
The situation was equally bleak when I traveled on to
Beirut and Damascus. Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, had
continued to attack Israeli border settlements from Southern
Lebanon, leading Israel to bomb Syrian radar. Beirut once
touted as the Paris of the Middle East, has not recovered
from Lebanon's civil war because of factional quarrels and
Syria's continuing dominance of the country.
In Damascus, Syria's foreign minister Farouk Shara agreed
with Sharon that Israeli-Syrian peace talks on the Golan
Heights would be pointless at this time. Before President
Hafez al-Assad's death, the parties had come very close to a
settlement but were now back to square one.
Notwithstanding the bleak prospects, the Bush
administration, aided by Congress, must push the parties back
to the bargaining table. There is no doubt that the countries
involved listen to Uncle Sam. When Secretary of State Colin
Powell criticized Sharon's tough retaliation as ``excessive
and disproportionate,'' Israel modified its tactics.
Congress has spoken emphatically: 87 senators and 209 House
members wrote on April 6 to the President calling for the
closing of the Palestinian office in Washington if the
Palestinians did not stop inciting violence. I have urged
President Bush to appoint a special envoy for the Middle East
just as President Richard Nixon used Henry Kissinger for
shuttle diplomacy and Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan,
George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton assigned envoys such as
Dennis Ross to the peace process. President Bush may soon
find it necessary to become personally involved like his
predecessors.
The escalation of Israeli-Palestinian violence may
encourage other terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Islamic
Jihad, to attack not only Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, but also
U.S. interests around the world. The peace process cannot be
abandoned; one way or another, a way must be found for
Israelis and Palestinians to live together on that tiny
parcel of hallowed and historic land. Our vital national
interests in the region make it imperative that the United
States actively pursue a resumption of the Middle East peace
process.

____________________

IN APPRECIATION OF ALYCE AND JACK BERGGREN

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity today to
honor two very special people from my hometown of Aberdeen, SD. Alyce
and Jack Berggren have contributed tirelessly to the arts of South
Dakota, and I am blessed to call Alyce and Jack my long-time friends.
Alyce Bedrosian grew up in Chicago in an Armenian family. After
earning a masters degree in piano from Northwestern University, she was
hired by Northern State Teachers College in 1947. Though she carried a
return train ticket from her concerned father, Alyce decided to remain
in South Dakota. She never used the ticket.
Jack Berggren's boyhood was spent a world away in Scottsbluff, a
small town in western Nebraska. He studied voice at Hastings College in
Hastings, NE, and came to Northern State University in Aberdeen in
1949. There, he met Alyce, and they began performing together. In
Jack's own words, he married his ``accompanist'' in 1950.
For almost half a century, the Berggrens have touched the lives of
countless NSU students and music lovers of the northern plains. ``Dr.
B.,'' as his students affectionately call him, taught voice, directed
choirs and served as the NSU Dean of Fine Arts. His annual Messiah
performances rekindle fond memories among many Aberdonians. Alyce
continues to define excellence in piano performance and teaching,
regularly accompanying students to this day.
Over two decades ago, friends, faculty, alumni and students surprised
the Berggrens with a musical thank you. In 1978, to honor both Jack and
Alyce, their community sponsored ``The Gala Concert for the benefit of
the Northern State College Music Department.'' In addition to NSU music
students and faculty, the concert included the Aberdeen Barbershop
Chorus and the Elks Chorus.
Gala II was held in 1989, and this year, May 5, marks the third Gala
concert. I am pleased to know that the Johnson Fine Arts Center will
once again display the talents of those touched by the Berggrens. I
only regret that I cannot be there in person to enjoy the event and the
company of Jack and Alyce. Instead, I hope this statement will serve as
my small contribution and a symbol of immense gratitude to Jack and
Alyce for their contributions to the musical arts in South Dakota.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO KATHRYN COLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
express my gratitude to a very special person in South Dakota who has
dedicated many years to the Northern Black Hills' Retired Seniors
Volunteer Program.
Today, the directors and volunteers of this RSVP program will gather
at their annual recognition banquet to celebrate the dedication and
hard work of Kathryn Cole, who is retiring from this RSVP community
after 21 years of service. In fact, for 20 of those years, Kathryn
served as the director of this important program.
The generous gift of Kathryn Cole's time and experience has
benefitted

[[Page 6402]]

those around her in countless ways, and I truly applaud her ``can-do''
spirit, her determination, and her dedication to the betterment of the
communities of the Northern Black Hills area. From Spearfish to Belle
Fouche to Lead, Kathryn has sent hundreds of volunteers to serve and
support local communities. With her warm spirit, she has always made a
special effort to ensure that volunteers have the opportunity to
participate in the activities that both interest and inspire them. From
tutoring at local schools to delivering Meals on Wheels to offering
services to the High Plains Heritage Museum and the Mathews Opera
House, Kathryn has made an immeasurable contribution to the Northern
Black Hills.
There is a special feeling of satisfaction that comes only from
volunteering. Through her tremendous leadership, Kathryn Cole has
helped seniors experience that satisfaction with service to their
communities. I know my colleagues will join me in honoring her
dedication to improving the quality of life for area residents. We all
owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Kathryn for such an invaluable
contribution to the Northern Black Hills and the entire State of South
Dakota. We wish her well as she begins her well-deserved retirement.

____________________

BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION ACT OF 2001

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I want to take a moment to share
some thoughts on the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act. I believe that this act is important and can do
positive things in communities across America.
Laws related to brownfields were the result of a much broader Act,
which we commonly refer to as Superfund. Superfund was intended to
bring about the clean up of some of the most contaminated sites in our
nation. As Superfund has been implemented in our society we have found
that it is often too cumbersome to bring about clean up and restoration
of many brownfield sites. When we talk about brownfields we are not
talking about the most contaminated sites in our communities, but about
sites that are less contaminated and could realistically be bought,
cleaned up, and developed thus bringing economic and other benefits to
American citizens. Therefore, I share the thoughts of many of my
colleagues and support removing the barriers to brownfields
redevelopment.
When the average person wishes to invest in something such as an
abandoned gas station, they are often discouraged from doing so for
fear of the strict liabilities that could be imposed on them by
Superfund. Attempting to relax the daunting liability provisions for
those willing to buy brownfields sites for the purpose of cleaning and
upgrading them is a huge step in the right direction.
I believe that enactment of this brownfields legislation, will
provide a significant foundation for rebuilding many of our
communities. Many of these sites are located in downtown areas and
often serve as the breeding grounds for crime, drug trafficking and
contamination. I am hopeful that passing this legislation will help
restore downtown communities making them once again attractive to
business, industry and prospective residents.
Many of us have watched these downtown areas slowly die. I know that
in Albuquerque, NM, the largest city in the State, we have seen a huge
shift away from the downtown area. Local businesses that once thrived
were forced to close and slowly, what was once the metropolis of
Albuquerque, began to seem like a ghost town.
I support this legislation because of the potential it brings to
restoring places like downtown Albuquerque. As I briefly touched on,
some of the most important benefits of the bill are its liability and
finality provisions. The bill specifies that prospective purchasers,
innocent landowners, and contiguous property owners, who exercise due
diligence in purchases, are not responsible for paying cleanup costs.
The stringent liability scheme under Superfund hinders those who want
to invest in these sites for fear of liability. These barriers are
unnecessary and do not foster development and growth in our inner
cities. Additionally, the bill precludes EPA from taking action on a
site that a State has already placed in a cleanup program, unless there
is an imminent and substantial endangerment to the environment or
public health, and some additional work must be completed.
Finally, the bill authorizes $150 million per year to help State and
local governments perform assessments and cleanup at brownfields sites.
Further, $50 million per year is also authorized to establish and
enhance brownfields programs, more than double the current level of
funds available through the current EPA program.
Pumping federal tax dollars back into localities and fostering
partnerships with States and their local communities can help rid our
communities of the negatives such as crime and contamination while
rejuvenating downtown economies.
Economics and Environmental health are not mutually exclusive. This
bill would allow these types of areas to be cleaned up, thus providing
both economic and environmental benefits. It is a win-win for
everyone--cities and citizens alike.
I am hopeful that New Mexico, as well as many other communities
across the nation, will see great benefits as a result of this
legislation. I hope that we are successful at reviving the ghost towns
that currently exist in many downtown areas and that they will once
again come alive with prosperity.

____________________

CRIME VICTIMS' ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2001

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, victims of crime deserve to have their
voices heard and to be notified of important events in the criminal
justice system relating to their cases, and they deserve enforceable
rights under the law.
Today, this is why my colleagues and I are re-introducing the Crime
Victims Assistance Act. It is especially appropriate that we do so this
week, which is National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Our bill defines
the rights of victims and establishes an effective means to implement
and enforce these rights. Equally important, it does so without taking
the drastic, unnecessary, and time-consuming step of amending the
Constitution.
Our bill provides enhanced protections to victims of both violent and
non-violent federal crimes. It assures victims a greater voice in the
prosecution of the criminals who injured them and their families. It
gives victims the right to be notified and consulted on detention and
plea agreements; the right to be heard at sentencing; the right to be
notified of the escape or release of a criminal from prison or a grant
of executive clemency; and the right to a speedy trial and prompt
disposition, free from unreasonable delay.
The rights established by this bill will fill existing gaps in
federal criminal law and will be a major step toward guaranteeing that
victims of crime receive fair treatment. Our bill achieves these goals
in a way that does not interfere with the efforts of the States to
protect victims in ways appropriate to each State's unique needs.
Rather than mandating that States modify their criminal justice
procedures in particular ways, our bill authorizes the use of federal
funds to establish effective pilot programs to promote victim-rights
compliance. It increases resources for the development of state-of-the-
art systems for notifying victims of important dates and developments
in their cases. It provides funds for the development of community-
based justice programs relating to those rights. Finally, it creates
and funds additional personnel in federal law enforcement agencies to
assist victims in obtaining their rights. These initiatives will
provide victims with the counseling, information, and assistance they
need in order to participate in the criminal justice process to the
maximum extent possible.
There is no need to amend the Constitution to achieve these important
goals. The Constitution is the foundation of our democracy. It reflects
the

[[Page 6403]]

enduring principles of our country. The framers deliberately made the
Constitution difficult to amend, because it was never intended to be
used for normal legislative purposes. If it is not necessary to amend
the Constitution to achieve particular goals, it is necessary not to
amend it. Our legislation is well-designed to establish effective and
enforceable rights for victims of crime, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.

____________________

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2001

Mr. SMITH or 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 Nov. 7,
1998 in Easton, MA. An Easton teenager threw a large rock at a 17-year-
old boy he thought was gay, kicked him in the head and yelled, swore
and called the victim a ``fag.'' The victim suffered a broken nose and
a concussion. A week before the assault, the perpetrator told friends
he hated gay people and thought they should be beaten up.
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.

____________________

NUANCE MATTERS, GETTING TAIWAN POLICY RIGHT

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as we were reminded yesterday, words matter
in diplomacy. Wednesday morning, the President of the United States
appeared on national television in an interview taped Tuesday night
with Charles Gibson of ABC News. In that interview, the President was
asked if the United States had an obligation to defend Taiwan if it was
attacked by China.
President Bush replied, ``Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand
that. Yes, I would.''
The interviewer pressed further, asking, ``With the full force of the
American military?''
President Bush replied, ``Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend
itself.'' He did not elaborate at that time.
A few hours later, the President appeared to back off this startling
new commitment, stressing in an interview on CNN that the United States
would continue to abide by the Taiwan Relations Act and the One China
policy followed by each of the past five Presidential Administrations.
I want to make clear that I believe the security of Taiwan to be a
vital interest of the United States.
Senator Helms and I are among a handful of current members of the
U.S. Senate who were around to vote for the Taiwan Relations Act when
it was introduced 22 years ago.
And I remain as committed today as I was then to the peaceful
resolution of the Taiwan question.
And because of my strong support for Taiwan, I was inclined to
believe that the President had made an honest, and mostly harmless,
mistake yesterday, especially when the State Department issued a
clarification stressing that U.S. policy remained unchanged. State
Department spokesman Phil Reeker said, ``Our policy hasn't changed
today, it didn't change yesterday, and it didn't change last year, it
hasn't changed in terms of what we have followed since 1979 with the
passage of the Taiwan Relations Act.''
But by the end of the day, senior national security officials at the
White House were singing a different tune, insisting that the President
meant what he said in the morning interview.
The President's National Security Adviser claimed that, ``the Taiwan
Relations act makes very clear that the U.S. has an obligation that
Taiwan's peaceful way of life is not upset by force.'' And a White
House Aide said, ``Nothing in the act precludes the President from
saying that the U.S. would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend
herself.''
As my colleagues may know, the Taiwan Relations Act obligates the
United States to provide Taiwan ``with such defense articles and
defense services . . . as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain
a sufficient self-defense capability.''
It also states that any attempt to determine the future of Taiwan by
other than peaceful means would constitute a ``threat to the peace and
security of the Western Pacific area'' and would be, ``of grave concern
to the United States.''
Finally, it mandates that in the event of, ``any threat to the
security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan and
any danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom, the
President and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with
constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States in
response to any such danger.''
Contrary to the President's statement to Charles Gibson, the United
States is not obligated to defend Taiwan, ``With the full force of the
American military,'' and hasn't been since we abrogated the 1954 Mutual
Defense Treaty signed by President Eisenhower and ratified by the
United States Senate.
And contrary to the White House spokesman's comments, the President
does not have the authority unilaterally to commit U.S. forces to the
defense of Taiwan. Under the Constitution, as well as the provisions of
the Taiwan Relations Act, that is a matter which the President must
bring to the American people and to the Congress of the United States.
During the campaign, President Bush implicity criticized the policy
of ``strategic ambiguity'' which has governed the use of American
forces to defend Taiwan in the event of a conflict with China for more
than 20 years since the United States abrogated the 1954 Mutual Defense
Treaty with Taiwan and normalized diplomatic relations with China.
The point of that policy, which I support, was to retain the right to
use force to defend Taiwan, while reserving to the United States all
the decision-making authority about the circumstances in which we
might, or might not, commit U.S. forces.
Otherwise, the United States might find itself dragged into a
conflict between China and Taiwan even in the event of a unilateral
Taiwanese declaration of independence, something the President said
yesterday he would not support.
This policy of strategic ambiguity was consistent with our One China
policy and also with our desire that the Taiwan question be resolved
only through peaceful means.
Well, today I guess we have a new policy, and I am calling it the
policy of ``ambiguous strategic ambiguity.''
What worries me is not just what the President said, but the utter
disregard for the role of Congress and the vital interest of our key
Pacific Allies, specifically Japan.
Perhaps the President is unaware that without using U.S. bases in
Japan, we would be hard-pressed to make good on his commitment to use
U.S. forces to defend Taiwan in the event of a conflict with China.
Perhaps he is unaware of how sensitive an issue this is for the
Japanese government, which has taken great pains to avoid explicitly
extending the U.S.-Japan Security Alliance to a Taiwan contingency.
I was quick to praise the President's deft handling of the dispute
with China over the fate of the downed U.S. surveillance aircraft.
But in this case, as in his rocky summit meeting with South Korean
President Kim Daejung, the President has damaged U.S. credibility with
our allies and sewn confusion throughout the Pacific Rim.
Words matter. Nuance matters.
Other events, the challenge of engaging North Korea, the emergence of
a reformist prime minister in Japan, and the threat of political
instability in Indonesia, will surely test America's resolve and
diplomatic agility in the Pacific during the months ahead.

[[Page 6404]]

____________________

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DAY

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today
to pay tribute to the first celebration of ``World Intellectual
Property Day.''
Last fall, the World Intellectual Property Organization dedicated
April 26th as ``World Intellectual Property Day'' with the objective of
highlighting the valuable contributions intellectual property makes to
economic, cultural and social development and to raise public awareness
of just what intellectual property is all about.
Intellectual property, which includes patents, trademarks and
copyright protections, is hardly a household phrase, but its
significance to all Americans should not be underestimated.
Intellectual property is really about creativity and innovation; it is
about ideas that start out as just a dream, but then go on to become
the creations and products that enrich our daily lives and improve our
standard of living.
Included among our Founding Fathers' many accomplishments were the
express intellectual property protections of Article 1, Section 8 of
our Constitution. This section is so seemingly simple, ``to promote the
progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times
to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries'', but it has done more to shape our Nation's
economic growth than almost any other provision in the Constitution.
Indeed, one of the most significant results of this constitutional
provision was the creation of the U.S. patent system. Today, more than
six million patents have been issued, for inventions ranging from
Farnsworth's cathode ray tube to the airplane to life-saving
pharmaceuticals. The value of our patent system was perhaps best
summarized by President Abraham Lincoln, himself a patent holder, when
he noted that it ``adds the fuel of interest to the spark of genius.''
We also are world leaders in copyrighted works. Books, movies, music,
and other examples of American creativity entertain and enlighten the
world, and make a generous contribution to our balance of trade.
Our country's technological prowess and our high standard of living
stem from the creativity, determination, and entrepreneurial drive of
our citizens and the protection we provide for their creations. So,
today, as nations around the world mark ``World Intellectual Property
Day,'' let us take pride in the fact that our intellectual property
system is recognized as the most effective in the world. As we look to
the future, let us also pledge ourselves to ensuring that the United
States remains the world's pre-eminent provider and protector of
intellectual property.

____________________

CHRONIC INFECTIOUS CHILDHOOD DISEASES

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr President, I rise today to bring attention to the
single most common chronic infectious childhood disease, namely dental
decay. In fact, it is five times more common than asthma and seven
times more common than hay fever. Young children with severe decay,
affecting multiple teeth, may need to be treated in a hospital under
general anesthesia. This level of treatment is unnecessarily costly. An
estimated $100 million each year is spent for operating room charges
associated with treating severe decay in very young children.
One of the most cost effective ways to reduce the burden of tooth
decay, before it starts, is community water fluoridation. Since 1945,
water fluoridation has been the cornerstone of the nation's oral
health, by safely, inexpensively and effectively preventing tooth decay
regardless of an individuals' socioeconomic status or ability to obtain
dental care. Today, close to 144 million Americans receive this benefit
through fluoridated water. Unfortunately, more than 100 million others
do not.
This is especially disturbing, because water fluoridation remains the
most equitable and cost-effective method of delivering fluoride. The
average life-time cost of fluoridation per person is less than the
approximate cost of one dental filling.
In my home State of Vermont, three communities with over 7,000
residents, do not benefit from community water fluoridation. According
to the Vermont Department of Health, high school students in one of
these communities have the worse dental health in the State, by a
significant margin. Because of the high disease rate in these three
communities, they have responded by developing dental clinics to serve
low-income residents. Although we applaud these communities for
responding accordingly, the old adage holds true here, an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Dental sealants have also proven to be an effective method of
preventing tooth decay. Studies have shown that sealants can reduce
tooth decay by over 70 percent. Despite the proven effectiveness of
this method, only three percent of low-income children have had
sealants applied to their teeth.
The inequities in oral health care are especially apparent in
Medicaid patients. In 1993, only 1 in 5 children and adolescents
covered by Medicaid received preventive dental service such as
application of fluoride or sealants. Alarmed by these statistics,
Senator Russ Feingold and I, along with 26 of our colleagues, wrote to
the Health Care Financing Administration asking that they explore what
Medicaid could do to improve access to comprehensive dental services
for underserved children.
Oral health is a key determinate of overall health. It is essential
that we continue to pursue these low-cost and effective measures to
ensure that all children in this country, regardless of income and
geography, are free of dental disease.

____________________

TRIBALLY CONTROLLED POSTSECONDARY VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chair of the
HELP Committee in a colloquy regarding eligibility for Section 117 of
the Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act.
Section 117 authorizes funding for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary
Vocational and Technical Institutions. The funds have been awarded
annually to the two existing tribally controlled postsecondary
vocational institutions that are devoted to providing vocational and
technical education, United Tribes Technical College and Crownpoint
Institute of Technology. Historically, these two institutions have not
received assistance under the Tribally Controlled College and
University Assistance Act, so the Perkins funds are key to their
existence.
On March 28, 2001, the Department of Education issued a Request for
Proposals, RFP for funding under Section 117 that would open up funding
for this program to the tribal colleges. The Department is operating
under the mistaken view that the 1998 Perkins Amendments changed the
previous Perkins law with regard to eligibility for these funds. In
fact, it was not the intent of Congress to in any way alter eligibility
for Section 117 funding when it enacted the 1998 Perkins Amendments.
The members of the North Dakota and New Mexico delegations disagree
with the Department and have written to Secretary Paige stating our
view that the 1998 Perkins amendments did not change the eligibility
for what is now the Section 117 program. Do the Chairman and Ranking
Member of the HELP Committee agree with our view?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, I agree with the view of the North Dakota and New
Mexico delegations. The 1998 amendments to the Perkins Act made no
substantive changes to the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational
Institutions section of the law concerning eligibility. The section
that authorizes the grants retained the purpose of providing assistance
solely to institutions whose focus is vocational and technical
education.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Crownpoint Institute of Technology and United
Tribes Technical College depend on Perkins funding for their core
operational funds, and the Department should not make radical changes
in eligibility simply by issuing a new grant announcement. The 1992
regulations for

[[Page 6405]]

the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions Program
state, at 34 CFR 440.5, that tribal colleges are not eligible for these
funds. The regulations have not been changed. Would the Ranking Member
of the HELP Committee comment on this?
Mr. KENNEDY. The senior Senator from New Mexico is correct. The 1992
regulations have not been changed, nor has there been a need to change
them because the 1998 Perkins Amendments made no changes concerning
which institutions are eligible for the Tribally Controlled
Postsecondary Vocational Institutions funding.
Mr. DORGAN. I would like to inquire of the junior Senator from New
Mexico and a member of the HELP Committee, what difference, if any, was
made in the eligibility for the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary
Vocational Institutions funding in 1998?
Mr. BINGAMAN. No change was made. We included a parenthetical
reference to the definition of ``institution of higher education,''
this has no practical effect as both the 1990 and 1998 Perkins laws
require that a grant recipient be an institution of higher education.
The Department should continue providing grants for Section 117 under
the current regulations unless and until new regulations are issued
pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. Crownpoint Institute of
Technology and United Tribes Technical College were intended to be the
only beneficiaries of this section.
Mr. DORGAN. Thank you. I would like to include for the Record a copy
of the letter from the North Dakota and New Mexico delegations to
Secretary Paige on this matter. I would also like included in the
Record a letter from Dr. Jim Shanley, President of the American Indian
Higher Education Consortium, objecting to the Department's RFP that
would open up the Section 117 program to the tribal colleges. Dr.
Shanley notes that such an action would likely result in the closing of
the doors of the tribally controlled postsecondary vocational
institutions.
The letters follow:

Washington, DC,

March 27, 2001.
Hon. Rod Paige,
Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Paige: We write to express serious concerns
about the process used by the Department of Education in
issuing the March 23, 2001, Federal Register grant
announcement for Section 117 of the Carl Perkins Vocational
and Technical Education Act. Section 117 is specific to
tribally controlled postsecondary vocational institutions, of
which there are two: United Tribes Technical College (UTTC)
and Crowpoint Institute of Technology (CIT).
We understand that the March 23 notice has been withdrawn
for technical reasons but that the Department intends to
reissue the notice shortly. The March 23 notice makes drastic
changes in Section 117 eligibility and uses of funds that are
inconsistent with the existing program regulations in 34 CFR
Part 410. The eligible applicant pool would be expanded to
include tribally-controlled community colleges for the first
time and the uses of the funds would be restricted.
If put into place, these changes could result in closure of
the two institutions that have depended on this funding for
their core operations. The Perkins funds support the ongoing
operations of UTTC and CIT, just as funding under the
Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Act supports
the ongoing operations of tribal colleges. We ask that you
not reissue the notice regarding Section 117 but rather
engage in a formal rulemaking process. Pending that, the FY
2001 Perkins funds should be issued under the current
regulations.
We view the March 23 notice as an end-run around the
regulatory process; it is, in effect, a set of new
regulations without the benefit of any formal process or
consultation with the affected parties. The 1998 amendments
to the Perkins Act were signed into law on October 31, 1998--
almost two-and-a-half years ago--and no regulations have been
issued. Now the Department asserts that the 1998 amendments
``substantially revised'' the tribally controlled
postsecondary institutions program and wants to waive the
regulatory process on the grounds that there is no time to
issue regulations if the awards under Section 117 are to be
made in a timely manner. This is disingenuous and certainly
not in keeping with the federal government's policy of
working with tribes on a government-to-government basis,
including consultation with tribes and tribal organizations
on policy matters that will affect them.
Again, we urge you to direct that the March 23 grant
announcement not be reissued but rather use the existing
regulations for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational
Institutions for this grant period. If the Department feels
that new regulations are warranted for the 1998 Perkins Act
Amendments, such regulations should be issued through the
Administrative Procedures Act in consultation with the
affected tribal parties.
We appreciate your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Kent Conrad,
Pete Domenici,
Byron L. Dorgan,
Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate.

Earl Pomeroy,
Tom Udall,
U.S. House of Representatives.
____

American Indian

Higher Education Consortium,

Alexandria, VA, March 27, 2001.
Mr. Robert Muller,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Acting), Office of Vocational and
Adult Education, Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Muller: On behalf of the 32 Tribal Colleges and
Universities, I am writing to request your assistance with a
serious matter involving our two tribally-controlled
postsecondary vocational institutions, United Tribes
Technical College (UTTC) and Crownpoint Institute of
Technology (CIT). It has come to my attention that your
office is about to publish a solicitation opening up
eligibility requirements for Title I, Sec. 117; therefore,
significantly changing the intent of the program. It is of
great concern that no consultation has been done with our
institutions on this matter. To make this change would
seriously jeopardize the funding for UTTC and CIT's core
operations and force their closure.
Because of the immense ramifications of this action, we
strongly urge you to hold the solicitation to be published
March 28, 2002. We also request that appropriate consultation
occur with AIHEC, UTTC, and CIT as soon as possible so that
this matter can be resolved constructively and expeditiously.
It is important to note the value of these two institutions
and their historic role in providing vocational education
opportunities to American Indian students. UTTC and CIT were
founded because of limited access to opportunities in
vocational education in serving their respective tribal
communities. However, because these two institutions are
vocational in nature and did not meet the eligibility
requirements of the Tribally Controlled College Assistance
Act for core operational support, Sec. 117 was created by
AIHEC's advocacy efforts on their behalf.
Thank you for your immediate attention and consideration.
We look forward to your response. I can be reached at 703-
980-4456/cell or 505-982-4411 until March 29th.
Respectively,
Dr. James Shanley,
President.

____________________

GUN SHOW BACKGROUND CHECK ACT

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this week I joined Senator Reed and a
number of my colleagues in introducing the Gun Show Background Check
Act, which would close the gun show loophole. If enacted, prospective
buyers at gun shows would be required to undergo Brady background
checks to ensure that they are not felons, fugitives, domestic abusers,
or other persons prohibited from purchasing firearms.
It is incredible to me that more than two years after Columbine,
lawmakers have not yet acted to reduce the availability of guns to
criminals and other prohibited persons by closing this loophole in our
federal firearm laws. Just a few days ago, America memorialized the
worst school shooting in our nation's history. On April 20, two years
ago, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold brought terror to Columbine High
School. Of the four guns used by the two Columbine shooters, three were
acquired at a gun show. The teenage shooters took full advantage of the
gun show loophole, which allowed their friend, Robyn Anderson, to buy
them two rifles and a shotgun without ever submitting to a background
check. Later, Robyn Anderson testified about her experience to the
Colorado Legislature. She said:

While we were walking around [at the gun show], Eric and
Dylan kept asking sellers if they were private or licensed.
They wanted to buy their guns from someone who was private--
and not licensed--because there would be no paperwork or
background check.
I was not asked any questions at all. There was no
background check . . . I would not have bought a gun for Eric
and Dylan if I had had to give any personal information or
submit any kind of check at all.

[[Page 6406]]

I wish a law requiring background checks had been in effect
at the time. . . It was too easy. I wish it had been more
difficult. I wouldn't have helped them buy the guns if I had
faced a background check.

Of all the testimony that came out of Columbine, Robyn Anderson's is
among the most memorable. The citizens of Colorado and Oregon, States
with high rates of gun ownership, reacted by supporting referenda to
close the gun show loopholes in their States. Now, Congress should do
the same and enact legislation to close the gun show loophole
nationwide.

____________________

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to call my colleagues' attention to
an article by the distinguished First Amendment scholar, Ronald
Dworkin, ``Free Speech And The Dimensions Of Democracy.'' The article
appears in If Buckley Fell: A First Amendment Blueprint for Regulating
Money in Politics, sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice at New
York University's School of Law.
Professor Dworkin's work illustrates a point some of us made during
the recent debate on campaign finance reform: the shocking state of our
current political life is a perversion of the public discourse
envisioned by the Founding Fathers, a perversion directly rooted in the
mistaken understanding of the First Amendment underlying the Supreme
Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
As Professor Dworkin puts it, ``[o]ur politics are a disgrace and
money is the root of the problem.''
There is no need to detail the disgraceful state of our political
life brought about by politicians' need to chase dollars. Members of
this body, myself included, described the current state of affairs in
all its painful and embarrassing detail during the recently concluded
debate on campaign finance reform.
Professor Dworkin's article makes explicit what many of us have
argued in supporting Senator Hollings' proposal to amend the
Constitution so that reasonable limits can be placed on campaign
expenditures: Senator Hollings' Amendment is not an affront to the
First Amendment, as some have portrayed it; it is an affront to
Buckley, which was wrongly decided. Senator Hollings' Amendment is
restorative: it returns First Amendment jurisprudence to what it was
before the ill-conceived Buckley decision.
In holding that limitations on campaign expenditures violate the
First Amendment, Buckley mistakenly equates money and speech. But, as
Justice Stevens pointed out recently in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri
Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000), money is not speech; money is
property.
Professor Dworkin's article shows that the mistaken factual premise
in Buckley is rooted in a fundamental misconception of First Amendment
jurisprudence. Senator Hollings' effort to make clear that reasonable
limits can be imposed constitutionally on campaign expenditures would
restore that jurisprudence by overturning Buckley.
The First Amendment and most of the important decisions interpreting
it presuppose a democracy in which citizens are politically equal, not
only as judges of the political process through voting, but also as
participants in that process through informed political discourse.
Reasonable regulations on campaign expenditures would enhance speech
and contribute to a more rational political discourse. Professor
Dworkin illustrates this point through a historical and philosophical
analysis of First Amendment precedent and the threat that unrestricted
campaign expenditures pose to the values underlying the First
Amendment. Treating money as speech debases genuine democratic
dialogue.
Justice Brandeis made this point in another way in his justly famous
dissent in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927):

Those who won our independence believed that the final end
of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties,
and that in its government the deliberative forces should
prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an
end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of
happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty; . . .
[They believed] that the greatest menace to freedom is an
inert people; that public discourse is a political duty; and
that this should be a fundamental principle of the American
government.

The damage that unrestricted campaign expenditures has done to our
public discourse is clear. If money is speech, then inevitably one will
need money, and large amounts of it, to speak politically. The result,
in Professor Dworkin's words, is that our last two presidential
campaigns were ``as much a parody of democracy as democracy itself.''
I will not repeat Professor Dworkin's analysis of the legal
precedents interpreting the First Amendment and Buckley's distortion of
them, except to point to the oddity that Buckley at times recognizes
the constitutional jurisprudence it undermines. It does so in holding
that, in contrast to campaign expenditures where any limit purportedly
violates the First Amendment, Congress may constitutionally place
limits on campaign contributions. The latter holding, as Professor
Dworkin points out, is premised on a principle deeply rooted in First
Amendment jurisprudence: reasonable restrictions on activity in the
political realm, like contributing money, may be erected to protect
core First Amendment values, like equality of political discourse. That
is all that most proponents of campaign reform want to do, and that is
all that the Hollings Amendment will do.

____________________

AMERICAN PRISONERS OF THE HOLOCAUST

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in September of 1944, the 106th Infantry
Division embarked for Europe and soon joined heavy fighting at the
Battle of the Bulge. But one member of the division, the Academy Award-
winning filmmaker Charles Guggenheim, was left behind in Indiana due to
a minor illness. His connection with this brave group and the 350
American soldiers taken prisoner after the battle and sent to a Nazi
camp in Berga, Germany led Mr. Guggenheim to undertake a new
documentary, which is the subject of an excellent New York Times
article by Roger Cohen. So that more Americans can be educated about
the events leading up to the Holocaust and the unspeakable horrors
inflicted upon Americans as well as Europeans, I ask that Mr. Cohen's
article be printed in the Record.
The article follows:

[From the New York Times, Apr. 17, 2001]

Where G.I.'s Were Consumed by the Holocaust's Terror; a Filmmaker Helps
Thaw Memories of Wartime Guilt

(By Roger Cohen)

Berga, Germany. Four plain wooden crosses stand in the
cemetery above this quiet town in eastern Germany. One of
them is inscribed ``Unknown Allied Soldier.'' He is unlikely
to be an American, because the G.I.'s who died here were
exhumed after World War II and taken home. But the mystery of
this soldier's identity is only one of many hanging over
Berga and its former Nazi camp.
On a cold, late March day, with snow falling on the graves,
a thin, soft-spoken American stands filming in the cemetery.
He has hired some local volunteers, one of whom is portraying
a Nazi guard, as two others turn the earth in preparation for
the burial of the simulated corpses whose limp feet dangle
out of sacks. The scene has an eerie luminosity in the
silence of the snow.
The weather is cinematographically perfect. It is also
unseasonably cold and infernally damp. The American, Charles
Guggenheim, shivers as he says: ``This is a slow business,
filming something like this. Sort of like watching grass
grow.''
But for him the fate of the American soldiers imprisoned
and worked to death more than a half-century ago in Berga has
become something of an obsession.
Time may be needed for an obsession to take hold, time for
the half-thoughts, nagging regrets and suppressed memories to
coalesce into a determination to act. Mr. Guggenheim, a
documentary filmmaker who has won four Academy Awards, waited
a long time to embark on this movie. His daughter, Grace
Guggenheim, has a theory as to why. ``This is sort of a
survivor's guilt story,'' she said.
In September 1944 Mr. Guggenheim, now 77, was with the
American 106th Infantry Division, preparing to go to Europe.
But when the other soldiers embarked, he was immobilized with
a foot infection. He remained in Indiana while his fellow
infantrymen were plunged, within weeks, into the Battle of
the

[[Page 6407]]

Bulge; two regiments were lost. Thousands of American
soldiers were captured, and several hundred who were Jewish
or who ``looked'' Jewish ended up in Berga. Up to now their
fate has received relatively little attention, partly because
the surviving soldiers long tended to repress the trauma.
``I could have been among the captured or the killed,'' Mr.
Guggenheim mused. ``I never wished I had come to Europe.
Anyone in the infantry who wishes for war has something wrong
with them. But I've thought a lot: why in the hell am I here
and they not? Perhaps in the next life they'll get even. I'm
trying not to believe in a next life.''
Even this life seems incredible enough when gazing at
little Berga, a place outside time. It was exploited by the
Nazis before being taken over by the Russians, who mined
uranium in the area. In 1990 it was made part of a united
Germany.
Unemployment here stands at about 24 percent, so Mr.
Guggenheim had no problem finding volunteers for his film. To
conjure an atmosphere of desolation was not difficult either:
beside the unused red-brick textile factory of a vanished
Jewish family (named Englander), stray cats wander through
junkyards, watched by old men standing huddled against the
cold. Germany's ghosts, its myriad secrets, are almost
palpable in a place like this.
Among the onlookers near the cemetery is Sabine Knuppel, a
municipal worker. She says she has photographs of the ``old
days'' in Berga: a lighted swastika glowing among trees heavy
with snow. None of the old people in town like to talk about
those days, she says, when the Nazis set up a satellite camp
to Buchenwald in the middle of town and used the slave
laborers imprisoned there to dig tunnels into the rock cliffs
bordering the Elster River.
All that, she continues, constitutes a ``lost world.'' But
once there were perhaps 1,000 prisoners working in the
tunnels, where the Nazis planned to install a factory
producing synthetic fuel. But until now, nobody in the town
knew there were Americans among the prisoners, Ms. Knuppel
says.
After the war the Russians blew up many of the tunnels. In
their vestiges bats established a vast colony now officially
designated as a German nature reserve. Along the wooded banks
of the Elster, a dozen entrances to the tunnels may still be
seen; they are barred with steel doors.
Layer upon layer of German secrets: more tangible in a
place like Berga than in the west of the country, where
postwar prosperity wiped away most traces of tragedy. Mr.
Guggenheim, whose award-winning documentaries include ``J. F.
K. Remembered'' and an account of the civil rights movement
called ``A Time for Justice,'' has been digging into the
secrets for two years now. He has interviewed 40 American
survivors of Berga for a documentary tentatively titled
``G.I. Holocaust.''
The film, a co-production of Mr. Guggenheim's company and
WNET, the public-television station in New York, centers on
what happened to a group of American soldiers captured by the
Germans after the Battle of the Bulge (which began on Dec.
16, 1944) and later transported to Berga.
This group of about 350 men was selected from among the
more than 2,000 American prisoners initially taken to the
Stalag 9B prisoner of war camp at Bad Orb, 50 miles north of
Frankfurt. Among them was William Shapiro, now a retired
doctor living in Florida. A medic attached to the 28th
Infantry Division, he was captured on Dec. 17, 1944, the day
after the battle began.
``On arrival at the prisoner of war camp, we were
interrogated,'' Dr. Shapiro said in a telephone interview.
``With a name like Shapiro, it was quite evident I was
Jewish. I was then pushed into a particular barracks, mostly
for Jews and other undesirables. Our job was to clean the
latrines. We were guarded by the SS with dogs, rather than
the Wehrmacht. I'd never even trained with a gun. I thought
the Geneva Convention would protect me as a medic. At that
time I knew nothing of Auschwitz or the planned extermination
of European Jewry, although of course I knew of Hitler's
hostility to Jews.''
In the special barracks he was eventually joined by the
other 350 Americans who would go to Berga. Their identities
had not been as immediately obvious. Many were selected in a
grim process recalled to Mr. Guggenheim by several soldiers
of his own 106th Division.
They described how prisoners were ordered to stand at
attention in the parade ground. The commandant then gave the
order for all Jews to step forward. ``Nobody moved,'' said
Joseph Littell, one of the survivors. ``He said it again.
Nobody moved. He grabbed a rifle butt and hit Hans Kasten,
our leader, with a blow you couldn't believe. Hans got up. He
hit him again. The commandant said he would kill 10 men every
hour until the Jews were identified.''
The group of 350 was eventually assembled of some Jews who
identified themselves under pressure; some soldiers, like Mr.
Kasten, who volunteered; and some who were picked by the
Germans as resembling Jews. Mr. Kasten, an American of German
descent, suffered repeated taunts, being told that the thing
worse than a Jew was a German who turns against his country.
After several weeks the group was loaded into boxcars without
food or water, arriving at Berga on Feb. 13, 1945.
The Nazis had a policy, ``annihilation through work,'' and
these Americans learned what this meant. Housed in a barracks
beside the prison camp, fed only on bread and thin soup,
sleeping two to a bed in three-level bunks, deprived of water
to wash, urinating and defecating into a hole in the floor,
regularly beaten, the soldiers were herded out to work 12
hours a day in the dusty tunnels.
``The purpose was to kill you but to get as much of you
before they killed you,'' Milton Stolon of the 106th Division
told Mr. Guggenheim. Gangrene, dysentery, pneumonia,
diphtheria did their work. In the space of nine weeks about
35 soldiers died.
The persecution of American prisoners at Berga has remained
little-known because many of the victims, like Dr. Shapiro,
chose not to speak of it for a half-century after the war.
With the cold war to fight and West Germany a postwar ally,
the United States government had little interest in opening
its archives and inflaming conflict between Americans and
Germans.
In recent years, however, the research of an Army officer,
Mack O'Quinn, who investigated the events at Berga for a
master's degree thesis, and a 1994 book by Mitchell Bard,
``Forgotten Victims'' (Westview Press), have thrown light on
the treatment of the G.I.'s. Still, many of the soldiers said
they spoke about their experiences for the first time to Mr.
Guggenheim; the notion that American prisoners of war were
persecuted as Jews or Jewish sympathizers has not received
broad attention.
Mr. Guggenheim said it was still a shock that this happened
to Americans, bringing home the realization that if the Nazis
had won the war, ``they would have gotten us, too.''
A descendant of German Jews, he grapples with ambivalent
feelings about the country, unable to forget what a
``civilized nation'' did to its Jews even as he is surprised
by how civil postwar German society is.
He also grapples with how to find an appropriate treatment
of a Holocaust movie, troubled by what he sees as the
frequent trivialization of the Holocaust in film. Too often,
he said, Hitler's crimes have become a ``quick fix for
involvement'' and a good fix for raising money from Jewish
families. Like sex and violence, the Holocaust ``demands
people's attention, even if they do not feel good about it.''
His answer to the ethical dilemma is the sobriety of his
research and treatment: painstaking interviews, careful
reconstruction of a little-known chapter in the war,
attention to detail. The scenes filmed in Berga will
supplement a core of archival film, photography and
interviews. ``What is most moving to me is the way the
survivors have talked about themselves and about each other,
often for the first time,'' he said. ``In many instances they
had never talked about this before.''
Dr. Shapiro was among those who suppressed his memories.
``It took 50 years for all of us to begin to come to terms
with this,'' he said. In early April 1945, with the American
and Soviet armies closing in, the camp at Berga was ordered
evacuated, and a death march began for hundreds of prisoners.
At least another 50 Americans died in the ensuing days before
advance units of the American 11th Armored Division liberated
the prisoners on April 22, 1945, near Cham in southeastern
Germany.
The rate of attrition--more than 70 American dead in just
over two months after arrival at Berga--was among the highest
for any group of G.I.'s taken prisoner in Europe. Dr. Shapiro
weighed 98 pounds on his liberation; he cannot recall the
last days of the forced march despite repeated efforts to do
so. ``I had become a zombie,'' he said.
Time has passed, but Dr. Shapiro's voice still cracks a
little as he thinks back. Periodic nightmares trouble him.
``I traveled the same road as an American prisoner of war as
the Jews of Europe,'' he continued. ``I was put in a boxcar,
starved, put on a death march. It was a genocidal type of
approach.''
That road might also have been Mr. Guggenheim's. After the
war he asked a returning member of the 106th Division about a
Jewish soldier he had known and was told the man had died in
a German mine. But where, how, why?
The questions lingered in his mind for more than a half-
century before taking him where an infected foot prevented
him from going in 1944: to a remote town in Germany where the
bat-filled tunnels are now sealed and snow falls on a
cemetery where an ``Allied Soldier'' lies.

____________________

TRIBAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senior Senator
from Iowa in a colloquy about funding for the Nation's 32 tribal
colleges and universities.
These schools, located in 12 States, serve more than 250 federally
recognized tribes nationwide. The colleges serve students older than
the traditional college age who are seeking another chance at a
productive life. The

[[Page 6408]]

vast majority of tribal college students are first-generation college
students.
However, the States provide little, if any, funding to the tribal
colleges and universities because the vast majority of tribal colleges
are located on federal trust lands. Additionally, non-Indians account
for about 20 percent of tribal college enrollments, although the States
do not provide financial support for these students.
Does the Senator from Iowa agree that the Federal Government needs to
play a significant role in funding these schools?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I agree with the Senator from North Dakota. The
Federal Government provides the core operating funds for the tribal
colleges and universities. Without this funding, many of them would
have to close their doors.
Mr. CONRAD. And is it the view of the Senator from Iowa that this
funding has not reached the level authorized by the Tribally Controlled
Colleges and Universities Assistance Act?
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from North Dakota is correct. Although annual
appropriations for tribal colleges have increased in recent years, the
per Indian student funding is still less than two-thirds the level
authorized by law and significantly lower than the public support given
to mainstream community students.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. I would also like to note that the
need for federal funding is especially critical for these schools
because most tribal colleges and universities were founded less than 25
years ago and are located in rural and impoverished areas, and they do
not have access to alumni-based funding sources and local financial
support.
Mr. JOHNSON. Given the circumstances described by the Senator from
North Dakota and my own knowledge of the five tribal colleges in my own
State, I ask that every effort be made in Fiscal Year 2002 and beyond
to fund the colleges at the level at which they are authorized in the
Tribally Controlled College and University Assistance Act. Would the
Senator from Iowa agree that with respect to the education funding
amendment adopted by the Senate that this will be a priority?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I agree with the Senator from North Dakota that a
portion of the funding provided by my amendment should be used to help
close the gap between the level of funding authorized by the Tribally
Controlled College and University Assistance Act and the level of
funding the colleges are currently receiving. I believe the funding in
my amendment is sufficient to meet the needs of the tribal colleges and
universities as well as the other educational needs throughout the
country.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator for his remarks. I am pleased that
the Senator from Iowa, who is a champion of education, shares my
strongly-held view that Congress must continue work toward current
statutory federal funding goals for the tribal colleges. I look forward
to continuing to work with him on this.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH AND HIS FIGHT FOR THE 26TH
AMENDMENT

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to
Senator Jennings Randolph on the anniversary of the passage of the 26th
Amendment. In 1971, a young West Virginian named Debbie Phillips
skipped a day of high school. Skipping school is usually frowned upon
by parents and teachers, but Debbie, then 18, was anything but another
student trying to ditch chemistry, algebra, and history. In fact,
Debbie was missing school in order to make history: that day, she
registered to vote under the newly-ratified 26th Amendment to the
Constitution at the Kanawha County Court House in Charleston, WV. A
year later, the 26th Amendment also allowed Debbie to seek an
appointment as a delegate at a national convention, making her the
first West Virginian under 21 years of age to file for public office.
I was the Secretary of State in West Virginia at the time, so Debbie
came to my office to register. Her actions, and those of millions of
other young Americans who have accepted the 26th Amendment's invitation
to participate in the political process, show how critical young people
are to our democracy.
These extraordinary developments were made possible by a great man
and a friend of mine--Senator Jennings Randolph, my predecessor as
Senator from West Virginia and the ``Father of the 26th Amendment.''
Senator Randolph drafted the amendment and worked tirelessly for its
passage, based on his belief that America's youth had a right to be
part of our political process. The ratification of the amendment marked
a great moment in our country's history. It has allowed young adults to
speak for themselves and have their voices heard in the greatest
democratic society in the world.
Thirty years ago Saturday, the State of West Virginia ratified the
26th Amendment. This action came in the midst of the Vietnam War, in
which nearly half of all the soldiers that America lost were younger
than 21. Despite making the ultimate sacrifice for their country, those
young soldiers had been unable to vote for the President that was
sending them to war. In addition, they were paying taxes and
participating in society in every other way; yet they were unable to
vote. Senator Randolph changed that forever.
Tomorrow, West Virginia Secretary of State Joe Manchin is holding an
event at our State Capitol encouraging schools to register voters under
his West Virginia SHARES program--Saving History and Reaching Every
Student. It is so important that young people realize what an awesome
power Senator Randolph's crusade brought them. Young Americans were
excited to have the right to vote in the early 1970s, but today many
18- to 21-year-olds do not even bother to register. With the exception
of 1996, voter participation among citizens between the ages of 18 and
24 has decreased in each Presidential election. Secretary of State
Manchin's project is therefore of utmost importance. It is essential
that we let young people know of their right, and indeed their
responsibility, to vote, and help them register to do so.
Again, I salute Senator Randolph for his tireless efforts to allow
Debbie Phillips and countless other young people to improve our
democracy.

____________________

TAX SIMPLIFICATION

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a report issued
yesterday by the Joint Committee on Taxation and hearings that are
being conducted today in the Finance Committee on the subject of tax
simplification.
Last week, on April 16, millions of Americans mailed their tax
returns, completing the last step in a process that many found arduous,
burdensome, and needlessly confusing. The tax code has become
increasingly complex since its last major reform in 1986. Taxpayers
grow increasingly frustrated filling out their returns or are forced to
pay others to prepare their tax returns for them. The government has
thus imposed a kind of tax on paying taxes.
In response to this complexity, most people have apparently thrown up
their hands and paid others to fill out their returns. The Internal
Revenue Service recently estimated that through the first week of
April, about 57 percent of all individual income-tax filers used paid
preparers. That rate was up from 56 percent last year.
Paid tax preparers report that they did a booming business this year.
Through March 30, H&R Block's revenue for tax preparation services rose
by more than 10 percent over last year, to $1.5 billion. Its average
fee rose to about $109.
Aside from using paid preparers, to avoid tax complexity, many
Americans forgo tax benefits to which they are legally entitled. For
example, many people use the standard deduction, even though they would
save money by itemizing their deductions. The General Accounting Office
recently estimated that on more than half a million returns for 1998,
taxpayers did not itemize, even though mortgage interest payments alone
would have reduced their taxes or increased their refunds.

[[Page 6409]]

GAO estimated that the resulting overpayments may have totaled $311
million, or $610 per tax return.
Earlier this year, the IRS's acting national taxpayer advocate issued
a report to Congress in which he summed up: Complexity ``remains the
No. 1 problem facing taxpayers, and is the root cause of many of the
other problems on the Top 20 list.''
All this complexity comes with substantial costs to our economy.
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said recently: ``The [tax] code today
encompasses 9,500 pages of very small print. While every word in the
code has some justification, in its entirety it is an abomination. It
imposes $150 billion or more of annual cost on our society with no
value creation.''
The difficulty of filling out the income tax form is undermining
Americans' confidence in the system. When people's interaction with the
Federal Government is dominated by complex and burdensome tax forms, it
can impair the people's trust in government generally.
We need tax reform and simplification. And now is the perfect time to
do something about it.
In a fine Brookings Institution Policy Brief issued this month,
scholars Len Burman and Bill Gale write:

Tax complexity is like the weather: everyone talks about it
but nobody does anything about it. . . . Unlike the weather,
though, policymakers can do something about complexity. And
if they do not simplify the tax system now, when there are
surplus funds to pay for simplification, they will have lost
a golden opportunity.

Burman and Gale are right. Tax simplification needs to be an
important part of this year's tax policy debate.
If Congress is to enact a greatly simplified tax code, it needs to
have a thorough understanding of the problem as well as specific
proposals to consider. Comprehensive studies of the issue can provide a
needed impetus. The Report of Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan,
for example, laid the groundwork in substantial part for the 1986
reform.
I chaired the Taxation Committee of the State Senate in Wisconsin
when we reformed the tax code in the mid-1980s. Democrats controlled
both houses of the Legislature, and we had a Democratic Governor, but
we used the Regan tax reform proposal as the basis for much of our own
tax reform. The result was a greatly simplified tax system.
Following on that model, in last year's budget resolution, I offered
an amendment calling for the Joint Committee on Taxation to conduct a
study of means by which we might simplify taxes. The Senate Budget
Committee adopted the amendment unanimously. And the budget resolution
that Congress adopted on April 13 of last year included it as section
336. That section said, in relevant part: ``It is the sense of the
Senate that . . . the Joint Committee on Taxation shall develop a
report and alternative proposals on tax simplification by the end of
the year. . . .''
The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, under the direction of
Chief of Staff Lindy Paull, took this and other requests along these
lines seriously. They consulted with academics, former chiefs of staff
of the Committee, and former Commissioners of the IRS. Staff reviewed
proposals that have been made, and considered particular issue areas.
The resulting report, released yesterday, suggests ways to accomplish
the same policy goals that underlie the current income tax code, but in
less duplicative or less convoluted ways.
I am glad to see that the Joint Committee has released its report.
Similarly, I am gratified that Finance Committee Chairman Chuck
Grassley is holding a hearing today to receive the report and discuss
this important subject.
Although I do not agree with every suggestion put forth in the
report, I am convinced that this report and these hearings are exactly
the kind of institutional step that we need to take if we are to reform
the tax code.
Here are just a few examples of areas where Congress could well
simplify the tax code:
The AMT: The complicated Alternative Minimum Tax is beginning to
affect more and more middle-income taxpayers. It needs reform.
Capital Gains: Ever since the 1997 law created differing capital
gains rates for differing holding periods, the capital gains form has
become very complicated. Some have proposed an exclusion from capital
gains income for the first several hundred dollars of capital gains
income, so that modest investors in mutual funds would not be subjected
to filling out the capital gains schedule.
The Earned Income Tax Credit: At the Finance Committee hearing today,
Richard Lipton, head of the American Bar Association tax section,
argues for simplifying the earned-income tax credit, designed to help
low-income working families. In Mr. Lipton's words, ``In effect,
Congress has given the poor a tax break with one hand and then taken it
away with the other by making it too complex to understand.''
Child Credits: Robert Cherry and Max Sawicky of the Economic Policy
Institute have proposed a universal unified child credit that combines
the dependent care credit, the earned income tax credit, the child
credit, and the additional child credit. Similar work has been advanced
by David Ellwood and Jeff Liebman of Harvard University's John F.
Kennedy School of Government. Congress could well examine combining
various child credits to make them fairer and easier to use.
The Standard Deduction: We could expand the standard deduction so
that fewer taxpayers needed to itemize their deductions.
The Personal and Dependent Exemptions: Alternatively, we could expand
the personal and dependent exemptions.
The Nanny Tax: Congress has simplified the law by raising the
threshold of wages paid for filing employer taxes and by incorporating
the filing into the form 1040. The threshold could be further raised.
Education Incentives: Today's code contains several different
education incentive provisions, including tuition credits, like
Lifetime Learning or the Hope Credit, Education IRAs, State deductible
tuition programs, limited interest deductions, and employer provided
assistance. These provisions contain numerous and differing eligibility
requirements. Congress might work to harmonize these programs.
A simplified tax code makes good economic policy sense. We would
improve the economy's efficiency if we could minimize the impact of the
tax code on the economic decisions of businesses and individuals.
The tax code's complexity frustrates average households. This is a
real issue with many people of fairly modest means. I hold listening
sessions in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year, and I
frequently hear of people's frustrations with the tax code's
complexity.
I am gratified to see that the Joint Committee on Taxation has
addressed the budget resolution's request seriously, and has produced
its extensive product. I commend the Joint Committee's efforts.
We need to advance the process of simplification further. I look
forward to working with colleagues in the Finance Committee and the
Senate on ways to reform and simplify the tax code.

____________________

INFORMATION BROKERS

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Washington Post reported
this morning that several prominent banks, insurance companies and law
firms regularly purchased consumers' confidential financial information
from an information broker that illegally gathered the data using
``pretext'' calling. This despicable practice involves a caller who
contacts a business or government entity and uses a person's social
security number or other personal identifier to trick an unsuspecting
clerk to provide confidential information about everything from a
person's checking account balance to her investment portfolio.
The prohibition against this fraudulent practice was recently
strengthened by Congress through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, but
reports of abuse have continued. Information brokers with little regard
for people's privacy

[[Page 6410]]

are doing the dirty work for organizations that otherwise portray
themselves as privacy proponents. These so-called information brokers
allow companies seeking such information to cut corners at the expense
of consumers.
And the apparent willingness of some in the financial industry to
purchase such information calls into question the industry's commitment
to protecting consumers' privacy. Further, if companies buy information
from suspect sources, there are limited prohibitions on redistributing
it.

If a company isn't required to get a customer's express consent prior
to selling, sharing or disclosing his information, then the customer
has little opportunity to stop the spread of inaccurate information.
Earlier this year, I introduced legislation that, if passed, would
help minimize the collateral damage that can occur when financial
institutions purchase information from these suspect firms. My bill
would require a consumer's express consent before a financial company
can share personally identifiable financial information with its
affiliates and express written consent before it can transfer
personally identifiable medical information. I want to put the
consumers in control. Consumer control ensures that personally
identifiable information is only used for the purpose it was gathered
for and protects consumers from the further spread of inaccurate
information.
Too often these days, personally identifiable medical and financial
information is being shared, bought, or sold; and, it's being done
without the consent of the consumer. This practice must stop. And it is
our job to pass legislation that will stop it.
I call on my colleagues in the Banking committee to move forward with
this legislation as soon as possible, so that it can be considered by
the full Senate. Now is the time to close the financial privacy
loophole so that we prevent a further erosion of our privacy rights.

____________________

THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday,
Wednesday, April 25, 2001, the Federal debt stood at
$5,681,916,012,004.34, Five trillion, six hundred eighty-one billion,
nine hundred sixteen million, twelve thousand, four dollars and thirty-
four cents.
One year ago, April 25, 2000, the Federal debt stood at
$5,714,810,000,000, Five trillion, seven hundred fourteen billion,
eight hundred ten million.
Five years ago, April 25, 1996, the Federal debt stood at
$5,092,768,000,000, Five trillion, ninety-two billion, seven hundred
sixty-eight million.
Ten years ago, April 25, 1991, the Federal debt stood at
$3,425,956,000,000, Three trillion, four hundred twenty-five billion,
nine hundred fifty-six million.
Fifteen years ago, April 25, 1986, the Federal debt stood at
$2,003,491,000,000, Two trillion, three billion, four hundred ninety-
one million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $3.5 trillion,
$3,678,425,012,004.34, Three trillion, six hundred seventy-eight
billion, four hundred twenty-five million, twelve thousand, four
dollars and thirty-four cents during the past 15 years.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

IN HONOR OF NAVY LIEUTENANT SHANE OSBORN

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor South
Dakota's native son, Lt. Shane Osborn, the Navy pilot whose leadership
and piloting skills saved the lives of the crew detained in China for
the first part of April.
Even at three years of age, Shane exhibited a fascination with
planes. Shane's family lived on a farm near Rapid City, South Dakota,
where the farmer owned a small, two-seat aircraft. The hangar wasn't
far from the house, and Shane would often climb into the plane and
pretend to take to the skies in flight. This lifelong interest led
Shane to the Navy where he trained as a pilot and was commissioned an
officer in 1996.
Shane eventually was transferred to Whidbey Island Naval Station in
Washington where he was trained to fly naval reconnaissance. As his
Navy EP-3E plane recently flew a routine mission near the Chinese
coast, it is reported that a Chinese F-8 fighter plane made two passes
near the American aircraft, flying within three to five feet of the
plane. On the third pass, the Chinese pilot apparently ran into the
American plane's propeller, sending Shane and his crew into a steep
dive.
With two of the four propellers out of commission, a smashed nose
cone, and destroyed navigational instruments, the American plane
dropped nearly 7,500 feet toward the China Sea. With sheer will and
brute force, Shane managed to bring the plane under control and land
safely on the Chinese island of Hainan.
During the ensuing days as Shane and his crew were held by Chinese
officials, I spoke with the Chinese Ambassador and urged his government
to release the American crew as quickly as possible. I also passed
along to the Ambassador an email message Shane's father, Doug, wrote to
his son. As the parent of a son in the military, I understood the fear
and uncertainty one feels when their child is suddenly placed in harm's
way. However, when I spoke with Doug Osborn, I was reminded also of the
immense pride and love that a parent feels for their son or daughter in
the military.
I commend Lt. Shane Osborn for his heroism in safely landing the
disabled American plane and his leadership as mission commander during
the 11 days the American crew was detained in China. Shane symbolizes
the very best that we have come to expect from the men and women in our
military. I will continue to be an advocate on military issues in
Congress and make sure that military personnel like Shane receive the
``quality of life'' benefits they and their families deserve. After the
numerous sacrifices the men and women in our military make for our
country, we in Congress can be expected to do no less.

____________________

HONORING CADET CHIEF PETTY OFFICER THEA I. PECK AS NAVAL SEA CADET
CORPS CADET OF THE YEAR

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to extend my most
sincere congratulations to Cadet Chief Petty Officer Thea I. Peck. On
April 28, 2001, she will be awarded the Willis E. Reed Cadet of the
Year Award, which recognizes the Naval Sea Cadet who has excelled in
all areas of Naval Sea Cadet Corps, NSCC, training. She was initially
selected as Mid-Atlantic Cadet of the Year for 2000 out of six states
including Pennsylvania, which then lead to her selection as the
program-wide Cadet of the Year. This recognition is outstanding as it
exemplifies Cadet CPO Peck's leadership, maturity, dedication, and
patriotism.
The NSCC was established in 1958 in part of the Department of the
Navy to develop an appreciation for the United States' naval history,
customs, traditions, and its significant role in national defense. Its
purpose is also to develop patriotism, confidence, and pride in our
nation's youth and help them to develop strong moral character and good
citizenship. It also gives participants a real-life look at military
opportunities.
Cadet CPO Peck has been a member of the Naval Sea Cadet Corps Program
for over five years. She has completed several training courses over
her tenure in the program including time spent at the Foreign Exchange
Program with the United Kingdom and Medical Staff Training at Bethesda
Naval Hospital. In all of her training periods, Cadet CPO Peck earned
the highest performance marks illustrating her dedication to the
program and the United States Navy.
In addition to excelling in the Naval Sea Cadet Corps, Cadet CPO Peck
is an impeccable student. With a high school grade point average of
3.95, and as a student in all advanced classes, she has mastered time
management and the ability to balance academics and outside activities.
She has received a number of achievements for her work in various
science fairs, and she is also an

[[Page 6411]]

outstanding athlete, lettering in indoor track, swimming, lacrosse and
soccer.
Cadet CPO Peck is a superior, well-rounded young adult who has chosen
to take advantage of all that life has to offer. As a member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, I am grateful to Cadet CPO Peck for
her dedication to the United States Navy through the Naval Sea Cadet
Corps. With so many opportunities ahead after high school, I am
confident that whichever avenue she chooses to pursue, she will bring
great energy and leadership to it.
I ask my Senate colleagues to join with me in congratulating this
fine young leader as she is recognized as the 2001 NSCC Cadet of the
Year and recipient of the Willis E. Reed Award.

____________________

HONORING REVEREND DR. KENNETH L. SAUNDERS, SR.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention
of my colleagues a great man in the State of New Jersey, Reverend Dr.
Kenneth L. Saunders, Sr.
Reverend Saunders is a man of integrity who is committed to the
spiritual, mental, social, civil and economic well-being of his
congregation and residents of the City of Piscataway.
Reverend Saunders has dedicated his life to public service. As
Council President of the City of Piscataway, he insures that everyone
has a voice. Reverend Saunders is also an outstanding advocate for
children and their families.
Reverend Saunders is a true American, who believes that all people
should have access to America's Promise. He has the enviable gift of
being able to bring people together to work for a common cause.
Reverend Saunders is an unselfish man whose motivation is not self-
gratification. He possesses a higher calling.
This week, Reverend Saunders is celebrating 12 wonderful years of
pastoral ministry at North Stelton A.M.E. Church in Piscataway. Under
his unparalleled guidance, North Stelton A.M.E. Church has experienced
enormous growth and is a warm congregation filled with joy and love.
I want to also mention his wife, Mrs. Shirley Saunders and want you
to know that they make an exceptional team. Her devotion to the
community is very well-known, and the State of New Jersey is a better
place because of the leadership of Reverend and Mrs. Kenneth L.
Saunders, Sr.
Lastly, I am a better man today because of my friendship with
Reverend and Mrs. Saunders, and it is an honor for me to bring them to
your attention.

____________________

PIKE COUNTY INDIANA SCHOOL CORPORATION

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am delighted to rise today with my
colleague Senator Bayh to congratulate the Pike County School
Corporation located in Petersburg, IN on being named ``One of the Best
100 School Districts in the United States'' for the year 2000 by the
Wall Street Journal and Offspring magazine. The Pike Country school
administrators, teachers, and students should take great pride in this
outstanding accomplishment. This award is based on academic excellence
in standardized testing such as the SAT, ACT, Indiana's ISTEP+ test,
the number of National Merit Scholars produced by the district,
community living costs, and dollar expenditures per student.
In October 1996, I had the distinct honor of meeting with the student
body at Pike Central Middle High School. I was able to address the
student body and saw first hand the hard work and dedication of the
school's administrators and teachers. After addressing the student body
I had the pleasure of going for a run with a group of Pike County
students. It's a high honor to be standing on the floor of the Senate
today reflecting on that visit and recognizing Pike County schools for
their outstanding achievements.
National recognition of Pike County's educational accomplishments is
particularly timely as the Senate commences debate on President Bush's
education program. The schools of Pike County have set standards that
all school districts across this great nation should strive to emulate.
Five years ago, Pike County School Corporation developed and
implemented a district-wide plan to improve scores at all grade levels.
They aggressively used standardized tests at all grade levels to ensure
classroom standards were being met and student weaknesses were being
addressed. Their efforts resulted in a significant increase in the
percentage of students from Pike County meeting Indiana's academic
standards. Also, the number of students attending college after high
school graduation nearly doubled during the 1998-99 school year, the
year that was used for the national study conducted by Offspring
magazine.
Using Title 1 funds, the Pike County School Corporation developed an
early-childhood program that targeted pre-school and kindergarten
children. Using a corporation-developed assessment process, four-year-
old students were placed into the county's three elementary schools for
half-day pre-school classes, with five-year-olds invited to participate
in extended-day kindergarten. This program has played an important role
in the dramatic rise of Pike County ISTEP+ test scores at the third
grade level.
Additionally, and of particular note, Pike County School Corporation
was able to accomplish these goals while spending approximately $6,500
per student year, one of the lowest spending rates per student in the
country. As quoted from Offspring magazine, ``the hallmark of a top-
rated school district isn't necessarily how much money it has to spend,
but how it spends the money it has.''
This great recognition is a tribute to the superlative efforts of the
members of the local school board, the school administration, teachers,
and support staff of the PCSC. I congratulate Pike County School
Corporation and the Pike County community, and wish them continued
academic success.

____________________

NALC FOOD DRIVE STATEMENT

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this year marks the ninth
anniversary of ``Stamp Out Hunger,'' the largest one-day food drive in
the United States. I strongly commend and congratulate the National
Association of Letter Carriers, NALC, for sponsoring this annual event,
and marvel at its rapid expansion, beginning in only ten cities in
1992, it now spans over 10,000 cities and towns across our nation.
More than 1,500 NALC branches, including the California State
Association of Letter Carriers in my home State, will participate in
this year's ``Stamp Out Hunger.'' On May 12, the second Saturday in
May, residents across the country will be asked to place boxes and bags
of food next to their mailboxes, where postal workers will pick them
up, sort them, and deliver them to community food banks, shelters and
pantries.
The success of this program can be seen in the staggering volume of
donations: more than 392 million pounds of food have been collected in
the program's history. However, what impresses me most is the strong
commitment of our nation's postal workers and citizens to end hunger.
The only way we will put an end to poverty is to follow their example
and take action, become involved, make a concerted effort. I urge all
Americans to participate in ``Stamp Out Hunger'' on May 12 to put an
end to the poverty that is plaguing far too many children, men and
women in our communities and across our nation.

____________________

EISLEBEN LUTHERAN CHURCH

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments on the
150th anniversary of the Eisleben Lutheran Church in Scott City, MO.
Since the first congregation of nineteen members gathered on April
30th 1848, Eisleben Lutheran Church has grown to become a part of
Missouri history. Eisleben Lutheran Church's first house of worship was
a log cabin built in the area now known as Scott City. The area
surrounding the church was mostly wooded hills and large swamps which
were impassible much of the year. In 1867 the second facility known as
Rock Church was built.

[[Page 6412]]

Today the congregation worships in a church that was completed in
1913 using the stones from the original Rock Church. The congregation
of the Eisleben Lutheran Church have maintained a long history of
service to the Scott City community, as well as the international
community by supporting missionary efforts all over the world.
Over the past 150 years Eisleben Lutheran Church has witnessed and
been a part of many historical events. Their devotion to the
preservation and continued growth of the church is commendable. I am
pleased to join with the Scott City community and the State of Missouri
in congratulating the congregation of the Eisleben Lutheran
Church.

____________________

WILSON H.S. STUDENTS EXCEL IN COMPETITION

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to recognize a group
of students from Wilson High School in Florence, SC who recently
participated in the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the
Constitution'' national finals in Washington, D.C. April 21-23. They
tested their knowledge of American constitutional government against 49
other student groups from across the country in a familiar format to
those of us in the Senate, a congressional hearing. During the
simulated hearing, students testified as constitutional experts before
a panel of judges. Fifteen students, led by their teacher Yvonne
Rhodes, represented Wilson at the competition. They were: Lakisha
Boston, Lynette Carr, Christine Chen, Rebecca Derrick, Ashunti
Drummond, Elizabeth Fortnum, Albert Hayward, Anthony Henderson,
Benjamin Ingram, Janny Liu, Christina Moss, Jason Owens, Anna Stewart,
Tyler Thomas and Dheepa Varadarajan. I commend these students for their
impressive performance in the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the
Constitution'' program administered by the Center for Civic Education.
Their interest in the foundation of our government is refreshing and
will prepare them to become active, responsible citizens and community
leaders.

____________________

GARFIELD MIDDLE SCHOOL 50TH ANNIVERSARY

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues
to join me in congratulating Garfield Middle School in Albuquerque,
which is celebrating its 50th anniversary today, April 26. Built to
serve Albuquerque's growing North Valley, the school first opened for
the 1950-51 school year. First built with the intention of serving as
an elementary school, Garfield actually became the fourth public junior
high school to open in my hometown.
Mr. Walter McNutt was Garfield Middle School's first principal. It
was under this distinguished man that I served as a public school
teacher shortly after graduating from the University of New Mexico. I
taught math and coached baseball at the school in the 1955-56 school
year.
The Garfield Middle School's long-held mission has been to foster a
sense of community among its students, parents and school staff as a
means of boosting pupil achievement.
With a multi-cultural enrollment ranging over the years from 650-
1,200 students, Garfield has earned a number of award-winning and
nationally-recognized programs.
I am proud to also point out that Garfield is actively involved in a
program that is close to my heart, Character Counts. The school is
nationally recognized as having one of the finest Character Counts
programs in the United States. At the school they teach the six pillars
of good character: responsibility, respect, trustworthiness, fairness,
citizenship, and caring.
I applaud Garfield Middle School for its accomplishments and as it
celebrates its 50th Anniversary, we wish them much continued success in
the future.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

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

____________________

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting 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 4:23 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 503. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn
children from assault and murder, and for other purposes.

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

H. Con. Res. 110. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress in support of National Children's
Memorial Flag Day.

The message further announced that pursuant to section 3 of Public
Law 94-304, as amended by section 1 of Public Law 99-7, the Speaker
appoints the following Members of the House of Representatives to the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe: Mr. Hoyer of
Maryland, Mr. Cardin of Maryland, Ms. Slaughter of New York, and Mr.
Hastings of Florida.
The message also announced that pursuant to 14 U.S.C. 194(a), the
Speaker appoints the following Member of the House of Representatives
to the Board of Visitors to the United States Coast Guard Academy: Mr.
Taylor of Mississippi.
The message further announced that pursuant to section 5(b) of the
James Madison Commemoration Commission Act (Public Law 106-550), the
Speaker appoints of the following members on the part of the House of
Representatives to the James Madison Commemoration Advisory Committee:
Dr. Charles R. Kesler of Claremont, California and Mr. Randy Wright of
Richmond, VA.
The message also announced that pursuant to section 12(b)(1) of the
Centennial of Flight Commemoration Act (36 U.S.C. 143), and upon the
recommendation of the Minority Leader, the Speaker appoints the
following citizen of the United States to the First Flight Centennial
Federal Advisory Board: Mr. Neil Armstrong of Lebanon, Ohio.

____________________

MEASURE REFERRED

The following concurrent resolution was read, and referred as
indicated:

H. Con. Res. 110. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress in support of National Children's
Memorial Flag Day.

____________________

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-1614. A communication from the Chief of the Regulations
Unit of the Internal Revenue Service, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Guidelines on Leveraged Lease Advance Rulings''
(Rev. Proc. 2001-28) received on April 24, 2001; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-1615. A communication from the Administrator of the
National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of
Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report concerning a
High-Energy-Density Physics Study; to the Committee on
Appropriations.
EC-1616. A communication from the General Counsel of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant
to law, a report of the designation of acting officer in the
position of Administrator, Federal Insurance Administration;
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-1617. A communication from the Counsel for Regulations,
Office of the Secretary,

[[Page 6413]]

Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Equal
Employment Opportunity; Updating of EEO Policies and
Procedures'' (RIN2501-AC73) received on April 23, 2001; to
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-1618. A communication from the Assistant Director for
Executive and Political Personnel, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy and
the designation of acting officer in the position of Director
of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-1619. A communication from the Assistant Director for
Executive and Political Personnel, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a nomination in
the position of Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); to
the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-1620. A communication from the Assistant Director for
Executive and Political Personnel, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy and
the designation of acting officer in the position of
Assistant Secretary of Defense, International Security
Affairs; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-1621. A communication from the Assistant Director for
Executive and Political Personnel, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy in the
position of Under Secretary of the Army; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-1622. A communication from the Assistant Director for
Executive and Political Personnel, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a confirmed
nomination in the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-1623. A communication from the Assistant Director for
Executive and Political Personnel, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a nomination in
the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
EC-1624. A communication from the Assistant Director for
Executive and Political Personnel, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
discontinuation of service in acting role in the position of
Assistant Secretary of Defense, Strategy and Threat
Reduction; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-1625. A communication from the Assistant Director for
Executive and Political Personnel, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a nomination for
the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense, Force
Management Policy; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-1626. A communication from the Assistant Director for
Executive and Political Personnel, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy and
the designation of acting officer in the position of
Assistant Secretary of Defense, Command, Control,
Communication, and Intelligence; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
EC-1627. A communication from the Assistant Director for
Executive and Political Personnel, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy in the
position of Assistant Secretary of Defense, Legislative
Affairs; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-1628. A communication from the Assistant Director for
Executive and Political Personnel, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a nomination for
the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense, Public
Affairs; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-1629. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Defense Programs, Department of
Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Packaging and Transfer or Transportation of
Materials of National Security Interest'' (DOE O 461.1 and
DOE M 461.1) received on April 18, 2001; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-1630. A communication from the Financial Analysis
Technician, Michigan Air National Guard, transmitting, a
report relative to Economic Impact Analysis of the 110
Fighter Wing for Fiscal Year 2000; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
EC-1631. A communication from the Acting Special Assistant
to the Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical
Readiness, and Military Deployments, transmitting, a
commemorative edition of ``GulfNEWS''; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-1632. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Monticello, Arkansas, and
Bastrop, Louisiana)'' (Doc. No. 99-141) received on April 24,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1633. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.622(b), Table of
Allotments, DTV Broadcast Stations (Jacksonville, NC)'' (Doc.
No. 01-3) received on April 24, 2001; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1634. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Kankakee and Park Forest,
Illinois)'' (Doc. No. 99-330) received on April 24, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1635. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.606(b), Table of
Allotments, TV Broadcast Stations (New Iberia, LA)'' (Doc.
No. 01-2) received on April 24, 2001; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1636. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Establishment of Prohibited Area P-49
Crawford; Texas'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (2001-0063)) received on
April 5, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1637. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a nomination for the position of Assistant
Secretary for Budget and Programs, Office of the Secretary;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1638. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a vacancy in the position of Assistant
Secretary for Budget and Programs, Office of the Secretary;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1639. 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, Preparedness Training and
Exercise Director; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-1640. A communication from Deputy Associate
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New
York; Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program''
(FRL6924-3) received on April 23, 2001; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-1641. 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 Plans For Designated
Facilities and Pollutants: Rhode Island; Plan for Controlling
Emissions From Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators'' (FRL6941-1) received on April 23, 2001; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1642. 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;
Illinois'' (FRL6970-6) received on April 23, 2001 ; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1643. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Trade and Development Agency, transmitting, the report or a
vacancy and the designation of acting officer for the
position of Director; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-1644. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the annual report on Military Assistance, Military
Exports, and Military Imports; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.

____________________

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-20. A resolution adopted by the House of the
Legislature of the State of Utah relative to Indian Health
Services; to the Committee on Appropriations.

House Resolution No. 8

Whereas, since the mid-1980's the Navajo Nation and Indian
Health Services have planned the construction of the Red Mesa
Health Center and staff quarters to improve access to health
care for the 10,000 people residing in southeast Utah and
northeast Arizona;
Whereas, local land users donated 75 acres of land at Red
Mesa, Arizona, for the development of the Red Mesa Health
Center and staff quarters;
Whereas, all of the necessary documents including legal
surveys and environmental clearance have been completed and
the site has been legally withdrawn by the Navajo Nation for
the project;
Whereas, the United States Congress appropriated design
funds in fiscal year 2000 for the design of the Red Mesa
Health Center;

[[Page 6414]]

Whereas, the Indian Health Services has hired an
architectural firm and the project is currently in design;
Whereas, a construction manager also has been hired to
oversee the construction of the project once is it designated
and construction funds are appropriated;
Whereas, the Red Mesa Health Center, when completed, will
provide adult and pediatric medical service, diagnosis and
laboratory services, short stay nursing beds, dental physical
therapy, and 24-hour emergency care;
Whereas, most of the services that would be provided by the
Red Mesa Health Center are currently unavailable in the
proposed service area and the local people have to travel to
Shiprock, New Mexico, to receive these services;
Whereas, travel distance to Shiprock for the user
population is an average of 60 miles;
Whereas, Indian Health Services planned the Red Mesa Health
Center with 93 units of staff quarters due to the remoteness
if the site;
Whereas, housing availability is critical in the
recruitment and retention of medical doctors, nurses, and
other health professionals on the Navajo Nation; and
Whereas, it is vital that the staff quarters to constructed
at the same time as the health center in order for the clinic
to open with adequate staffing: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the state of
Utah urges the United States Congress to appropriate $48
million in construction funds as part of the Indian Health
Services budget for fiscal year 2002 for the Red Mesa Health
Center and staff quarters at Red Mesa, Arizona. Be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, and the members of
Utah's congressional delegation.
POM-21. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Utah relative to the Presidential tax relief
plan; to the Committee on Finance.

House Resolution No. 18

Whereas, federal taxes from all sources are currently the
highest ever during peacetime;
Whereas, all taxpayers should be allowed to keep more of
their own money;
Whereas, one of the best ways to encourage economic growth
is to cut marginal tax rates across all tax brackets;
Whereas, under current tax law, low-income workers often
pay the highest marginal rates and President Bush's tax cut
would reduce the marginal tax rate by 40-50 percent for low-
income families with children;
Whereas, President Bush's tax relief plan will contribute
to raising the standard of living for all Americans by
reducing tax rates, expending the child tax credit, and
reducing the marriage penalty;
Whereas, President Bush's tax relief plan will increase
access to the middle class for hard working families, treat
all middle class families more fairly, encourage
entrepreneurship and growth, and promote charitable giving
and education; and
Whereas, under President Bush's tax relief plan, the
largest percentage reductions will go to the lowest income
earners:
Now therefore, be it Resolved, That the Legislature of the
state of Utah urges the United States Congress to support and
work to pass the tax relief plan introduced by President
Bush.
Be it further Resolved. That a copy of this resolution be
sent to the President of the United States Senate, the
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and
the members of Utah's congressional delegation.
____

POM-22. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Utah relative to the repealing, rescinding, and
superseding of any and all existing applications to Congress
for a constitutional convention previously made; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

House Resolution No. 15

Whereas, the Legislature of the state of Utah, acting with
the best of intentions, has, at various times, previously
made applications to the Congress of the United States of
America for one or more constitutional conventions for
general purposes or for the limited purposes of considering
amendments to the Constitution of the United States of
America on various subjects and for various purposes;
Whereas, former Justices of the United States Supreme Court
and other leading constitutional scholars are in general
agreement that a constitutional convention, notwithstanding
whatever limitations have been specified in the applications
of the several states for a convention, would have within the
scope of its authority the complete redrafting of the
Constitution of the United States of America, thereby
creating an imminent peril to the well-established rights of
the people and to the constitutional principles under which
we are presently governed;
Whereas, the Constitution of the United States of America
has been amended many times in the history of the nation and
may yet be amended many more times, and has been interpreted
for 200 years and been found to be a sound document which
protects the rights and liberties of the people without the
need for a constitutional convention;
Whereas, there is no need for--rather, there is great
danger in--a new constitution, the adoption of which would
only create legal chaos in America and only begin the process
of another two centuries of litigation over its meaning and
interpretation; and
Whereas, such changes or amendments as may be needed in the
present Constitution may be proposed and enacted, pursuant to
the process provided therein and previously used throughout
the history of this nation, without resort to a
constitutional convention: now, therefore, be it
Resolved, By the Legislature of the state of Utah that any
and all existing applications to the Congress of the United
States of America for a constitutional convention or
conventions heretofore made by the Legislature of the state
of Utah under Article V of the constitution of the United
States of America for any purpose, whether limited or
general, be hereby repealed, rescinded, and canceled and
rendered null and void to the same effect as if the
applications had never been made; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah urges
the legislatures of each and every state which have applied
to Congress for either a general or a limited constitutional
convention to repeal and rescind the applications; and be it
further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to
presiding officers of both houses of the legislatures of each
of the other states of the Union, to the President of the
United States Senate, to the Speaker of the United States
House of Representatives, and to the members of Utah's
congressional delegation.
____

POM-23. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature from
the State of Utah relative to a standard national poll
closing time; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

House Resolution No. 6

Whereas, during election night in 2000, television networks
made declarations of victory for both candidates for
President of the United States before the polls had closed;
Whereas, in one erroneous declaration, the winner of the
eventually decisive state of Florida was announced hours
before polls in the western region of the nation were closed
and before all polls in western Florida had closed;
Whereas, when news services declare winners before the
nation's polls close, voters in states where polls are not
yet closed may conclude that their vote will not affect the
outcome and choose not to vote;
Whereas, releasing the vote count results for states whose
polls are closed before the closure of polling places in
other regions of the country can distort the results of an
election by suggesting that votes not yet cast will have no
bearing on the outcome;
Whereas, in close races like the most recent election of
President of the United States, declarations of victory
before polls close can affect the outcome of the vote;
Whereas, a uniform poll closing time would prevent the
publicizing of early election returns in one region of the
nation from impacting the vote in other regions;
Whereas, if a uniform poll closing time was established for
the Eastern, Central, Mountain, and Pacific time zones,
polling places in western regions of the country could open
earlier on the morning of election day to compensate for
their earlier closing time; and
Whereas, uniform poll closing times in these time zones
would significantly reduce the possibility that an election
could be tainted by premature declarations of victory: now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Legislature of the State of Utah urge
the United States Congress to institute uniform poll closing
times for states in the Eastern, Central, Mountain, and
Pacific time zones; be it further
Resolved, that the United States Congress review the
factors that contributed to the problems in the 2000 General
Election vote for the Presidency of the United States; and be
it further
Resolved, that a copy of this resolution be presented to
the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, and the members of
Utah's congressional delegation.
____

POM-24. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Utah relative to the enhancement and
modernization of Social Security; to the Committee on
Finance.

House Resolution No. 2

Whereas, Social Security is a federal program that requires
almost unanimous participation by employed workers in the
state of Utah and throughout the United States;
Whereas, the retirement portion of the Social Security tax
is high, having risen from an initial rate of 1% of the first
$3,000 of a worker's income, up to a maximum of $30 per year,
to the present rate of 12.4% of the first $80,400 of employee
wages or self-employment income up to a maximum of $830.80
per month or $9,969.60 per year.
Whereas, the maximum Social Security retirement tax, paid
by almost 11 million workers, has risen 5.51% in 2001 over
the year 2000, and is now 57% higher than in 1990;
Whereas, because neither the employee's direct tax
contribution to Social Security

[[Page 6415]]

nor the employer's contribution on the employee's behalf
appears on the employee's federal tax return, few employees
understand the amount of Social Security retirement tax they
actually pay each month;
Whereas, individuals can estimate their own Social Security
tax cost by estimating 1% of annual compensation paid each
month--for example, an annual income of $30,000 would yield
an estimated monthly Social Security retirement tax cost of
$300 per month.
Whereas, the Social Security retirement tax consumes nearly
every dollar that many workers of modest income might
otherwise be able to save and invest;
Whereas, because higher income workers are better able to
save and invest over and above the amounts paid in Social
Security taxes, escaping Social Security dependence, but
modest income workers cannot, the system creates
disproportionate dependence on the system by low and middle-
income workers;
Whereas, for many lower income American workers, the Social
Security retirement tax represents virtually all of the
monthly retirement savings they assemble;
Whereas, with the individual retirement benefit currently
ranging from a low of just a few dollars per month to a high
of approximately $1,400 per month, and the average monthly
retirement benefit currently at about $845 per month, Social
Security retirement benefits amount to a below poverty level
subsistence for many retirees;
Whereas, although Social Security was originally intended
to merely supplement other core retirement income sources,
the high tax rate prohibits many workers from ever adequately
saving and investing, and as a consequence, Social Security
has become the core retirement income source for many
Americans;
Whereas, national demographics have shifted significantly
since the system was created as a part of President
Roosevelt's New Deal policies;
Whereas, in 1945, 41.9 workers supported each retiree, and
today just 3.3 workers support each retiree;
Whereas, the ratio is expected to dwindle to 2 workers per
retiree within the next 30 years, making the current system
unsustainable;
Whereas, tax receipts currently exceed benefit payments,
yet, Social Security Trustees estimate that benefit payments
will exceed tax receipts, producing annual deficits,
beginning in approximately 15 years, or the year 2015;
Whereas, the Social Security Trustees estimate the
cumulative annual deficits for years 2015 through 2075 to
reach $21.6 trillion;
Whereas, it is unethical to perpetuate a system that
accrues benefits for a current generation of retirees at the
expense of younger workers who will likely never collect
benefits but will inherit the mounting debt;
Whereas, the current system is unfair to future retirees
because after a lifetime of paying into the system, a worker
retains no legal right nor claim to any amount or benefit,
but is subject to future congresses who will set the benefit
rates;
Whereas, the current system is unfair to those who die
prematurely because it is possible to pay for a lifetime into
the system yet draw only minimal benefit or even no benefit
prior to death and leave no residual value to any heir;
Whereas, the current system is unfair to widows and
widowers because they must forego either their own benefit or
their deceased spouse's benefit (``widow(er)'' benefit), and
may claim the widow(er) benefit only after attaining
qualification age themselves regardless of the age of the
deceased spouse;
Whereas, the current system is unfair to women who leave
employment to raise families because many women in Utah and
throughout the United States work and pay retirement taxes
into the system for many years but never complete the
required 10 years or 40 quarters, before leaving employment,
making them ineligible for retirement benefits;
Whereas, the system is unfair to some ethnic minorities,
including African-Americans, whose life expectancies are
shorter and will typically collect benefits for a shorter
time period;
Whereas, retirement security is best achieved by regularly
saving and investing one's own money over a lifetime of work,
and public policy regarding Social Security should support,
facilitate, and encourage saving rather than discourage or
deter it;
Whereas, the objective of Social Security privatization is
for individual workers to have legal ownership in a
retirement asset that can be used and ultimately passed on to
heirs;
Whereas, even with modest return assumptions, the private,
individually owned account can be expected to produce a
significantly enhanced retirement income;
Whereas, private individually owned accounts accrue value
and future benefits to the workers regardless of future
congressional actions;
Whereas, private, individually owned accounts grow on
behalf of the worker whether or not the worker completes 40
quarters of contributions;
Whereas, private, individually owned accounts can be passed
on by inheritance to spouses, children, or grandchildren,
affording an opportunity for long-term-generational wealth
accumulation:
Whereas, a national system of private, individual accounts
can be perpetuated without end and without concern for
projected dates of insolvency;
Whereas, private, individual accounts afford workers the
opportunity to select from among multiple investment options,
including government bonds or prudent, diversified investment
models like those used by large pension or endowment funds;
Whereas, workers around the world are embracing privatized
systems as a workable solution to an overburdened government
Social Security program;
Whereas, the successful pioneer Chilean model was commenced
20 years ago with at least seven other Latin American
countries following suit;
Whereas, Great Britain, Australia, and Singapore have also
adopted private options, similar reforms are underway in
Russia, Hungary, Poland, and Kazakhstan, and the People's
Republic of China have embraced a private option with workers
contributing one-half of their retirement funds into an
individual account system since 1996;
Whereas, some U.S. workers have enjoyed a private account
system as certain municipalities, including Galveston, Texas
were allowed to opt out of Social Security in favor of a
privatized system prior to 1981; and
Whereas, since many Americans are unable to save and invest
for retirement beyond the 12.4% payroll tax, a privatized
Social Security option may be the only hope for many lower
income or economically disadvantaged Americans to achieve
financial empowerment and retirement security: now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah urge
the United States Congress to enact legislation to allow
individual workers to choose to remain in the current system
or to select a private account option. Be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature urge that the legislation
not disrupt the benefits paid to existing Social Security
recipients. Be it further
Resolved, That the legislation create private accounts to
be owned and controlled by individual employees or workers,
allow the individual employee or worker discretion to invest
among multiple prudent and diversified investment options,
and create minimum guaranteed income, disability, and death
benefits in the private account. Be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Speaker of the United States House of Representative, the
President of the United States Senate, and the members of
Utah's congressional delegation.
____

POM-25. A concurrent resolution adopted by the State of
Utah relative to remembering those affected by Cold War
nuclear testing; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

House Resolution No. 1

Whereas, January 27, 2001, marks the 50th anniversary of
the beginning of nuclear testing at the Nevada test site on
January 27, 1951;
Whereas, many Utahns and many other citizens of the United
States of America living downwind of those tests suffered as
a result of being ``active participants'' in the nation's
nuclear testing program; and
Whereas, uranium miners in Utah, Colorado, New Mexico,
Arizona, and the Navajo Nation whose work fueled the nuclear
weapons program also suffered from exposure to radiation:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah, the
Governor concurring therein, designate January 27, 2001, as a
Day of Remembrance to recognize the legacy of the Cold War
and express hope for peace, justice, healing, reconciliation,
and the fervent desire and commitment to assure that such a
legacy will never be repeated. Be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor recognize
the sacrifices of the downwinders, uranium miners, and all
other participants and victims of the Cold War, and their
losses due to this tragedy. Be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to
Downwinders, Inc. and the members of Utah's congressional
delegation.
____

POM-26. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Utah relative to the appropriation of funds;
to the Committee on Appropriations.

House Resolution No. 11

Whereas, 1.25 million acres of land in the state of Utah is
infested with crickets and grasshoppers;
Whereas, $22.5 million in crop losses have occurred in Box
Elder and Tooele counties alone, with an additional $5
million in damages in 16 other counties resulting from the
infestation;
Whereas, crickets and grasshoppers have migrated from
federal land, where no insecticides were sprayed, to
surrounding private lands;
Whereas, on March 15, 2000, Governor Leavitt issued a
declaration of agricultural

[[Page 6416]]

emergency, sought federal disaster relief, and issued a
letter of the United States Department of Agriculture seeking
federal commodity credit corporation funds for the relief of
affected Utah farmers;
Whereas, during 1999 and 2000, available state funds and
limited federal assistance were used to treat affected lands,
but little progress was made because the bulk of the federal
assistance came late in the treatment season;
Whereas, the cricket and grasshopper infestation will be
larger in 2001, with continued large economic losses to
property owners and agricultural operators;
Whereas, available state funds will be insufficient to
adequately control the situation; and
Whereas, since the problem originated on federal lands, the
federal government should fund a substantial portion of the
effort to eliminate the infestation and assist those whose
livelihood has been devastated: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah, the
Governor concurring therein, urges the United States Congress
to provide funds sufficient to relieve Utahans of the
devastating economic impact of the state's cricket and
grasshopper infestation. Be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, the United States
Department of Agriculture, and the members of Utah's
congressional delegation.
____

POM-27. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Utah relative to environmental preservation;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

House Resolution No. 3

Whereas, the existence of Glen Canyon Dam and Flaming Gorge
Dam has allowed the seven Colorado River Basin states to
share and cooperatively plan for the beneficial use of water
for millions of citizens;
Whereas, Lake Powell and Flaming Gorge Reservoir provide
water regulation and flood control capability in the Colorado
River system for the citizens of the seven states;
Whereas, electric generating facilities at Glen Canyon Dam
and Flaming Gorge Dam provide electricity to more than a
million households;
Whereas, millions of visitors annually enjoy the
recreational amenities and world-renown fisheries at Lake
Powell and Flaming Gorge Reservoir; and
Whereas, the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam and the
Flaming Gorge Dam has created a rich riparian habitat below
the dams that did not previously exist: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah, the
Governor concurring therein, urge the United States Congress
and the Department of Interior officials to recognize and
protect the water, power, recreation, and environmental
benefits of Lake Powell and Flaming Gorge Reservoir, and the
water regulation and flood control benefits to United States
citizens from Glen Canyon Dam and Flaming Gorge Dam. Be it
further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor urge the
United States Congress and Department of Interior officials
to oppose any effort to breach or remove Glen Canyon Dam or
Flaming Gorge Dam, or drain Lake Powell or Flaming Gorge
Reservoir. Be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor urge
Congress and Department of Interior officials to prohibit the
use of federal funds for any studies concerning the breaching
or removal of Glen Canyon Dam, Flaming Gorge Dam, Lake
Powell, or Flaming Gorge Reservoir. Be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the
President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, the members of Utah's
congressional delegation, and Department of Interior
officials.
____

POM-28. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Maine relative to Support Pay Equity; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Joint Resolution

Whereas, the average American woman who works full time
earns approximately 74 cents for each dollar that an average
man earns working full time, and the average woman working
full time in Maine earns approximately 73 cents for each
dollar that an average man working full time in Maine earns;
and
Whereas, the significant pay gap between men and women
performing jobs of comparable skill, effort and
responsibility, even when wages are adjusted for levels of
education, contributes to the disproportionately high poverty
rate among women and children in the State and across the
Nation; and
Whereas, Congress has found that the gender-based wage gap
depresses living standards for American women and their
families, harms their health and efficiency, prevents the
maximum utilization of available labor resources and tends to
cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, affecting and
obstructing commerce and creating unfair methods of
competition; and
Whereas, justice requires that women be paid fairly for the
value of their work; and
Whereas, the average wage gap between men and women has
continued for decades without significant improvement,
notwithstanding federal and state laws that prohibit
discrimination in compensation for equal work on the basis of
sex, including the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 26, section 628; now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That We, your Memorialists, respectfully urge and
request that the President of the United States and the
Congress of the United States strengthen efforts to ensure
that women are paid fairly for their work; and be it further
Resolved, That suitable copies of this resolution, duly
authenticated by the Secretary of State, be transmitted to
the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States,
to the President of the United States Senate, to the Speaker
of the United States House of Representatives and to each
Member of the Maine Congressional Delegation.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, with an amendment:
S. 319: A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
ensure that air carriers meet their obligations under the
Airline Customer Service Agreement, and provide improved
passenger service in order to meet public convenience and
necessity. (Rept. No. 107-13).

____________________

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

The following executive reports of committee were submitted:

By Mr. HELMS for the Committee on Foreign Relations.
John Robert Bolton, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of
State for Arms Control and International Security.
Andrew S. Natsios, of Massachusetts, to be Administrator of
the United States Agency for International Development
James Andrew Kelly, of Hawaii, to be an Assistant Secretary
of State (East Asian and Pacific Affairs).
Richard Nathan Haass, of Maryland, for the rank of
Ambassador during his tenure of Service as Director, Policy
Planning Staff, Department of State.
Paula J. Dobriansky, of Virginia, to be an Under Secretary
of State (Global Affairs).
Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Jr., of Virginia, to be an Assistant
Secretary of State (Political-Military Affairs).

(The above nominations were reported with the recommendation that
they be confirmed subject to the nominees' commitment to respond to
requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of
the Senate.)

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Schumer,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 778. A bill to expand the class of beneficiaries who may
apply for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act by extending the deadline for
classification petition and labor certification filings; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 779. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to treat certain hospital support organizations as qualified
organizations for purposes of section 514(c)(9); to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 780. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow individuals who do not itemize their deductions a
deduction for a portion of their charitable contributions,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 781. A bill to amend section 3702 of title 38, United
States Code, to extend the authority for housing loans for
members of the Selected Reserve; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 782. A bill to amend title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 to require, as a precondition to
commencing a civil action with respect to a place of public
accommodation or a commercial facility, that an opportunity
be provided to correct alleged violations, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health , Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Feingold,
Mrs. Murray,

[[Page 6417]]

Mr. Johnson, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 783. A bill to enhance the rights of victims in the
criminal justice system, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 784. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to increase the limitation on capital losses and individual
may deduct against ordinary income, and to allow individuals
a 3-year capital loss carryback and unlimited carryovers; to
the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 785. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to
require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a carbon
sequestration program to permit owners and operators of land
to enroll the land in the program to increase the
sequestration of carbon, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Torricelli, and Mr. Corzine):
S. 786. A bill to designate certain Federal land in the
State of Utah as wilderness, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. GREGG:
S. 787. A bill to prohibit the importation of diamonds from
countries that have not become signatories to an
international agreement establishing a certification system
for exports and imports of rough diamonds or that have not
unilaterally implemented a certification system meeting the
standards set forth herein; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 788. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
establish a National Organ and Tissue Donor Registry that
works in conjunction with State organ and tissue donor
registries, to create a public-private partnership to launch
an aggressive outreach and education campaign about organ and
tissue donation and the Registry, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 789. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to
establish an education savings plan to encourage
reenlistments and extensions of service by members of the
Armed Forces in critical specialties, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Smith
of New Hampshire):
S. 790. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
prohibit human cloning; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. THURMOND:
S. 791. A bill to amend the Federal rules of Criminal
Procedure; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Clinton,
and Mr. Byrd):
S. 792. A bill to prohibit the targeted marketing to minors
of adult-rated media as an unfair or deceptive practice, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 793. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow individuals who do not itemize their deductions a
deduction for a portion of their charitable contributions,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr.
Grassley, and Mr. Baucus):
S. 794. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to facilitate electric cooperative participation in a
competitive electric power industry; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Conrad,
Mr. Frist, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 795. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to permit the consolidation of life insurance companies with
other companies; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lieberman,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr.
Wellstone):
S. 796. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to
ensure that drinking water consumers are informed about the
risks posed by arsenic in drinking water; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
S. Res. 76. A resolution congratulating the Eagles of
Boston College for winning the 2001 men's ice hockey
championship; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. Daschle):
S. Res. 77. A resolution to authorize the production of
records by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of
the Committee on Governmental affairs; considered and agreed
to.
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Dodd, and Mr.
Voinovich):
S. Con. Res. 34. A concurrent resolution congratulating the
Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on the tenth
anniversary of the reestablishment of their full
independence; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 19

At the request of Mr. Daschle, the name of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 19, a bill
to protect the civil rights of all Americans, and for other purposes.

S. 39

At the request of Mr. Stevens, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Nelson of Nebraska) 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. 99

At the request of Mr. Kohl, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 99, a bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a credit against tax for employers who
provide child care assistance for dependents of their employees, and
for other purposes.

S. 133

At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) 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. 170

At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Akaka) was added as a cosponsor of S. 170, a bill to amend title 10,
United States Code, to permit retired members of the Armed Forces who
have a service-connected disability to receive both military retired
pay by reason of their years of military service and disability
compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their
disability.

S. 237

At the request of Mr. Hutchinson, the names of the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. Thompson) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) were
added as cosponsors of S. 237, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 income tax increase on Social Security
benefits.

S. 247

At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 247, a bill to provide for
the protection of children from tobacco.

S. 270

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 270, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide a transitional
adjustment for certain sole community hospitals in order to limit any
decline in payment under the prospective payment system for hospital
outpatient department services.

S. 367

At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Sarbanes) was added as a cosponsor of S. 367, a bill to prohibit
the application of certain restrictive eligibility requirements to
foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to the provision of
assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

S. 403

At the request of Mr. Cochran, the names of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Sarbanes), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) were added as cosponsors of S. 403, a bill to improve the
National Writing Project.

[[Page 6418]]

S. 413

At the request of Mr. Cochran, the names of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) were added as a cosponsors of S. 413, a bill
to amend part F of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 to improve and refocus civic education, and for other
purposes.

S. 466

At the request of Mr. Hagel, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Enzi) was added as a cosponsor of S. 466, a bill to amend the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to fully fund 40 percent of
the average per pupil expenditure for programs under part B of such
Act.

S. 515

At the request of Mr. Domenici, the name of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Lugar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 515, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a permanent tax incentive
for research and development, and for other purposes.

S. 525

At the request of Mr. Graham, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 525, a bill
to expand trade benefits to certain Andean countries, and for other
purposes.

S. 540

At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Dayton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 540, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow as a deduction in determining
adjusted gross income the deduction for expenses in connection with
services as a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the
United States, to allow employers a credit against income tax with
respect to employees who participate in the military reserve
components, and to allow a comparable credit for participating reserve
component self-employed individuals, and for other purposes.

S. 543

At the request of Mr. Domenici, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Thomas) 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. 549

At the request of Mr. Crapo, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. 549, a bill to
ensure the availability of spectrum to amateur radio operators.

S. 580

At the request of Mr. Hutchinson, the names of the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. Miller) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) were
added as a cosponsors of S. 580, a bill to expedite the construction of
the World War II memorial in the District of Columbia.

S. 587

At the request of Mr. Conrad, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 587, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act and title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
sustain access to vital emergency medical services in rural areas.

S. 697

At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 697, a bill to modernize the
financing of the railroad retirement system and to provide enhanced
benefits to employees and beneficiaries.

S. 767

At the request of Mr. Reed, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 767, a bill to extend the
Brady background checks to gun shows, and for other purposes.

S.J. RES. 7

At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) were added
as a cosponsors of S.J. Res. 7, a joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress
to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

S. RES. 16

At the request of Mr. Thurmond, the name of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Ensign) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 16, a resolution
designating August 16, 2001, as ``National Airborne Day.''

S. RES. 19

At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 19, a resolution to
express the sense of the Senate that the Federal investment in
biomedical research should be increased by $3,400,000,000 in fiscal
year 2002.

S. RES. 63

At the request of Mr. Campbell, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Daschle) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) were
added as a cosponsors 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 Nebraska
(Mr. Nelson) 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 names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) were added
as a cosponsors 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.

S. CON. RES. 33

At the request of Mr. Gregg, the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Craig) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 33, a concurrent
resolution supporting a National Charter Schools Week.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Schumer, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 778. A bill to expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for
adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act by extending the deadline for classification petition
and labor certification filings; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Hagel,
Senator Schumer, and Senator Clinton in introducing legislation to
extend section 245(i), a vital provision of U.S. immigration law, which
enables persons who are eligible for green cards to adjust their status
in the U.S., rather than have to return to their country of origin to
do so. Last year, Congress made a major effort to bring greater
fairness to the nation's immigration laws. The Legal Immigration Family
Equity Act was a sensible compromise worked out on a bipartisan basis
to deal with many of the injustices that have been so harmful and so
unfair to so many immigrant families in recent years. Included in the
legislation was a partial restoration of 245(i).
Under last year's legislation, however, immigrants are required to
file their petition by April 30th to qualify for 245(i). This fast-
approaching deadline is causing fear and confusion around the country.
Eligible immigrants are struggling to file their petitions by April
30th, but little time remains. Across the country, we hear that many
qualified persons will not be able to file their petitions by this
deadline, because not enough attorneys and legal service organizations
are available to handle their cases.
The legislation we are introducing will extend the deadline to April
30, 2002, and provide needed and well-deserved relief to members of our
immigrant communities. Spouses, children, parents and siblings of
permanent residents and U.S. citizens will be able to adjust their
status in the U.S., and avoid needless separation from their loved
ones. Similarly, businesses will

[[Page 6419]]

be able to retain valued employees. In addition, the INS will receive
millions of dollars in additional revenues, at no cost to taxpayers.
Extending the section 245(i) deadline is pro-family and pro-business,
and it is also good economic policy and good immigration policy. It is
consistent with the goal of legislation to reunite immigrant families.
Representatives Peter King and Charles Rangel have introduced similar
legislation in the House. Congress needs to act quickly to pass this
important legislation. I hope that our Republic and Democratic
colleagues will join us in supporting this needed extension.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 779. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat
certain hospital support organizations as qualified organizations for
purposes of section 514(c)(9); to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would
extend to qualified hospital support organizations the debt-financed
property rules that currently apply to tax-exempt education
institutions and pension funds. This measure is of great importance to
the 18,000 inpatients and the more then 200,000 outpatients who receive
health care services from the Queen's Health System of Hawaii.
Currently, Federal tax laws that were enacted in 1969 stand between the
wishes of Queen Emma Kaleleonalani who, in 1885, bequeathed land to the
Queen Emma Foundation to support the Queen's Health System, and the
citizens of Hawaii who depend on the Queen's Health System for health
care services.
The foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt, public charity. Its
purpose is to support and improve health care services in Hawaii by
committing funds generated by foundation-owned properties to the
Queen's Medical Center, an accredited teaching hospital in Honolulu
that maintains an emergency room open to all, regardless of ability to
pay, and that admits Medicare and Medicaid patients. The foundation and
the medical center are members of the Queen's Health Systems, which
also operates Molokai General Hospital, a small community hospital on
the island of Molokai. Additionally, Queen's operates clinics on
various islands, provides home health care services, supports nursing
programs at Hawaiian colleges and universities, operates a medical
library, holds health fairs, and provides other educational services
for the benefit of the Hawaiian community.
Presently, the funds that enable the foundation to support these
services are generated by Foundation-owned properties that were
bequeathed more than 100 years ago by Queen Emma. Most of the
foundation's land is now encumbered by long-term, fixed-rent commercial
and industrial ground leases. The returns from these ground leases are
extremely low, and under their terms, the foundation is unable to
increase rents to keep pace with the appreciation of land values in
Hawaii. The foundation would like to increase its cash flow by buying
out the current leases and re-leasing the land at existing market
rates. The foundation would also like to upgrade the improvements on
its lands to further enhance their revenue-generating potential.
However, current debt-financed property rules under the unrelated
business income tax would subject the revenues earned by the foundation
from its improved properties to income tax, significantly reducing the
funds available to the foundation to meet its obligation to provide
quality health care services to the citizens of Hawaii.
Colleges, universities, and pension funds are currently exempt from
the debt-financed property rules. The foundation seeks the same
treatment that presently applies to educational institutions and
pension funds. 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. 779

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN HOSPITAL SUPPORT
ORGANIZATIONS AS QUALIFIED ORGANIZATIONS FOR
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ACQUISITION
INDEBTEDNESS.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 514(c)(9) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to real property
acquired by a qualifed organization) is amended by striking
``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at
the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``; or'', and by adding
at the end the following new clause:

``(iv) a qualified hospital support organization (as
defined in subparagraph (I)).''.

(b) Qualified Hospital Support Organizations.--Paragraph
(9) of section 514(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(I) Qualified hospital support organizations.--For
purposes of subparagraph (C)(iv), the term `qualified
hospital support organization' means, with respect to any
eligible indebtedness (including any qualified refinancing of
such eligible indebtedness), a support organization (as
defined in section 509(a)(3)) which supports a hospital
described in section 119(d)(4)(B) and with respect to which--

``(i) more than half of its assets (by value) at any time
since its organization--

``(I) were acquired, directly or indirectly, by gift or
devise, and
``(II) consisted of real property, and

``(ii) the fair market value of the organization's real
estate acquired, directly or indirectly, by gift or devise,
exceeded 10 percent of the fair market value of all
investment assets held by the organization immediately prior
to the time that the eligible indebtedness was incurred.

For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `eligible
indebtedness' means indebtedness secured by real property
acquired by the organization, directly or indirectly, by gift
or devise, the proceeds of which are used exclusively to
acquire any leasehold interest in such real property or for
improvements on, or repairs to, such real property. A
determination under clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph
shall be made each time such an eligible indebtedness (or the
qualified refinancing of such an eligible indebtedness) is
incurred. For purposes of this subparagraph, a refinancing of
such an eligible indebtedness shall be considered qualified
if such refinancing does not exceed the amount of the
refinanced eligible indebtedness immediately before the
refinancing.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to indebtedness incurred on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 780. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
individuals who do not itemize their deductions a deduction for a
portion of their charitable contributions, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
would create a new era in charitable giving across America. My bill,
the Neighbor to Neighbor Act, includes provisions that would allow tax-
free distribution of IRA accounts for charitable purposes, and give
nonitemizers the same deduction that itemizers enjoy. It would also
allow the deduction for charitable gifts of long-term capital gain
property to be subject to an annual limit of 50 percent of adjusted
gross income instead of the current 30 percent limitation. It would
increase the carryover period for charitable deductions from five years
to ten years; and it would exclude a charitable deduction from the
three percent reduction rule. My bill would allow a taxpayer to deduct
charitable contributions up until April 15th, and finally, the Neighbor
to Neighbor Act would repeal the current two percent excise tax on
private foundations.
My bill would greatly simplify one of the most complex provisions in
the tax code. The tax code should reward the generosity of good-hearted
Americans, it should not penalize those who choose to give to those in
need.
IRA account owners would be permitted to make distributions from
their IRAs directly to charities, either outright, or in exchange for a
charitable gift annuity, a charitable reminder trust, or pooled income
fund in the Neighbor to Neighbor Act. According to the Employer Benefit
Research Institute, there are currently more than one trillion dollars
in IRA accounts and five trillion dollars in defined contribution
accounts, which can be rolled into IRA accounts.
I have numerous examples, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars,
from people who have wanted to donate

[[Page 6420]]

their excess IRA assets to charity, but were unable to because of the
current tax penalties For example, the ability to rollover an IRA to
charity would mean literally millions of dollars for Boston College.
Syracuse University lost a 1.5 million-dollar gift because the donor
could not rollover his IRA into a charitable remainder trust.
A 71-year-old male donor with a 1.3 million IRA wanted to make a life
income gift to a major public university in Texas. He wanted to receive
annual income payments that would help ensure the care of his wife, who
is in the early stages of Alzheimer's. Given the tax consequences of
such a gift under current law, the donor has not been able to make the
charitable contribution.
The husband of a hospital volunteer at a medical center in Tennessee
would like to establish a charitable trust to benefit cancer research
in honor of his last wife. He wants to use retirement plan assets of
1.8 million to establish this cancer research fund, to provide himself
with annual payments for retirement income, and to reduce the tax
burden on his heirs, would be greater for IRA assets than other
appreciated securities. He has been advised against such a gift because
of tax disincentives under current law.
These are just a few examples of how the current law levies
significant taxes and presents serious disincentives to charitable
gifts of these assets. Under current, law, any IRA withdrawal is fully
taxable as ordinary income in the year in which it occurs. A donor who
withdraws IRA assets in order to make a charitable gift is subject to
tax on the entire amount withdrawn. Under very best of circumstances,
this amount might be offset by a charitable deduction, but even then
there are significant limitations.
My bill, which allows the tax-free distribution of individual IRA
accounts for charitable purposes, is good public policy. Although IRA
assets were originally intended as a supplement to retirement income,
withdrawal is now allowed, under certain circumstances, to assist in
financing a home or a college education. It is equally appropriate for
public policy to allow financially successful individuals, who have
reached a point where IRA and other tax-deferred retirement assets are
not needed for retirement, to use those assets, not for personal
benefit, but to support charities that better the lives of others.
The Neighbor to Neighbor Act would also allow donors who make
charitable contributions, but do not itemize their federal income tax
deductions, to be entitled to a ``direct'' charitable contribution
deduction. Since three out of four taxpayers do not itemize, the
charitable deduction is not available to most taxpayers. A report by
Price Waterhouse Coopers estimates that the deduction for nonitemizers
would translate into 11 million more donors, and could increase giving
by as much as 14.6 billion dollars in one year.
The deduction also does not provide an equal treatment for all
donors, and it encourages fundraising efforts to focus on a small group
of potential donors. By expanding the charitable contribution deduction
for nonitemizers, the playing field would be level for all donors, and
would lessen the role of government and the political process in
charitable giving.
People should not face disincentives that burden charitable giving.
My bill would allow the deduction for gifts of long-term capital gain
property to public charities to be subject to an annual limit of 50
percent of adjusted gross income instead of the current 30 percent
limitation. In addition, the carryover period for charitable deductions
that cannot be fully used in a given tax year, due to the applicable
percentage limitation, would be increased from the current five year to
10 years.
The current percentage limitations on the deductibility of charitable
contributions of long-term capital gain property to public charities,
coupled with the reduction in the tax rates applicable to realized,
long-term capital gains, are having a chilling effect on immediate
charitable giving, the former reduces the incentive to make relatively
large gifts of capital assets in the current year if the donor's
contribution base is relatively small, compared to the value of the
gift that could be made.
For example, just since last June, at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University, four individuals have indicated an interest in giving
amounts ranging from one to three million dollars. These individuals
have not yet given because of the tax disincentives of the 30 percent
rule; they can only deduct charitable contributions up to 30 percent of
their adjusted gross income.
By increasing the income tax charitable deduction reduction
percentage for contributions of long-term capital gain property to
public charities from 30 percent to 50 percent of the donor's
contribution base, gifts of highly-appreciated assets will be put on
par with gifts of cash, and the tax law will again boost private
philanthropy in America.
The Neighbor to Neighbor Act would also allow a taxpayer to deduct,
for the current year, charitable contributions made up to the time for
filing the taxpayer's federal income tax return for that tax year.
Currently, taxpayers may contribute to their IRAs up until April 15th
and still receive a deduction. Charitable donations should have the
same tax treatment.
Finally, this bill would repeal the excise tax imposed on the
investment income of private foundations. Private foundations are
section 501(c)(3) charities that fund the work of a full range of
charitable activities across the country. They are often founded by
individuals or families, and their income stream comes primarily, if
not entirely, from earnings on their investments.
Repeal of the excise tax would have the effect of increasing
charitable contributions by hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
This is because private foundations are required, annually, to pay out
five percent of their assets in charitable distributions, and since the
excise tax counts as a credit toward the distribution requirement,
repeal would require an increase in charitable distributions by an
equal amount.
The excise tax was originally enacted in 1969 as an ``audit fee,''
intended to offset the cost of IRS oversight of private foundations.
But today, the tax collects far more than the IRS needs to conduct
audits. In 1999, the excise tax produced 500 million dollars in
revenue. And this year, the budget of all exempt-organization
activities at the IRS is only 59 million dollars. Moreover, audits of
private foundations fell from 1,200 in 1990 to 191 in 1999. This
``audit fee'' is not being used for its intended purpose.
The wayward use of these revenues is a good reason to repeal the tax,
but not as important as the work we increasingly call on charities to
perform. With the focus of the President and the Congress on charitable
giving, I believe passage of the Neighbor to Neighbor Act would be one
of the most effective steps we could take.
If we hope that charities will join state and federal government
efforts to provide services for disadvantaged people and otherwise
address important societal needs, then Congress should enhance the tax
incentives that encourage voluntary philanthropy. Private foundations,
like public charities, are publicly supported to the extent that they
receive tax preferences. The provisions of the Neighbor to Neighbor Act
are reasonable, efficient steps that will help charities address our
common challenges; challenges we increasingly call on individuals and
the private sector to take.
In an article for The Journal of Gift Planning, President Bush
stated, ``I believe that the government's highest calling is often
simply to do no harm--to instead be an enabler, a catalyst that creates
a climate that allows America's nonprofits to flourish. A government
that serves those who are serving their brothers and sisters. A
government that rallies the armies of compassion to heal our nation's
ills, one heart and one act of kindness at a time.'' I believe that the
Neighbor to Neighbor Act does just that, and I urge my colleagues to
join me in support of this legislation.
______

By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):

[[Page 6421]]

S. 781. A bill to amend section 3702 of title 38, United States Code,
to extend the authority for housing loans for members of the Selected
Reserve; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along
with Senator Jeffords that would extend the authority of the Department
of Veterans Affairs Home Loan Guaranty Program for members of the
Selected Reserve.
I am proud to be the author of the original legislation enacted in
1992 to extend eligibility for the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program to
National Guard and Reserve members. Tens of thousands of dedicated
reservists who served for at least six years, and continue to serve or
have received an honorable discharge, have been able to fulfill their
dream of home ownership through this program. The participation of
Guard and Reserve members not only benefits these service members, but
also stabilizes the financial viability of the program since this group
has had a lower default rate than most other program participants.
Furthermore, the program serves as an important recruiting incentive
for the National Guard and Reserve.
In the 106th Congress, Senator Jeffords and I introduced legislation
which resulted in the authorization for the program being extended
through September 30, 2007. While this was a step in the right
direction, using the benefit for a recruiting incentive will no longer
be possible since the authority expires in six years and reservists are
required to serve for at least six years before they qualify for VA-
guaranteed loans. In order to continue using this program as a
recruiting incentive for a few more years, I am introducing legislation
along with Senator Jeffords that would extend the authority for the
program through September 30, 2015.
The VA Home Loan Guaranty Program is an important component of a
benefits package which makes Guard and Reserve service more attractive
to qualified individuals. This is of particular importance during a
time when the civilian sector is competing for the same pool of limited
applicants, as well as when our military needs are becoming
increasingly technical, demanding only the most intelligent, motivated,
and competent individuals. An extension of the authority will assist
the National Guard and Reserve with their recruitment efforts.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure which would recognize
the vital contributions of National Guard and Reserve members to our
country, as well as ensure that VA-guaranteed housing loans can
continue to be used as a recruiting incentive.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 781

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR HOUSING LOANS FOR
MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE.

Section 3702(a)(2)(E) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``September 30, 2007'' and inserting
``September 30, 2015''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 782. A bill to amend title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 to require, as a precondition to commencing a civil action
with respect to a place of public accommodation or a commercial
facility, that an opportunity be provided to correct alleged
violations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Americans
with Disabilities Act, ADA, Notification Act. This bill would amend the
ADA by including a notice requirement for violations of the ADA before
a court could assume jurisdiction over the dispute. This would allow
businesses the opportunity to bring properties into compliance without
having to face costly litigation.
The ADA currently does not contain a notice requirement, but allows
plaintiffs to sue owners of non-compliant businesses immediately. While
the public accommodations provisions in Title III of the ADA do not
allow plaintiffs to collect damages for violations of any of its access
standards, they do permit lawyers to collect attorneys fees. The lack
of a notice requirement has encouraged a number of lawyers to sue
businesses over infractions that are inexpensive to remedy, but for
which the businesses must pay costly plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses.
I believe this legislation is a reasonable means to ensure that
businesses will be given notice of violations of the ADA and the
opportunity to comply with the ADA before costly litigation is begun.
This would foster greater compliance with the ADA by allowing
businesses to expend their resources on making their properties more
accessible to the disabled, rather than on attorneys' fees.
Please be assured that I simply want to close a loophole in the ADA
that unscrupulous lawyers have exploited. I do not suggest or approve
of any changes to the ADA that would weaken its substantive
requirements for reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities.
We must ensure that the progress begun more than a decade ago continues
as we work to make public accommodations more accessible to everyone.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Feingold, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 783. A bill to enhance the rights of victims in the criminal
justice system, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this past Sunday marked the beginning of
National Crime Victims' Rights Week. We set this week aside each year
to focus attention on the needs and rights of crime victims. I am
pleased to take this opportunity to introduce legislation with my good
friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and our cosponsors,
Senators Feingold, Murray, Johnson, Schumer and Harkin. Our bill, the
Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2001, represents the next step in our
continuing efforts to afford dignity and recognition to victims of
crime.
My involvement with crime victims began more than three decades ago
when I served as State's Attorney in Chittenden County, VT, and
witnessed first-hand the devastation of crime. I have worked ever since
to ensure that the criminal justice system is one that respects the
rights and dignity of victims of crime, rather than one that presents
additional ordeals for those already victimized.
I am proud that Congress has been a significant part of the solution
to provide victims with greater rights and assistance. Over the past
two decades, Congress has passed several bills to this end. These bills
have included: the Victims Witness Protection Act of 1982; the Victims
of Crime Act of 1984; the Victims' Bill of Rights of 1990; the Victims'
Rights and Restitution Act of 1990; the Violence Against Women Act of
1994; the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996; the Victim Rights
Clarification Act of 1997; the Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act
of 1998; and the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of
2000.
The legislation that we introduce today, the Crime Victims Assistance
Act of 2001, builds upon this progress. It provides for comprehensive
reform of the Federal law to establish enhanced rights and protections
for victims of Federal crime. Among other things, our bill provides
crime victims with the right to consult with the prosecution prior to
detention hearings and the entry of plea agreements, and generally
requires the courts to give greater consideration to the views and
interests of the victim at all stages of the criminal justice process.
Responding to concerns raised by victims of the Oklahoma City bombing,
the bill provides standing for the prosecutor and the victim to assert
the right of the victim to attend and observe the trial.
Assuring that victims are provided their statutorily guaranteed
rights is a critical concern for all those involved in the
administration of justice. Our bill would establish an administrative
authority in the Department of Justice

[[Page 6422]]

to receive and investigate victims' claims of unlawful or inappropriate
action on the part of criminal justice and victims' service providers.
Department of Justice employees who fail to comply with the law
pertaining to the treatment of crime victims could face disciplinary
sanctions, including suspension or termination of employment.
In addition to these improvements to the Federal system, the bill
proposes several programs to help States provide better assistance for
victims of State crimes. These programs would improve compliance with
State victim's rights laws, promote the development of state-of-the-art
notification systems to keep victims informed of case developments and
important dates on a timely and efficient basis, and encourage further
experimentation with the community-based restorative justice model in
the juvenile court setting.
Finally, the Crime Victims Assistance Act would make several
significant amendments to the Victims of Crime Act, VOCA, and improve
the manner in which the Crime Victims Fund is managed and preserved.
Most significantly, the bill would eliminate the cap on VOCA spending,
which has prevented more than $700 million in Fund deposits from
reaching victims and supporting essential services.
Congress has capped spending from the Fund for the last two fiscal
years, and President Bush has proposed a third cap for fiscal year
2002. These limits on VOCA spending have created a growing sense of
confusion and unease by many of those concerned about the future of the
Fund.
We should not be imposing artificial caps on VOCA spending while
substantial unmet needs continue to exist. The Crime Victims Assistance
Act replaces the cap with a formulaic approach, which would ensure
stability and protection of Fund assets, while allowing more money to
go out to the States for victim compensation and assistance.
These are all matters that can be considered and enacted this year
with a simple majority of both Houses of Congress. They need not
overcome the delay and higher standards necessitated by proposing to
amend the Constitution. They need not wait the hammering out of
implementing legislation before making a difference in the lives of
crime victims.
The Judiciary Committee has held several hearings over the last five
years on a proposed constitutional amendment regarding crime victims.
Unfortunately, the Committee has devoted not a minute to consideration
of legislative initiatives like the Crime Victims Assistance Act, which
Senator Kennedy and I first introduced in the 105th Congress, to assist
crime victims and better protect their rights. Like many other
deserving initiatives, it has taken a back seat to the constitutional
amendment debate that continues.
I regret that we have not done more for victims this year, or during
the last few years. I have on several occasions noted my concern that
we not dissipate the progress we could be making by focusing
exclusively on efforts to amend the Constitution. Regretfully, I must
note that the pace of victims legislation has slowed noticeably and
many opportunities for progress have been squandered. One notable
exception was the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of
2000, which included a Leahy-Feinstein amendment dealing with support
for victims of international terrorism. Senator Feinstein cares deeply
about the rights of victims, and I am pleased that we could work
together on some practical, pragmatic improvements to our federal crime
victims' laws.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Administration, victims
groups, prosecutors, judges and other interested parties on how we can
most effectively enhance the rights of victims of crime. Congress and
State legislatures have become more sensitive to crime victims rights
over the past 20 years and we have a golden opportunity to make
additional, significant progress this year to provide the greater voice
and rights that crime victims deserve.
I would like to acknowledge several individuals and organizations
that have been extremely helpful with regards to the legislation that
we are introducing today: Dan Eddy, National Association of Crime
Victim Compensation Boards; Steve Derene, Wisconsin Department of
Justice Office of Crime Victims Services; Susan Howley, National Center
for Victims of Crime; and John Stein, National Organization for Victim
Assistance. I would also like to thank Kathryn M. Turman, the Acting
Director for the Office for Victims of Crime, and Heather Cartwright
and Carolyn Hightower of that office, for their work on this project.
While we have greatly improved our crime victims assistance programs
and made advances in recognizing crime victims rights, we still have
more to do. That is why it is my hope that Democrats and Republicans,
supporters and opponents of a constitutional amendment on this issue,
will join in advancing this important legislation through Congress. We
can make a difference in the lives of crime victims right now, and I
hope Congress will make it a top priority and pass the Crime Victims
Assistance Act before the end of the year.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the section-by-
section analysis be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 783

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 ``Crime
Victims Assistance Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--VICTIM RIGHTS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

Sec. 101. Right to consult concerning detention.
Sec. 102. Right to a speedy trial.
Sec. 103. Right to consult concerning plea.
Sec. 104. Enhanced participatory rights at trial.
Sec. 105. Enhanced participatory rights at sentencing.
Sec. 106. Right to notice concerning sentence adjustment.
Sec. 107. Right to notice concerning discharge from psychiatric
facility
Sec. 108. Right to notice concerning executive clemency.
Sec. 109. Procedures to promote compliance.

TITLE II--VICTIM ASSISTANCE INITIATIVES

Sec. 201. Pilot programs to enforce compliance with State crime
victim's rights laws.
Sec. 202. Increased resources to develop state-of-the-art systems for
notifying crime victims of important dates and
developments.
Sec. 203. Restorative justice grants.
Sec. 204. Funding for Federal victim assistance personnel.

TITLE III--VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT AMENDMENTS

Sec. 301. Crime victims fund.
Sec. 302. Crime victim compensation.
Sec. 303. Crime victim assistance.
Sec. 304. Victims of terrorism.

TITLE I--VICTIM RIGHTS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

SEC. 101. RIGHT TO CONSULT CONCERNING DETENTION.

(a) Right To Consult Concerning Detention.--Section 503(c)
of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
10607(c)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting
the following:
``(2) A responsible official shall--
``(A) arrange for a victim to receive reasonable protection
from a suspected offender and persons acting in concert with
or at the behest of the suspected offender; and
``(B) consult with a victim prior to a detention hearing to
obtain information that can be presented to the court on the
issue of any threat the suspected offender may pose to the
safety of the victim.''.
(b) Court Consideration of the Views of Victims.--Chapter
207 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 3142--
(A) in subsection (g)--
(i) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) the views of the victim; and''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Views of the Victim.--During a hearing under
subsection (f), the judicial officer shall inquire of the
attorney for the Government if the victim has been consulted
on the issue of detention and the views of such victim, if
any.''.

[[Page 6423]]

(2) in section 3156(a)--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) the term ``victim'' includes all persons defined as
victims in section 503(e)(2) of the Victims' Rights and
Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(e)(2)).''.

SEC. 102. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.

Section 3161(h)(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(v) The interests of the victim (as defined in section
10607(e)(2) of title 42, United States Code) in the prompt
and appropriate disposition of the case, free from
unreasonable delay.''.

SEC. 103. RIGHT TO CONSULT CONCERNING PLEA.

(a) Right To Consult Concerning Plea.--Section 503(c) of
the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
10607(c)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (8) as
paragraphs (5) through (9), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) A responsible official shall make reasonable efforts
to notify a victim of, and consider the views of a victim
about, any proposed or contemplated plea agreement. In
determining what is reasonable, the responsible official
should consider factors relevant to the wisdom and
practicality of giving notice and considering views in the
context of the particular case, including--
``(A) the impact on public safety and risks to personal
safety;
``(B) the number of victims;
``(C) the need for confidentiality, including whether the
proposed plea involves confidential information or
conditions;
``(D) whether time is of the essence in negotiating or
entering a proposed plea; and
``(E) whether the victim is a possible witness in the case
and the effect that relaying any information may have upon
the right of the defendant to a fair trial.''.
(b) Court Consideration of the Views of Victims.--Rule 11
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended--
(1) by redesignating subdivisions (g) and (h) as
subdivisions (h) and (i), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subdivision (f) the following:
``(g) Views of the Victim.--Notwithstanding the acceptance
of a plea of guilty, the court should not enter a judgment
upon such plea without making inquiry of the attorney for the
Government if the victim (as defined in section 503(e)(2) of
the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990) has been
consulted on the issue of the plea and the views of such
victim, if any.''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall become effective as provided in paragraph (3).
(2) Action by judicial conference.--
(A) Recommendations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Judicial Conference of the
United States shall submit to Congress a report containing
recommendations for amending the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure to provide enhanced opportunities for victims to be
heard on the issue of whether or not the court should accept
a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.
(B) Inapplicability of other law.--Chapter 131 of title 28,
United States Code, does not apply to any recommendation made
by the Judicial Conference of the United States under this
paragraph.
(3) Congressional action.--Except as otherwise provided by
law, if the Judicial Conference of the United States--
(A) submits a report in accordance with paragraph (2)
containing recommendations described in that paragraph, and
those recommendations are the same as the amendments made by
subsection (b), then the amendments made by subsection (b)
shall become effective 30 days after the date on which the
recommendations are submitted to Congress under paragraph
(2);
(B) submits a report in accordance with paragraph (2)
containing recommendations described in that paragraph, and
those recommendations are different in any respect from the
amendments made by subsection (b), the recommendations made
pursuant to paragraph (2) shall become effective 180 days
after the date on which the recommendations are submitted to
Congress under paragraph (2), unless an Act of Congress is
passed overturning the recommendations; and
(C) fails to comply with paragraph (2), the amendments made
by subsection (b) shall become effective 360 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(4) Application.--Any amendment made pursuant to this
section (including any amendment made pursuant to the
recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United
States under paragraph (2)) shall apply in any proceeding
commenced on or after the effective date of the amendment.

SEC. 104. ENHANCED PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS AT TRIAL.

(a) Amendments to Victim Rights Clarification Act.--Section
3510 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Application to Televised Proceedings.--This section
applies to any victim viewing proceedings pursuant to section
235 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 (42 U.S.C. 10608), or any rule issued thereunder.
``(d) Standing.--
``(1) In general.--At the request of any victim of an
offense, the attorney for the Government may assert the right
of the victim under this section to attend and observe the
trial.
``(2) Victim standing.--If the attorney for the Government
declines to assert the right of a victim under this section,
then the victim has standing to assert such right.
``(3) Appellate review.--An adverse ruling on a motion or
request by an attorney for the Government or a victim under
this subsection may be appealed or petitioned under the rules
governing appellate actions, provided that no appeal or
petition shall constitute grounds for delaying a criminal
proceeding.''.
(b) Amendment to Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of
1990.-- Section 502(b) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10606(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) The right to be present at all public court
proceedings related to the offense, unless the court
determines that testimony by the victim at trial would be
materially affected if the victim heard the testimony of
other witnesses.''; and
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``attorney'' and
inserting ``the attorney''.

SEC. 105. ENHANCED PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS AT SENTENCING.

(a) Views of the Victim.--Section 3553(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) the impact of the crime upon any victim of the
offense as reflected in any victim impact statement and the
views of any victim of the offense concerning punishment, if
such statement or views are presented to the court; and''.
(b) Enhanced Right To Be Heard Concerning Sentence.--Rule
32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended--
(1) in subdivision (c)(3)(E), by striking ``if the sentence
is to be imposed for a crime of violence or sexual abuse,'';
and
(2) by amending subdivision (f) to read as follows:
``(f) Definition. For purposes of this rule, `victim' means
any individual against whom an offense has been committed for
which a sentence is to be imposed, but the right of
allocution under subdivision (c)(3)(E) may be exercised
instead by--
``(1) a parent or legal guardian if the victim is below the
age of eighteen years or incompetent; or
``(2) one or more family members or relatives designated by
the court if the victim is deceased or incapacitated;
if such person or persons are present at the sentencing
hearing, regardless of whether the victim is present.''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall become effective as provided in paragraph (3).
(2) Action by judicial conference.--
(A) Recommendations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Judicial Conference of the
United States shall submit to Congress a report containing
recommendations for amending the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure to provide enhanced opportunities for victims to
participate during the presentencing and sentencing phase of
the criminal process.
(B) Inapplicability of other law.--Chapter 131 of title 28,
United States Code, does not apply to any recommendation made
by the Judicial Conference of the United States under this
paragraph.
(3) Congressional action.--Except as otherwise provided by
law, if the Judicial Conference of the United States--
(A) submits a report in accordance with paragraph (2)
containing recommendations described in that paragraph, and
those recommendations are the same as the amendments made by
subsection (b), then the amendments made by subsection (b)
shall become effective 30 days after the date on which the
recommendations are submitted to Congress under paragraph
(2);
(B) submits a report in accordance with paragraph (2)
containing recommendations described in that paragraph, and
those recommendations are different in any respect from the
amendments made by subsection (b), the recommendations made
pursuant to paragraph (2) shall become effective 180 days
after the date on which the recommendations are submitted to
Congress under paragraph (2), unless an Act of Congress is
passed overturning the recommendations; and
(C) fails to comply with paragraph (2), the amendments made
by subsection (b) shall become effective 360 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.

[[Page 6424]]

(4) Application.--Any amendment made pursuant to this
section (including any amendment made pursuant to the
recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United
States under paragraph (2)) shall apply in any proceeding
commenced on or after the effective date of the amendment.

SEC. 106. RIGHT TO NOTICE CONCERNING SENTENCE ADJUSTMENT.

Paragraph (6) of section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and
Restitution Act of 1990, as redesignated by section 103 of
this Act, is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and
inserting:
``(A) the scheduling of a parole hearing or a hearing on
modification of probation or supervised release for the
offender;''.

SEC. 107. RIGHT TO NOTICE CONCERNING DISCHARGE FROM
PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY.

Paragraph (6) of section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and
Restitution Act of 1990, as redesignated by section 103 of
this Act, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting:
``(B) the escape, work release, furlough, discharge or
conditional discharge, or any other form of release from
custody of the offender, including an offender who was found
not guilty by reason of insanity;''.

SEC. 108. RIGHT TO NOTICE CONCERNING EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY.

(a) Notice.--Paragraph (6) of section 503(c) of the
Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, as redesignated
by section 103 of this Act, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) the grant of executive clemency, including any
pardon, reprieve, commutation of sentence, or remission of
fine, to the offender; and''.
(b) Reporting Requirement.--The Attorney General shall
submit biannually to the Committees on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and the Senate a report on executive
clemency matters or cases delegated for review or
investigation to the Attorney General by the President,
including for each year--
(1) the number of petitions so delegated;
(2) the number of reports submitted to the President;
(3) the number of petitions for executive clemency granted
and the number denied;
(4) the name of each person whose petition for executive
clemency was granted or denied and the offenses of conviction
of that person for which executive clemency was granted or
denied; and
(5) with respect to any person granted executive clemency,
the date that any victim of an offense that was the subject
of that grant of executive clemency was notified, pursuant to
Department of Justice regulations, of a petition for
executive clemency, and whether such victim submitted a
statement concerning the petition.

SEC. 109. PROCEDURES TO PROMOTE COMPLIANCE.

(a) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United
States shall promulgate regulations to enforce the rights of
victims of crime described in section 502 of the Victims'
Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10606) and to
ensure compliance by responsible officials with the
obligations described in section 503 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
10607).
(b) Contents.--The regulations promulgated under subsection
(a) shall--
(1) establish an administrative authority within the
Department of Justice to receive and investigate complaints
relating to the provision or violation of the rights of a
crime victim;
(2) require a course of training for employees and offices
of the Department of Justice that fail to comply with
provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of
victims of crime, and otherwise assist such employees and
offices in responding more effectively to the needs of
victims;
(3) contain disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or
termination from employment, for employees of the Department
of Justice who willfully or wantonly fail to comply with
provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of
victims of crime; and
(4) provide that the Attorney General, or the designee of
the Attorney General, shall be the final arbiter of the
complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of the
final decision of the Attorney General by a complainant.

TITLE II--VICTIM ASSISTANCE INITIATIVES

SEC. 201. PILOT PROGRAMS TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE
CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS LAWS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Compliance authority.--The term ``compliance
authority'' means one of the compliance authorities
established and operated under a program under subsection (b)
to enforce the rights of victims of crime.
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office for Victims of Crime.
(3) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office for
Victims of Crime.
(b) Pilot Programs.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, acting through
the Director, shall establish and carry out a program to
provide for pilot programs in 5 States to establish and
operate compliance authorities to enforce the rights of
victims of crime.
(2) Agreements.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General, acting through the
Director, shall enter into an agreement with a State to
conduct a pilot program referred to in paragraph (1), which
agreement shall provide for a grant to assist the State in
carrying out the pilot program.
(B) Contents of agreement.--The agreement referred to in
subparagraph (A) shall specify that--
(i) the compliance authority shall be established and
operated in accordance with this section; and
(ii) except with respect to meeting applicable requirements
of this section concerning carrying out the duties of a
compliance authority under this section (including the
applicable reporting duties under subsection (f) and the
terms of the agreement), a compliance authority shall operate
independently of the Office.
(C) No authority over daily operations.--The Office shall
have no supervisory or decisionmaking authority over the day-
to-day operations of a compliance authority.
(c) Objectives.--
(1) Mission.--The mission of a compliance authority
established and operated under a pilot program under this
section shall be to promote compliance and effective
enforcement of State laws regarding the rights of victims of
crime.
(2) Duties.--A compliance authority established and
operated under a pilot program under this section shall--
(A) receive and investigate complaints relating to the
provision or violation of the rights of a crime victim; and
(B) issue findings following such investigations.
(3) Other duties.--A compliance authority established and
operated under a pilot program under this section may--
(A) pursue legal actions to define or enforce the rights of
victims;
(B) review procedures established by public agencies and
private organizations that provide services to victims, and
evaluate the delivery of services to victims by such agencies
and organizations;
(C) coordinate and cooperate with other public agencies and
private organizations concerned with the implementation,
monitoring, and enforcement of the rights of victims and
enter into cooperative agreements with such agencies and
organizations for the furtherance of the rights of victims;
(D) ensure a centralized location for victim services
information;
(E) recommend changes in State policies concerning victims,
including changes in the system for providing victim
services;
(F) provide public education, legislative advocacy, and
development of proposals for systemic reform; and
(G) advertise to advise the public of its services,
purposes, and procedures.
(d) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall submit an application to the
Director which includes assurances that--
(1) the State has provided legal rights to victims of crime
at the adult and juvenile levels;
(2) a compliance authority that receives funds under this
section will include a role for--
(A) representatives of criminal justice agencies, crime
victim service organizations, and the educational community;
(B) a medical professional whose work includes work in a
hospital emergency room; and
(C) a therapist whose work includes treatment of crime
victims; and
(3) Federal funds received under this section will be used
to supplement, and not to supplant, non-Federal funds that
would otherwise be available to enforce the rights of victims
of crime.
(e) Preference.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Attorney General shall give preference to a State that
provides legal standing to prosecutors and victims of crime
to assert the rights of victims of crime.
(f) Oversight.--
(1) Technical assistance.--The Director may provide
technical assistance and training to a State that receives a
grant under this section to achieve the purposes of this
section.
(2) Annual report.--Each State that receives a grant under
this section shall submit to the Director, for each year in
which funds from a grant received under this section are
expended, a report that contains--
(A) a summary of the activities carried out under the grant
and an assessment of the effectiveness of such activities in
promoting compliance and effective implementation of the laws
of that State regarding the rights of victims of crime;
(B) a strategic plan for the year following the year
covered under subparagraph (A); and
(C) such other information as the Director may require.
(g) Review of Program Effectiveness.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute for
Justice shall conduct an

[[Page 6425]]

evaluation of the pilot programs carried out under this
section to determine the effectiveness of the compliance
authorities that are the subject of the pilot programs in
carrying out the mission and duties described in subsection
(c).
(2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Institute
of Justice shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate a written report on the results of
the evaluation required by paragraph (1).
(h) Grant Period.--A grant under this section shall be made
for a period not longer than 4 years, but may be renewed for
a period not to exceed 2 years on such terms as the Director
may require.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section, to remain available until expended,
$8,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005.
(2) Evaluations.--Up to 5 percent of the amount authorized
to be appropriated under paragraph (1) in any fiscal year may
be used for administrative expenses incurred in conducting
the evaluations and preparing the report required by
subsection (g).

SEC. 202. INCREASED RESOURCES TO DEVELOP STATE-OF-THE-ART
SYSTEMS FOR NOTIFYING CRIME VICTIMS OF
IMPORTANT DATES AND DEVELOPMENTS.

The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 is amended by inserting
after section 1404C the following:

``SEC. 1404D. VICTIM NOTIFICATION GRANTS.

``(a) In General.--The Director may make grants as provided
in section 1404(c)(1)(A) to State, tribal, and local
prosecutors' offices, law enforcement agencies, courts,
jails, and correctional institutions, and to qualified
private entities, to develop and implement state-of-the-art
systems for notifying victims of crime of important dates and
developments relating to the criminal proceedings at issue on
a timely and efficient basis.
``(b) Integration of Systems.--Systems developed and
implemented under this section may be integrated with
existing case management systems operated by the recipient of
the grant.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, in
addition to funds made available by section 1402(d)(4)(C)--
``(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
``(3) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
``(d) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729
through 3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known
as the `False Claims Act'), may be used for grants under this
section.''.

SEC. 203. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE GRANTS.

The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 is amended by inserting
after section 1404D, as added by section 202 of this Act, the
following:

``SEC. 1404E. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE GRANTS.

``(a) In General.--The Director may make grants as provided
in section 1404(c)(1)(A) of this title to States, units of
local government, tribal governments, and qualified private
entities for the development and implementation of community-
based restorative justice programs in juvenile justice
systems.
``(b) Community-Based Restorative Justice Program.--In this
section, the term `community-based restorative justice
program' means a program based upon principles of restorative
justice and a concern for maintaining offenders safely in the
community.
``(c) Mission.--The mission of a program developed and
implemented under a grant under this section shall be to--
``(1) protect the community through processes in which
individual victims, offenders, and the community are all
active participants;
``(2) ensure accountability of the offenders to their
victims and community; and
``(3) equip offenders with the skills needed to live
responsibly and productively.
``(d) Voluntary Programs.--A program funded under this
section shall be fully voluntary for both victims and
offenders.
``(e) Report.--The Office for Victims of Crime shall
conduct a study and report to Congress not later than 3 years
after the date of enactment of this Act on the effectiveness
of programs that receive grants under this section.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, in
addition to funds made available by section 1402(d)(4)(C) of
this title, $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002, 2003,
and 2004.
``(g) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729
through 3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known
as the `False Claims Act'), may be used for grants under this
section.''.

SEC. 204. FUNDING FOR FEDERAL VICTIM ASSISTANCE PERSONNEL.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to enable the Attorney General,
through the Director of the Office for Victims of Crime, to
retain 400 full-time or full-time equivalent employees to
serve as victim witness coordinators and victim witness
advocates in Federal law enforcement agencies.
(b) Victims Assistance.--Employees retained pursuant to
this section shall provide assistance to victims of criminal
offenses investigated or prosecuted by a Federal law
enforcement agency and otherwise improve services for the
benefit of crime victims in the Federal system.
(c) Allocation of Employees.--Full-time and full-time
equivalent employees retained pursuant to this section shall
be assigned by the Director of the Office for Victims of
Crime, as needed, in Federal law enforcement agencies,
including--
(1) 170 to the United States Attorneys Offices; and
(2) 120 to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in field
offices in Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of
title 18, United States Code) and other field offices that
handle investigations involving large numbers of victims, and
in the Headquarters Divisions.

TITLE III--VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT AMENDMENTS

SEC. 301. CRIME VICTIMS FUND.

(a) Deposit of Gifts in the Fund.--Section 1402(b) of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(b)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) any gifts, bequests, or donations to the Fund from
private entities or individuals.''.
(b) Formula for Fund Distributions.--Section 1402(c) of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(c)) is
amended--
(1) in the second sentence--
(A) by striking ``made available for obligation by
Congress'' and inserting ``obligated''; and
(B) by inserting ``in reserve'' after ``shall remain''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``Subject to the
availability of money in the Fund, the Director shall make
available pursuant to this Act, not less than 90 percent nor
more than 110 percent of the total amount of funds made
available for obligation in the previous fiscal year.''.
(c) Funding for Victim Assistance Personnel.--Section
1402(d) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C.
10601(d)) is repealed.
(d) Allocation of Funds for Costs and Grants.--Section
1402(d)(4) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C.
10601(d)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``48.5'' and inserting
``47.5'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``48.5'' and inserting
``47.5''; and
(3) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``3'' and inserting
``5''.
(e) Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve.--Section 1402(d)(5) of
the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(d)(5)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(4)(A) Notwithstanding subsection (c), the Director may
set aside up to $50,000,000 from the amounts remaining in the
Fund as an antiterrorism emergency reserve fund. The Director
may replenish any amounts expended in subsequent fiscal years
by setting aside up to 5 percent of the amounts remaining in
the Fund in any fiscal year.
``(B) The antiterrorism emergency reserve referred to in
subparagraph (A) may be used for supplemental grants under
section 1404B (42 U.S.C. 10603b) and to provide compensation
to victims of international terrorism under section 1404C (42
U.S.C. 10603c).''.

SEC. 302. CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION.

(a) Allocation of Funds for Compensation and Assistance.--
Section 1403(a) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42
U.S.C. 10602(a)) is amended--
(1) in each of paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``40''
and inserting ``60''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``5'' and inserting
``10''.
(b) Relationship of Crime Victim Compensation to Means-
Tested Federal Benefit Programs.--Section 1403 of the Victims
of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10602) is amended by striking
subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Exclusion From Income, Resources, and Assets for
Purposes of Means Tests.--Notwithstanding any other law, for
the purpose of any maximum allowed income, resource, or asset
eligibility requirement in any Federal, State, or local
government program using Federal funds that provides medical
or other assistance (or payment or reimbursement of the cost
of such assistance), any amount of crime victim compensation
that the applicant receives through a crime victim
compensation program under this section shall not be included
in the income, resources, or assets of the applicant, nor
shall that amount reduce the amount of the assistance
available to the applicant from Federal, State, or local
government programs using Federal funds, unless the total
amount of assistance that the applicant receives from all
such programs is sufficient to fully compensate the applicant
for losses suffered as a result of the crime.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1403(d)(4) of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10602(d)(4)) is
amended by inserting

[[Page 6426]]

``the United States Virgin Islands,'' after ``the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,''.

SEC. 303. CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE.

(a) Assistance for Victims in the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and Other Territories and Possessions.--Section
1404(a) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C.
10603(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) An agency of the Federal Government performing local
law enforcement functions in and on behalf of the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States
Virgin Islands, or any other territory or possession of the
United States may qualify as an eligible crime victim
assistance program for the purpose of grants under this
subsection, or for the purpose of grants under subsection
(c)(1).''.
(b) Prohibition on Discrimination Against Certain
Victims.--Section 1404(b)(1) of the Victims of Crime Act of
1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) does not discriminate against victims because they
oppose the death penalty or disagree with the way the State
is prosecuting the criminal case.''.
(c) Administrative Costs for Crime Victim Assistance.--
Section 1404(b)(3) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42
U.S.C. 10603(b)(3)) is amended by striking ``5'' and
inserting ``10''.
(d) Grants for Program Evaluation and Compliance Efforts.--
Section 1404(c)(1)(A) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42
U.S.C. 10603(c)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting ``, program
evaluation, compliance efforts,'' after ``demonstration
projects''.
(e) Fellowships and Clinical Internships.--Section
1404(c)(3) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C.
10603(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) use funds made available to the Director under this
subsection--
``(i) for fellowships and clinical internships; and
``(ii) to carry out programs of training and special
workshops for the presentation and dissemination of
information resulting from demonstrations, surveys, and
special projects.''.

SEC. 304. VICTIMS OF TERRORISM.

(a) Assistance to Victims of International Terrorism.--
Section 1404B(a)(1) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42
U.S.C. 10603b(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``who are not
persons eligible for compensation under title VIII of the
Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986''.
(b) Compensation to Victims of International Terrorism.--
Section 1404C(b) of the Victims of Crime of 1984 (42 U.S.C.
10603c(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``The amount of compensation awarded to a victim under this
subsection shall be reduced by any amount that the victim
received in connection with the same act of international
terrorism under title VIII of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security
and Antiterrorism Act of 1986.''.
____

Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2001--Section-by-Section Summary

OVERVIEW

The Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2001 represents an
important step in Congress's continuing efforts to provide
assistance and afford respect to victims of crime. The bill
would accomplish three major goals. First, it would provide
enhanced rights and protections for victims of federal
crimes. Second, it would assist victims of State crimes
through grant programs designed to promote compliance with
State victim's rights laws. Third, it would make several
significant amendments to the Victims of Crime Act and
improve the manner in which the Crime Victims Fund is managed
and preserved.

Title I--Victim Rights in the Federal System

Sec. 101. Right to consult concerning detention. Requires
the government to consult with victim prior to a detention
hearing to obtain information that can be presented to the
court on the issue of any threat the suspected offender may
pose to the victim. Requires the court to make inquiry during
a detention hearing concerning the views of the victim, and
to consider such views in determining whether the suspected
offender should be detained.
Sec. 102. Right to a speedy trial. Requires the court to
consider the interests of the victim in the prompt and
appropriate disposition of the case, free from unreasonable
delay.
Sec. 103. Right to consult concerning plea. Requires the
government to make reasonable efforts to notify the victim
of, and consider the victim's views about, any proposed or
contemplated plea agreement. Requires the court, prior to
entering judgment on a plea, to make inquiry concerning the
views of the victim on the issue of the plea.
Sec. 104. Enhanced participatory rights at trial. Provides
standing for the prosecutor and the victim to assert the
right of the victim to attend and observe the trial. Extends
the Victim Rights Clarification Act to apply to televised
proceedings. Amends the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act
of 1990 to strengthen the right of crime victims to be
present at court proceedings, including trials.
Sec. 105. Enhanced participatory rights at sentencing.
Requires the probation officer to include as part of the
presentence report any victim impact statement submitted by a
victim. Extends to all victims the right to make a statement
or present information in relation to the sentence. Requires
the court to consider the victim's views concerning
punishment, if such views are presented to the court, before
imposing sentence.
Sec. 106. Right to notice concerning sentence adjustment.
Requires the government to provide the victim the earliest
possible notice of the scheduling of a hearing on
modification of probation or supervised release for the
offender.
Sec. 107. Right to notice concerning discharge from
psychiatric facility. Requires the government to provide the
victim the earliest possible notice of the discharge or
conditional discharge from a psychiatric facility of an
offender who was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Sec. 108. Right to notice concerning executive clemency.
Requires the government to provide the victim the earliest
possible notice of the grant of executive clemency to the
offender. Requires the Attorney General to report to Congress
concerning executive clemency matters delegated for review or
investigation to the Attorney General.
Sec. 109. Procedures to promote compliance. Establishes an
administrative system for enforcing the rights of crime
victims in the federal system.

TITLE II--VICTIM ASSISTANCE INITIATIVES

Sec. 201. Pilot programs to enforce compliance with
victim's rights laws. Authorizes the establishment of pilot
programs in five States to establish and operate compliance
authorities to promote compliance and effective enforcement
of State laws regarding the rights of victims of crime.
Compliance authorities would receive and investigate
complaints relating to the provision or violation of a crime
victim's rights, and issue findings following such
investigations. Authorizes appropriations to make grants for
these pilot programs.
Sec. 202. Increased resources to develop state-of-the-art
systems for notifying crime victims of important dates and
developments. Authorizes appropriations for grants to develop
and implement crime victim notification systems.
Sec. 203. Restorative justice grants. Authorizes
appropriations for grants to develop and implement community-
based restorative justice programs in juvenile court
settings.
Sec. 204. Funding for federal victim assistance personnel.
Authorizes appropriations to retain 400 full-time or full-
time equivalent employees to serve as victim witness
coordinators and victim witness advocates in Federal law
enforcement agencies. These positions are currently funded
with money from the Crime Victims Fund.

TITLE III--VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT AMENDMENTS

Sec. 301. Crime Victims Fund. Replaces the annual cap on
the Fund with a formula that ensures stability in the amounts
distributed to the States, while preserving the amounts
remaining in the Fund for use in future years. Discontinues
the practice of using Fund money to pay for victim assistance
positions in certain federal agencies; these positions would
now be funded through direct appropriations under section
204. Increases the portion of the Fund that shall be
available to OVC for discretionary victim assistance grants
and for assistance to victims of federal crime. Permits OVC
to retain a maximum of $50 million in an antiterrorism
emergency reserve that can be replenished with up to 5
percent of the amounts retained in the Fund after the annual
Fund distribution.
Sec. 302. Crime victim compensation. Increases from 40 to
60 percent the minimum threshold for the annual grant to
State crime victim compensation programs. Clarifies that a
payment of compensation to a victim shall not reduce the
amount of assistance available to that victim under other
government programs.
Sec. 303. Crime victim assistance. Authorizes States to
give VOCA funds to U.S. Attorney's Offices in jurisdictions
where the U.S. Attorney is the local prosecutor. Prohibits
State crime victim assistance programs that receive VOCA
grants from discriminating against victims because they
oppose the death penalty or disagree with the way the State
is prosecuting the criminal case. Authorizes OVC to make
grants to eligible crime victim assistance programs for
program evaluation and compliance efforts. Allows OVC to use
funds for fellowships and clinical internships and to carry
out training programs.
Sec. 304. Victims of Terrorism. Technical amendment to
section 2003 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000 (PL 106-386), which inadvertently reversed the existing
exclusion under VOCA of individuals eligible

[[Page 6427]]

for other federal compensation under the Omnibus Diplomatic
Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (ODSA). The exclusion
of individuals eligible for compensation under ODSA should
have been applied to section 1404C of VOCA, which covers
direct compensation to victims of international terrorism,
and not to section 1404B, which covers assistance to victims
of terrorism.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 784. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase
the limitation on capital losses any individual may deduct against
ordinary income, and to allow individuals a 3-year capital loss
carryback and unlimited carryovers; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation that
would soften the blow that many investors have felt as the stock market
has declined. My bill would raise the capital loss limit that can be
applied against ordinary income. Currently, the limit is $3,000. Under
my proposal, the limit would rise to $20,000. Moreover, my legislation
allows individual taxpayers to carryback capital losses three years to
offset prior capital gains.
This bill reflects the reality of what has happened to many millions
of investors. In the past year, more than $4.5 trillion of wealth has
been wiped out as our economy has slowed and the markets have declined.
For many investors, when they file their taxes next year, they are
going to find that if they have no offsetting gains they are only going
to be allowed to write off $3,000 of their loss. Of course, they can
carry forward that loss. But for an investor who has net capital losses
of $20,000 this year he or she will not be able to completely write off
that investment loss until 2007, assuming no future capital gains. With
$40,000 of losses, it would take until 2014 to write off those losses.
The capital loss/ordinary income limit has been in place since 1976.
It seems to me that with 25 years of inflation, that $3,000 limit is
far too low. Moreover, I have always believed that if we want to
encourage investors to take financial risks investing in new frontier
technologies, we should cushion the financial blow when the venture
does not succeed. The best way to do that is to allow them to write off
a greater portion of their loss immediately.
The bill also allows individuals the opportunity to carry back losses
in the same fashion that is allowed to corporations. If their capital
losses exceed their capital gains they would be able to carry those
losses back three years to offset capital gains incurred in prior
years. While I recognize that this may create some complexity for
taxpayers since it would require the filing of amended returns, I
believe it is an appropriate and fair way to deal with capital losses.
If a corporation can take advantage of this benefit, it seems only fair
to give that same benefit to individuals.
I would certainly like to see the capital gains rate lowered. But as
one Wall Street executive recently was quoted: ``The last time I
looked, you had to have gains for this to make any difference.'' I
certainly think the proposal I have offered would certainly make a
difference to many millions of taxpayers who have suffered grievous
losses in the market this year.
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. 784

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CAPITAL LOSSES OF TAXPAYERS OTHER
THAN CORPORATIONS.

(a) Increase in Limitation on Losses Allowable Against
Ordinary Income.--Section 1211(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to limitation on capital losses of
taxpayers other than corporations) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$3,000'' and inserting ``$20,000'', and
(2) by striking ``$1,500'' and inserting ``$10,000''.
(b) Carryback and Carryovers of Capital Losses.--Section
1212(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
capital loss carrybacks and carryovers of taxpayers other
than corporations) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Carrybacks and carryovers.--
``(A) In general.--If a taxpayer other than a corporation
has a net capital loss for any taxable year (the `loss
year')--
``(i) the excess of the net short-term capital loss over
the net long-term capital gain for the loss year shall be a
capital loss carryback to each of the 3 taxable years
preceding the loss year and a capital loss carryover to each
taxable year succeeding the loss year, and shall be treated
as a short-term capital loss in each such taxable year, and
``(ii) the excess of the net long-term capital loss over
the net short-term capital gain for the loss year shall be a
capital loss carryback to each of the 3 taxable years
preceding the loss year and a capital loss carryover to each
taxable year succeeding the loss year, and shall be treated
as a long-term capital loss in each of such taxable years.
``(B) Amount carried to each taxable year.--The entire
amount of the loss which may be carried to another taxable
year under subparagraph (A) shall be carried to the earliest
of the taxable years to which the loss may be carried. The
portion of such loss which may be carried to any other
taxable year shall be the excess (if any) of such loss over
the portion of such loss which, after application of
subparagraph (C), was allowed as a carryback or carryover to
any prior taxable year.
``(C) Amount which may be used.--An amount shall be allowed
as a carryback or carryover from a loss year to another
taxable year only to the extent--
``(i) such amount does not exceed the excess (if any) of--

``(I) the sum of the losses from the sale or exchange of
capital assets in such other taxable year plus losses carried
under this paragraph to such other taxable year from taxable
years prior to such loss year, over
``(II) gains from such sales or exchanges in such other
taxable year, and

``(ii) the allowance of such carryback or carryover does
not increase or produce a net operating loss (as defined in
section 172(c)) for such other taxable year.''
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1212(b)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``clause (i) or (ii) of
paragraph (1)(A)''.
(2) Section 1212 of such Code is amended by striking
subsection (c).
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to capital losses arising in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
______

By Mr. GREGG:
S. 787. A bill to prohibit the importation of diamonds from countries
that have not become signatories to an international agreement
establishing a certification system for exports and imports of rough
diamonds or that have not unilaterally implemented a certification
system meeting the standards set forth herein; to the Committee on
Finance
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the purpose of the Conflict Diamonds Act of
2001 is to eliminate the illegal diamond trade that has fueled violent
conflicts in the African nations of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Congo,
Angola, Ivory Coast, and Burkina Faso. The sale of illicit diamonds has
allowed criminal gangs like the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra
Leone to buy arms and supplies in an effort to expand their influence.
In the process, they have inflicted unspeakable pain, including torture
and amputation, on the innocent people they encounter.
The Conflict Diamonds Act of 2001 bans the importation into the
United States of diamonds from countries that fail to observe an
effective diamond control system. Under this legislation, no diamond
that has ever been in the possession of the RUF or any other rebel
group will be allowed to enter the United States. This includes
diamonds that pass through another country for cutting or setting. The
Conflict Diamonds Act of 2001 authorizes the President of the United
States to ban the importation of diamonds and diamond jewelry from
countries if he believes that shipments from those countries violate
the legislation's intent. Those who knowingly violate the import ban
would be subject to criminal and civil penalties under existing U.S.
Customs law. The Customs Service would be authorized to seize illicit
shipments. The import ban would take effect six months after enactment,
regardless of the status of negotiations for an international
agreement.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.

[[Page 6428]]

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 787

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 ``Conflict Diamonds Act of
2001.

TITLE I--PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION OF CONFLICT DIAMONDS

SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) The use of funds from illegitimate diamond trade to
support conflicts in Africa has had devastating effects on
the peoples of the regions involved in those conflicts;
(2) U.N. Security Council Resolution 1173 of June 12, 1998
requires the United States and all other U.N. members to take
the necessary measures to prohibit the direct or indirect
importation from Angola to their territory of all diamonds
that are not controlled through the Certificate of Origin
regime of the Government of Unity and National Reconciliation
(GURN);
(3) U.N. Security Council Resolution 1306 of July 5, 2000
requires the United States and all other U.N. members to take
the necessary measures to prohibit the direct or indirect
importation of all rough diamonds from Sierra Leone into
their territory that are not controlled by the Government of
Sierra Leone through its Certificate of Origin regime;
(4) U.N. Security Council Resolution 1344 of March 8, 2001
requires the United States and all other U.N. members to take
the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect
import of all rough diamonds from Liberia, whether or not
such diamonds originated in Liberia;
(5) Effective compliance with U.N. Security Council
Resolutions 1173, 1306, and 1344 is necessary to eliminate
trade in conflict diamonds;
(6) Although the President of the United States has issued
Executive Orders to implement Resolution 1173 and Resolution
1306, additional measures are needed to ensure compliance
with, and prevent circumvention of, those resolutions;
(7) Further measures are needed to prevent rough diamonds
originating in other rebel-controlled conflict areas from
entering the global stream of commerce in which legitimate
diamonds are sold;
(8) The resolution of the United Nations General Assembly
approved on December 1, 2000 provides important guidance on
devising effective and pragmatic measures to address the
problem of conflict diamonds; and,
(9) Since legitimate diamond trade is of great economic
importance to developing countries in Africa, no law should
be enacted, nor regulation or other measure implemented, that
would impede legitimate diamond trade or diminish confidence
in the integrity of the legitimate diamond industry.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

(a) The term ``diamond'' means a natural mineral consisting
of essentially pure carbon crystallized in the isometric
system with a hardness of 10 on the Mohs scale, a specific
gravity of approximately 3.52, and a refractive index of
2.42.
(b) The term ``rough diamond'' means a diamond that is
unworked or simply sawn, cleaved or bruted, as described in
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheading
7102.31.0000.
(c) The term ``conflict diamond'' means a diamond that has
at any time been in the possession of any person belonging to
or associated with armed insurgents, rebel forces, or any
other movement using violence against civilians or
internationally recognized governments.

SEC. 103. RESTRICTIONS ON THE IMPORTATION OF DIAMONDS.

(a) No person may enter into the customs territory of the
United States or aid or abet an attempt to enter any diamond,
including any diamond set in jewelry, that has been mined in,
or mined and set in, and exported directly from, the Republic
of Sierra Leone, the Republic of Angola, or the Republic of
Liberia except for a diamond or a diamond set in jewelry:
(1) the country of origin of which has been certified as
the Republic of Sierra Leone by the internationally
recognized government of that country, in accordance with
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1306 of July 5,
2000; or
(2) the country of origin of which has been certified as
the Republic of Angola by the internationally recognized
government of that country, in accordance with United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1173 of June 12, 1998.
(b) No person may enter into the customs territory of the
United States or aid or abet an attempt to enter any diamond
directly from a country that: is subject to a United Nations
Security Council resolution similar to those identified in
subsection (a) or that is not a signatory to an international
agreement that establishes a certification system for exports
and imports of rough diamonds, that has not unilaterally
implemented such a system, or that is not a ``cooperating
country'' as defined in subsection (c) of section 105 of this
Act.

SEC. 104. PROHIBITION OF OTHER IMPORTS TO PREVENT
CIRCUMVENTION OF U.N. RESOLUTIONS.

The President of the United States is authorized to
prohibit the importation of diamonds or diamond jewelry
exported from any country except for rough diamonds whose
country of origin has been certified as either the Republic
of Angola or the Republic of Sierra Leone under the
Certificate of Origin regimes described in section 103 (a)
(1) or (2), if there are reasonable grounds to believe that
such prohibition is necessary to carry out U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1173, 1306, or 1344, or any other
Resolution banning the exportation or importation of conflict
diamonds.

SEC. 105. IMPLEMENTING MEASURES.

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States is
authorized to make such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. The public
will be notified and given an opportunity of at least 30 days
to comment on all proposed rules and regulations before they
take effect.
(b) These regulations will provide that an importer is
entitled to rely on the country of origin marking that is
required under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1304. However, nothing in this
Act shall be construed to override an importer's duty to
exercise reasonable care.
(c) No later than six months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury will issue a list of
countries that are signatories to the international agreement
described in Title II, have unilaterally implemented a
certification system containing the elements described in
subsection (b) of section 203, or are found to be
``cooperating'' countries as defined in this subsection. The
Secretary of the Treasury will revise and update this list as
necessary. For purposes of this subsection, the Secretary of
the Treasury will find that a country is ``cooperating'' if
it is acting in good faith to establish and enforce a
unilateral certification system meeting the standards
described in subsection (b) of section 203 or taking action
to ensure that it is not facilitating trade in conflict
diamonds. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with
appropriate agencies, shall develop and publish criteria that
will be used to evaluate whether a country will be deemed a
cooperating country. These criteria will be subject to public
notice and comment before adoption in final form.
(d) The Secretary of the Treasury may extend cooperating
country status for more than six months after the initial
designation, but shall provide to Congress an explanation of
the reasons for why such an extension is necessary.
(e) The President of the United States shall ensure that
implementation of and compliance with Title I of this Act is
monitored by appropriate agencies or by an independent body.

SEC. 106. PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE.

(a) Civil and Criminal Penalties.--Any person who enters or
introduces into the commerce of the United States, attempts
to enter or introduce, or aids or abets an attempt to enter
or introduce, merchandise in violation of Title I of this Act
or the implementing regulations for Title I will be subject
to civil and criminal penalties in effect under the customs
laws of the United States, as set forth in Title 19 of the
United States Code. The same administrative procedures and
defenses that apply under Title 19 of the United States Code
will apply to penalties that are sought to be assessed under
this subsection.
(b) Seizure.--If the Customs Service has reasonable cause
to believe that a person has violated the provisions of
subsection (a) of this section and that seizure is essential
to prevent the introduction of merchandise into the customs
territory of the United States whose importation is
prohibited by Title I of this Act, then such merchandise may
be seized. Within a reasonable time after any such seizure is
made, the Customs Service will issue to the person concerned
a written statement containing the reasons for the seizure. A
person may seek relief from seizure under the procedures and
standards prescribed in 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1618 and the Customs
Service regulations that implement that provision.
(c) Court of International Trade Proceedings.--
(1) Jurisdiction.--Section 1582 of Title 28, United States
Code, is amended by amending paragraph (1) to read as
follows:
``(1) to recover a civil penalty under section 592, 593A,
641(b)(6), 641(d)(2)(A), 704(i)(2), or 734(i)(2) of the
Tariff Act of 1930.''
(2) Standard of Review.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, in any proceeding commenced by the United
States in the Court of International Trade for the recovery
of any monetary penalty under this section, all issues,
including the amount of any penalty, shall be tried de novo.
(d) Proceeds From Fines and Seized Goods.--The proceeds
derived from penalties and seizures under Title I of this Act
will, in addition to amounts otherwise available for such
purposes, be available only for programs to assist the
victims of conflicts involving illicitly traded diamonds.

SEC. 107. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

The President of the United States will report to Congress
no later than 180 days after

[[Page 6429]]

enactment of this Act and annually thereafter on the
implementing measures taken to carry out the provisions of
this Title and their effectiveness in stopping imports of
conflict diamonds into the United States.

TITLE II--NEGOTIATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT TO ELIMINATE TRADE
IN CONFLICT DIAMONDS

SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) The most effective and desirable means of eliminating
international trade in conflict diamonds is through
international cooperative efforts involving governments, the
private sector, civil society, and appropriate international
organizations;
(2) The initiatives of the world diamond industry, as
reflected in the Resolution of the World Federation of
Diamond Bourses and the International Diamond Manufacturers
Association in Antwerp on July 19, 2000, as well as the
efforts of the South African-led Working Group on African
Diamonds and the World Diamond Council in developing
proposals for a global certification system for rough
diamonds, are important efforts at international cooperation
and may provide effective mechanisms that could be
incorporated in an international agreement to eliminate trade
in conflict diamonds;
(3) Eliminating imports of rough diamonds from countries
where conflict diamonds are mined, transshipped, or
subsequently shipped into countries where cutting and
polishing occur is the most effective way to eliminate trade
in conflict diamonds;

SEC. 202. SENSE OF CONGRESS--NEGOTIATION OF INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENT.

It is the sense of the Congress that the President should
engage in negotiations on and seek to conclude an
international agreement to eliminate trade in conflict
diamonds as soon as possible. The system implementing this
agreement shall be transparent and subject to independent
verification and monitoring. Participants in such an
agreement should include all countries that either export or
import diamonds or diamond jewelry.

SEC. 203. OVERALL NEGOTIATING OBJECTIVE OF THE UNITED STATES
AND ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF AN INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENT.

(a) The overall negotiating objective of the United States
is to establish an effective global certification system
covering the major exporting and importing countries of rough
diamonds that will eliminate trade in conflict diamonds.
(b) The elements of an effective global certification
system for rough diamonds that the United States should seek
in its negotiations are as follows:
(1) Rough diamonds, when exported from the country in which
they were extracted, must be sealed in a secure, transparent
container or bag by appropriate government officials of that
country;
(2) The sealed container described in paragraph (1) must
include a fully visible government document certifying the
country of extraction and recording a unique export
registration number and the total carat weight of the rough
diamonds enclosed;
(3) A database containing information described in
paragraph (2) must be established for rough diamond exports
in each exporting country, including countries engaged in the
re-export of rough diamonds;
(4) No country may allow importation of rough diamonds
unless they are sealed in a secure, transparent container
that includes a fully visible document that states a unique
export registration number for such container and the total
carat weight of the rough diamonds enclosed. The legitimacy
of such document must be verified by electronic or other
reliable means with the database maintained in the country of
export.
(5) Provisions shall be made for physical inspection of
sealed containers of rough diamonds by appropriate
authorities.
(6) Diamonds may be freely imported and exported from a
country that implements and enforces a rough diamond
certification system that contains the elements specified in
paragraphs (1) through (5), or a system that is its
functional equivalent, provided that the country of
extraction need only be specified when rough diamonds are
exported from such country and need not be specified when
rough diamonds are exported from a country that implements
and enforces such a rough diamond certification system.

SEC. 204. CONSULTATIONS WITH CONGRESS.

The President of the United States shall consult
periodically with Congress in developing and negotiating
proposals for an international agreement as described in
sections 202 and 203.

SEC. 205. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

The President of the United States will provide a written
report to Congress no later than 180 days after enactment of
this Act and annually thereafter on the progress made towards
concluding an international agreement and the progress of the
signatories to that agreement in implementing it, including
which countries are not implementing it and the effects of
their actions on trade in conflict diamonds. Each report
shall also describe any technological advances that permit
determining a diamond's origin, marking a diamond, and
tracking it.

SEC. 206. IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION.

The President of the United States will submit to Congress
a draft bill implementing the provisions of any agreement
that is negotiated no later than 60 calendar days after
entering into that agreement.

SEC. 207. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Title I will apply with respect to articles entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, six months after
the date of enactment of this Act. Title II will take effect
on the date of enactment of this Act.

TITLE III--OTHER PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Such sums as may be necessary are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to implement the provisions of this Act,
including such sums as are necessary to assist the
governments of Sierra Leone and Angola to establish and
maintain a diamond certification system.

SEC. 302. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, it
is the intent of Congress that the remainder of this Act and
application of such provision to other persons or
circumstances will not be affected thereby.

SEC. 303. GAO REPORT.

The General Accounting Office shall report to Congress on
the effectiveness of this Act no later than three years after
the date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 789. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to establish an
education savings plan to encourage reenlistments and extensions of
service by members of the Armed Forces in critical specialties, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that
will provide military personnel the ability to provide for the
education of their spouses and children in return for their commitment
to continue to serve in the armed forces.
The purpose of this bill is to promote retention of members of the
armed forces in critical specialties by establishing a bonus savings
plan that will provide significant resources for meeting the expenses
encountered by service members in providing for the education of
members of their families.
I met with the Senior Enlisted Advisors of the four armed services
and the Coast Guard. These Senior Enlisted Advisors are the top
enlisted persons in their respective services. Their job is to advise
the Service Chief on matters pertaining to enlisted personnel. These
experienced senior leaders are among the most significant resources
available to the generals and admirals, and those of us here in
Congress, as we seek answers to questions on recruiting, retention, and
quality of life. These enlisted leaders know first-hand and fully
understand the life, the demands on and concerns of enlisted personnel
in their services.
In my meeting with the Senior Enlisted Advisors, I sought their
insight on what factors enlisted service members consider when making
that critical decision as to whether to continue their active service
or leave the military. I found myself talking to the very people who
have faced the stress of these decisions; who have sat with their
spouses and families and discussed whether to stay in the military or
leave and seek a career outside the military. They were very frank and
candid in their discussions.
One thing I learned is that, like many of us, enlisted service
members share the goal of giving their children better opportunities
than they had. To a person, the Senior Enlisted Advisors said that
being able to provide educational opportunities for their families is
an important goal and would be a powerful retention tool.
My bill will provide enlisted service members in critical
specialties, who agree to serve a six-year term, resources that can be
applied to cover the expenses of higher education for their families.
Let me explain how this will work.
Service members, officers or enlisted, in critical specialties, who
reenlist or extend their service commitment for six years will receive
United States Savings Bonds that can be redeemed to cover educational
expenses. When these Savings Bonds are redeemed to cover educational
costs, the income, under the current tax code, is tax exempt. My bill
does not modify the tax code. My

[[Page 6430]]

proposal will take advantage of current tax law as it pertains to
United States Savings Bonds used for educational purposes.
Military personnel who have less than three years of service when
they reenlist or extend their commitment will receive Savings Bonds
with a face value of $5,000. For those service members who have between
three and nine years of service when they reenlist or extend their
commitment will receive Savings Bonds with a face value of $15,000.
Those members with more than nine years of service who reenlist or
extend their commitment will receive Savings Bonds with a face value of
$30,000.
A Service Member who reenlists at the two-year point and receives
$5,000 in Savings Bonds subsequently reenlists at the end of his six-
year commitment--now with eight years of service--would receive an
additional $10,000 in Savings Bonds, for a total of $15,000. This
service member could reenlist again at the conclusion of the second
six-year term--now in his 14th year--and would receive an additional
$15,000 for a career total of $30,000 in United States Savings Bonds
that can be used for educational purposes. All tax free.
My bill will provide military personnel the capability to provide for
the education of their spouses and children while investing in America.
I am introducing this bill today to enhance the benefits President
Bush announced at Fort Stewart, Georgia, on Monday. The President
announced that his budget will include $5.7 billion in additional
benefits for military personnel; $1.4 billion to increase military pay
and allowances; $3.9 billion for military health care; and $0.4 billion
for improvements to military housing. These increases are much needed
and the announcement was enthusiastically received by the men and women
at Fort Stewart, Georgia who know the sacrifices they are required to
make in service of their country. My bill enhances President Bush's
initiatives by providing educational opportunities that are unavailable
today to the children of military personnel. I will hold hearings later
this year in the Armed Services Committee to further develop each of
these initiatives.
My bill furthers the educational opportunities for military families,
increases military readiness by retaining the highly-trained and
experienced military personnel we need to continue to be the preeminent
military force in the world, and accomplished these lofty goals by
investing in America. I urge my colleagues to examine my bill and join
Senator Warner and I as cosponsors of this important initiative.
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. 789

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

SECTION 1. PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this Act to promote the retention of
members of the Armed Forces in critical specialties by
establishing a bonus savings plan that provides significant
resources for meeting the expenses encountered by the members
in providing for the education of the members of their
families and other contingencies.

SEC. 2. EDUCATION SAVINGS PLAN FOR REENLISTMENTS AND
EXTENSIONS OF SERVICE IN CRITICAL SPECIALTIES.

(a) Establishment of Savings Plan.--(1) Chapter 5 of title
37, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``Sec. 323. Incentive bonus: savings plan for education
expenses and other contingencies

``(a) Benefit and Eligibility.--The Secretary concerned
shall purchase United States savings bonds under this section
for a member of the armed forces who is eligible as follows:
``(1) A member who, before completing three years of
service on active duty, enters into a commitment to perform
qualifying service.
``(2) A member who, after completing three years of service
on active duty but not more than nine years of service on
active duty, enters into a commitment to perform qualifying
service.
``(3) A member who, after completing nine years of service
on active duty, enters into a commitment to perform
qualifying service.
``(b) Qualifying Service.--For the purposes of this
section, qualifying service is service on active duty in a
specialty designated by the Secretary concerned as critical
to meet requirements (whether such specialty is designated as
critical to meet wartime or peacetime requirements) for a
period that--
``(1) is not less than six years; and
``(2) does not include any part of a period for which the
member is obligated to serve on active duty under an
enlistment or other agreement for which a benefit has
previously been paid under this section.
``(c) Forms of Commitment to Additional Service.--For the
purposes of this section, a commitment means--
``(1) in the case of an enlisted member, a reenlistment;
and
``(2) in the case of a commissioned officer, an agreement
entered into with the Secretary concerned.
``(d) Amounts of Bonds.--The total of the face amounts of
the United States savings bonds purchased for a member under
this section for a commitment shall be as follows:
``(1) In the case of a purchase for a member under
paragraph (1) of subsection (a), $5,000.
``(2) In the case of a purchase for a member under
paragraph (2) of subsection (a), the amount equal to the
excess of $15,000 over the total of the face amounts of any
United States savings bonds previously purchased for the
member under this section.
``(3) In the case of a purchase for a member under
paragraph (3) of subsection (a), the amount equal to the
excess of $30,000 over the total of the face amounts of any
United States savings bonds previously purchased for the
member under this section.
``(e) Total Amount of Benefit.--The total amount of the
benefit payable for a member when United States savings bonds
are purchased for the member under this section by reason of
a commitment by that member shall be the sum of--
``(1) the purchase price of the United States savings
bonds; and
``(2) the amounts that would be deducted and withheld for
the payment of individual income taxes if the total amount
computed under this subsection for that commitment were paid
to the member as a bonus.
``(f) Amount Withheld for Taxes.--The total amount payable
for a member under subsection (e)(2) for a commitment by that
member shall be withheld, credited, and otherwise treated in
the same manner as amounts deducted and withheld from the
basic pay of the member.
``(g) Repayment for Failure To Complete Obligated
Service.--(1) If a person fails to complete the qualifying
service for which the person is obligated under a commitment
for which a benefit has been paid under this section, the
person shall refund to the United States the amount that
bears the same ratio to the total amount paid for the person
(as computed under subsection (e)) for that particular
commitment as the uncompleted part of the period of
qualifying service bears to the total period of the
qualifying service for which obligated.
``(2) Subject to paragraph (3), an obligation to reimburse
the United States imposed under paragraph (1) is for all
purposes a debt owed to the United States.
``(3) The Secretary concerned may waive, in whole or in
part, a refund required under paragraph (1) if the Secretary
concerned determines that recovery would be against equity
and good conscience or would be contrary to the best
interests of the United States.
``(4) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is
entered less than five years after the termination of an
enlistment or other agreement under this section does not
discharge the person signing such reenlistment or other
agreement from a debt arising under the reenlistment or
agreement, respectively, or this subsection.
``(h) Relationship to Other Special Pays.--The benefit
provided under this section is in addition to any other bonus
or incentive or special pay that is paid or payable to a
member under any other provision of this chapter for any
portion of the same qualifying service.
``(i) Regulations.--This section shall be administered
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense for
the armed forces under his jurisdiction and by the Secretary
of Transportation for the Coast Guard when the Coast Guard is
not operating as a service in the Navy.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``323. Incentive bonus: savings plan for education and other
contingencies.''.

(b) Effective Date.--Section 323 of title 37, United States
Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall take effect on
October 1, 2001, and shall apply with respect to
reenlistments and other agreements for qualifying service
(described in that section) that are entered into on or after
that date.
______

By Mr. THURMOND:
S. 791. A bill to amend the Federal rules of Criminal Procedure; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Video
Teleconferencing Improvements Act. This

[[Page 6431]]

bill will expand the use of video teleconferencing in criminal court
matters, and promote a safer and more efficient federal court system.
The federal courtroom, just like all society, is benefiting from
constant advances in technology today. Video teleconferencing is one
example of this movement. It allows proceedings to operate more
efficiently and at lower costs, while maintaining many of the benefits
of communicating in person.
The use of video teleconferencing is becoming increasingly common in
federal district and appellate courts for various proceedings, such as
prisoner civil rights complaints and certain appellate matters. The
state courts are also benefiting from video technology in many ways,
including for pretrial criminal proceedings. However, in federal court,
the use of this technology in criminal matters is almost nonexistent
because the federal rules apparently require the defendant's physical
presence in court.
This legislation would amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
to allow the judge to hold pretrial proceedings, including the
defendant's arraignment and initial appearance, through video
teleconferencing. It would also allow for the sentencing to occur in
this manner in special, limited circumstances.
Today, some districts have extremely high volumes of criminal cases
that they must process. This is especially true in the Border States,
where the number of immigrants who are caught crossing the Mexican
Border or committing crimes in the United States has skyrocketed and
continues to rise. This creates a great burden and expense on the
Marshals Service, which must transport the prisoners, often for very
long distances from the holding facility to a far away courthouse. This
type of transportation increases the possibility for escape and can
create a security risk for law enforcement, court personnel, and the
public.
Pretrial proceedings are often very short and routine. If they can be
conducted through video, the inmates can stay at the secure facility,
greatly decreasing risk and costs. If Marshals could spend less time on
other duties, such as apprehending dangerous fugitives from justice.
Moreover, this process would help the courts efficiently manage their
increasing caseloads.
Similarly, I believe that video teleconferencing could be very
important for sentencing defendants in certain limited circumstances.
This is especially true when there is a safety or security risk in
transporting the prisoner to the courthouse.
For example, in an ongoing case in South Carolina, a dangerous repeat
offender was sentenced to a long prison term at the maximum security
federal prison in Florence, Colorado. However, the court of appeals
required that he be sentenced again. The Federal Bureau of Prisons
considered him a danger to transport. He had a long history of
psychiatric problems and violent behavior, including repeatedly
assaulting prison guards and other inmates. In this case, he had even
threatened the sentencing judge and the Assistant U.S. Attorney. Rather
than transporting the prisoner back to South Carolina, the judge
resentenced him by video teleconferencing. However, the case is now on
appeal, and there is legal precedent not allowing this practice. In my
view, there is simply no reason why a judge should be prohibited from
sentencing by video in these circumstances.
This legislation is not an attempt to eliminate criminal defendants
from appearing in person before the judge. Defendants would still be in
court for all phases of the trial, which this bill would not effect. In
fact, criminal trials must be conducted in person because the accused
has the constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.
Further, even with these changes, the judge would maintain the
authority to hold any pretrial or sentencing proceeding in person if he
wished. This bill would simply give him the authority to conduct
certain routine matters, other than the trial, through video
teleconferencing.
The Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference has been considering
this video technology for some time, and recently proposed some of the
specific changes that are included in this legislation. I hope they
will provide judges discretion to conduct pretrial proceedings by video
teleconference, and go even further than the formal proposals that they
have considered to date.
My legislation will help eliminate legal impediments to the
reasonable use of video teleconferencing and help courts take advantage
of new technology. These reforms are needed today.
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. 791

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 ``Video Teleconferencing
Improvements Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF VIDEO TELECONFERENCING FOR THE
INITIAL APPEARANCE.

Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Video Teleconferencing.--Video teleconferencing may
be used to conduct an appearance under this rule.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF VIDEO TELECONFERENCING FOR THE
ARRAIGNMENT.

Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Arraignment'' and inserting ``(a) In
General.--Arraignment''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Video Teleconferencing.--Video teleconferencing may
be used to arraign a defendant.''.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF VIDEO TELECONFERENCING FOR CERTAIN
PROCEEDINGS.

Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The'' and inserting
``Except as otherwise provided in this rule, Rule 5, or Rule
10, the'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) when--
``(A) the proceeding is the sentencing hearing; and
``(B)(i) the defendant, in writing, waives the right to be
present in court; or
``(ii) the court finds, for good cause shown in exceptional
circumstances and upon appropriate safeguards, that
communication with a defendant (who is not physically present
before the court) by video teleconferencing is an adequate
substitute for the physical presence of the defendant.''.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall apply
to a criminal complaint filed after the date of enactment of
this Act.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr.
Byrd):
S. 792. A bill to prohibit the targeted marketing to minors of adult-
rated media as an unfair or deceptive practice, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senators
Kohl, Clinton, and Byrd today in introducing legislation to stop the
entertainment industry from deceptively marketing adult-rated material
to children, legislation that hopefully will make the hard job of
raising kids in today's culture a little easier for America's parents.
As my colleagues may recall, Federal Trade Commission released a
groundbreaking report last fall documenting the seriousness of this
problem. Specifically, the FTC found that the movie, music, and video
game industries had been routinely and aggressively targeting the sale
of heavily-violent, adult-rated products to children. Some companies
were going so far as to conduct focus groups for R-rated slasher films
with 9- and 10-year olds and to pass out promotional materials for
other violent R-rated movies at Campfire Girl meetings and Boys and
Girls Clubs.
This report engendered a lot of outrage, and with good reason. These
industries were making a mockery of the ratings systems that they had
created and promoted. They were also making an end run around America's
parents, in effect cutting out the middle mom

[[Page 6432]]

and dad to target violent, harmful materials directly to children. The
report also generated a number of promises from the offending
industries to change their ways and strengthen their self-regulatory
programs.
This week, the FTC released a follow-up report to evaluate how well
the entertainment industry has done in keeping its promises, and there
was some encouraging news. The FTC found in their snapshot survey that
the movie and video game industries had made real progress in limiting
their advertising in popular teen venues and in providing more rating
information in their marketing.
Other independent analyses show similarly encouraging results. Ad
revenues for R-rated films on MTV are apparently declining. Disney,
Warner Brothers, and Fox have pledged not to market R-rated movies to
children. And several other studios have decided against making or
distributing heavily-violent movies that were once regularly targeted
at kids.
I appreciate these steps, which may well result in reduced revenues
for some of these companies, and which show that our government can
work on behalf of parents to prod the entertainment industry to draw
some lines to protect our children without approaching censorship.
But much as I appreciate this progress, I cannot really give a full-
blown hooray for Hollywood, because the FTC report makes clear that
this problem has not been solved. Some video game makers and movie
studios, including those that have pledged not to unfairly target kids,
are still advertising adult-rated products in places popular with young
teens. And the leading music companies and their trade group, the RIAA,
have sadly been MIA, doing little if anything to respond to the FTC
report and curb the marketing of obscenity-laced records to kids.
I am also concerned about the future. The FTC rightly recommended
that the lasting solution to this problem is responsible self-
regulation, specifically, uniform policies adopted by the entertainment
industry prohibiting the targeting of adult-rated material to children
and meaningful sanctions to enforce those standards. Unfortunately, to
date only the video game industry has agreed, and commendably so, to
meet this recommendation and truly police themselves. That means there
is no permanent mechanism of accountability for the movie and music
industries, no ongoing norm or standard that says it is wrong to market
adult-rated material to children. And I fear that the competitive
pressures in these markets are so intense that they will once again
lead companies to do exactly that once the scrutiny goes away.
That is why I feel we must go forward with a legislative response.
The bill we are introducing today would provide a narrowly-tailored
shield to help protect our children from this kind of unfair and
unhealthy targeting. It would treat the marketing of adult-rated
movies, music recordings, and video games to children like any other
deceptive act that harms consumers, and give the FTC the same authority
it has under the current false and deceptive advertising laws to bring
actions against companies that engage in deceptive practices. In
particular, it would give the FTC the authority to penalize companies
that violate this provision with civil fines of up to $11,000 per
offense.
Some will claim this is censorship. But the truth is we're not
empowering the FTC to regulate content in any way or even to make
judgments about what products are appropriate for children. We are
simply saying that if you voluntarily label a product as being
unsuitable for kids, and then turn around and market it in a way that
directly contradicts that rating, you should be held accountable, just
like any other company that misleads consumers. That's not censorship,
that's common sense.
The bottom line here is that the First Amendment is not a license to
deceive. And this legislation translates that important principle into
policy. It says to the people who run the entertainment industry that
they cannot have it both ways. They cannot label their products for
adults and target them to kids. And they cannot continue to undermine
their ratings and undercut the authority of parents.
I ask my colleagues today on both sides of the aisle for their
support on this bill and the ongoing effort to help protect their
children from harmful media messages. I thank the chair, and ask
unanimous consent that my statement and bill be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 792

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 ``Media Marketing
Accountability Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Children have easy access to a variety of media and
entertainment options without leaving their own homes. The
vast majority of homes with children have a VCR, a CD player,
and either a video game console or a personal computer.
(2) Children, and especially teenagers, spend a large
amount of time listening to music, seeing movies, and playing
video games. Specifically:
(A) Children ages 8 through 13 spend approximately 3 hours
per week in a movie theater, on average. In addition, 62
percent of children ages 9 through 17 spent an average of 52
minutes per day watching video tapes.
(B) 82 percent of children play video games, and do so for
33 minutes per day, on average.
(C) Children ages 14 through 18 listen to music
approximately 2\1/2\ hours per day on average.
(3) Teenagers spend tens of millions of dollars annually on
movies, music, and video games, making them a highly valuable
demographic group to the producers and distributors of
entertainment products.
(4) Media violence can be harmful to children. Most
scholarly studies on the impact of media violence find a high
correlation between exposure to violent content and
aggressive or violent behavior. Additional studies find a
high correlation between exposure to violent content and a
desensitization to and acceptance of violence in society.
(5) On September 11, 2000, the Federal Trade Commission
reported that companies in the music, movie, and video game
industries routinely target children under age 17 in the
advertisement of adult-rated products. Specifically:
(A) The Commission found that 80 percent of the R-rated
movies studied had been targeted to children. In addition,
marketing plans for 64 percent of the R-rated movies studied
explicitly mentioned children under age 17 as part of the
target audience.
(B) The Commission found that all marketing plans for music
recordings with explicit content labels either explicitly
mentioned children under age 17 as part of the target
audience or called for ad placement in media that would reach
a majority or substantial percentage of children under age
17.
(C) The Commission found that 70 percent of Mature-rated
video games studied were targeted to children under age 17,
and 51 percent explicitly mentioned children under age 17 as
part of the target audience. Additionally, the Commission
found that 91 percent of the video game manufacturers studied
had at one time expressly identified children under age 17 as
the core, primary, or secondary audience of an M-rated game.
(6) To correct this problem, the Commission called on these
industries to adopt voluntary, uniform policies expressly
prohibiting these practices and to enforce these policies
with real sanctions for violations.
(7) To date, as the Commission noted in a follow-up report
released on April 24, 2001, only the video game industry has
agreed to adopt such a marketing code. The Commission also
noted that, despite some encouraging changes in behavior
since the release of the Commission's original report in
2000, a number of companies in all three industries have
nevertheless continued to market adult-rated products in
venues popular with children.
(8) Because the entertainment industry continues to target
its advertising of adult-rated products to children, there is
need for narrowly targeted legislation to prohibit, as a
false and deceptive trade practice, the targeting of children
in the advertisement and other marketing of products rated
for adults, and to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to
stop these practices.

TITLE I--TARGETED MARKETING OF ADULT-RATED MEDIA TO CHILDREN

SEC. 101. PROHIBITION ON TARGETED MARKETING TO MINORS OF
ADULT-RATED MEDIA AS UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE
PRACTICE.

(a) In General.--The targeted advertising or other
marketing to minors of an adult-rated motion picture, music
recording, or electronic game, in or affecting commerce,
shall be treated as a deceptive act or practice within the
meaning of section 5 of the

[[Page 6433]]

Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45), and is hereby
declared unlawful.
(b) Treatment as Targeted Advertising or Marketing to
Minors.--For purposes of this section, the advertising or
other marketing of an adult-rated motion picture, music
recording, or electronic game shall be treated as targeted
advertising or other marketing of such product to minors if--
(1) the advertising or marketing--
(A) is intentionally directed to minors; or
(B) is presented to an audience of which a substantial
proportion is minors; or
(2) the Commission determines that the advertising or
marketing is otherwise directed or targeted to minors.

SEC. 102. SAFE HARBOR.

(a) In General.--The advertising or other marketing to
minors of an adult-rated motion picture, music recording, or
electronic game shall not be treated as targeted advertising
or other marketing to minors, for purposes of section 101, if
the producer or distributor responsible for the advertising
or marketing adheres to a voluntary self-regulatory system
with respect to such product that satisfies the criteria
under subsection (b) and is subject to the sanctions referred
to in subsection (b)(3).
(b) Criteria.--The Federal Trade Commission shall, by rule,
establish the criteria referred to in subsection (a). Under
such criteria, a voluntary self-regulatory system shall
include the following elements:
(1) An age-based rating or labeling system for the product
in question.
(2) For all products that are rated or labeled as adult-
rated under such system--
(A) prohibitions on the targeted advertising or other
marketing to minors of such products; and
(B) other policies to restrict, to the extent feasible, the
sale, rental, or viewing to or by minors of such products.
(3) Procedures, including sanctions for non-complying
producers and distributors, meeting such requirements as the
Commission includes in such criteria in order to assure
compliance with the prohibitions and other policies referred
to in paragraph (2).

SEC. 103. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General.--The Federal Trade Commission shall
prescribe rules that define with specificity the acts or
practices that are deceptive acts or practices under section
101.
(b) In Particular.--The rules under subsection (a)--
(1) shall specify criteria for determining whether or not
an audience is comprised of a substantial proportion of
minors for purposes of section 101(b)(1)(B); and
(2) may include requirements for the purpose of preventing
acts or practices that are deceptive acts or practices under
section 101.

SEC. 104. MATTERS RELATING TO REGULATIONS.

(a) In General.--The Federal Trade Commission shall
prescribe rules under sections 102 and 103 in accordance with
the provisions of section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Time Limit.--The Commission shall prescribe the
regulations required under sections 102 and 103(b)(1) not
later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act.

SEC. 105. ENFORCEMENT.

(a) In General.--This title shall be enforced by the
Federal Trade Commission under the provisions of the Federal
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.).
(b) Actions by Commission.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall prevent any person
from violating section 101, or a rule of the Commission under
section 103, in the same manner, by the same means, and with
the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all
applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade
Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of this
title.
(2) Particular rules.--A rule prescribed under section
103(b)(1) shall be treated as a rule prescribed under section
18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
57a(a)(1)(B)), and any violation of a rule prescribed under
such section 103 shall be treated as a violation of a rule
respecting unfair or deceptive acts or practices under
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
(3) Rights and liabilities of parties.--Any person or
entity that violates section 101, or a rule of the Commission
under section 103, shall be subject to the penalties, and
entitled to the privileges and immunities, provided in the
Federal Trade Commission Act in the same manner, by the same
means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as
though all applicable terms and provisions of that Act were
incorporated into and made a part of this title.
(c) Effect on Other Laws.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any
other provision of law.

SEC. 106. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Adult-rated.--The term ``adult-rated'', in the case of
a motion picture, music recording, or electronic game, means
a rating or label voluntarily assigned by the producer or
distributor of such product, including a rating or label
assigned pursuant to an industry-wide rating or labeling
system, which rating or label--
(A) indicates or signifies that--
(i) such product is or may be appropriate or suitable only
for adults; or
(ii) access to such product by minors should be restricted;
or
(B) in the case of a music recording, advises or signifies
that such product may contain explicit content, including
strong language or expressions of violence, sex, or substance
abuse.
(2) Minor.--The term ``minor'' means an individual below
the age established under the rating or labeling system in
question to be an appropriate audience for adult-oriented
material, but in no event includes an individual 17 years of
age or older. If no specific age is so established under the
rating or labeling system in question, the term means an
individual less than 17 years of age.
(3) Adult.--The term ``adult'' means an individual who is
no longer a minor.
(4) Electronic game.--The term ``electronic game'' means
any interactive entertainment software, including any
computer game, video game, or on-line game, sold or rented on
any tangible medium or by any electronic or on-line medium by
which the right to play a specified interactive-
entertainment-software product is purchased.
(5) Motion picture.--The term ``motion picture'' means any
theatrical motion picture shown in a commercial theater or
sold or rented by videotape, digital recording, or other
tangible medium or by any electronic or on-line medium by
which the right to play an individual theatrical motion
picture is purchased, except that such term shall not include
anything shown on broadcast television or cable television.
(6) Music recording.--The term ``music recording'' means
any recording of music sold or rented on compact disk, tape
cassette, vinyl record, music video, or other tangible medium
or by any electronic or on-line medium by which the right to
hear a specified work of music is purchased, except that such
term shall not include anything shown on broadcast television
or cable television.

SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title shall take effect 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

TITLE II--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. 201. STUDY OF MARKETING PRACTICES OF ENTERTAINMENT
INDUSTRIES REGARDING ADULT-RATED MATERIALS.

(a) In General.--The Federal Trade Commission shall conduct
a study of the advertising and other marketing practices of
the motion picture industry, music recording industry, and
electronic game industry regarding adult-rated motion
pictures, music recordings, and electronic games.
(b) Matters To Be Studied.--In conducting the study under
subsection (a), the Commission may examine--
(1) whether and to what extent the industries referred to
in that subsection direct to minors the advertising and
marketing of adult-rated materials, including--
(A) whether such materials are advertised or promoted in
media outlets in which minors are present in substantial
numbers or comprise a substantial percentage of the audience;
and
(B) whether such industries use other marketing practices
designed to attract minors to such materials;
(2) whether and to what extent retail merchants, movie
theaters, or others who engage in the sale or rental for a
fee of products of such industries--
(A) have policies to restrict the sale, rental, or viewing
to or by minors of adult-rated materials; and
(B) have procedures to ensure compliance with such
policies;
(3) whether and to what extent such industries require,
monitor, or encourage the enforcement of their voluntary
rating or labeling systems by industry members, retail
merchants, movie theaters, or others who engage in the sale
or rental for a fee of the products of such industries;
(4) whether and to what extent such industries engage in
activities to educate the public in the existence, use, or
efficacy of their voluntary rating or labeling systems; and
(5) whether and to what extent the policies and procedures
referred to in paragraph (2), any activities referred to in
paragraphs (3) and (4), and any other activities of such
industries are effective in restricting the access of minors
to adult-rated materials.
(c) Factors in Determination.--In determining whether the
products of an industry are adult-rated for purposes of
subsection (b), the Commission shall use the voluntary
industry rating or labeling system of the industry, both as
in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and as
modified after that date.
(d) Authorities.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Commission may use its authority under section 6(b)
of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 46(b)) to
require the filing of reports or answers in writing to
specific questions, as well as to obtain information, oral
testimony, documentary material, or tangible things.
(e) Reports.--
(1) Requirement.--The Commission shall submit to Congress
and the public two reports on the study under subsection (a),
as follows:
(A) An initial report, not later than two years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page 6434]]

(B) A final report, not later than six years after that
date.
(2) Elements.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) a description of the study conducted under subsection
(a) during the period covered by the report;
(B) any findings and recommendations of the Commission
arising out of the study as of the end of that period; and
(C) the identification of the particular producers and
distributors, if any, engaged in advertising or other
marketing practices relevant to such findings and
recommendations.
(f) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``adult-
rated'', ``electronic game'', ``motion picture'', ``music
recording'', and ``minor'' have the meanings given those
terms in section 106.

SEC. 202. SEPARABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such
provision to any person, partnership, corporation, or
circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, and
the application of such provision to any other person,
partnership, corporation, or circumstance, shall not be
affected thereby.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator
Lieberman to introduce the Media Marketing Accountability Act of 2001.
For too long, the entertainment industry has drawn a bullseye on our
children's backs, targeting them with violent video games, movies and
music. Media violence has a clear and dangerous effect on our children,
and it must be curbed.
Last fall's Federal Trade Commission report confirmed some of our
worst fears. It found that more than 70 percent of movie, video game
and music companies aggressively marketed their violent, adult-rated
products to children. And while this week's report showed some
meaningful progress, the ``snapshot'' it took didn't exactly reveal a
pretty picture. Last fall, Senator Lieberman and I pledged not to sit
by idly. Today we're here to make good on our promise.
This legislation is simple. It targets the worst behavior. The
entertainment industry won't be able to speak out of both sides of
their mouths anymore, saying that a product is harmful to children, but
then luring them into the theaters or stores to see it or buy it. This
bill gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority it needs to go
after the bad actors who try to mislead our families and our children.
Let me be a little more specific about what the bill does. This
legislation gives the FTC the authority to prosecute entertainment
companies for deceptive trade practices if they target adult-rated
entertainment to children. This legislation doesn't create a whole new
structure of rules and punishments; it simply adds this bad behavior by
entertainment companies to a list of misconduct that the FTC already
has the power to punish.
But the bill also rewards companies for good behavior. It includes a
safe harbor which shields companies from prosecution if they already
abide by a self-regulatory system that includes an age-based rating
system, prohibits the marketing of adult rated material to children,
and punishes for non-compliance. Finally, the legislation calls for two
additional studies by the FTC over the next six years.
Let me give you a concrete example of the type of behavior this bill
aims to prohibit. Last fall's report uncovered a film industry practice
of including young children in the test groups for R-rated films.
Studios asked ten-year-olds to explain what they like about a violent,
R-rated movie, and then the studio used the feedback to tailor their
advertising campaign to lure youngsters into the theaters. We all agree
this behavior is just plain wrong, and it is this kind of behavior that
our legislation will penalize.
Our bill does not touch the content produced by the industry, it
simply targets specific, egregious behavior. After all, no one is
saying that the entertainment industry doesn't produce high-quality and
important products. But we all agree that not every product is
appropriate for children, and the Federal Government has a legitimate
interest in protecting children, a vulnerable audience, from being
targeted with violent and vulgar content that the industry itself has
identified as inappropriate. Our narrowly tailored legislation will
help protect children and families from this kind of deception.
Finally, our bill should not discourage the entertainment industry
from rating its products. To begin with, companies that are already
regulating themselves effectively will qualify for protection under our
safe harbor. The industry's threat to alter or eliminate their rating
systems is as irresponsible to families as the behavior we're trying to
prohibit with this measure. But beyond that, enactment of this
legislation would not translate to constant legal action against the
entertainment industry. The Federal Trade Commission would only
prosecute those companies who have clearly and flagrantly targeted
children with adult-rated material. As long as companies advertise
their adult-rated products to a logical target audience, they should
have no concern about this legislation.
______

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 796. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure that
drinking water consumers are informed about the risks posed by arsenic
in drinking water, to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have had the same 50 parts per billion
standard for arsenic in our drinking water since 1942. Since then,
study after study has confirmed that this level of arsenic in our
drinking water is unsafe. After decades of review, a final drinking
water standard was finally set to go into effect in March of this year.
The new standard would have required no more than 10 parts per billion
arsenic in drinking water.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration stopped this new rule from
going into effect. This decision was a major blow to public health in
this country. Arsenic causes lung cancer, skin cancer, and bladder
cancer. We know that if you drink water at the current standard for
arsenic you have a 1 in 100 chance of getting cancer. The Bush
Administration has decided that we can wait, despite mountains of
scientific evidence on the serious health threat posed by arsenic. By
suspending the new arsenic standard, the President is preventing
communities from getting started on the upgrades they need to make to
their drinking water systems. This is unacceptable, and I am a co-
sponsor of legislation that would restore the 10 parts per billion
standard.
Another consequence of the Bush Administration's decision to suspend
the new rule for arsenic has received less attention but is also very
important. The suspended rule contained provisions on the public's
right to know what level of arsenic is in its drinking water and what
the possible health effects may be. The suspended rule requires notice
to consumers containing very specific information on the health risks
posed by arsenic. This notice would have been required at 5 parts per
billion. This is less than the maximum level permitted in drinking
water, but is necessary because there is still a risk posed by arsenic
at this level.
I believe that the public has a right to know if there is an
environmental threat in their community. If the public is fully
informed about environmental threats, they may have the opportunity to
avoid them. So, today I am introducing the ``Community Right to Know
Arsenic Risk Act.''
My bill would restore the requirements in the suspended rule on the
public's right to know. It would ensure that notice is given at the 5
parts per billion level.
The level of arsenic found in drinking water in many communities
poses a serious risk to public health. I am especially concerned about
the most vulnerable members of the community, including children, the
elderly, and AIDS or cancer patients, to name a few. I am committed to
full disclosure to consumers of both the levels of arsenic in drinking
water and the possible health effects. Drinking water that may meet
federal standards still may pose health risks that should be known to
the consumer. This is certainly the case with arsenic. The consumer
should have the right to choose alternative water sources or to seek
tighter standards. This is a minimum requirement. I encourage my
colleagues to co-sponsor

[[Page 6435]]

this legislation and 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. 796

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 ``Community Right-to-Know
Arsenic Risk Act''.

SEC. 2. NOTICE CONCERNING RISKS POSED BY ARSENIC IN DRINKING
WATER.

Part F of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-21 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1466. NOTICE CONCERNING RISKS POSED BY ARSENIC IN
DRINKING WATER.

``(a) In General.--A consumer confidence report prepared by
a community water system under section 141.154 of title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation),
shall include a short educational statement concerning
arsenic that--
``(1) uses language such as the following: `While your
drinking water meets EPA's standard for arsenic, it does
contain arsenic. EPA's standard is based not only on the
possible health effects of arsenic, but also on the costs of
removing arsenic from drinking water. EPA continues to
research the health effects of arsenic ingestion, which is a
mineral known to cause cancer in humans at high
concentrations and is linked to other health effects such as
skin damage and circulatory problems.''; or
``(2) uses substantially similar language developed by the
community water system in consultation with the State agency
having jurisdiction over safe drinking water matters.
``(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) applies to any
community water system that--
``(1) is required to prepare and deliver consumer
confidence reports under subpart O of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation); and
``(2)(A) with respect to a report required to be delivered
under that subpart not later than July 1, 2001, detects
arsenic in the drinking water provided by the community water
system at a level that is above 0.025 milligrams per liter
but below the maximum contaminant level; and
``(B) with respect to a report required to be delivered
under that subpart after July 1, 2001, detects arsenic in the
drinking water provided by the community water system at a
level that is above 0.005 milligrams per liter but that is
equal to or below the maximum contaminant level.''.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

______

SENATE RESOLUTION 76--CONGRATULATING THE EAGLES OF BOSTON COLLEGE FOR
WINNING THE 2001 MEN'S ICE HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP.

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Kerry) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. Res. 76

Whereas the Boston College Eagles men's ice hockey team had
a remarkable season, concluding by defeating the tenacious
Fighting Sioux of the University of North Dakota 3-2 in
overtime.
Whereas the victory by the Boston College Eagles marked the
first national championship in ice hockey for Boston College
since 1949;
Whereas the championship victory concluded a brilliant
season for Boston College in which the team compiled a record
of 33 wins, eight loses, and two ties;
Whereas the winning overtime goal for Boston College by
Krys Kolanos produced the victory;
Whereas coach Jerry York, who grew up in Watertown,
Massachusetts and starred on the 1967 Boston College team,
deserves great credit for taking the Boston College Eagles to
the ``Frozen Four'' NCAA finals for the past four years;
Whereas eleven players on the Boston College Eagles team
grew up in Massachusetts or played high school hockey in the
state;
Whereas the Eagles victory was also made possible by goals
by Chuck Kobasew and Mike Lephart, and by goalie Scott
Clemmensen, who played a magnificent game by making 34 saves
for the Eagles.
Whereas the Boston College Eagles are flying high after
winning the 2001 National Collegiate Athletic Association
Men's Ice Hockey Championship: now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate commends the Eagles of Boston
College for winning the 2001 National Collegiate Athletic
Association Men's Ice Hockey Championship.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on April 7, the Boston College Eagles Ice
Hockey Team defeated the Fighting Sioux of the University of North
Dakota 3-2 in overtime to win the NCAA national championship. The
victory marked the first national championship in ice hockey for Boston
College since 1949, and all of us in Massachusetts are proud of them
for their outstanding season.
An overtime goal for Boston College by Krys Kolanos produced the
victory and made up for last year's 4-2 defeat by North Dakota in the
championship game. Chuck Kobasew and Mike Lephart scored the other two
goals for Boston College, and goalie Scott Clemmensen did an excellent
job as well, with 34 saves.
The Boston College team compiled an extraordinary record of 33 wins,
eight losses, and two ties during the season. Coach Jerry York, a
native of Watertown, Massachusetts, had been a star for the Eagles in
the 1967 season, was an indispensable part of this year's championship
achievement as was all the members on the team.
The Eagles were led effectively this season by captain Brian Gionta
and assistant captains Bobby Allen and Mike Lepart. I welcome this
opportunity to commend all of the players for their brilliant success,
Bill Cass, Anthony D'Arpino, Ales Dolinar, Justin Dziama, Ben Eaves,
Tom Egan, J.D Forrest, Jeff Giuliano, Ty Hennes, Marty Hughes, Tim
Kelleher, Mark McLennan, Brooks Orpik, Brett Peterson, Joe Schuman, Rob
Scuderi, Dan Sullivan, and Tony Voce. I also commend Coach York's
assistant coaches, Mike Cavanaugh, Jim Logue, and Scott Paluch.
The Boston College Eagles are flying high. Massachusetts is proud of
their championship season, and I urge the Senate to approve this well,
deserved resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that an article on the championship Eagles
from the Boston College newspaper ``The Chronicle'' be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Boston College Chronicle, Apr. 12, 2001]

``Eagles Rule Roost--University Celebrates Hockey Team's NCAA Frozen
Four Triumph''

(By Sean Smith)

On a glorious spring day, the Boston College community paid
tribute Monday afternoon to its men of winter.

A jubilant crowd of well-wishers and special guests--
including Gov. Paul Cellucci, '70, JD '73, and Boston Mayor
Thomas Menino--packed Conte Forum to honor the national
champion Eagles hockey team, which won the National
Collegiate Athletic Association ``Frozen Four'' tournament
Saturday night with a 3-2 overtime victory over defending
champion North Dakota in Albany, NY.
BC has a 2-0 lead late in the third period before North
Dakota rallied to tie. Krys Kolanos, '04, scored less than
five minutes into the extra period to notch the win, giving
the Eagles their second NCAA hockey championship, and first
in 52 years.
Freshman Chuck Kobasew--named the Frozen Four Most
Outstanding Player--and senior Mike Lephart each scored in
the second period for BC's other goals.
WEEL-AM sports announcer Ted Sarandis served as master of
ceremonies at Monday's celebration, where small children in
kid-sized BC hockey shirts cheered the champions alongside
elderly alumni and current students in maroon and gold
regalia. One alumnus in the crowd received special notice:
James Fitzgerald, '49, who scored the winning goal in BC's
1949 championship.
University President William P. Leahy, SJ, thanking coach
Jerry York and his players for ``a memorable season,'' said
their efforts exemplified BC as ``an institution dedicated to
excellence, in the classroom, the laboratory and the hockey
rink.''
Cellucci, preparing to start his new job as United States
ambassador to Canada, said his last proclamation as governor
was to designate April 9, 2001, as ``BC Eagles Hockey Day in
Massachusetts.''
Menino extended his congratulations not only to the team
but also to the parents ``who drove you to the hockey rinks
all those mornings.''
``Wow!'' said Athletic Director Gene DeFilippo as he began
his remarks. ``Does it get any better that this?'' He rattled
off an impressive list of group and individual achievements
by the team's eight seniors, including 117 victories, four
Frozen Four and three NCAA title game appearances.
York, who was treated to a standing ovation and cheers of
``Jer-EE! Jer-EE!'' by the crowd, thanked his assistants and
support staff, and praised the players for ``representing
this world-class university in a world-class manner.''
After senior captains Brian Gionta, Bobby Allen and Lephart
offered their own thanks and praises, the moment the crowd
had waited for arrived. To the strains of ``We Are the

[[Page 6436]]

Champions,'' the players skated around the rink holding aloft
the NCAA championship trophy.
The team has at least one more celebration in its future:
an invitation to the White House, on a date to be confirmed
later.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 77--TO AUTHORIZE THE PRODUCTION OF RECORDS BY THE
PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. Res. 77

Whereas, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of
the Committee on Governmental Affairs has been conducting an
investigation into the use of correspondent banking for
purposes of money laundering;
Whereas, the Subcommittee has received a number of requests
from law enforcement officials, legislative bodies,
regulatory agencies, and court-appointed officials for access
to records of the Subcommittee's investigation;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United
States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no
evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate
can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken from
such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or
in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion
of justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote
the ends of justice consistent with the privileges of the
Senate: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee
on Governmental Affairs, acting jointly, are authorized to
provide to law enforcement officials, legislative bodies,
regulatory agencies, and other entities or individuals duly
authorized by federal, state, or foreign governments, records
of the Subcommittee's investigation into the use of
correspondent banking for the purpose of money laundering.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs has received requests from
various law enforcement and regulatory agencies, legislative bodies,
and court-appointed officers, both here and abroad, for assistance in
connection with pending investigations into the use of correspondent
banks for money laundering, which has been the subject of recent
investigation by the subcommittee.
This resolution would authorize the chairman and ranking member of
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, acting jointly, to
provide investigative records, obtained by the subcommittee in the
course of its investigations, in response to these requests.

____________________

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 34--CONGRATULATING THE BALTIC NATIONS OF
ESTONIA, LATVIA, AND LITHUANIA ON THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
REESTABLISHMENT OF THEIR FULL INDEPENDENCE

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

S. Con. Res. 34

Whereas the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania were forcibly and illegally incorporated into the
Soviet Union from 1940 until 1991;
Whereas from 1940 to 1991, thousands of Estonians,
Latvians, and Lithuanians were executed, imprisoned, or
exiled by Soviet authorities through a regime of brutal
repression, Sovietization, and Russification in their
respective nations;
Whereas despite the efforts of the Soviet Union to
eradicate the memory of independence, the Baltic people never
lost their hope for freedom and their long-held dream of full
independence;
Whereas during the period of ``glasnost'' and
``perestroika'' in the Soviet Union, the Baltic people led
the struggle for democratic reform and national independence;
and
Whereas, in the years following the restoration of full
independence, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have
demonstrated their commitment to democracy, human rights, and
the rule of law, and have actively participated in a wide
range of international structures, pursuing further
integration with European political, economic, and security
organizations: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress--
(1) congratulates Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on the
tenth anniversary of the restoration of their full
independence; and
(2) calls on the President to continue to build the close
and mutually beneficial relations the United States has
enjoyed with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania since the
restoration of the full independence of those nations.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Dodd and
Voinovich, fellow members of the Commission on Security and Cooperation
in Europe, in submitting a Concurrent Resolution congratulating the
people of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on the tenth anniversary of
the restoration of their full independence. The resolution also calls
on the President of the United States to build upon the close and
mutually beneficial relations with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania that
have existed since the restoration of their full independence.
This year marks the tenth anniversary of the reestablishment of full
independence to the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
after almost five decades of illegal and brutal incorporation into the
Soviet Union. The Baltic nations were independent between World War I
and World War II. Their freedom and independence were stolen from them
in a secret deal struck between Hitler and Stalin.
During the Soviet era, thousands of Estonians, Latvians, and
Lithuanians were executed, imprisoned or exiled by the Soviet regime as
Moscow attempted to repress any resistance to its rule. Besides
physically persecuting individuals, the Soviet Union also tried to
destroy the rich heritage of the Baltic people, by degrading their
culture and attempting to replace their native languages with Russian.
It didn't work. The Baltic people never gave up their hope for
freedom and their long-held dream of independence.
Moreover, during the Soviet period of ``glasnost'' and
``perestroika,'' the Baltic people led the struggle for democratic
reform and national consciousness. In the ten years following the
restoration of their full independence, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
have demonstrated their commitment to democracy, human rights, and rule
of law at home. At the same time, they have actively participated in a
wide range of international structures, while pursuing further
integration into European political, economic and security
organizations.
Earlier today I had the pleasure to meet with President Vike-
Freiberga of Latvia, in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe. I was joined by Co-Chairman Chris
Smith and fellow Commissioner Zach Wamp. President Vike-Freiberga
struck us as an impressive leader during our wide-ranging discussion of
Euro-Atlantic cooperation and Latvia's development since the
restoration of independence. Therefore, it is fitting that we introduce
this resolution today, coinciding with President Vike-Freiberga's
working visit to Washington.
I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this resolution.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

SA 353. Mr. DAYTON submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 149, to provide authority to
control exports, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table.

____________________

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

SA 353. Mr. DAYTON submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 149, to provide authority to
control exports, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following new title:

TITLE--EXEMPTION FOR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, MEDICINE, AND MEDICAL
SUPPLIES

SEC. __01. EXEMPTION FOR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, MEDICINE,
AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the export
controls imposed on items under title III shall not apply to
agricultural

[[Page 6437]]

commodities, medicine, and medical supplies.

SEC. __02. TERMINATION OF EXPORT CONTROLS REQUIRED BY LAW.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President
shall terminate any export control mandated by law on
agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical supplies upon
the date of enactment of this Act except for a control that
is specifically reimposed by law.

SEC. __03. EXCLUSIONS.

Sections __01 and __02 do not apply to the following:
(1) The export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and
medical supplies that are subject to national security export
controls under title II or are listed on the United States
Munitions List established under section 38 of the Arms
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).
(2) The export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and
medical supplies to a country against which an embargo is in
effect under the Trading With the Enemy Act.

SEC. __04. DEFINITION.

For purposes of this title, the term ``agricultural
commodity'' means any agricultural commodity, food, fiber, or
livestock (including livestock, as defined in section 602(2)
of the Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1988 (title
VI of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1471(2))), and
including insects), and any product thereof.

____________________

NOTICE OF HEARING

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that three hearings have been
scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to
consider the President's proposed FY 2002 budget.
The Committee will hear testimony from the following:
1. The Department of the Interior on Tuesday, May 8, 2001, beginning
at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in
Washington, DC.
2. The Forest Service on Tuesday, May 8, 2001, beginning at 2:30
p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in
Washington, DC.
3. The Department of Energy on Tuesday, May 10, 2001, beginning at
9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in
Washington, D.C.
For further information, please call Trici Heninger, Staff Assistant
at (202) 244-7875, regarding the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Energy hearings, and Kathleen Elder, Staff Assistant at
(202) 244-7556, regarding the Forest Service hearing.

committee on energy and natural resources

subcommittee on energy and water development of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a joint oversight hearing
has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
and the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee
on Appropriations.
The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 3rd, 2001 at 10 a.m. in
room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.
The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the state of
the nuclear power industry and the future of the industry in a
comprehensive energy strategy.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their
testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United
States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
20510-6150.
For further information, please call Colleen Deegan, Counsel, Energy
Committee at (202) 224-8115 or Clay Sell, Clerk, Energy and Water
Subcommittee at (202) 224-7260.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

committee on armed services

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, April 26, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to
consider the nominations of Edward C. Aldridge to be Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology; William J. Haynes II to be
general counsel of the Department of Defense; and Powell A. Moore, to
be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, and in
executive session thereafter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on commerce, science, and transportation

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on
Thursday, April 26, 2001, at 9:30 a.m. on the nomination of Theodore W.
Kassinger to be general counsel of the Department of Commerce.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on commerce, science, and transportation

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on
Thursday, April 26, 2001, immediately following the nomination hearing,
on S. 718--Amateur Sports Integrity Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Thursday, April 26, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an
oversight hearing. The committee will consider national energy policy
with respect to fuel specifications and infrastructure constraints and
their impacts on energy supply and price.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on finance

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, April
26, 2001 to hear testimony on the Tax Code Complexity, New Hope for
Fresh Solutions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, April 26, 2001 at 10 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to hold a
hearing and a business meeting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on the judiciary

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday,
April 26, 2001, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Building Room 226.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

special committee on aging

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special
Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 26, 2001
from 9 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a
hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on communications

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Communications, of the Committee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation, be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 26, 2001,
at 2:30 p.m. on spamming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on forests and public lands

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, April 26, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct an oversight
hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on the energy
implications of the Forest Service's Roadless Area Rulemaking.

[[Page 6438]]

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

subcommittee on seapower

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be
authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April
26, 2001, at 2 p.m., in open session to receive testimony regarding
strategic airlift and sealift imperatives for the 21st century.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on transportation and infrastructure

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be authorized to
conduct a hearing to receive testimony on budget oversight on the Corps
of Engineers program for FY02 on Thursday, April 26 at 9:30 am.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nicky Yuen
on my staff be allowed floor privileges during the duration of the day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

CONGRATULATING THE EAGLES OF BOSTON COLLEGE

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 76, submitted earlier today by
Senators Kennedy and Kerry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 76) congratulating the Eagles of
Boston College in Massachusetts for winning the 2001 National
Collegiate Athletic Association Men's Ice Hockey
championship.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 76) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The text of the resolution is located in today's Record under
``Submitted Statements on Senate Resolutions.'')

____________________

HONORING NEIL L. RUDENSTINE

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP
Committee be discharged from consideration of S. Res. 65 and the Senate
then proceed to its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 65) Honoring Neil L. Rudenstine,
President of Harvard University.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 65) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 65

Whereas Neil L. Rudenstine is retiring as the 26th
President of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
on June 30, 2001, after 10 years of service in the position;
Whereas Harvard University, founded in 1636, is the oldest
university in the United States and 1 of the preeminent
academic institutions in the world;
Whereas throughout the history of the United States,
graduates of Harvard University have served the United States
as leaders in public service, including 7 Presidents and many
distinguished members of the United States Senate and the
House of Representatives;
Whereas in recognition of his belief in, and Harvard
University's continued commitment to, public service as a
value of higher education, Neil L. Rudenstine worked to
establish the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard
University's Kennedy School of Government to prepare
individuals for public service and leadership in an ever-
changing world;
Whereas in order to make a Harvard University education
available to as many qualified young people as possible,
during Neil L. Rudenstine's tenure, the University expanded
its financial aid budget by $8,300,000 to help students
graduate with less debt;
Whereas Neil L. Rudenstine has made Harvard University a
good neighbor in the community of Cambridge and greater
Boston by launching a $21,000,000 affordable housing program
and by creating more than 700 jobs; and
Whereas Neil Rudenstine built an academic career of great
distinction, including 2 bachelor's degrees, 1 from Princeton
University and the other from Oxford University, a Rhodes
Scholarship, a Harvard Ph.D. in English, recognition as a
scholar and authority on Renaissance literature, and
preeminent positions in higher education: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved,

SECTION 1. HONORING NEIL L. RUDENSTINE.

The Senate--
(1) expresses deep appreciation to President Neil L.
Rudenstine of Harvard University for his contributions to
higher education, for the spirit of public service that
characterized his decade as Harvard University's President,
for his many years of academic leadership at other
universities, and for the grace and elegance that he brought
to all he has done; and
(2) wishes him well in every future endeavor, anticipating
the continuing benefit of his thoughtful expertise to
American higher education.

SEC. 2. TRANSMITTAL.

The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this
resolution to Neil L. Rudenstine.

____________________

FARMER BANKRUPTCY

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 256, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 256) to extend for 11 additional months the
period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States
code is reenacted.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally
turning its attention to retroactively renewing Chapter 12 of the
Bankruptcy Code, which protects family farmers and helps them prevent
foreclosures and forced auctions of their farms.
Unfortunately, many family farmers have been left in legal limbo in
bankruptcy courts across the country since Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy
Code expired on July 1, 2000. Last year, the House of Representatives
passed narrow legislation to retroactively renew Chapter 12, but that
legislation died in the Senate. I worked to adopt the House-passed bill
last year to renew Chapter 12, along with a number of Democratic
Senators, but the Senate Majority Leader never scheduled a vote on the
bill.
This year, Representative Nick Smith and Representative Tammy Baldwin
introduced H.R. 256 to retroactively renew Chapter 12. Thanks to their
bipartisan efforts the House passed the bill on February 28 by a vote
of 408-2. I commend them for their leadership in securing House passage
of this legislation.
Earlier this month, Representative Smith and Representative Baldwin
wrote to me about trying to secure quick Senate passage of H.R. 256. I
agreed that the Senate should act immediately to renew Chapter 12 of
the Bankruptcy Code and send their legislation to the President for his
signature into law. I am glad the Majority Leader is finally taking up
our request to take up and pass H.R. 256.
During the debate earlier this year on comprehensive changes to the
bankruptcy system, some proponents of the controversial reform bill
claimed that it must be passed to restore Chapter 12 to the Bankruptcy
Code. I hope today's action to pass a stand alone Chapter 12 bill will
make it clear to all that the

[[Page 6439]]

Senate does not have to pass a mammoth bankruptcy reform bill to
provide family farmers with bankruptcy protection. I also hope today's
action will put an end to any efforts to use Chapter 12 as leverage to
enact controversial bankruptcy reform legislation. Our family farmers
deserve better.
I strongly support H.R. 256 to retroactively give our family farmers
bankruptcy protection if they fall on hard times. It is past time for
Congress to retroactively renew Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code to
provide a safety net for our nation's family farmers.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 256) was read the third time and passed.

____________________

AUTHORIZING PRODUCTION OF RECORDS

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 77, submitted earlier
by myself and Senator Daschle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 77) to authorize the production of
records by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 77) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The text of the resolution is located in today's Record under
``Submitted Statements on Senate Resolutions.'')

____________________

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following
nominations reported by the Foreign Relations Committee today: Paula
Dobriansky to be an Under Secretary of State; James Andrew Kelly to be
an Assistant Secretary of State; Andrew Natsios to be Administrator of
the United States Agency for International Development.
I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed,
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return
to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations were considered and confirmed, as follows:

department of state

James Andrew Kelly, of Hawaii, to be an Assistant Secretary
of State (East Asian and Pacific Affairs).
Paula J. Dobriansky, of Virginia, to be an Under Secretary
of State (Global Affairs).

united states agency for international development

Andrew S. Natsios, of Massachusetts, to be Administrator of
the United States Agency for International Development.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of
Andrew Natsios. Andrew has ably served the State of Massachusetts as a
Representative in the State House and as Chief Financial Officer for
the State. He is an outstanding choice for the important post of
Administrator for the Agency for International Development, and I'm
confident he'll serve our country with great distinction.
The Agency plays an invaluable role for the United States, bringing
the hope of a better life to those in need around the globe through
humanitarian aid and development projects. Its Administrator must
understand the challenges facing the Agency both internally and
externally. He must be a strong and effective manager. He must be
committed to improving the Agency as an institution and have the
ability to advance its development mission effectively. I'm confident
that Andrew possesses the skills to accomplish these goals and that he
will enhance the agency's valuable work around the world.
Andrew has spent much of his distinguished career working on these
important issues--most notably as the Assistant Administrator for the
Bureau of Food and Humanitarian Assistance at the Agency for
International Development, as Director of the Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance and as Vice President of World Vision. Because of
his outstanding ability, he was appointed as special coordinator to
manage U.S. Government relief efforts during the Somalia famine.
Andrew has written extensively on the challenges posed by
humanitarian and intervention assistance and disaster response to U.S.
foreign policy interests. He has also lectured at Boston College, the
University of Massachusetts, and Northeastern University.
Because of his strong management skills, Andrew was called in to
Chair the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and to oversee the Central
Artery Tunnel Project--the nation's largest public project. We all
agree that his management has restored credibility to the project. He
also served as Governor Cellucci's Chief Financial Officer for
Massachusetts and was responsible for a $20 billion state budget.
Andrew has the vision, skills and ability to lead the Agency for
International Development very effectively in the years ahead. His
knowledge and experience, and his strong commitment to improving the
agency will strengthen all of its vital missions.
I look forward very much to working with him as the Administrator of
the Agency for International Development.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

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

____________________

ORDERS FOR MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2001

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 2 p.m. on
Monday, April 30. I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, 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 3 p.m. with Senators speaking for up
to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin or
his designee from 2 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., Senator Thomas or his designee
from 2:30 p.m. to 3 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will
convene at 2 p.m on Monday. Following 1 hour of morning business, we
will begin debate on the motion to proceed to S. 1, the education bill.
Cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to the bill on Thursday,
today, with a vote scheduled to occur at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday. An
agreement on the nomination of John Robert Bolton is being discussed,
and it is hoped that debate and confirmation can occur prior to lunch
on Tuesday. Senators should be aware that there will be no votes during
Monday's session. Having said that, the remainder of the week will be
extremely busy in an effort to complete action on the education bill
and hopefully the budget conference.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2001, AT 2 P.M.

Mr. LOTT. If there is no further business to come before the Senate,
I now

[[Page 6440]]

ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the
previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:07 p.m., adjourned until
Monday, April 30, 2001, at 2 p.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate April 26, 2001:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, OF MARYLAND, TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, VICE JAMES V. AIDALA, RESIGNED.

IN THE MARINE CORPS

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

to be lieutenant general

MAJ. GEN. ROBERT MAGNUS, 0000

THE FOLLOWING NAMED UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE
OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT AS COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE
AND FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTIONS 5144 AND 601:

to be lieutenant general

MAJ. GEN. DENNIS M. MCCARTHY, 0000

IN THE NAVY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE OFFICER FOR
APPOINTMENT AS CHIEF OF NAVAL RESERVE AND FOR APPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 5143 AND
601:

to be vice admiral

REAR ADM. JOHN B. TOTUSHEK, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 5721:

to be lieutenant commander

ROBERT M ABUBO, 0000
DAVID K ANDERSON, 0000
TIMOTHY BARNEY, 0000
MATTHEW BONNER, 0000
CRAIG T BOWDEN, 0000
ROBERT L CHATHAM, 0000
TRACY A DOBEL, 0000
DAVID G ERICKSON, 0000
DARRYL D FIELDER, 0000
DANIEL J GILLEN, 0000
HOWARD D GUBBS, 0000
DAVID K GULUZIAN, 0000
THOMAS HARRILL, 0000
JAMES E KIRBY, 0000
BOBBY L KING, 0000
DOUGLAS W KUNZMAN, 0000
BRYCE D LABMERT, 0000
JOHN LOBUONO, 0000
JOHN J MEAGHER, 0000
KEVIN A MELODY, 0000
KEITH L PAYNE, 0000
ROLAND C ROEDER, 0000
VICTOR S SCHWARTZ, 0000
WILLIAM E SOLOMON III, 0000
ERIC B SVENSSON, 0000
JULIUS TAYLOR, 0000
ZANE R THOMAS, 0000
TREVOR N TYLER, 0000
MAX WILDERMUTH, 0000
ERIC D WILLIAMS, 0000

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

to be captain

EDWARD P ABBOTT, 0000
ANDREW W ACEVEDO, 0000
SCOTT E ALLEN JR., 0000
JAMES L ALLISON, 0000
JEFFREY R ALLMON, 0000
KEVIN W ALT, 0000
PHILIP J ALTIZER JR., 0000
TIMOTHY M ANDERSEN, 0000
GLENN E ANDERSON, 0000
JOSEPH ARANGO III, 0000
GEORGE M ARVONEN, 0000
JOSEPH W ASHBAKER, 0000
JOHN R ATKINSON, 0000
CHERYL L AUSTIN, 0000
PATRICK J AUSTIN, 0000
ANDREW G BAAN, 0000
GIL A BALAOING, 0000
GEORGE W BALLANCE, 0000
WALTER W BALLARD, 0000
WARREN S BARKLEY II, 0000
STEPHEN C BARTO, 0000
STEPHEN D BAUGHMAN, 0000
MARK E BAUMAN, 0000
JAMES F BECKA, 0000
CHARLES G BELTZ, 0000
JOHN R BENNETT, 0000
DONALD J BENZING, 0000
MARTIN W BERG, 0000
WILLIAM S BEYER, 0000
ROGER D BIRNBAUM, 0000
TIMOTHY J BISHOP, 0000
WANDA O BISKADUROS, 0000
THOMAS M BLAIR, 0000
THOMAS H BLAKENEY JR., 0000
CELIA A BOOTH, 0000
FREDERICK Y BORDEN III, 0000
ROBERT J BOROWSKI, 0000
CHRISTOPHER P BOYLAN, 0000
DEAN C BRACKETT, 0000
STEVEN L BRADLEY, 0000
ROBIN A BRAKE, 0000
CHARLES R BRAUN JR., 0000
RICHARD E BRAUNIG, 0000
RICHARD J BRENNAN JR., 0000
FRANCIS C BRINKER, 0000
MICHAEL C BRINKMANN, 0000
DAVID BROADBENT, 0000
THEODORE L BROOKS, 0000
LEONARD J BROWN, 0000
MICHAEL G BUTCHER, 0000
JON A BUTTRAM, 0000
ALLYSON T CADDELL, 0000
JAMES C CAIN, 0000
JAMES J CAIN, 0000
HAROLD F CANNON JR., 0000
ALLEN F CANTRELL, 0000
THOMAS E CARROLL, 0000
MARK S CHAMBERLAIN, 0000
BRANDAN J CHANG, 0000
JAMES S CHEATHAM JR., 0000
VAHAN CHERTAVIAN, 0000
BRANNAN W CHISOLM, 0000
MICHAEL H COCHRANE, 0000
GORDON V COLE, 0000
JOHN W COLEMAN II, 0000
CHRISTOPHER M CONROY, 0000
CURTIS A COOPER, 0000
JOHN J CORBETT, 0000
HENRY J CORSCADDEN III, 0000
DAVID W COSTA, 0000
DAVE L COTNER, 0000
ROBERT W COWING, 0000
MARK L CROOK, 0000
ANATOLIO B CRUZ, 0000
BRUCE CUMINGS, 0000
THOMAS P DAGOSTINO, 0000
JOHN Q DALSANTO, 0000
FRANCIS DANIEL, 0000
SANDY L DANIELS, 0000
LEONARD A DATO, 0000
MARK H DAVIDSON, 0000
LARRY W DAVIS, 0000
LELAND D DEATLEY, 0000
JAMES C DEGENHARDT, 0000
VICTOR E DELNORE JR., 0000
JOHN M DEMAGGIO, 0000
BRUCE J DINSMORE, 0000
DOUGLAS B DRIVER, 0000
DANIEL N DUBE, 0000
TIMOTHY J DWYER, 0000
JOYCE M EASTWICK, 0000
CHARLES N EDWARDS, 0000
MICHAEL D T EDWARDS, 0000
GARY L EILAND, 0000
DONALD W EISENHART JR., 0000
PETER A ENCHELMAYER, 0000
NICHOLAS J EPISCOPO JR., 0000
STEVEN L FARLEY, 0000
GUENTHER FEISTE, 0000
THEODORE F FESSEL JR., 0000
MALORIE L FITZGERALD, 0000
PATRICK J FITZMAURICE JR., 0000
TERRANCE FITZPATRICK, 0000
THOMAS H FLOURNOY, 0000
WILLIAM F FLYNN, 0000
THEODORE FOLLAS, 0000
TERESA B FOLTZ, 0000
RAY FOWLER JR., 0000
EDWARD J FRANCIS, 0000
STEVEN R FRAZER, 0000
JOHN P FRY, 0000
MICHAEL H GAFFNEY, 0000
LINDA T GAINES, 0000
PHILIP A GARCIA, 0000
DAVID H GATES, 0000
LARRY L GATLIN, 0000
KEVIN J GILLIS, 0000
CHARLES B GILLMAN, 0000
NICHOLAS J GIZZI JR., 0000
KEITH V GOODSON, 0000
ROBIN L GRAF, 0000
THOMAS P GRAFF, 0000
MICHAEL A GREEN, 0000
CHERYL A GUIDOBONI, 0000
CHRISTOPHER GUYER, 0000
LINDA A HARBER, 0000
GEORGE M HARDY III, 0000
DONALD P HARKER, 0000
DAVID M HARRIS, 0000
RONALD B HAWKINS, 0000
PETER J HAYASE, 0000
BELINDA B HEERWAGEN, 0000
JOHN P HETRICK JR., 0000
WAYNE D HILD, 0000
HOWARD D HILL, 0000
KIRK E HIVELY, 0000
DANNY B HODGE, 0000
HARVEY S HOPKINS, 0000
RICHARD C HUGHES, 0000
KEVIN H HUGMAN, 0000
ROBERT P HUMPHREY, 0000
FRANCIS A HUNT JR., 0000
MARK E HYMAN, 0000
PAMELA M IOVINO, 0000
BARBARA A IVES, 0000
PETER S JEROME, 0000
BENNETT H JOHNSON, 0000
CAROYL D JOHNSON, 0000
SIGVARD B JOHNSON JR., 0000
JOHN A JONES, 0000
RICHARD L JONES, 0000
MICHAEL G JORDAN, 0000
BYRON J JOSEPH II, 0000
JEFFREY A JULIUS, 0000
STEVEN M JUNKINS, 0000
GEORGE S KACHMARIK, 0000
THOMAS A KAISER, 0000
OWEN N KAWAMOTO, 0000
MICHAEL T KEATING, 0000
THOMAS F KENDZIORSKI, 0000
JOHN M KENNEDY, 0000
PETER F KILGER JR., 0000
WILLIAM A KING JR., 0000
EARL K KISHIDA, 0000
RICHARD S KOPP, 0000
WILLIAM M KOVALCHIK, 0000
PETER H KRAYER, 0000
RAYMOND M KUTCH, 0000
ALAN A LABEOUF, 0000
CRAIG W LEE, 0000
FREDERICK L LEES, 0000
DAVID K LEHMAN, 0000
WILLIAM M LEMKE, 0000
THOMAS W LETT, 0000
MARTIN J LINDENMAYER, 0000
LORI A LINDHOLM, 0000
DOUGLAS L LLOYD, 0000
CRAIG R LOVE, 0000
ROBERT W MACDOUGALL, 0000
STEVEN E MAFFEO, 0000
THOMAS A MAGUIRE, 0000
WILLIAM F MALLOY JR., 0000
PETER T MALONEY, 0000
WILLIAM M MARCHANT, 0000
RICHARD L MARIN, 0000
RICHARD J MARINUCCI, 0000
BRIAN P MARKS, 0000
DEAN B MARKUSSEN, 0000
WILLIAM D MARSH JR., 0000
RICHARD G MARTIN, 0000
WILLIAM C MARTIN JR., 0000
RANDY A MARTINEZ, 0000
GARY J MAYER, 0000
WILLIAM F MCALPINE, 0000
MARK L MCANDREWS, 0000
ANNE M MCCLELLAN, 0000
GAVIN G MCCRARY, 0000
MICHAEL MCDANIEL, 0000
TERRENCE T MCGINNIS, 0000
MARC V MCGOWAN, 0000
DENNIS M MCLAUGHLIN, 0000
DONALD E MCMACKIN, 0000
TERESA B MCNAMARA, 0000
MALCOLM J MCPHEE JR., 0000
MAURICE J MCWHIRTER, 0000
STEVEN L MICHALS, 0000
GLENN R MICKLE, 0000
DAVID M MITCHELL, 0000
RICHARD A MONTANIO, 0000
BARTON A MOORE, 0000
THOMAS K MORGAN, 0000
WILLIAM C MORRILL, 0000
DONALD C MORRISON, 0000
JAMES H MORRISON, 0000
JEFFREY C MOTTER, 0000
SCOTT W MOTZ, 0000
JOHN P MUELLER, 0000
JOSEPH M MURPHY, 0000
HARRY L MYERS, 0000
ALADAR NESSER, 0000
JEFFREY C NICHOLAS, 0000
JAMES C NICHOLS JR., 0000
MICHAEL J NICOLOFF, 0000
GARY D NOBLE, 0000
KERRY L NYE, 0000
CAROL A R OHAGAN, 0000
DAVID R OLSON, 0000
MANUEL ORTEGA, 0000
JAMES S OSBORNE JR., 0000
SANDRA K OSTEEN, 0000
KIM A D OSWALD, 0000
DERRICK W OWINGS, 0000
STEVEN S PAINTER, 0000
STEVE F PALMER, 0000
BARBARA J PALUSZEK, 0000
KEVIN E PARKER, 0000
NELSE C PETERSEN, 0000
BRADLEY A PETERSON, 0000
JAMES B PHILPITT, 0000
THOMAS R PICKLES, 0000
HENRY F POWELL, 0000

[[Page 6441]]

STEVEN M POWELL, 0000
DAVID L QUESSENBERRY, 0000
LANCE W RAFFE, 0000
JOSEPH RAPPISI, 0000
JONATHAN D REEDER, 0000
CURTIS G REILLY, 0000
CHARLES P RENNINGER II, 0000
JOE REYES, 0000
KENNETH G RIGOULOT II, 0000
ANTHONY J RIZZO, 0000
EILEEN S ROBERSON, 0000
EILEEN J ROEMER, 0000
LORRAINE J ROMANO, 0000
WILLIAM H ROOF, 0000
LEE V ROSSETTI, 0000
WILLIAM A ROTHWELL, 0000
MARK W RUSHING, 0000
DAVID G RUSSELL, 0000
SCOTT E SANDERS, 0000
JOHN E SARCONE, 0000
KRISTINE L SARVER, 0000
LISA A SCHAEFER, 0000
STEVEN L SCHMIDT, 0000
ELIZABETH A SCHNEIDER, 0000
MARK A SCHULER, 0000
JAMES J SHERIDAN, 0000
ROBERT E SIGRIST, 0000
JOHN L SIMS, 0000
ALAN L SINGER, 0000
ROBERT L SINNOKRAK, 0000
GEORGE A SMITH, 0000
MICHAEL C SMITH, 0000
SAMUEL J SMITHERS, 0000
KEVIN F SPALDING, 0000
GEORGE O SPENCER III, 0000
LENNIE W SPENCER, 0000
TIMOTHY J STARK, 0000
JOHN S STRATEMEIER, 0000
ROBERT C SWANEKAMP, 0000
MICHAEL P TAYLOR, 0000
DAVID TEZZA, 0000
JOSEPH B THOMAS JR., 0000
RICHARD D THOMAS, 0000
MARK S TIERNAN, 0000
C H TINDAL, 0000
STEPHEN T TREACY, 0000
JAMES W TRIPPEL, 0000
JOHN C TRONTI, 0000
BRUCE A TROUTMAN, 0000
RICHARD TRUITT, 0000
KENNETH L TURNER, 0000
JOHN J TURONIS, 0000
ROBERT F URSO, 0000
CLAUDE P VALLIERE, 0000
REINETTA VANEENDENBURG, 0000
CHARLES L VANGORDEN JR., 0000
JOSEPH L VAUGHAN, 0000
JOSEPH E VOLKL, 0000
RAYMOND M VOLLUZ, 0000
JOYCELYN B WALTERS, 0000
JAMES A WARD, 0000
TERRY S WHITE, 0000
JOSH T WILLIAMS III, 0000
THEODORE M WILLIAMSON, 0000
DONALD E WILSON, 0000
TERRY L WILSON, 0000
RONALD J WILTSIE, 0000
FRANCIS R WINKEL, 0000
DALE W WINSTEAD, 0000
DONALD L WOLVEN, 0000
NICHOLAS C XENOS, 0000
VICTOR J YANEGA III, 0000
MICHAEL J YRACEBURN, 0000
ROBERT ZAUPER, 0000

____________________

CONFIRMATIONS

Executive Nominations Confirmed by the Senate April 26, 2001:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

JAMES ANDREW KELLY, OF HAWAII, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF STATE (EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS).
PAULA J. DOBRIANSKY, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN UNDER SECRETARY
OF STATE (GLOBAL AFFAIRS).

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

ANDREW S. NATSIOS, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
(THE ABOVE NOMINATIONS WERE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE
NOMINEES' COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND
TESTIFY BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.)

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

April 26, 2001

[[Page 6442]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

PHYLLIS MARCHAND RECEIVES HUMAN RELATIONS AWARD

______

HON. RUSH D. HOLT

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Phyllis
Marchand who will receive the Human Relations Award given by the
Central New Jersey Chapter of the American Jewish Committee. She
receives this award for her outstanding commitment to the Princeton
community and the American Jewish Committee.
Ms. Marchand is in her fifteenth year as an elected official in
Princeton and her sixth year as the Mayor of Princeton Township. She
has led in state affairs as President of both the New Jersey League of
Municipalities and the New Jersey Association for Elected Women
Officials. Ms. Marchand has been recognized as ``Elected Official of
the Year'' by the NJ Municipal Managers Association and has received
the Humanitarian Award from the National Conference of Christians and
Jews. Ms. Marchand has served as President of the Mercer County
Hispanic Association and serves on its board as well as that of the
Mercer Council on Alcoholism and Drug Addiction.
A graduate of Skidmore College, Ms. Marchand has been a professional
book indexer working on Collier's Encyclopedia, The Papers of Woodrow
Wilson and The Samuel Johnson Letters. She is a member of the Princeton
Jewish Center, the American Jewish Committee and a life member of
Hadassah. During her 35 years in Princeton, she has served on the
boards of Hadassah, The Jewish Center, UJA and B'nai B'rith.
Ms. Marchand has made significant contributions to the Princeton
community in particular and New Jersey as a whole. I urge all my
colleagues to join me today in recognizing Ms. Marchand's dedication
and commitment to public service.

____________________

A BILL TO REPEAL THE LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FOREIGN TAX CREDITS UNDER
THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX

______

HON. AMO HOUGHTON

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague from New
York, Mr. Rangel, together with a bipartisan group of our colleagues,
in introducing a bill which would eliminate a fundamental unfairness in
the application of the U.S. tax law to taxpayers that have income from
foreign sources.
The bill would repeal the present-law limitation on the use of
foreign tax credits under the alternative minimum tax that has the
effect of subjecting taxpayers to double taxation on foreign income.
This bill is identical to the one introduced in the 106th Congress,
except for advancing the effective date by a year.
A U. S. citizen or domestic corporation that earns income from
sources outside the United States generally is subject to tax by a
foreign government on that income. The taxpayer is also subject to U.S.
tax on that same income, even though it is earned outside the United
States. Thus, the same income is subject to tax both in the country in
which it is earned and in the United States. However, the U. S. allows
taxpayers to treat the foreign taxes paid on their foreign source
income as an offset against the U.S. tax with respect to that same
income. The basic principle of this foreign tax credit is simple: to
provide relief from double taxation.
When it comes to the alternative minimum tax (AMT), this basic
principle of providing relief from double taxation falls by the
wayside. The AMT was enacted to ensure that individuals and businesses
that qualify for various ``preferences'' in the tax rules nevertheless
are subject to a minimum level of taxation. However, the foreign tax
credit provisions of the AMT operate to ensure double taxation. Under
these AMT rules, the allowable foreign tax credit is limited to 90
percent of the taxpayer's alternative minimum tax liability. Because of
this limitation, income that is subject to foreign tax is subject also
to the U.S. AMT. The result is double (and even triple) taxation of
income that is used to support U.S. jobs, research and experimentation
and other activities.
There is no rational basis for denying relief from double taxation to
that class of taxpayers that are subject to the AMT. Accordingly, the
bill being introduced will eliminate the 90 percent limitation on
foreign tax credits for AMT purposes. With the elimination of this
limitation, relief from double taxation will be provided to taxpayers
that are subject to the AMT in the same manner as it is provided to
those taxpayers that are subject to the regular tax.
Concern regarding the unfairness of the AMT limitation on the use of
the foreign tax credits is not new. Indeed, the House in 1995 passed a
provision repealing the 90 percent limitation as part of a complete
package of AMT reforms. Overall reform of the AMT, for individuals and
businesses, remains a high priority. This bill to eliminate the 90
percent limitation on foreign tax credits for AMT purposes represents
an important step in that direction. We urge our colleagues to join us
in cosponsoring this legislation.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO JOHN BRATTON DAVIS

______

HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Judge John
Bratton Davis. On Monday, April 2, it was my pleasure to participate in
a very moving ceremony renaming the building housing the United States
Bankruptcy Court in Columbia, South Carolina in honor of Judge Davis.
Mr. Davis was born in Hartsville, South Carolina in 1917. After
graduating from the University of South Carolina and the University of
South Carolina Law School, he took graduate work at Harvard Law School.
He served in the South Pacific Theater of Operations, first as an
executive officer and later as naval aide to the Commander of the New
Hebrides Island Group. After service to his country, Mr. Davis began
the practice of law with Graydon, Grimball, Graydon, Faulkenberry,
Sawyer, and Suber. He remained in the private practice of law until
1969, when he was appointed as a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the District
of South Carolina.
In 1986, Judge Bratton Davis was appointed Chief Justice of the
Bankruptcy Court, a post he held for fourteen years. He has served as
Chairman of the State of South Carolina Development Board, Vice-
President of the Richland County Bar Association, and President of the
Navy League of South Carolina. In addition, Mr. Davis has served on the
Board of Directors of the South Carolina National Bank, Security
Federal Savings and Loan Association, and University of South Carolina
Educational Foundation.
Committed to his community, Mr. Davis served as State Vice-Commander
of the American Legion, Co-Chainnan of the March of Dimes Campaign,
President of the Richland County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals, and President of the Columbia Kiwanis Club. He is a member
of the Board of Directors of the Columbia Chapter of the American Red
Cross and the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis. Active in
his church, Mr. Davis is a Vestryman at Trinity Cathedral.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in paying tribute to Judge John Bratton
Davis for his many years of unselfish service to God and country.

[[Page 6443]]

____________________

IN HONOR OF MAYOR GERALD GILKEY

______

HON. ROY BLUNT

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Mayor Gerald Gilkey on
his 42 years of public service to the Lamar city government. Mayor
Gilkey retired from public life on April 16th, 2001. His exceptional
career with the City of Lamar began in April 1959, with six years as a
councilman in Lamar city government. In 1965, he was elected mayor, a
position to which he would be re-elected 17 times; serving an
astounding total of 36 years.
Mayor Gilkey has diligently served the people of Lamar, Missouri for
over three decades. His dedication to public service and to the
community of Lamar is to be commended. The Mayor has worked tirelessly
to ensure that Lamar continues to grow. Under his dedicated leadership,
the city developed a 45 acre city park that includes a multiple outdoor
sports complex, walking trails and picnic areas. Recently, Mayor Gilkey
led the effort to build Southwest Missouri's first aquatic park located
in the Lamar City Park. A $1.3 million water treatment plant was built
due to the Mayor's leadership. Mayor Gilkey was instrumental in guiding
the construction of an 800 seat, state of the art, ``Thiebaud''
auditorium that is used by the community, area schools and
organizations.
Mayor Gilkey is the recipient of numerous awards including the Lamar
Chamber of Commerce, ``Man of the Year'' in 1990; in 1982 he shared
``top newsmaker'' with the city council. In 1994, he was honored with
the ``Outstanding Community Service'' award from the Lamar Rotary Club.
In 1997 at the Homemaker Cooking Show, he was awarded Lamar Democrat's
MVP. Mayor Gilkey's presence can also be found throughout the Southwest
corner of Missouri. He has served on countless boards and committees
where his visionary representation helped influence the growth and
improvement of the area.
On June 18, 2001, Gerald and his wife Betty will celebrate their 59th
wedding anniversary. Mayor Gilkey has had a great partner and in 1961,
Gerald and Betty purchased what is now the Gilkey Automotive Group, and
their son, Steve, is now the general manager.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we will miss an inspirational member of
the Lamar community with Mayor Gilkey's retirement from public service.
I am sure that I speak for many when I say that his tireless work will
not soon be forgotten and that we are all thankful. I would like to
personally wish him well in this new stage of his life and know that he
will continue to be a presence in Lamar, Missouri. I am certain that my
colleagues will join me in honoring this remarkable man.

____________________

CENTRAL NEW JERSEY CELEBRATES THE OPENING OF THE SOUTH BRUNSWICK YMCA

______

HON. RUSH D. HOLT

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the opening of
the South Brunswick YMCA. Over the past five years, volunteers from
South Brunswick and surrounding communities have pooled their
collective resources to take this project from concept to completion.
YMCA is an international not-for-profit community service
organization brought from London, England to Boston in 1851. From
Boston, YMCAs quickly spread across America. At this time many
facilities started opening their doors to boys and men of all ages.
Some YMCAs were started to serve specific groups such as railroad and
factory workers. After World War II, women and girls could enjoy the
full benefits of membership and participation. Today, half of all Y
members are female.
The South Brunswick YMCA has brought families from across Southern
Middlesex County together to assist in the development of a family-
oriented, multifaceted facility driven by a well trained, dedicated and
nurturing staff. The YMCA was founded on the commitment to provide a
community-based facility to address the health, recreational and social
service needs of the community.
The South Brunswick YMCA addresses local community needs through
organized activities. Some of the programs offered by the YMCA include
swimming lessons, exercise classes for people with disabilities, job
training, support groups, water fitness, child care, and dance classes.
Although much has changed over the years, YMCA's mission is the
same--to provide the tools needed to build strong kids, strong families
and strong communities, and reinforce the values of caring, honesty,
respect and responsibility.

____________________

WISHING SAN LUIS A HAPPY 150TH BIRTHDAY

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
wish Colorado's oldest town a happy 150th birthday. Nestled in the
Sangre de Cristo mountains is the small town of San Luis, which was
founded in 1851. Since then it has been home to many families over the
last century and a half.
On April 5, 1851, San Luis de la Culebra was founded by Carlos
Beaubien and established by settlers from northern New Mexico.
According to Governor Bill Owens, San Luis' ``rich and beautiful
heritage'' is attributed to its food, music, language, celebrations and
historic buildings.
Under the protection of a group of soldiers from the War Department,
the settlers built homes and began to plant. The town continued to grow
and in 1861 when Colorado was made a territory, San Luis became the
county seat of the newly established Costilla County.
As part of the celebration, Governor Owens proclaimed April as the
Oldest Town in Colorado Month, and April 5 as the Oldest Town in
Colorado Day. The proclamation refers to San Luis' founding on April 5,
1851, following the pattern of land grants. Carlos Beaubien then gave
the people of San Luis the grant of La Vega, a common grazing area
which is the last remaining true commons in the United States.
Specifically, the proclamation acknowledges the San Luis Museum and
Cultural Center, the Stations of the Cross Shrine and Los Caminos
Antiqus Scenic and Historic Byway.
Mr. Speaker, we are all proud of the rich heritage the city of San
Luis has established over the last 150 years. And it is with great
pleasure that I ask this Congress to recognize San Luis and wish them a
happy birthday.

____________________

A BILL TO AMEND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL
RULE FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES AND THE FOREIGN SERVICE, AND
OTHER EMPLOYEES, IN DETERMINING THE EXCLUSION OF GAIN FROM THE SALE OF
A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE

______

HON. AMO HOUGHTON

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with several of my
colleagues in introducing our bill, which would address an inequity
caused by a change in the Internal Revenue Code in 1997. The proposed
change would simply adjust an oversight and bring fairness and equality
to the Code by recognizing the unique circumstances of the members of
the Foreign Service, the Uniformed Services and U.S. business persons
who are working abroad. The bill is the same as the one introduced in
the 106th Congress, except that the applicability to business persons
provision has been added. The bill is retroactive to May 1997, when the
change occurred.
The Code was changed in 1997 to provide a benefit to taxpayers who
sell their principal residence--a change more generally beneficial than
the prior law. Where the prior law provided for rollovers of capital
gains and a one-time exclusion, the new law requires that the owner(s)
occupy the principal residence for at least two years of the previous
five years from the date of sale to qualify for the full exclusion.
However, members of the Foreign Service and the Uniformed Services,
as well as certain business persons posted abroad by their U.S.
employers, may not be able to take advantage of the generous change
enacted in 1997. The problem arises from the fact that we post our
Foreign Service abroad for years at a time, and we move the military
from post to post in the U.S. and abroad. The same problem can

[[Page 6444]]

arise for business persons who are moved abroad for longer and more
frequent periods than in the past. With the globalization that is
occurring, and affecting most economies, it is essential that our
multinational companies compete on a worldwide basis. Globalization is
certainly a major factor in our economy. In 2000, exports and imports
for the U.S. totaled about $2 trillion--over 20% of our economy.
The problem arises because it is difficult for these individuals to
fit into the mold we created in the 1997 law change. This result occurs
because their posting abroad and at home is controlled by others. The
bill would alleviate this problem for Foreign Service and Uniformed
Services members by suspending the five year period for ownership and
principal use for any periods during which the taxpayer was under
official orders to serve at a duty station away from his or her home.
This change would retain the 5 year look-back and the 2 year principal
residence rules, but would address the unfairness issue applicable to
members of the Foreign Service and Uniformed Services. The bill would
also address the issue for business persons by suspending for up to
five years, the five year principal residence test for an individual
relocated abroad by his or her employer.
The proposed correction of this problem is not new. In fact, the
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, H.R. 2488, which was passed by
both the House and the Senate included provisions to correct the
problem for all three groups. Unfortunately, the bill was vetoed for
reasons unrelated to this proposal. Recently, we in the House have been
focusing on tax bills that benefit and directly affect the American
people--and this bill does just that. We urge our colleagues to join in
cosponsoring this legislation.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO CHARLIE BROWN

______

HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a good
friend and former student Charlie Brown of Hilton Head Island, South
Carolina. Mr. Brown was recently named a recipient of the J. Willard
Marriott Award of Excellence for 2001.
Mr. Brown is the Community Relations and Supplier Diversity Manager
for Marriott Vacation Club International on Hilton Head Island. He is a
consumate team player, noted for assisting anyone in need and being the
first to lend a helping hand. Mr. Brown has become legendary for always
being the first to arrive after a hurricane to assist with evacuations
and to see where he can be of the most help.
Committed to his community as well as his job, Mr. Brown helped to
establish the Hilton Head Medical Center Community Relations Work Group
in 1997. He worked toward the start of this group after seeing a need
for more open lines of communication between the minority community and
the Hilton Head Medical Center and Clinics. Mr. Brown has also been
instrumental in seeing the vision of a Minority Business Council on
Hilton Head move from the talking stage to fruition.
Selflessly devoting his time, Mr. Brown serves on the boards of the
Hilton Head Island Community Foundation, Hilton Head Island American
Heart Association, Beaufort County First National Bank, and the NAACP/
Housing Initiative Project. In addition, he is the chairman-elect of
the Hilton Head Chamber of Commerce and the chairman of the Island
Recreation Center Fastline Track Club.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join with me and my fellow South
Carolinians in honoring Mr. Charlie Brown. He is a wonderful example of
commitment to career and community alike and is well-deserving of the
Marriott Award of Excellence.

____________________

HONORING THOSE WHO MAKE SENSE OF YESTERDAY'S EVENTS

______

HON. ROY BLUNT

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, in 1961 work began between two Germanies on a
concrete wall 28 miles long which would divide a people and become the
physical symbol of the division between two great world powers.
In 1961 the international manned space race began in earnest with
Russia beating the United States to the first major goal by placing
Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin into orbit.
In 1961 the robust air carrier TWA became the first airline to offer
in-flight movies on international flights.
In 1961 the former African colony of Tanganyika became an independent
country.
In 1961 President John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as the nation's
youngest President.
And in 1961 two young historians and academics began their teaching
careers at Southwest Baptist College in Bolivar, Missouri.
Forty years later the Berlin wall exists only in scattered pieces
around the world and Germany once again stands as a single nation.
American and Russian astronauts today jointly man the International
Space Station. TWA has merged into American Airlines and Tanganyika has
joined with Zanzibar to become Tanzania. President Kennedy was felled
by an assassin's bullet. What has remained unchanged is that Drs.
Harlie Gallatin and Frank Cunningham are still helping students at what
is now Southwest Baptist University not only learn the details of
history, but understand how events of past decades, centuries and
millennia effect our lives today.
I rise today to commend these two men who are scholars in every sense
of the word, dedicating their lives to their discipline and their
students. Near the beginning of their careers as a student and near the
end as University President, I benefitted from their scholarship as
well as their example in commitment to Faith and family.
Through the years thousands of young people have not only learned
about the heritage of our nation and world, but have developed a deep
love and respect for history. Many of those students now make
significant contributions to the betterment of our nation and world as
civic and governmental leaders, educators, scientists, ministers and at
least one congressman.
At the end of this academic year Dr. Gallatin retires as Chairman of
the Department of History and Political Science at the University where
he has worked tirelessly to develop faculty, curricula, and students.
He has seen the school grow from a junior college to a four year
institution and finally to a University. Dr. Cunningham although
retiring from the full-time faculty in 1996 continues to remain active
in the department as Emeritus Senior Professor of History.
Today, I want to thank these two men for their commitment both to the
discipline of history and to their sharing a respect for and insight
into history with all those young lives they have touched over the past
four decades. Both these men repeatedly went out of their way to help
struggling students understand difficult concepts, and learn to examine
significant events with a discerning eye. They helped students view
historic events without having to reject their religious faith. They
have not invested their lives in vain.
My colleagues in this chamber often wrestle with the issues of
history: how our actions will impact future generations and how we will
be viewed. I know they join me in thanking Drs. Gallatin and Cunningham
for their work in helping us to use the events of yesterday to craft
solutions challenges of tomorrow.

____________________

THE REWARDING PERFORMANCE IN COMPENSATION ACT

______

HON. CASS BALLENGER

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing ``The Rewarding
Performance in Compensation Act'' which will help workers to share,
financially, when their efforts help produce gains for their company in
productivity, sales, fewer injuries, or other aspects of performance.
The Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act would amend the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to specify that an hourly employee's regular
rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime would not be
affected by additional payments that reward or provide incentives to
employees who meet productivity, quality, efficiency or sales goals. By
eliminating disincentives in current law, this legislation will
encourage employers to reward their employees and make it easier for
employers to ``share the wealth'' with their employees.
The pressures of worldwide competition and rapid technological change
have forced most employers to seek continuous improvement in
productivity, quality, and other aspects of company performance.
Employers often seek to encourage and reward employee efforts to
improve productivity, quality, etc. through what are called
``gainsharing'' plans--linking additional compensation to measurable
improvements in company, team, or individual performance. Employees are
assigned individual or group productivity goals and the savings
achieved from improved productivity, or the gains, are then shared
between the company and the employees. The payouts are based directly
on factors under an employee's control,

[[Page 6445]]

such as productivity or costs, rather than on the company's profits.
Thus employees directly benefit from improvements that they help to
produce by increasing their overall compensation.
Unfortunately, employers who choose to implement such programs for
their hourly employees can be burdened with unpredictable and complex
requirements by the FLSA, which clearly did not envision these types of
``pay based on performance'' plans.
For example, if a bonus is based on production, performance, or other
factors, the payment must be divided by the number of hours worked by
the non-exempt employee during the time period that the bonus is meant
to cover, and added to the employee's regular hourly pay rate. This
adjusted hourly rate must then be used to recalculate the employee's
overtime rate of pay. The employer is then responsible to pay the
difference between the old overtime pay rate and the new recalculated
overtime pay rate. For other types of employees, such as executive,
administrative, or professional employees who are exempt from minimum
wage and overtime, an employer can easily give financial rewards
without having to recalculate rates of pay.
Simply put, this legislation would amend the FLSA to allow employers
to give non-exempt hourly employees gainsharing or performance bonuses
without making employers go through the cost of recalculating hourly
and overtime pay. This would give hourly non-exempt employees the same
access to bonuses and gainsharing programs that exempt employees
receive.
Performance bonuses and gainsharing programs are a way for employees
to share in the success of the company they work for. Whether exempt or
non-exempt, all employees should have the same opportunity to receive
bonuses for their hard work.

____________________

HONORING HAROLD ELAM

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to honor a
pillar of the Grand Junction community. Harold Elam is one of the
leading citizens of Western Colorado. Throughout his life, Harold has
made the Western Colorado a better place to live. For that, I would
like this body to pay tribute to him.
Harold currently owns Elam Construction, which has been a business
staple in Western Colorado for a very long time. Under Harold's
leadership, the company has been very civic minded, both on a local and
state level. Elam Construction has helped out numerous citizens and
organizations in Grand Junction and throughout the State of Colorado.
``Harold is so generous that he has made the local area and the state a
better place to live,'' said Caroline Suplizio, a friend of Harold's
and a leader in the community herself.
Harold gives generously to a number of important organizations, like
Mesa County School District 51, Mesa State College, Canyon View Park
and the Grand Junction Symphony. He sponsors wonderful events such as
the Elam Symphony Classic as well as the Elam Tennis Classic.
Harold has been the recipient of many awards, including the 1999
National Award for Community Involvement, and the ``Quality in
Construction Award'' given by NAPA. He has also been named the honorary
Conductor of the year for his outstanding philanthropic contribution to
the community symphony and the State of Colorado. This year, the Grand
Junction Symphony is honoring Harold as the ``Philanthropist of the
Year''. A fitting tribute to an outstanding man.
Mr. Speaker, Harold Elam has been an incredibly generous member of
our community. His generosity has been a tremendous boon and for that I
would like to recognize him and thank him with this Congressional
Tribute.
Harold, your community, state and nation are proud of you, and we're
all grateful for generosity, service and positive leadership.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE WEST SIDE MAGNET SCHOOL, TROUP COUNTY, GEORGIA

______

HON. BOB BARR

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, although the magnet school concept
is not new to the public school system, West Side Magnet School of the
Troup County School System in the Seventh District of Georgia has
accomplished a goal that most would find challenging. The school was
ranked first (with an 87.3 score) of 35 schools in the nation, given
exemplary status, and received national recognition from the Getty
Trust and National Arts Education Consortium. It was one of only six
southern schools chosen to be tested for a period of five years the
goal: see what new curriculum combinations result when arts are
combined with school reform.
Principal Nancy Stevens says the school's accomplishments are a
direct result of support from the school system and the arts community,
which includes arts support from the Chattahoochee Valley Art Museum,
LaGrange College, the opera guild, and The LaGrange Symphony.
The study found the top scoring schools shared the following
characteristics: ``strong'', and supportive leadership either from the
principal or key staff, an openness for learning,'' and support for
arts ``both in the school and the community.'' The study and its
findings will be published in 2002.
I hope all Members of the United States Congress will join me in
recognizing the hard work of everyone who has contributed to making the
West Side Magnet School a success.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO LOWELL SELVIN

______

HON. NANCY PELOSI

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a unique
individual who is a champion for social justice, a leader in his
community, and a trailblazer in the business world.
Lowell Selvin proves time and again, through his words and deeds,
that one person can truly make a difference. On May 5, 2001,
Congregation Kol Ami of Los Angeles will honor Lowell with its Shomer
Tzedek (Guardian of Justice) Award for his untiring commitment to
progressive social empowerment and to causes greater than himself.
While the many endeavors Lowell Selvin is involved in are far too
numerous to mention, a few highlights help illustrate the vision,
energy, and compassion of this remarkable man.
In business, after successfully merging and integrating PlanetOut and
Gay.com, Lowell became Chief Executive Officer of PlanetOut Partners,
the largest gay and lesbian online services company in the world. In
this capacity, Lowell uses his two decades of business acumen, honed by
advising some of America's leading corporations, to provide the LGBT
community with a platform to network, grow, and conduct commerce with
business partners around the world.
In his community, Lowell is on the board of the Los Angeles Gay and
Lesbian Center and guided this groundbreaking agency's strategic
planning process in its formative years. With his help, this
organization is now the largest agency of its kind in the world.
Lowell is on the National Advisory Board of Wendy's Hope, a group
devoted to supporting lesbians with cancer. Working in collaboration
with Feed the Children, Lowell also founded Arbonne Children's Trust.
In addition, he helped found Congregation Kol Ami.
It is my honor to recognize the achievements of my constituent,
Lowell Selvin, and to join with Congregation Kol Ami in acknowledging
his contributions and on-going commitment to social justice and the
betterment of his community.

____________________

COLONEL THOMAS M. (``MITCH'') DOCKENS

______

HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend a soldier, patriot ant
exceptional leader, Colonel Thomas M. (``Mitch'' Dockens, the Commander
of the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD), who will receive the
prestigious 13th annual John W. Macy, Jr. Award co-sponsored by the
Secretary of the Army and the Army Civilian Personnel Alumni
Association.
This award recognizes excellence in the leadership of civilians and
accomplishment of mission through the civilian work force. Col.
Dockens' exceptional leadership of the CCAD

[[Page 6446]]

work force is recognized for the period of July 15, 1999, through
December 31, 2000; but his excellence and leadership will always be
recognized and appreciated in South Texas where his good works are
legendary. Col. Dockens has been an extraordinary leader of the United
States Army's only depot-level rotary wing (helicopter) repair facility
in the world.
Col. Mitch Dockens is a uniquely qualified officer to lead a civilian
workforce. He knows how to bring people together; he can speak to
management and labor, and is respected by both. He knows how to produce
the best product for the fighting men and women at the best price for
the U.S. taxpayer. The mutual respect he has fostered at CCAD is the
secret weapon of this one-of-a-kind asset in the United States Army. He
and his lovely wife Lynne, who treats the base as extended family, have
reinforced the morale at CCAD.
The Corpus Christi Army Depot, with 2,654 civilian employees, is the
largest industrial employer in South Texas and is responsible for the
repair, overhaul and maintenance of a wide variety of rotary wing
aircraft and related engines and components for the Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marines, and friendly foreign nations.
Let me give you one example of Col. Dockens' leadership. Last year,
when defective transmission gears threatened the CH-47 and Apache
helicopter's flight safety, the Army looked to the private sector to
inspect and replace the defective parts. However, the Army found no
private sector firm capable of completing the work within the Army's
established time frames. The potential contractors had too much
commercial work that they were contractually obligated to complete
before they could address the Army's safety issue. With the fleets
grounded, CCAD was the only available repair source able to meet the
Army's time frames. In fact, CCAD completed the work on the Apache
helicopter fleet before the potential private sector source said it
could even begin the repair.
The award Col. Dockens will receive is named for John W. Macy, Jr., a
distinguished public official who served four presidents and led the
efforts to recognize outstanding individuals in the Army in the field
of civilian personnel management.
Col. Dockens' first assignment was the 18th Airborne Corps at Fort
Bragg. As he moved up through the ranks in the Army, he commanded a
host of operations before coming to CCAD. Just prior to his service at
CCAD, he attended the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, PA, and served
as Chief, Material Readiness Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Logistics.
His awards include the Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, (5th
Leaf, the Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, National
Defense Service, Overseas Ribbon, Saudi Arabia Kuwait Liberation Medal,
Kuwait Liberation Medal, NATO Medal. He is a Senior Army Aviator and is
Airborne and Air Assault qualified.
Col. Dockens was named the Macy award winner on April 13, 2001, and
will receive the award in an official presentation from Acting
Secretary of the Army, Dr. Joseph Westphal, at a Pentagon ceremony on
Thursday, May 3, 2001. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending
this military leader of a civilian workforce and honor him for his work
and his outstanding leadership.

____________________

CENTRAL NEW JERSEY CELEBRATES THE 125TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PENNINGTON
PUBLIC LIBRARY

______

HON. RUSH D. HOLT

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the 125th
anniversary of the Pennington Public Library. In 1876 a dozen local
women took it upon themselves to found a library within the village of
Pennington. With a late-Victorian zeal for self improvement, the group
organized the Ladies' Library Association of Pennington and forever
changed the history of this small town.
The Pennington Public Library began with a single bookcase and a
purchase fund of $49. In 1889, the library boasted approximately 1,200
volumes. Today, the library has over 3,700 cardholders that enjoy over
23,000 books, 60 magazines, six newspapers, and one computer, complete
with Internet capability.
Libraries are true community centers. They create environments where
students can do their homework, townspeople can gather, families can
interact, seniors can learn new skills, and job seekers can find
advice. They are masters at building partnerships, linking everyone
from day care centers, garden clubs and 4H clubs to Head Start and
junior colleges, to extend their reach throughout the community.
Although much has changed over the years, Pennignton Library's
mission is the same--to supply useful and profitable reading for the
community and implant in the minds of our youths an everlasting desire
for information. Today, a dedicated group of volunteers continue to
carry out this 19th-century mission.
For over 125 years the Pennington Public Library has remained an
integral part of the Hopewell community. I urge all my colleagues to
join me today in recognizing the Library's steadfast dedication to
serving the growing needs of our community.

____________________

HONORING THE WORK OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION'S COLORADO
DISTRICT OFFICE

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
say thank you to the men and women of the Small Business
Administration's Colorado District office for all that they do to help
small business owners live the American Dream.
In July of 1953, Congress passed the Small Business Act, which
created the Small Business Association. Their function was to ``aid
counsel, assist and protect, insofar as is possible, the interests of
small business concerns.'' In 1964 the SBA created the Equal
Opportunity Loan Program to aid poverty. SBA's programs now include
financial and federal contract assistance, management assistance, and
specialized outreach to women, minorities, and armed forces veterans.
Over the past ten years, the SBA has helped almost 435,000 small
businesses nationwide get more than $94.6 billion in loans. In Colorado
alone, they have assisted nearly 17,000 customers in 2000 and
contributed to the economy by helping to create and retain over 9,000
jobs. They contributed more than $319.8 million in loan guarantees, and
almost $4.13 billion in government contracts.
In 2000, the Mi Casa Women's Resource Center expanded into Colorado
Springs to assist women interested in starting their own business. This
is an outstanding example of the type of ventures that SBA supports in
Colorado and throughout the United States.
Mr. Speaker, small business in Colorado would not be as it is today
if it were not for the Small Business Administration's dedication and
help that they offer for people to live the American dream. For that,
my friends at the SBA deserve hearty thanks and congratulations.

____________________

THE ARTISTS' CONTRIBUTION TO AMERICAN HERITAGE ACT)

______

HON. AMO HOUGHTON

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Maryland, Mr. Cardin, together with a bipartisan group of our
colleagues, in introducing the ``Artists' Contribution to American
Heritage Act of 2001''. The bill would alleviate an unfairness in the
tax law as it applies to charitable donations of property by the
taxpayer/creator and significantly enhance the ability of museums and
public libraries to acquire important original works by artists,
writers and composers, and ensure the preservation of these works for
future generations. The proposed legislation is the same as we
introduced in the 106th Congress, except for advancing the effective
date by a year.
Since 1969, the law has provided that the creator of the artistic
property is only allowed a charitable deduction equal to the cost of
the materials that went into the property. For example, an established
artist who donates a painting to the local museum is allowed a
deduction for the cost of the canvas, brushes and paint, etc. used to
produce the painting. Of course, these amounts are de minimus. There is
no real tax incentive to contribute such works of art for the public to
enjoy. In fact, the tax law works in the other direction. It makes more
financial sense to the creator to sell his or her work. If a collector
or art buff buys a painting that appreciates over time, because the
artist becomes well-established or was a known and collected artist
when the painting was purchased, the collector is allowed a deduction
for fair market value when

[[Page 6447]]

the painting is contributed to the local museum. This is the fairness
issue.
There has not always been such disparate tax treatment. Before 1969,
the artists/taxpayers received the same treatment--the deduction was
based on fair market value. The law was changed, primarily because of
the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law
through less than accurate valuations of their charitable gifts.
After the change in 1969, gifts of donor generated art work
(paintings, manuscripts, compositions, artistic and historically
significant correspondence and papers) to qualifying charitable
organizations and governmental entities dropped significantly. Creators
were more likely to sell their works than to contribute them. Tom
Downey, a former colleague of ours, introduced similar legislation in
1985. In his floor statement he noted that Igor Stravkinsky had planned
to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of Congress
the month the 1969 tax change was signed into law. Instead, the papers
were sold to a private foundation in Switzerland. Now, 16 years later
the situation has not improved. It is time to change our law to
encourage rather than discourage such contributions.
There have been significant changes in the valuation process since
1969. All taxpayers making charitable contributions of art work (other
than donor generated art work) are required to: (a) provide and/or
retain relevant information as to the value of the gift, (b) provide
appraisals by qualified appraisers or, in some cases, (c) subject them
to review by the IRS's Art Advisory Panel, depending on the dollar
amount of the contribution. These changes would apply to creator-
donated property under our proposal.
In addition to the valuation safeguards already in the law, our
proposal would add additional protections to prevent abuse. These
include the following: (a) limiting the value of the deduction to the
amount of income the creator received from similar property and/or
similar activities, (b) providing that the deduction can only be
claimed in the year of contribution, i.e. the carry over rules do not
apply, (c) limiting the deduction to property created at least 18
months before the contribution, (d) limiting the deduction to gifts
related to the purpose of the institution which receives it, and (e)
excluding contributions of property (letters, memos, etc.) created by
taxpayers in their role as employees or officers of an organization.
The benefit to the nation when artists are encouraged to contribute
their work during their lifetime cannot be overemphasized. It allows
the public, historians, scholars and others to learn from the artist
his/her aesthetic aims for the work; how it was intended to be
displayed, performed or interpreted; and what influences affected the
artist.
Our proposal represents an important step in providing some tax
incentive, with needed safeguards, for the creators and moves toward
putting them on the same footing as collectors who contribute similar
property. Most importantly, it could make the difference in a decision
by the creator/donator to contribute some of their created art works to
a museum or public library, rather than sell them in the marketplace.
That way important works are preserved in the public domain and we all
benefit. We urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this
legislation.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO TRACY YOUNG COOPER

______

HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Tracy
Young Cooper, a teacher at C.A. Johnson High School in Columbia, South
Carolina. Ms. Young was recently named South Carolina's ``Teacher of
the Year.''
A 29-year-old Columbia native, Mrs. Cooper is a product of Richland
School District I schools where her parents were well known educators.
She earned a bachelor's degree in English hoping to one day work in
broadcast journalism. After attending graduate school, she instead
chose to follow in the footsteps of her parents, Mary and Bobby Young
of Columbia, and pursue a teaching career. She has been teaching for
four years.
Mrs. Cooper, the first African-American to win South Carolina's
teaching award in 11 years and the fourth since 1969, initially taught
English and reading, and is currently a curriculum-resource teacher. In
that position, she aids her principal with administrative duties, but
spends most of her time working with colleagues, including serving as a
mentor to first-year teachers.
Mrs. Cooper is a graduate of Columbia High School and earned her
bachelors degree in English from Georgetown University in Washington,
D.C. She holds a master's of arts in teaching from the University of
South Carolina and is working toward her doctorate degree in education
at my alma mater, South Carolina State University.
Mrs. Cooper is truly an ambassador for education. Last year, she
spent 3 weeks in Japan as a participant in the prestigious Fulbright
Memorial Teacher Fund Program, which works to bridge the cultural gap
between the U.S. and Japan. I commend Mrs. Cooper and wish her the best
as she continues to promote the teaching profession and expand her
efforts to improve the quality of life of South Carolina's children.
Mr. Speaker, please join me and my colleagues in congratulating Mrs.
Tracy Young Cooper as South Carolina's 2001 ``Teacher of the Year.''

____________________

STOCKTON LADY TIGERS

______

HON. ROY BLUNT

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, the counties comprising the Seventh
Congressional District of Missouri are quickly becoming a center of
sports excellence for women's teams. Not only are we home to the Lady
Bearcats of Southwest Missouri State University which reached the NCAA
Final Four this past week, but also the state's 2-A High School
Champions. The Lady Tigers of Stockton Missouri used their talent and
hard work to turn personal tragedy into a commitment for achievement
and success.
In late September, 2000 17 year old Rachael Budd died of injuries
suffered in a car crash. Rachael was a member of the girls basketball
team and a leader on the court, in the classroom and among her peers.
Additionally, the team lost two other starters to serious injuries that
sidelined them for the entire season.
The Stockton Girls High School Basketball team of 2001 was built
around five seniors on the 14-member squad. They never lost to a 2-A
school en route to a 25-win season capped in March by overwhelming
Notre Dame of Cape Girardeau in the state finals. The team dedicated
their final game to the memory of Rachael Budd.
Along the way the Stockton girl's coach Tony Armstrong earned ``coach
of the year'' honors and his daughter Jenna Armstrong was named to the
First-Team All State squad.
Girls high school sports in America have achieved a place of great
pride. They have given young women a new platform for competition and
achievement allowing them to showcase their talent, hard work and
vision. Their teamwork brings communities together and forges new
personal friendships.
I know that my colleagues join me in commending the spirit, the
competitive excellence and the community support that have shaped the
girls basketball program at Stockton High School.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE REWARDING PERFORMANCE IN COMPENSATION ACT

______

HON. CASS BALLENGER

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing the ``The
Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act'' which will help workers to
share, financially, when their efforts help produce gains for their
company in productivity, sales, fewer injuries, or other aspects of
performance. The Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act would amend
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to specify that an hourly
employee's regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime
would not be affected by additional payments that reward or provide
incentives to employees who meet productivity, quality, efficiency or
sales goals. By eliminating disincentives in current law, this
legislation will encourage employers to reward their employees and make
it easier for employers to ``share the wealth'' with their employees.
The pressures of worldwide competition and rapid technological change
have forced most employers to seek continuous improvement in
productivity, quality, and other aspects of company performance.
Employers often seek to encourage and reward employee efforts to
improve productivity, quality, etc. through what are called
``gainsharing'' plans--linking additional compensation to measurable
improvements in company, team, or individual performance. Employees are
assigned individual

[[Page 6448]]

or group productivity goals and the savings achieved from improved
productivity, or the gains, are then shared between the company and the
employees. The payouts are based directly on factors under an
employee's control, such as productivity or costs, rather than on the
company's profits. Thus employees directly benefit from improvements
that they help to produce by increasing their overall compensation.
Unfortunately, employers who choose to implement such programs for
their hourly employees can be burdened with unpredictable and complex
requirements by the FLSA, which clearly did not envision these types of
``pay based on performance'' plans.
For example, if a bonus is based on production, performance, or other
factors, the payment must be divided by the number of hours worked by
the non-exempt employee during the time period that the bonus is meant
to cover, and added to the employee's regular hourly pay rate. This
adjusted hourly rate must then be used to recalculate the employee's
overtime rate of pay. The employer is then responsible to pay the
difference between the old overtime pay rate and the new recalculated
overtime pay rate. For other types of employees, such as executive,
administrative, or professional employees who are exempt from minimum
wage and overtime, an employer can easily give financial rewards
without having to recalculate rates of pay.
Simply put, this legislation would amend the FLSA to allow employers
to give nonexempt hourly employees gainsharing, or performance bonuses
without making employers go through the cost of recalculating hourly
and overtime pay. This would give hourly non-exempt employees the same
access to bonuses and gainsharing programs that exempt employees
receive.
Performance bonuses and gainsharing programs are a way for employees
to share in the success of the company they work for. Whether exempt or
non-exempt, all employees should have the same opportunity to receive
bonuses for their hard work.

____________________

HONORING THE LATE JAMES PAGE KYLE

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
pay respects to one of Western Colorado's leading citizens. James Page
Kyle, who passed away on March 30. He was 83 years old. Many people
through out Western Colorado benefited from Jim and the work he did.
Jim was a devoted husband and father. In November of this year, Jim and
his wife Evelyn would have celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary.
Jim attended the University of Kansas, Ottawa University and Central
Missouri State Teacher's College before joining the Army Air Corps
during World War II, where he served for six years. He later retired
from the USAF Reserve as a Major. After WWII, Jim settled in Grand
Junction where he managed Independent Lumber Company branches in Grand
Junction, Palisade, Meeker and Cortez until he started his own
contracting business, Kyle Sales Company in Cortez.
Besides his business, Jim managed the Cortez Chamber of Commerce and
was associated with the development of the Telluride Ski Corporation.
In 1974, Jim returned to Grand Junction where he was the Land Use
Administrator for Mesa County. After he retired, Jim felt the need to
work again so he became a seasonal Park Ranger at the Colorado National
Monument.
During his spare time he was involved with the Church of the Nativity
Episcopal Church, the Retired Officers Association, Past Presidents of
Rotary International, and was a patron of the arts.
Mr. Speaker, Western Colorado has lost a very hard working and
dedicated citizen, which is why I would like to recognize him with this
Congressional Record.

____________________

NATIONAL NURSING HOME WEEK IN CARTERSVILLE, GEORGIA

______

HON. BOB BARR

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the population of Americans
residing in our nation's nursing home facilities today represents two
generations of citizens who worked hard to build the strong and
prosperous society we now enjoy. These are the generations of our
parents and grandparents; our neighbors and friends.
I am proud to say the residents of long-term care facilities in
Georgia's Seventh District will be recognized during National Nursing
Home Week, an annual event celebrated at Starcrest Long-Term Care
Facility in Cartersville, Georgia.
During the week of May 13, 2001, the community of Cartersville will
honor those citizens residing in nursing facilities with festivities,
including a Community Beautification Project and a family and friends
reception. The celebration's theme, ``Love is Ageless,'' embodies the
overarching goal of National Nursing Home Week: to increase awareness
and appreciation of these very special citizens.
National Nursing Home Week at Cartersville's Starcrest Long-Term Care
Facility is an event designed to give back to those Georgians who have
already given mightily for two generations. I join in recognizing this
exceptional community celebration.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE REYNALDO G. GARZA

______

HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the service of
the Honorable Judge Reynaldo G. Garza, a patriot from South Texas who
has served our community and our country for 40 years on the federal
bench. This weekend, Judge Garza will be honored for his nearly half-
century of service.
Judge Garza practiced law in Brownsville before enlisting in the
United States Air Force during World War II. He resumed his law
practice after the war and was appointed to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas in 1961 by the late President
John F. Kennedy. He was the first Hispanic jurist to be appointed to
the federal bench in South Texas. By 1974 he was the Chief Judge for
the Southern District of Texas. Just five years later, President Jimmy
Carter appointed him to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge Garza's deep devotion to education has always been a common
thread running throughout his life and service. In front of young
audiences, he recalls what his father told his children on his death
bed. His father told them he did not leave them wealth, but he did
leave with a good education, something that no one could ever take
away. Judge Garza has also said many times, ``I do not worry about an
educated man in my court for he knows how to take care of himself. I do
worry about the uneducated one who is the victim of unscrupulous people
who are always trying to take advantage.''
Judge Garza sought political office twice before becoming a Federal
Judge. In 1941 he was elected to the School Board of the Brownsville
Independent School District, and in 1947, he was elected City
Commissioner of the City of Brownsville. He served on the Texas
Education Standards Committee and the Committee of Twenty-Five on
Education Beyond the High School, which resulted in the creation of the
Coordinating Board of Colleges and Universities. He also served as a
member of the Select Committee on Higher Education.
His interest in international affairs is evident by his service on
the Latin-American Relations Committee of the Brownsville Chamber of
Commerce, and on the Valley Chamber of Commerce. He is also one of the
original members of the International Good Neighbor Council. He is an
active member of our community, serving as President of the Brownsville
Rotary Club, director of the United Fund of Brownsville, treasurer of
the Cameron County Child Welfare Board, and a member of the Advisory
Board of the Rio Grande Council of the Boy Scouts of America.
This talented jurist has a talented family. He and his lovely wife
Bertha have five children: Reynaldo Jr., David, Ygnacio, Bertha
Elizondo and Monica. They are attorneys, accountants, teachers and
public servants. Judge Garza's family is a reflection of his work ethic
and love of country.
I ask the Members of the United States House of Representatives to
join me today in commending Judge Reynaldo G. Garza, a pioneer in our
community, as we commemorate his 40 years of service in our federal
judiciary.

[[Page 6449]]

____________________

ON THE OCCASION OF THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GULF OF THE FARALLONES
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

______

HON. NANCY PELOSI

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 20th Anniversary of the
creation of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
(GFNMS) and I rise today to pay tribute to this very unique marine
Sanctuary off of the San Francisco coast. The Sanctuary includes 1,235
square miles of wetlands, intertidal, and deep sea resources and is
home to a diverse population of fish, invertebrates, algae, marine
mammals and seabirds. Throughout the year, The sanctuary is either the
#1 or #2 spot in the world for numbers of endangered blue and humpback
whales. In addition, the Sanctuary is the home for 33 species of marine
mammals, including whales, dolphins and porpoises. In 1991, the area
was designated by the United Nations as a United Nations biosphere
reserve giving it global importance and status. It is situated in one
of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.
Management of this vibrant marine sanctuary has been led by an
extraordinary individual named Ed Ueber. Ed has served as chief manager
and steward of the Farallones since 1990. On the occasion of the 20th
Anniversary of the GFNMS, I join the people of the Bay Area in
extending our heart felt appreciation to Ed Ueber for his extraordinary
work on behalf of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.
As Manager, Ed has made it his mission not only to protect and preserve
our nation's marine life but to bring ocean life to everyone's lives.
Ed has succeeded in building public support and enthusiasm for the
national marine sanctuary. His efforts to involve the public has led to
the creation of the Nation's first sanctuary support organization--the
Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association.
Ed has also created an extensive volunteer program--The Beach Watch
Program which enlists volunteers for beach and offshore monitoring.
These volunteers actively participate in the monitoring of beaches and
marine life, including, seals, birds and whales. In 1993, the Beach
Watch Program graduated the first 40 volunteers. In 1997, the Sanctuary
Education Awareness and Long-term Stewardship (SEALS) program trained
volunteers in harbor seal monitoring and interpretation. In 2000, there
were 260 volunteers collecting data, responding to oil spills,
educating the public, and entering data.
In the Bay Area, we are blessed by the Marine Sanctuary and its
steadfast steward, Ed Ueber. Ed serves the Sanctuary and the people of
the Bay Area in the most exemplary way through his careful management
of the resources and his special gift of sharing the importance of
protecting this precious marine environment.
Congratulations to Ed Ueber and the Gulf of the Farallones National
Marine Sanctuary on its 20th Anniversary!

____________________

COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

______

HON. RUSH D. HOLT

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, on April 24, we
commemorated the 86th anniversary of one of the most harrowing events
in modern day history--the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. From
1915 to 1923, over one and a half million Armenians were killed by
Turks in inter-communal warfare.
Hundreds of Armenian leaders, writers and professionals in
Constantinople were rounded up, deported and killed. Five thousand of
the poorest Armenians were butchered in the streets and in their homes.
Men, women and children were driven into the desert between Jerablus
and Deir ez-Zor to die of starvation, disease and exposure. In 1915,
the New York Times reported that families were burned alive in wooden
houses or chained together and drowned in Lake Van.
To this day, the human rights abuses and atrocities that were
committed against the Armenians by the Turks remain disturbing and
continue to have a tremendous impact on the stability of this region.
During a campaign speech in February 2000, President Bush stated,
``The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies
comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and
acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of
bloody crimes against humanity. If elected President, I would ensure
that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the
Armenian people.''
It is important to remind the President of his pledge. As a Member of
the Congressional Armenian Caucus, I joined my colleagues in signing a
letter to President Bush addressing the need to uphold his promise to
recognize the Armenian Genocide as what it was--genocide. We cannot let
this statement become an empty campaign promise.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress of the United States remembers the
Armenians. It is time for the world to deal honestly with this
senseless genocide and redress this tragedy. I urge my colleagues to
join me in condemning the genocide and honor the memory of 1. 5 million
innocent victims.

____________________

HONORING L. COOK JEWELRY

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for 73 years Coloradans have celebrated
special events and occasions by buying that special piece of jewelry
from L. Cook Jewelry on Main Street in Grand Junction. After 26 years
of running the store, the Dan and Connie Rosenthal are retiring,
leaving scores of memories and a legacy of service behind. I would like
to take this opportunity to thank them for their years of service to
the community and wish them all the best in their future endeavors.
``Main Street is losing one of its highest-quality stores,'' said
former state Senator Tillman Bishop of the oldest business on Main
Street. ``It's really an institution to our community. I've been buying
gifts from there since even before we moved here from Denver. There's a
lot of history there. It was always a great gathering place.''
Dan and Connie are closing the store as they feel the tug of
retirement's strings. Dan has been in the store every Christmas season
of his life. Both of them look forward to getting out and enjoying life
together and with their daughter. ``It's very sad to saying goodbye,
but we're going out on top,'' said Mr. Rosenthal. ``We are really going
to miss all of our customers.''
Much of L. Cook's success has come from the same kind of
relationships for 73 years. Tillie recalls spending time in the store
discussing fishing and hunting with Dan's father. ``People would gather
here all day long to discuss their hunting and fishing war stories,''
said Tillie.
Mr. Speaker, although the community is losing a fine jeweler and a
good friend, Dan and Connie have earned well the right to slow down a
little bit, a move that will turn give them more time to spend with
each other and their daughter. As they do, I want to wish them all the
best in the future and say thanks for the service to our community.
Dan and Connie, yours was a job well done.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO BILL GEORGE

______

HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bill George,
an extraordinary American and one of our nation's most respected
business leaders on the occasion of his retirement as CEO of Medtronic
Inc.
I have had the privilege of knowing Bill George and working with him.
In fact, were it not for his leadership, the landmark FDA Reform bill
which became law in 1997 would not have been the successful effort it
was.
As Chief Executive Officer of one of the world's leading medical
technology companies, Bill George has displayed remarkable leadership
and unparalleled vision. During his tenure, Medtronic has
revolutionized its mission, transforming from a manufacturer of
pacemakers to a diversified medical technology company with scientific,
manufacturing, education, and sales facilities in 120 countries
worldwide. Bill George plotted the course that has taken the company
from revenues of $750 million to more than $5 billion, meeting
analysts' earnings expectations time and again. The company now employs
25,000 people and has consistently won the praise of investors,
analysts and employees. Medtronic has been ranked by Fortune Magazine
as one of the ``Best Companies to Work for in America,'' and first
among its ``Most Admired Companies.''
Through its Foundation, Medtronic has also fulfilled its mission to
restoring people to full lives through full health. Under Bill George's

[[Page 6450]]

stewardship, the Medtronic Foundation has been recognized by Business
Ethics Magazine for its demonstrated leadership in ethics and social
responsibility. The Foundation has reached out to patient groups in
exceptional ways, last year alone, offering $12 million in grants to
non-profit organizations in communities worldwide.
Bill George's decision to leave the company comes at a time when
Medtronic is well-poised to tackle the challenges of a new millennium,
and to build upon its rapid developments in medical technology,
computer technology, drug therapy and gene therapy. And there is
perhaps no one better suited to launch the company's new vision than
Art Collins.
Art Collins has already played an integral part in Medtronic's
success. As Chief Operating Officer and former President of the Board
of Directors, Art Collins has helped to expand the company's global
presence. He joined Medtronic in 1992, serving as Corporate Executive
Vice President and President of Medtronic International with
responsibility for all Medtronic operations outside the United States.
He brings a unique perspective and a creative vision to his new post.
Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of the millions of patients worldwide
who have benefited from Medtronic's work in paying tribute to Bill
George. He is a gifted leader, a proud American and a decent man. He's
made our country better with all he's done and I shall always be
grateful to know him and to have worked with him.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MICHAEL SHANNON, JR.

______

HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my
colleagues to a friend and constituent of the sixth district whose
devotion to his family was paralleled only by his dedication to the
labor community.
Born in New York City and raised in the Lafayette section of Jersey
City, Michael J. Shannon, Jr. moved to South Amboy, New Jersey in 1968
where he continued to reside with his family.
Michael began his career working his way from shop steward to chief
steward at the Maxwell House coffee plant in Hoboken. Facilitating the
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 56 as an
organizer, business agent, and officer, Michael was ultimately elected
local vice president. In addition to these services, he also served as
vice president of the Monmouth-Ocean Counties Central Labor Council
(AFL-CIO) and was a member of the Rutgers University Trade Union
Consulting Council. Because of his dedication and commitment to the
labor community, Michael is being honored with the Tenth Annual
Partnership Award from the Monmouth County Workforce Investment Board.
This award is being presented to recognize Michael's outstanding
achievement as a leader in organized labor.
Michael was also a committed husband and father to his wife Patricia
and two children, Bridget and Michael. He served our country as a
corporal in the Marine Corps and received an honorable discharge in
1962. With community involvement being an important part of his life,
Michael was a third degree member of the Knights of Columbus Council
426.
It is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring
Michael J. Shannon, Jr. for his inexhaustible enthusiasm and many
achievements in the progress of organized labor and his community.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education
Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by
the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs
such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law,
children are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock
they have raised as part of an agricultural education program. Think
about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves,
earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do? We pick on
these kids by taxing them.
It is truly amazing that with all the hand-wringing in Congress over
the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of
government ``for the children'' we would continue to tax young people
who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future.
Even if the serious social problems today's youth face could be solved
by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick
on those kids who are trying to do the right thing.
These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing
them to pay taxes! What ever happened to no taxation without
representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government!
It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money
to go to college by selling livestock they have raised through their
participation in programs such as 4-H or Future Farmers of America.
Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the
Agriculture Education Freedom Act.

____________________

STILL A NATION AT RISK

______

HON. BOB SCHAFFER

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, today marks the eighteenth anniversary of
``A Nation at Risk.'' The sobering report on declining student
performance in American public schools was first published in 1983 by
the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). Its impact
on the American education empire has been tragically negligible.
Created in 1981, the NCEE was appointed by then Secretary of
Education T.H. Bell and was comprised of university presidents, high
school principals, teachers, a former governor, and school board
members. The commission's purpose was to ``help define the problems
afflicting American education and to provide solutions,'' according to
its chairman, David Pierpont Gardner.
In its report entitled ``A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for
Educational Reform,'' the NCEE noted the United States, which once
enjoyed ``unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science and
technological innovation, is being overtaken by competitors throughout
the world.'' Eighteen years later, the United States is still a nation
at risk.
Last October, a subcommittee of the U.S. House attributed the
nation's stagnant student achievement to the government's failure at
prioritizing student performance and its reluctance to reward results.
America's poorest children are too often trapped in schools that can't
teach. Moreover, the Congressional ``Education at a Crossroads'' report
exposed rampant waste, fraud and abuse within the U.S. Department of
Education. While states and local schools are held to strict standards
for use of federal funds, the Department cannot account for hundreds of
millions of dollars.
Despite the NCEE's early warning that America's education system is
at risk, little has changed. The government's monopoly on public school
services remains unchallenged. Except for poor children in a few
courageous communities, real school choice is a privilege for only the
rich.
Yet while state and local schools receive billions more in federal
spending, they are constrained by new burdensome regulations, unfunded
mandates and paperwork requirements which divert scarce resources from
classrooms. Today there are more than 760 education-related programs
administered by 39 Federal agencies at a cost of $120 billion a year,
according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
The federal government's first big offensive into local school
management occurred in 1965 with the passage of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Since that time, federal policy has
consistently expanded its bearing on America's classrooms and has tied
the hands of state legislators and local school board members, despite
the U.S. Constitution's suggestion of state and local primacy of
authority. Results have been pathetic.
For example, the federal government's most massive program, Title I,
was designed to improve the academic level of poor and underserved
students. Federal investments totaling $118 billion since 1965 have
left 19% of Title I schools still failing to make adequate annual
achievement gains, officially classified as ``in need of improvement.''
In testimony before Congress, Colorado's state schools chief, Dr.
William Moloney explained the government's failure: ``ESEA has
remained, as always, a neutral phenomena based on inputs rather than
results, more on accounting than accountability, an entity always more
interested in what you were rather than what you were doing.''

[[Page 6451]]

Eternally hopeful for their children's futures, taxpayers have shown
remarkable patience with the government's education monopoly. So have
Republicans. Since capturing the majority in Congress, the GOP has
substantially outspent Democrats pumping billions into government-owned
schools. In 1983, the average expenditure per student was $3,300, while
the average today tops $8,000. Still, American students trail their
international peers considerably.
According to the 1999 Third International Mathematics and Science
Study Repeat (TIMMS-R), American students have not improved in the
areas of math and science since the first TIMMS test in 1995. The
comparison included students in 38 industrialized countries. According
to the Center for Education Reform, American 8th graders are outranked
by 18 other nations in math and by 17 others in science.
President George W. Bush has boldly called on Congress to ``leave no
child behind.'' He outlined his desire to empower parents, emphasize
local control of schools, send dollars to the classroom and improve
basic academics. Incredibly, Congress has so far drafted a 900-page-
thick bill, translating Bush's sensible objectives into sizable new
programs, fresh mandates, scant choice, and an outrageous 11.5 percent
increase in federal education spending over last year.
Before another year of dust begins to settle on ``A Nation at Risk,''
President Bush and the Congress should reassess Washington's education
spending and regulatory frenzy. Republicans should stake their majority
on free-market solutions to school reform, dramatically shrink the
bureaucracy, and give real decision-making power--money--to parents of
school-aged children.
America's schoolchildren deserve to be treated like real Americans;
like they matter. So long as Republicans look to the federal education
empire to rebuild the nation's academic prominence they do nothing to
distinguish themselves nor maintain the public trust. They will only
become part of the problem further betraying America's children to
languish in a nation at risk.

____________________

HONORING WORLD WAR II VETERAN C.U. ``PEG'' O'NEILL

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
pay tribute and give thanks to a Colorado resident who risked his life
for our country in World War II. C.U. ``Peg'' O'Neill joined the U.S.
Army in 1943. He became a C-47 pilot, and was stationed in England.
Peg flew 11 missions into war-torn Europe. ``We could see the German
antiaircraft fire coming straight at us,'' said Peg in an article from
the Montrose Daily Press. ``We lost four planes out of our squadron of
18 planes that night.'' Peg's first mission began in England on June 5,
1944, were 1,000 C-47 cargo transports flew to the coast of France. The
paratroopers mission on D-Day, was to disrupt German communications,
secure bridges, and incite confusion, chaos and panic. This was a far
cry from his days working at the Hartman Brothers Auto Dealership in
Montrose.
Peg participated in the battle for Nijmegen Bridge. During the famous
mission for the ``bridge to far", Peg survived a mid-air collision with
another allied plane trying to catch cover from anti-aircraft fire.
``The Germans had opened the sea gates and had flooded the fields,''
said Peg of his first mission. ``I had 14 men from the 101st Airborne
to drop. The lightest man weighed 258 pounds in full field gear. Some
of them never got out of the swamps. They were drowned.''
Peg returned to the dealership after the war with several medals, and
most of all, his life and his health. Peg earned the Air Service Medal
with seven bronze stars and the prestigious Presidential Citation,
which was awarded to his squadron for its valor on the eve of D-Day.
Mr. Speaker, men like Peg O'Neill deserve our thanks and praises for
the life threatening situations they were in during World War II. Peg's
story is only one of many stories from our World War II soldiers. We
owe them our thanks now and in the future.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO KENT KRUKEWITT

______

HON. TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, recently, Mr. Kent Krukewitt
was named a Master Farmer by Prairie Farmer magazine. I rise today to
congratulate Mr. Krukewitt on this prestigious nomination. Kent
represents the fourth generation of his family to farm in Champaign
County. Not only does he farm approximately 1,800 acres, he is also a
leader in the local campaign to get farmers online, connected with the
world and to information that can help them conduct business and
communicate with landowners. Kent's eventual goal Is to create a secure
link on his extensive Web site that allows landowners to dial in and
find out information regarding their fields. There are very few members
of a community that serve their fellow citizens with the ambition and
sacrifice that Kent has displayed over the years. Kent a current co-
chairman of the CCNet Ag Task Force, ditch commissioner, and active
member of the Homer United Methodist Church has also served as past
president of the Champaign County Farm Bureau, Illini FS director,
member of the Champaign County Zoning Board of Appeals, and member of
the Homer School Board. I am proud and honored to have such a dedicated
and influential person in the 15th District.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF MAGGIE WALKER

______

HON. ERIC CANTOR

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to one of our
nation's most distinguished women. Maggie Walker, a native of Richmond,
Virginia, will be recognized for her vast accomplishments as the
country's first African American female bank president on April 26,
when she will be inducted into the Junior Achievement National Business
Hall of Fame.
Maggie Walker was born in 1867 and grew up in a rented house in
downtown Richmond. Her stepfather died when she was a young girl,
leaving her mother to raise two children, and Ms. Walker helped support
the family by taking in laundry. In describing her childhood, Walker
once said: ``I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but
instead, with a clothes basket almost upon my head.''
At the age of 14, Ms. Walker joined the Independent Order of St.
Luke, a fraternal insurance society created for African Americans to
help the sick, bury the dead, and promote humanitarian causes during
the post-Civil War period. She quickly moved up through the Order's
ranks, and by 1899 she held a national leadership position in the
organization. Ms. Walker greatly contributed to the success of the St.
Luke Penny Savings Bank and by 1920, the bank had financed 645 African
American homes.
Ms. Walker eventually became the President of the St. Luke's Penny
Savings Bank, a post she held for almost 30 years until poor health led
to her retirement in 1932. Ms. Walker's bank later merged with two
others to become the Consolidated Bank and Trust Company. This bank
still operates in Richmond and is the oldest continually operating
African American bank in the country. The bank carries on some of
Walker's goals by teaching children the value of money and providing
loans to African Americans for home ownership.
Throughout her life, Walker worked closely with other groups and
organizations to benefit women and her race. She was a member of the
Virginia State Federation of Colored Women's Club and the Executive
Committee of the National Association of Colored Women's Clubs. She
helped organize the Richmond Chapter of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People and participated on its National
Board of Directors. She was also affiliated with Virginia Union
University, the National Negro Business League, the Richmond Community
Hospital, and the Commission on Interracial Cooperation.
This year Maggie Walker will be inducted into the National Business
Hall of Fame. The Junior Achievement National Business Hall of Fame was
established in 1975 to recognize those individuals who have made
outstanding contributions to free enterprise and society. The criteria
for selection includes a demonstration of business excellence,
courageous thinking and acting, inspired leadership and community
mindedness. Since its inception, the Hall of Fame has welcomed 195
laureates. Their achievements are honored in a permanent exhibit in the
Chicago Museum of Science and Industry.
Mr. Speaker, Maggie Walker was able to achieve unparalleled success
in a society that was governed by prejudice, in a business dominated by
men, and in a poor community where poverty was accepted. Her efforts
improved the lives of countless Americans, helped revitalize an
impoverished community,

[[Page 6452]]

and allowed many people to realize the American dream of home
ownership. She truly embodied the spirit of the American entrepreneur
and I commend Junior Achievement for their recognition of this
distinguished Virginian.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE LATE SARAH PATRICIA McCAMMAN

______

HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss of Sarah
Patricia McCamman, who died suddenly at her home on Tuesday, April 17.
She was the sister of John McCamman, my Chief of Staff, who has been
with me since I started my career here in the House of Representatives.
Sarah was born in Bakersfield, California on November 27, 1951 to
Gertrude Wachob and Kenneth Taylor McCamman. She was a Kansas City, MO
resident for the past 26 years.
She was a graduate of University of California at Davis with a
Bachelor of Science in Dietetics and Nutrition, and earned a Masters
Degree in Dietetics and Nutrition from the University of Kansas.
Sarah was a pediatric nutritionist at the Kansas University Medical
Center where she was the Director of Training and Nutrition in the
Child Development Center. Sarah trained medical personnel to teach
mothers breastfeeding techniques and taught parents of developmentally
disabled children how to provide nutrition support.
Sarah was recognized as Young Dietitian of the Year of the Kansas and
Missouri Dietitian Association (1978 & 1981) and was awarded the US
Public Health Service Medallion in 1986. She was listed in Outstanding
Young Women of America (1977). She published numerous articles and
training materials associated with lactation management education and
promotion and lectured nationwide. Sarah was on the non-profit Board of
Directors of Open Options for many years, and was key to the
development of the Southern Road group home.
In addition to her many professional accomplishments, Sarah traveled
widely in Asia and Central America, and particularly enjoyed exotic and
challenging destinations. Sarah was active in Chinese adoptive groups
and in ensuring the continued interest of her adopted children in their
native culture. Sarah and her daughters were active members of the All
Souls Unitarian Universalist Church.
She is survived by her two young daughters, Kai Li (7) and An Mei (3)
McCamman; her partner Rick Zbinden; her mother, Gertrude Wachob
McCamman formerly of Ventura, CA and now of Kansas City, sisters Claire
Westdahl of Atlanta, GA, Jean McCamman of Oakland, CA; brother John
McCamman of McLean, VA. She was devoted aunt to Meaghan, Sarah and
Michael McCamman of Virginia and Steven and Jon Westdahl of Georgia.
Sarah leaves behind many friends and associates.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in offering the McCamman family are
sincerest thoughts and prayers as they cope with the loss of their
beloved sister, aunt, mother, and friend.

____________________

HONORING THE ``CITIZENS OF THE YEAR,'' THE BACON FAMILY

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
pay special tribute to the ``Citizens of the Year'' in Grand Junction.
Herb Bacon, his wife Laura May, and their four children, Steve, Andy,
Linda Reid, and Amy Hill were presented the award by the Grand Junction
Civic Forum for their involvement in nonprofit organizations. Clearly,
the Bacons are highly deserving of this great honor.
Through the Bacon Family Foundation, Herb and his family have been
heavily involved in numerous nonprofit organizations, wonderful causes
like the United Way, St. Mary's Hospital, Mesa State College, First
United Methodist Church and the Grand Junction Rotary Club. ``We asked
community leaders all over town who they would nominate for this award,
and Herb Bacon topped almost every one of their lists,'' said Kristy
McFarland, the project director for the Civic Forum, in a recent Daily
Sentinel article.
The foundation was formed in memory of Herb's parents E.L. and Oma
Bacon and his brother and sister-in-law LeRoy and Wilma Bacon. Helping
others is in their blood. It has been part of their family's values for
generations. Three generations of the Bacon family are involved with
the foundation, including the grandchildren of Herb and Laura May.
``Families have the ability to leave a legacy no matter what their
station in life. It's important to remember that they have an
obligation to leave the world a little better than how they found it,''
Herb said in eloquent terms.
Mr. Speaker, for years the Bacon family has been making our community
a better place to live, and for that I want this Congress to say thank
you for all that they do. These great Americans have left an indelible
mark on their community and for that, Mr. Speaker, the Grand Valley is
grateful.

____________________

COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

______

speech of

HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 24, 2001

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as I have every year at this
time, in a proud but solemn tradition to remember and pay tribute to
the victims of one of history's worst crimes against humanity, the
Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1923.
In 1915, 1.5 million women, children, and men were killed, and
500,000 Armenians were forcibly deported by the Ottoman Empire during
an eight year reign of brutal repression. Armenians were deprived of
their homes, their dignity, and ultimately their lives.
Yet, America, the greatest democracy in the world, has not made an
official statement regarding the Armenian genocide and it is my hope
that the Congress will have the courage to bring the resolution to the
floor of the House for a vote.
It's fundamental that we learn from our past and never let this kind
of tragedy happen again. Opponents have argued that passage of a
resolution would severely jeopardize U.S.-Turkey relations.
A resolution is not an indictment of the current Turkish government
nor is it a condemnation of any former leader of Turkey. The United
States and Turkey can and will be able to continue its partnership
should the Congress adopt this important resolution.
Mr. Speaker, as the only Member of Congress of Armenian and Assyrian
descent, I am very proud of my heritage. Like many Armenians, I learned
from my grandparents of the hardship and suffering endured by so many
at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. That is how I came to this
understanding and this knowledge and why I bring this story to the
House of Representatives.
I am very proud of the contributions which the Armenian people have
made to our great Nation. They've distinguished themselves in the arts,
in law, in academics, in every walk of life and they continue today to
make significant contributions in communities across our country today.
It's essential to not only publicly acknowledge what happened, but
also understand that we are teaching present and future generations
about the Armenian Genocide.
We need to bring this legislation to enlighten our young people and
to remind ourselves that wherever anything like this occurs around the
globe that we, as Members of the United States Congress, and as
citizens of this great Nation, must raise our voices.

____________________

CELEBRATING 50 YEARS OF ADVOCACY AND FELLOWSHIP FOR PEOPLE WITH
BLINDNESS

______

HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my
colleges to a outstanding organization in the sixth district that has
been dedicated to promoting fellowship among the blind and visually
impaired in the community for fifty years.
In 1951, a small group of about half a dozen people with blindness or
visual impairment met to form the Monmouth County Association of the
Blind. That same year, a building at the comer of Belmar Boulevard and
Allenwood Road was purchased to serve as the home base of operations
and named the Clubhouse of the Association. Twenty years later, in
1971, the Association was formally incorporated and recently received
non-profit status.
The Association has several goals all of which are interconnected: to
bring together the

[[Page 6453]]

blind and visually impaired adult residents of the county to work, to
promote equity within our society for the blind or visually impaired,
to heighten awareness of legislative action pertaining to blindness or
visual impairments, and to create a sense of community and increase
sociability among members.
Currently, the Association offers training in computer skills and
also provides Braille lessons, training in daily living skills, and
self help discussion sessions, in addition to educational and
informational sessions on services and programs available to members.
To help foster this, the Association works in tandem with the New
Jersey Commission for the Blind, along with other New Jersey
organizations in the field of blindness.
During the past fifty years, the Monmouth County Association for the
Blind has helped hundreds of people with blindness or visual impairment
to enjoy a higher standard of living. The Association has also played a
key role in improving the understanding of the public on treating and
helping those who are blind or visually impaired in a positive and
helpful manner. As the senior population swells, we will continue to
see an increasing amount of blind or visually impaired seniors,
bringing new challenges. Thankfully, the Monmouth County Association
for the Blind seems well prepared.
It is my sincere hope that my colleges will join me in honoring the
Monmouth County Association for the Blind for their service to the
blind, the visually impaired, and the general public.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION RELATIVE TO THE REPEAL OF THE SELECTIVE
SERVICE ACT AND RELATED PORTIONS OF THE US CODE (APRIL 26, 2001)

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal
the Selective Service Act and related parts of the US Code. Also, I am
placing the attached article from the Taipei Times in today's
Congressional Record. I fear that this source is not widely read among
many in this body or our nation, so I am hopeful this action will serve
to bring this letter to a much wider audience. The person who writes
this letter is a law student in Taiwan. His arguments against
conscription are similar to those offered by people in the United
States who oppose the draft. The student argues that conscription is a
violation of civil liberties, a costly and ineffective system that
harms society and the economy as well as the rights of the individual
conscripted, and a system that harms national defense rather than
helping it. While we do not currently have conscription in the US we do
have draft registration and each argument against the draft is equally
applicable to our current selective service system and the registration
requirement. I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the arguments
against conscription raised in this article and cosponsor my
legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act.

[Taipei Times on line edition, Thurs. Apr. 26, 2001]

Conscription is Harming Taiwan

By Chang Yung-chien

Some time ago, the media reported on would-be conscripts
scrambling to grab a place in the ``alternative service'' to
military conscription. There is now an uproar over President
Chen Shul-blan's future son-in-law, who escaped doing his
term of military service because he had gout. The issue of
military service has again struck a sensitive chord in
Taiwan's society.
Why do so many people feel disgruntled?
This writer has always advocated a volunteer military
recruitment system. But this seems to be a politically
incorrect view in a country that faces external threats. The
difficulty of getting enough recruits and the increased
burden that would be imposed on government coffers are the
usual reasons given against a volunteer system. I find these
reasons totally incomprehensible.
Military recruitment is a public policy matter. It needs to
undergo an analysis for cost-effectiveness. Why do we have
``reserve officers'' and ``alternative service'' systems?
We have them precisely so that skilled people can be more
valuable for the country if they are pulled out from the
ranks to serve as platoon leaders or as cheap labor for high-
tech companies. Once this point is clear, then the
alternative service system will seem quite strange. Someone
with a PhD in electrical engineering would be working in a
high-tech company anyway if he were not doing alternative
service. The only difference is that he would be getting a
reasonable salary for his work. The conscription system
forces conscripts to provide the same service for less pay.
By comparison, an outstanding female with a PhD in electrical
engineering can get paid according to her market value
because she does not have to do military service. Why should
we use a conscription system to provide cheap labor to
corporations?
Moreover, society as a whole has paid an enormous invisible
price for the conscription system. Friends of mine waited
almost a year to be conscripted--doing nothing (of course,
two years of military service are also spent doing nothing).
Still more people see their lifetime plans interrupted. They
waste the most creative time of their lives writing military
reports that do not help the nation's economy or the people's
livelihood.
How many people have left the country before conscription
age just to evade those two years, and come back only after
they are too old for conscription? How many people have cut
their fingers, damaged their eyesight, or otherwise harmed
their bodies? How can it be beneficial to the country? How
many mutinies have we had in the armed forces?
Our president, who can carry his wife to and from her
wheelchair every day, did not have to do military service
because of a problem with his ``hands.'' And the president's
future son-in-law is busy running in
I would also like to ask: Why can't I finish my studies
before serving my country? Even if I have to serve two years
as a conscript, I will be of far more use to the country
providing legal services to ordinary citizens than just do
drills and jogging. How much more of its human resources can
Taiwan afford to waste?
As for the question of not finding enough recruits, this
should not be a problem as long as the Ministry of National
Defense offers competitive salaries. If serving in the
military simply means loafing around, then such service may
be worth less than $10,000 a month. But there should be no
such ``profession.'' If being a soldier is a high-risk
profession, there should be a high salary to compensate for
that risk. That may increase expenditures for the government,
but it must be remembered that only people who can freely
enter various professions on the job market can maximize
their value.
Unless we believe that the average productivity of
conscription-age males is worth less than $10,000 or so per
month (the monthly salary of an ordinary soldier), we cannot
but agree that society as a whole would gain more wealth
without conscription than the government coffers have to
lose. Such losses might even be offset by increased
government revenue from taxes on the gains made by those
conscription-aged men who would be working in society
instead.
No talk about ``honor'' solves any problems. Everyone sets
out from a rational, self-interested standpoint. What the
state should do is maximize the benefits for society as a
whole, not limit its thinking to military service.
Maintaining a conscription system certainly does more harm
than good. Those who wear the badge ``being a soldier is a
good experience'' should ask themselves whether they would be
willing to do it again.

____________________

HONORING MILDRED HART SHAW

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I now ask that
Congress take a moment to pay its respects to a leader in the Grand
Junction community. Mildred Hart Shaw passed away on March 25, 2001 at
the age of 91. Mildred has been a model citizen of the Western Slope
since 1933. For her life of service to Colorado, I would now like to
honor her.
For 45 years Mildred's byline appeared in the Daily Sentinel. When
she first started out in the media, women reporters were traditionally
assigned births, deaths and weddings, but she soon changed that. She
started at the Sentinel as the society editor and a copy editor. She
finally convinced then publisher Walter Walker to let her cover
breaking news stories. Eventually she covered everything from politics
to crime, earning the reputation of a talented and ethical journalist.
She is described by her friends as determined, civic minded and
thoughtful. ``She was an intelligent, independent woman,'' said William
Robinson. ``She was a great supporter of the soul of Grand Junction.
She enjoyed life and she enjoyed having people around her who enjoyed
life.''
Mildred was active in a whole array of community affairs. She was a
strong voice for then Mesa College to become a state college. She
served on the Mesa County Art Center board of directors, she was a
member of the executive board of the Gifted Child Committee and was
chairman of the Civil Defense Committee for Grand Junction during World
War II. She also started the Sub for Santa program in Mesa County.
Because of her love of books, also Mildred served as the director of
the Junior Great Books Program for District 51 for 11 years.

[[Page 6454]]

Mr. Speaker, Mildred Hart Shaw will truly be missed by her family,
friends, and peers, but her memory and service to the community will be
forever etched in our minds. Clearly, western Colorado is a better
place for having known Mildred.

____________________

HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF RICHARD A. AUSTIN TO THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN

______

HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of the finest
public servants the state of Michigan has ever known. This past Friday,
my dear friend Richard Austin passed away. Richard was a man of
elegance, grace, dignity, honor, compassion and great intellect. The
citizens of Michigan have suffered a tremendous loss.
Richard was Michigan's longest serving Secretary of State, having
diligently served Michiganders for nearly two and a half decades, from
1970 to 1994. He was a pioneer in many areas, from breaking the color
barrier by being the first African-American to hold statewide office to
his numerous original innovations while serving as Secretary of State.
He was a model public servant, the embodiment of dedication, service,
commitment and trust.
At a time when citizens' faith in our institutions was low, he made
the public sector work, and in doing so, gave government a good name.
Austin's reforms and innovations during his long service saved the
people of Michigan time and money, earning him a reputation as a friend
to the taxpayer. More importantly, he streamlined state services and
eliminated red tape.
Before Austin's reforms, renewing your driver's license or getting
new tags for your license plates could be an all day affair replete
with frustrations and long lines. Richard understood those frustrations
and worked to make government work for the average citizen, to
eliminate the hassles, duplication and inefficiency that are so often
associated with state services.
That commitment to protecting the taxpayer and serving public
interest came from his training as an accountant. Before being elected
as Secretary of State, Richard was Michigan's first African-American
CPA. Richard was fiscally conservative and treated the taxpayers' money
as if it were his own. Indeed, the reforms and innovations he
implemented saved the state and the taxpayers of Michigan hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
But one achievement of Richard Austin's outshines all others,
including his money-saving reforms, and that is the creation of the
``Motor Voter'' law.
Voter registration was near and dear to Austin's heart, and he
considered it to be the most important function of his office. His
passion grew out of his association with the civil rights movement and
the long struggle for voting rights that he witnessed and that was a
part of his being.
Richard was raised in Alabama and experienced the ugly face of
racism, disenfranchisement and bigotry first hand. In Michigan, he
battled the subtle racism and prejudice of the North. But Richard did
not let the forces of hate or intolerance deter him. He persevered, he
broke down walls and ultimately overcame, becoming the first African
American to hold statewide office in Michigan.
When Richard was sworn in, voter registration was at the top of his
agenda. In his mind were the memories of the lives lost during the
Freedom Rides and the voter registration activities in the South and
Mississippi. He remembered the black Americans who fought and died for
the right to cast a ballot.
Richard Austin knew the disenfranchisement and intimidation that for
so long was a part of our history. And thus did Austin appreciate and
understand the importance of the vote, and how precious it is. That it
is the foundation of our democracy, that ``one man, one vote'' is the
cornerstone of American freedom, that every man and woman was equal
inside the voting booth and that liberty, freedom and justice are
predicated on access to the ballot box.
Richard thought long and hard about how to eliminate barriers to
democratic participation, how to make it easier to vote, and how to
encourage and increase voter registration. Austin's solution was the
Motor Voter Act. Motor Voter was Austin's brainchild, and it was a very
simple concept: register voters in the same office where you register
drivers. Austin championed the idea and saw it signed into law in
Michigan in 1975.
To his continuing credit, Michigan's experiment was so successful, it
served as the model for the federal government when it passed the
nationwide act in 1993--a full 18 years after Michigan. It is an
association, an accomplishment and a legacy that has bettered this
great nation, and it is a fitting tribute to one of Michigan's finest
public servants.
Richard is in a better place now. He is survived by his wife of 61
years, Ida, and their daughter. He will be sorely missed by all. Good
bye Richard and God Bless you.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS REDUCTION ACT OF 2001

______

HON. KEN BENTSEN

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation, the
Repetitive Flood Loss Reduction Act of 2001, to reform the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) at a very critical time. The Bush
administration has proposed the most severe NFIP reduction policy seen
in years. According to the FY 2002 budget, ``flood insurance will no
longer be available for several thousand `repetitive loss'
properties,'' but does not provide a definition. My proposal reforms
the program by improving pre-disaster mitigation and facilitating
voluntary buyouts of repetitively flooded properties and defines such
properties as those with cumulative losses exceeding fair market value.
I am confident that an effective pre-disaster mitigation and buyout
program will both reduce costs to taxpayers, protect residents in
flood-prone areas, and avoid writing off thousands of families' most
valuable asset--their home.
I have long championed removing repetitive loss properties from the
NFIP, and I drafted my legislation in consultation with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and the Harris County, Texas, Flood Control
District, one of the nation's most experienced and most innovative
flood control districts. I consider this legislation to be a superior
alternative to the Administration's proposal, and I look forward to
working with the Administration, my colleagues, constituents, and other
interested parties so that fair NFIP reform can be reached.
The need for this legislation was underscored by the 1999 Higher
Ground report by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) that the NFIP
has made flood insurance payments exceeding the value of the properties
involved to thousands of repetitively flooded properties around the
nation. This report, found that from 1978 to 1995, 5,629 repetitively
flooded homes had received $416.4 million in payments, far in excess of
their market value of $307.5 million. My state of Texas led the nation
in the volume of such payments, with more than $144 million, or $44
million more than the market value, paid to 1,305 repetitively flooded
homes. The Houston/Harris County area, which I represent, had 132 of
the 200 properties that generated the largest flood insurance payments
beyond their actual value. These include one property in South Houston
that received a total of $929,680 in flood insurance payments from 17
flooding incidents, and another property near the San Jacinto River
that received $806,591 for 16 flooding incidents, about seven times the
actual value of the home.
Other areas of the country with large numbers of such properties
include New Orleans and Orleans Parish, LA; St. Charles County, MO;
Jefferson Parish, LA; East Baton Rouge Parish, LA; and Puerto Rico.
Altogether, according to the NWF report, although repetitive loss
properties represent only two percent of all properties insured by the
National Flood Insurance Program, they claimed 40 percent of all NFIP
payments during the period studied.
Since its creation in 1968, the NFIP has filled an essential need in
offering low-cost flood insurance to homeowners who live inside 100-
year flood plains, and the program has helped to limit the exposure of
taxpayers to disaster costs associated with flooding. Insurance
minimizes risk and liability; it goes hand in hand with economic
growth. However, the NWF report clearly points out the need to improve
the NFIP to address the problem of repetitive loss properties.
Furthermore, continued losses to the NFIP has increased the call by
some of my colleagues, and now the Bush Administration, to increase
premiums and reduce the federal subsidy for all homeowners in the flood
plain, not just those that suffer from repetitive flooding, in order to
reduce federal budget outlays, or to drop homeowners who have filed
limited claims against the NFIP. The latest Administration NFIP
proposal drops undefined ``repetitive loss properties'' out of NFIP
after the next

[[Page 6455]]

claim. Under the Bush proposal, a homeowner who filed a single claim,
regardless of the size, would be dropped from the program. Without
long-term comprehensive reform of the NFIP, I am concerned that in the
future Congress may follow through with the Administration's proposal
or other proposals to double or triple flood insurance premiums for all
flood-prone homeowners, as was proposed in 1995 and 1996.
While the Administration is pushing people out of the NFIP, it also
proposes to reduce the federal share of hazard mitigation grants from
75% to 50%, reducing funds available for flood prevention by $83
million. The administration also proposes to eliminate FEMA's Project
Impact, which helps communities protect themselves from the devastating
effects of natural disasters. In addition, the 2002 budget cuts the
Army Corps of Engineers by $600 million. Of that cut, $451 million
comes from Construction General funds, which fund flood control and
navigation projects. A policy of reducing flood prevention efforts
while reducing insurance will compound the safety risk and financial
pain for homeowners in the floodplain.
Instead of stripping away homeowners' flood insurance, my legislation
takes a three-pronged approach to addressing this issue: a
comprehensive pre-disaster mitigation program; an enhanced repetitive
substantial loss property buyout program with consistent criteria and
procedures; and improved coordination between FEMA and local
goveniments:
Pre-disaster mitigation: The legislation directs the FEMA director to
carry out a program to mitigate repetitive flood losses by providing
financial assistance in the form of grants to the States, local
governments, and local flood management agencies for planning and
carrying out activities designed to reduce expenditures from the NFIP.
Eligible mitigation activities include elevation, relocation,
demolition, floodproofing, and acquisition by States and communities of
properties and structures located in flood-risk areas. Grants would be
provided on a cost-shared basis, with an Federal Government providing
no more than 75 percent of the total cost of the mitigation activities
as is the case within traditional watershed management programs.
Repetitive Loss Property Buyout Program: The legislation authorizes
the FEMA director, upon determining that an insured property is a
repetitive substantial loss property, to offer to purchase the property
at fair market value (including structures) at the time of the offer.
This offer would remain open as long as the property is covered by the
NFEP. The State or local flood management agency may coordinate and
carry out the purchase at FEMA's direction. Any property so acquired
would have to be used in a way compatible with open space,
recreational, or wetlands management practices, providing both
environmental and flood management benefits. The legislation
establishes a firm damage standard of repetitive flood losses in excess
of 125 percent of the value of the property (or structures) to become
subject to and receive priority for buyout offers. It also provides
incentives for acceptance of buyout offers by establishing increased
NFIP premiums and deductibles for owners of substantial repetitive loss
properties who decline buyout offers.
Intergovernmental Coordination: The legislation directs the FEMA
director, in consultation with regional flood plain administrators, to
develop and periodically update a list of repetitive flood lost
properties, which will provide a consistent data base for all levels of
government. This consistent approach to assessing, ranking, and
reporting of repetitive loss properties will result in better targeting
of assistance to areas of greatest need.
This legislation authorizes the appropriation of $100 million for
fiscal year 2000 to carry out the pre-disaster mitigation and
repetitive flood loss property buyout program. I believe this is a
cost-effective investment that will reduce the financial exposure of
the American taxpayer by better protecting or removing the highest risk
properties from the National Flood Insurance Program.

____________________

HONORING COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE'S ``COMMUNITY ADJUNCT FACULTY OF THE
YEAR''

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to ask that this
Congress recognize and say thank you to Colorado Mountain College's
``Adjunct Faculty of the Year'' Marcia Hund. Marcia was selected from
1,000 community faculty members for her ability to teach and for her
understanding of students. For that, Marcia deserves the recognition of
this body.
Marcia teaches the fundamentals of math, and is an instructor in the
CMC's Rifle Center Learning Lab. And after school she volunteers as a
tutor for Literacy Outreach, teaching adults otherwise unaffiliated
with CMC how to read. Marcia is also involved with the students as a
faculty advisor. She has worked on CMC's Adjunct Faculty Pay Plan
Committee, and has been an active member in the National Association of
Developmental Education. ``We are very excited that Marcia has been
chosen as the college's adjunct faculty of the year,'' said Dean Harry
Silver in a recent Glenwood Springs Post Independent article. ``Marcia
epitomizes our adjunct faculty.''
Marcia came to CMC 14 years ago as a science and ecology teacher. She
soon began teaching developmental classes. ``Students will come after
failing, sometimes again and again in school, and see success as an
impossible dream. The wonderful part is for me to see them succeed and
see that they can learn,'' said Marcia.
Marcia's supervisor Karen Dunbar says she has the ability to present
information to the students in a kind and gentle manner. ``I really do
love working with adults who have had problems in school in the past .
. . It's more than a job for me, it's something I feel is a valuable
contribution, and I'm good at it.''
Mr. Speaker, for the last 15 years Marcia Hund has helped out
numerous students trying to finish their education, and for that she
deserves the thanks of Congress. I know she will continue to do an
outstanding job with her students. For that, we are all grateful.

____________________

COMMEMORATING THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK
AND TRUST COMPANY

______

HON. JOHN E. SWEENEY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a historic
institution in the 22nd District of New York. The Glens Falls National
Bank and Trust Company is the oldest bank in Warren County.
In 1851, the bank was founded by a dozen pioneering businessmen from
the local lumber, limestone, and insurance industries. Under the
leadership of its first president, Benjamin Burhans, the bank recorded
more than seventeen thousand dollars in deposits in its first month
alone.
Despite times of turmoil, such as the Civil War, the Great Depression
and the two World Wars, Glens Falls National Bank was able to not only
prosper, but grow as a dedicated establishment to downtown Glens Falls
and the North Country. Although the bank currently has 23 branches, 350
employees, and over one billion dollars in assets, this landmark has
been committed to remaining independent and local.
Glens Falls National is a true pillar of the North Country. The bank
and its employees donate money, time, and hard work to more than 300
charitable and community causes including Glens Falls Hospital, the
United Way, and the Adirondack Balloon Festival.
Mr. Speaker, as a proud resident of the 22nd Congressional District
of New York, I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the 150th
Anniversary of the Glens Falls National Bank and Trust Company.

____________________

COMMEMORATING THE 15TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR DISASTER

______

HON. CURT WELDON

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, fifteen years ago today, the
small town of Chernobyl, Ukraine was the scene of the world's greatest
nuclear accident in history. The aftermath of Chernobyl brought untold
devastation to thousands of families in northern Ukraine. Radiation
from blowing winds was spread as far away as the Scandinavian
countries, even to coastal areas of southern Alaska and northern
California. Even by most conservative experts, Chernobyl unleashed more
radiation than 90 Hiroshima-sized bombs. Most of this fallout blanketed
heavily populated areas of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus.
Studies have shown thyroid cancer has skyrocketed among children
exposed to the radiation. Stillbirths and birth defects in Ukraine have
doubled, while the rate of infant mortality is twice the European
average. Unfortunately, the effects of radiation exposure, including
latent cancers, do not emerge in the body until

[[Page 6456]]

ten to twenty years later. In effect, the next five to ten years will
be crucial as humanitarian efforts mount to respond to the devastation
inflicted over a decade ago.
Although all Chernobyl nuclear reactors have been closed, the
community is still suffering. Let us not forget the silent disease
affecting the citizens of Ukraine.

____________________

COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

______

speech of

HON. RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 24, 2001

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate once
again in the annual remembrance of the Armenian genocide today, 86
years after this terrible tragedy which claimed the lives of over 1.5
million Armenians between 1915 and 1923.
The Armenian Genocide began in 1915 with the rounding up and killing
of Armenian soldiers by the Turkish government. After that, the
government turned its attention to slaughtering Armenian intellectuals.
They were killed because of their ethnicity, the first group in the
20th Century killed not for their actions, but for who they were.
By the time the bloodshed of the genocide ended, the victims included
the aged, women and children who had been forced from their homes and
marched to relocation camps, beaten and brutalized along the way. In
addition to the 1.5 million dead, over 500,000 Armenians were driven
from their homeland.
It is important that we make the time, every year, to remember the
victims of the Armenian genocide. We hope that, by remembering the
bloodshed and atrocities committed against the Armenians, we can
prevent this kind of tragedy from repeating itself Unfortunately,
history continues to prove us wrong. That is why we must be so vigilant
in remembering the past.
It is important to continue to talk about the Armenian genocide. We
must keep alive the memory of those who lost their lives during the
eight years of bloodshed in Armenia. We must educate other nations who
have not recognized that the Armenian genocide occurred.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Armenian-Americans--the survivors and their
descendants--who continue to educate the world about the tragedy of the
Armenian Genocide and make valuable contributions to our shared
American culture. Because of their efforts, the world will not be
allowed to forget the memory of the victims of the first 20th Century
holocaust.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DR. GEORGE LINDSEY AND THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH ALABAMA

______

HON. ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, JR.

of alabama

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. George Lindsey
and the University of North Alabama for their efforts in organizing and
participating in the George Lindsey/UNA Television and Film Festival.
This film festival is in its fourth year and has become an
international affair showcasing and rewarding excellence in film and
video endeavors. The cultural and educational benefits for UNA, the
Shoals and the entire state of Alabama are immeasurable.
Dr. Lindsey, a 1952 alumnus, is known throughout the country for his
role in The Andy Griffith Show. Lindsey also became a staple character
on Hee-Haw. His credits and appearances on television and film fill
many a page. However, Lindsey has not let his fame and fortune cloud
his commitment to good will. Instead, Lindsey has used his success and
talents to improve the lives of those around him. He has raised more
than one million dollars for the Special Olympics and started the
George Lindsey Aquatic Center at the Alabama State Hospital for the
Mentally Retarded. His generosity and dedication to the University of
North Alabama are legendary.
Along with Bobbie Hurt, Bill Jarnigan, Robert Potts, and Lisa Daniell
of UNA, Lindsey had a vision for a festival that would provide aspiring
artists, especially those from the state of Alabama, the opportunity to
showcase their art while learning from professionals how to strengthen
their work. They have succeeded beyond their greatest expectations
bringing in such speakers as Tom Cherones, director of Seinfeld and
Academy Award-winning actor Ernest Borgnine and launching the careers
of several of the participants.
As this year's festival gets underway, I wanted to express my deepest
appreciation to Dr. Lindsey and UNA for encouraging the future leaders
of the film industry. I also want to thank them for helping share with
the world the wonderful things that are going on at UNA. On behalf of
the United States Congress and the people of the 5TH district of
Alabama, I share my congratulations with UNA for the success of the
George Lindsey/UNA Television and Film Festival and I wish them many,
many more years of fruitful collaboration.

____________________

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

______

HON. DUNCAN HUNTER

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Merchant Marine Panel of
the House Armed Services Committee, I rise today to address a matter
under the jurisdiction of my panel which is of the utmost importance to
the national security and the maritime capability of the United States,
namely the need to reauthorize the Maritime Security Program (MSP).
The MSP program was established by the Maritime Security Act of 1996.
The program was designed to maintain the continued presence of an
active, privately-owned, U.S.-flag and U.S.-crewed merchant shipping
fleet that would provide sustained sealift capability in time of war or
national emergency. That Act phased out the operating differential
subsidy program, provided reduced payments to vessel operators who
agreed to make vessels and associated intermodal assets available to
Department of Defense (DOD) upon request, and authorized $100 million
annually for MSP program funding. Without the MSP program, U.S.-flag
vessel owners would have been forced to shift their operations to
foreign flags with foreign crews in order to remain internationally
competitive. This would have been detrimental to our national security
interests.
The MSP has proved very successful. Today, 47 U.S.-flagged commercial
vessels, crewed by U.S. citizens, participate in the MSP program. These
vessels are engaged in the foreign commerce of the U.S. and are
enrolled in DOD's Emergency Preparedness Program to ensure that such
vessels and associated worldwide intermodal transportation and
management assets are incorporated into DOD sealift plans and programs,
and are immediately available to meet military sealift requirements.
Without the MSP the cost to DOD would be substantial--approximately
$800 million annually would be required by DOD to provide similar
sealift and related system capacity on its own for the rapid and
sustained deployment of military vehicles, ammunition and other
equipment and material.
Authorization for the MSP is for a ten-year period up through
September 2005. To ensure the continued operation and viability of a
maritime security fleet of privately-owned, militarily-useful U.S.-flag
vessel operators, Congress needs to move forward with the
reauthorization of the MSP. This would provide the industry with the
timely assurance they need that the MSP program will continue beyond
the year 2005.
Additionally, I am concerned over rumors that U.S. citizenship
requirements for this program could be modified. I strongly believe
that reauthorization of the MSP program must ensure that current United
States citizenship requirements continue to apply for operators of
U.S.-flagged, U.S. crewed commercial vessels. The MSP program now
requires that priority be given to MSP vessel operators that are owned
and controlled by United States citizens (such operators are commonly
known as ``Section 2 citizens'' under section 2 of the 1916 Shipping
Act). Such U.S.-ownership and U.S.-control requirements are critical to
the continued viability of the MSP program and must be preserved.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this vital effort to
enhance the national security of the United States while ensuring that
critically important U.S.-ownership standards are maintained.

____________________

DESIGNATION OF THE LEE H. HAMILTON FEDERAL BUILDING AND U.S. COURTHOUSE
IN NEW ALBANY, INDIANA

______

HON. BARON P. HILL

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce H.R.
1583, a bill to name the Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in

[[Page 6457]]

New Albany, Indiana, after my friend, mentor, colleague and the former
Congressman of southern Indiana's 9th district, Lee Hamilton. I would
like to thank State Representatives Bill Cochran and Jim Bottorff of
the Indiana General Assembly for urging Congress to designate this
building in honor of Lee.
Lee Hamilton served the people of southern Indiana with distinction
for 34 years in the United States House of Representatives. In the
course of his long career, he established himself as a leader in
international affairs, serving as the chairman of the House Foreign
Relations Committee, the House Intelligence Committee and the Iran-
Contra Investigation Committee. Lee was an honorable, forthright and
trustworthy member of Congress whom we could always count on for a calm
voice of reason as our nation dealt with foreign policy issues
throughout the Cold War.
Lee Hamilton served as my Congressman from the time I was 12 years
old until he retired in 1998. Lee's common sense leadership in Congress
helped make southern Indiana a better place for Hoosier families to
live and work for over thirty years. No matter how important he became
out in Washington, we always knew he was working hard for us.
When Lee retired from Congress in 1998, Washington Post columnist
David Broder wrote, ``Hamilton is a throwback to the old days of the
House and not just because he still has the crew cut he wore when he
came to Washington as a small-town Hoosier lawyer in the Democratic
landslide of 1964. He is an exemplar of the common-sense, instinctively
moderate model of legislator that used to be common in Congress but is
increasingly rare today.''
Lee currently serves as the Director of the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC and the Director of
The Center on Congress at Indiana University. He has received numerous
public service awards including the Paul H. Nitze Award for
Distinguished Authority on National Security Affairs, the Phillip C.
Habib Award for Distinguished Public Service, the American Political
Science Association Hubert Humphrey Award, the Indiana Humanities
Council Lifetime Achievement Award, and the U.S. Association of Former
Members of Congress' Statesmanship Award.
I believe it is only fitting that we designate the Federal Building
and U.S. Courthouse in New Albany as the Lee H. Hamilton Building to
pay tribute to his limitless dedication and service to the people of
southern Indiana.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO RAY GEORGE, DARE DEPUTY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY, CA

______

HON. SAM FARR

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Deputy Ray
George of the Monterey County Sheriff's Department and their Drug Abuse
Resistence Education (DARE) program. As you may know the DARE program
helps bring a multi-faceted approach to staying away from drugs in the
classrooms of 5th and 6th graders around the world. Deputy George is
one of three full-time deputies assigned to the Monterey County DARE
program, and it is for his recent fund-raising efforts that I wish to
honor him here.
Mr. Speaker, the Monterey County DARE program, currently under Deputy
George, Deputy Vince Hernandez, and Deputy Karen Gentile, was founded
in 1993 by Deputy Fabian Barrera. In the past 8 years, they have
coordinated with the local police departments through the county, as
well as the schools to bring their courses that aim at helping young
people face drug abuse in their lives. Some of the key topics they try
to bring to their students include: building selfesteem; the
consequences of drug use; decision making skills; recognizing and
resisting peer pressure; techniques to say no; and ways to deal with
stress.
Deputy George recently organized a black-tie fund raiser in Monterey,
and his hard work was made clear with the success of this event.
Everyone present that evening, myself included, felt that these
deputies help bring a crucial message to our communities. Their
dedication to this cause is commendable, and I would like to especially
honor Deputy George for his commitment to excellence. The service of
local officials such as these are an asset to our nation, and I thank
the Speaker for this chance to honor them.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO BILLY DE FRANK LESBIAN AND GAY COMMUNITY CENTER

______

HON. ZOE LOFGREN

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Billy DeFrank
Lesbian and Gay Community Center of San Jose. On April 28th, the
DeFrank Center will celebrate 20 years of service to the Santa Clara
Valley.
The DeFrank Center opened on Keyes Street in downtown San Jose in
1981. Services in what was then a 2 room storefront included a hotline,
counseling, and a switchboard. Today, the Billy DeFrank Lesbian and Gay
Center serves a large and diverse community. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender people of all ages and backgrounds find resources here that
are not available elsewhere. Each month over a thousand people visit
the DeFrank Center's headquarters, and many more call the switchboard.
Over 140 meetings, workshops, health programs and special events take
place at the DeFrank Center each month.
I am proud of the caring staff and corps of volunteers whose
dedication has built the Billy DeFrank Lesbian and Gay Community
Center. It is because of their hard work that the DeFrank Center is ``a
place to call home,'' and I thank them for their 20 years of service to
our community.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my district on
Tuesday, April 24, 2001, and I would like the record to indicate how I
would have voted had I been present.
For rollcall vote No. 85, the motion to instruct on budget conferees,
I would have voted ``aye.''
For rollcall vote No. 86, to pass a suspension bill, I would have
voted ``aye''.

____________________

HONORING CYRIL LAMBERT ON HIS RETIRMENT

______

HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an
exceptional leader in the Third Congressional District of Illinois. I
would like to honor Cyril ``Barry'' Lambert on his retirement from the
Village of Summit's Board of Trustees and salute his many years as a
dedicated Village Trustee. He is retiring from service to the Village
on May 7, 2001, which also happens to be his 74th birthday.
Barry started his career as Village Trustee over 33 years ago, and is
the longest serving elected official in the Village of Summit's
history. During his political career he has taken an active role in the
community and has chaired many committees, including the Police and
Fire Committee, the Community Development Committee and the Street and
Sanitation Committee.
Mr. Lambert is a veteran of World War 11, and served in the United
States Navy. He is a member of the V.F.W. Post 6863, and the American
Legion Post 735. He is active at St. Joseph's Church in Summit, and
participates in the Holy Name Society there. He is also a member of the
Summit Senior Citizens.
Barry is well regarded in the community for his personable character,
honesty and integrity. He and his wife, Mary, are the parents of
Evelyn, Donna, Barry, Mary Beth and Nancy, grandparents to Christopher,
Nicole, Rose and Sarah, and great-grandparents to Christopher.
Mr. Speaker, as Barry leaves behind a long and rich history at the
Village of Summit's Board of Trustees, I would ask that my colleagues
join me in honoring this great man.

____________________

A TRIBUTE IN MEMORY OF REVEREND LEON H. SULLIVAN

______

HON. ROBERT A. BRADY

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of
Rev. Leon H. Sullivan. Rev. Sullivan was a giant of a man who

[[Page 6458]]

leveraged the economic power of black Americans for social change from
urban Philadelphia to the continent of Africa.
As the pastor of the Zion Baptist Church in North Philadelphia where
he served for 38 years, he was towering force. His booming voice spread
a message of love of God and selfhelp for his people.
Rev. Sullivan, who founded the nation's largest community-based job
training program, was regarded as a leader by world leaders. Presidents
and corporate heads sought his advice. In 1991, he was awarded the
Medal of Freedom by President George Bush. U.N. Secretary-General Kofl
Annan says Rev. Sullivan showed the world what one person can do.
Early on in his life, Leon Sullivan was confronted by racism. At the
age of 9, while attempting to buy a soda at a drugstore in his hometown
in Charleston, West Virginia he was informed he could not sit at the
counter. Subsequently he told interviewers that this was a life
transforming moment that instilled in him a lifelong commitment to
confront injustice.
Rev. Sullivan was known throughout the world because of the
establishment of OIC centers in the U.S. and in 17 African nations; the
sponsorship of the Sullivan Principles that helped to dismantle South
African apartheid; and, his leadership in civil rights. But he was also
known and will be remembered for his ability to reach and touch and
make a difference in lives of the people of his community.
His death leaves a void in Philadelphia, the nation and the world.
His legacy is monumental.

____________________

IN TRIBUTE TO J. HANDEL EVANS

______

HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to J. Handel Evans,
who came to my congressional district five years ago to found Ventura
County, California's first four-year public university, and then
retired as California State University, Channel Island's first
president after a resounding success.
The obstacles Handel faced were enormous. The campus was formerly a
state psychiatric hospital. The buildings needed to be refurbished, the
school needed a sound financial foundation to augment funding the state
would provide, and it needed the support of the state's budget writers.
With skill and patience, Handel built teams and coalitions to achieve
his--and our community's--goal.
One example of his skill and perseverance stands out. Last year, the
university's ability to open on time was endangered because of a budget
battle with the governor. Gov. Davis was withholding a $10 million
state budget earmark for CSU Channel Islands because of a dispute over
another CSU campus.
Handel reacted by enlisting every state elected official in the
area--from both political parties--and others to pressure the governor
to release the funding. Without the funding, the university would have
been unable to hire faculty and other staff necessary to run a
university.
Gov. Davis released the funds, and the university will open on time.
How important is it to launch a new university with such skill and
perseverance? It is crucial if you want to attract top professors to
instruct our young men and women. The school will open with 23
instructors. When the call went out for applicants, 2,300 responded.
That's a huge number when one considers our nation still enjoys nearly
full employment and the nation faces a teacher shortage.
CSU Channel Islands will help with that problem as well.
Once opened, the Channel Islands campus will serve public schools and
educators by providing continuing education to current and future
teachers. With annual student enrollments in California projected to
grow at a steady rate of about 80,000 per year, it is estimated that
nearly 300,000 additional qualified teachers will be needed in
California classrooms over the next 10 years. CSU Channel Islands will
help my community, the state of California and our nation meet teacher
demand.
Those teachers will provide quality education to our children. Our
children will then be better prepared to compete in an ever-changing
economic environment.
Handel has handed the reins of the university to Richard Rush,
formerly president of Minnesota State University at Mankato. He has the
background and skills to continue building on the foundation Handel has
laid.
And, Handel and his wife, Carol, have decided to remain in Camarillo,
near the university. I know he will continue to be involved in its
continued growth.
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in thanking J. Handel
Evans for launching what will be known as a top-notch teacher's
university and wish him and Carol a long and healthy retirement.

____________________

CONGRATULATING WEST MICHIGAN GIRL SCOUT GOLD AWARD RECIPIENTS

______

HON. VERNON J. EHLERS

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today
to honor eight dedicated young women from West Michigan for receiving
the Girl Scout Gold Award, the Girl Scout's highest honor. The award
recognizes these outstanding young women for their accomplishments in
leadership, community service, career planning and personal
development.
Obtaining the Girl Scout Gold Award involves an extensive commitment,
and requires the recipients to earn four interest-project patches. The
patches include the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout
Leadership Award, the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, as well as designing
and implementing a Girl Scout Gold Award project in cooperation with an
adult Girl Scout volunteer.
The honorees and a brief summary of their accomplishments for the
Girl Scout Gold Award follow: Kyle Johnson, a senior at Zeeland School,
created a web page for Zeeland Community Education; Noorain Khan, a
Forest Hills Central junior, designed an Islamic Education Youth
Director position; Tonya Leeuw, a freshman at Grand Valley State
University, utilized her love of gardening by landscaping a portion of
the front of the new Byron Community Ministries building; Lauren
Magnifico, a junior at Grandville High School, organized the
registration records of the Grandville Little League program; Kandace
Heinz and Heidi Porter, juniors at Thornapple-Kellogg High School,
designed a German cultural event booth for last year's Middleville
Heritage Days, and Andrea Dinley, a senior at Byron Center High School,
developed a program titled Colorguard Basic Mini-Camp and Video.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to recognize the achievements of this
select group of young women who have gone above and beyond the call of
duty in their scouting duties. The hard work and determination they
have exhibited during their pursuit of the Gold Award will serve as
valuable lessons as they enter adulthood. I ask that my colleagues join
me in applauding this special and dedicated group of young achievers.

____________________

SHEDD AQUARIUM CELEBRATES ITS OCEANARIUM'S 10TH ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. DANNY K. DAVIS

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing the
John G. Shedd Aquarium as it celebrates the tenth anniversary of its
world-renowned Oceanarium. Shedd's Oceanarium is the largest indoor
marine mammal habitat in the world. More than 18 million visitors from
Illinois and around the world have gained a better understanding of the
environment and marine mammals by visiting the Oceanarium.
Shedd Aquarium is an international leader in aquatic education as
well as animal husbandry, care and training. The Aquarium spearheads
numerous conservation initiatives, both locally and abroad,
participating in animal rescue efforts and performing in-house studies
ranging from sensory biology to animal health. Shedd will commemorate
the Oceanarium's anniversary with a year-long celebration filled with
exciting activities and never before offered behind the scenes
glimpses, the unveiling of a new marine mammal show, chances to meet
one-on-one with animal-care specialists and an opportunity to eat
breakfast with the dolphins.
The Oceanarium has contributed to the body of knowledge about marine
life and enhances public understanding and appreciation of aquatic life
and conservation. Shedd's participation in the North American
Cooperative Beluga Breeding Program allows scientists to study the
behavior of beluga whales and other animals that can't easily be
studied in the wild, gaining a better understanding of whale biology
and behavior. After seeing the beluga

[[Page 6459]]

whales up close visitors to the Oceanarium gain a greater appreciation
of the special nature of marine mammals and how humans impact their
survival in the wild.
On April 27th, Shedd launches a new presentation, ``Totally
Training''. The ``Totally Training'' experience gives visitors to the
Oceanarium the unique opportunity to watch marine mammal presentations
evolve daily as the dolphins and other animals learn new behaviors.
Shedd's marine mammal presentations educate by showing natural
behaviors of animals--such as dolphins porpoising (jumping). After each
presentation, Shedd's expert marine mammal trainers will be available
to talk to guests one-on-one.
Mr. Speaker, Shedd Aquarium's ``Oceanarium Turns 10'' celebration
highlights a decade of achievements in conservation and education.
Since its doors opened in 1991, the Oceanarium has been changing the
way Chicagoans and the world think about the environment and marine
mammals.

____________________

CONGRATULATING THE BEVERLY HIGH SCHOOL BAND AND CHORUS

______

HON. JOHN F. TIERNEY

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud a group of 180
students in my Congressional District who visited Washington, DC
yesterday morning to entertain gatherers at the Lincoln Memorial. The
Beverly High School Band and Chorus deserves to be commended for the
hard work and practice it takes to perform at such a high level, and I
ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating them.
In addition to a wonderful experience here yesterday, these students
have learned many valuable lessons from being part of this talented and
impressive group. Clearly, for a band and chorus to be successful, it
must work as one. Teamwork is a lesson these students have learned
well, and it will be one that they carry with them as they encounter
new challenges in the years ahead.
Practice and perseverance have become second nature to the members of
this organization. These are cornerstones of living, and these students
already have a strong grasp on these concepts at a young age.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, each one of these students, as well as their
teachers and chaperones, have found joy in this adventure that began in
the Sixth Congressional District of Massachusetts and ended in glory at
the Lincoln Memorial. They have made all the people in the Commonwealth
proud of their work, and they have provided examples of leadership to
all they know. I wish them all the best of luck in their future
endeavors, and I am confident that the lessons they have learned will
not be forgotten.

____________________

50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TOWN OF SPRING LAKE, NORTH CAROLINA

______

HON. ROBIN HAYES

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th
anniversary of the town of Spring Lake, North Carolina on May 5, 2001.
The entire town will be celebrating at the Golden Anniversary Parade,
which is to be one of the biggest parades in the town's history. Over
100 entrants, including antique cars, high school marching bands, and
floats and cars sponsored by local businesses and civic groups, will
participate in the parade. An Arts & Crafts Bazaar, petting zoo, and a
fireworks finale will round out the celebration.
In addition to the revelry and excitement of the parade, a new 50-
acre industrial park, the first in the town of Spring Lake, will be
dedicated and shall be open for business soon. Also joining members of
the town that day will be senior officials from Fort Bragg and Pope Air
Force Base, along with members of several veterans' organizations, to
dedicate the first-ever military memorial in Spring Lake.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the all-American town of
Spring Lake, North Carolina on its 50th anniversary, and I would ask
all of my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the hard-working,
patriotic men and women who make Spring Lake such a great place to live
and work.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION AND STATEMENT REGARDING SOUTH SUBURBAN THIRD
AIRPORT

______

HON. JERRY WELLER

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in Springfield,
Illinois on April 24, 2001 in order to testify on the merits of the
proposed South Suburban Third Airport before the Illinois House
Aviation Committee. As a result, I was unable to cast votes for Roll
Call votes numbered 85 and 86. Had I been able to be present for votes,
I would have voted nay on Roll Call vote number 85, the Motion to
Instruct Conferees on H. Con. Res. 83, The Congressional Budget for
Fiscal Year 2002. I would have voted yea on Roll Call vote number 86,
on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 428 as amended, concerning
the participation of Taiwan in the World Health Organization.
Mr. Speaker, I missed these votes because I believe that the
development of the South Suburban Third Airport is vitally important to
Illinois economy and the Nation's aviation infrastructure. I testified
in support of developing the proposed South Suburban Airport and
Governor Ryan's appropriation request of $15 million for land
acquisition. If the State of Illinois is to remain economically
competitive, the air capacity must be increased. Governor George Ryan's
decision to move forward with land acquisition shows bold leadership to
achieve both.
Seventeen years ago, the Federal Aviation Administration ordered the
States of Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and the City of Chicago to
evaluate the region's future aviation needs and to determine possible
solutions. The Chicago Area Capacity Study was formed by Illinois,
Indiana, Wisconsin, and Chicago to look for a new site. That study
concluded in 1988 that Chicago needed a supplemental airport to relieve
overcrowding at O'Hare and Midway. Subsequent studies found there was a
need for additional capacity by the year 2000, and that the
supplemental capacity should be located at a new South Suburban
Airport.
As we now know, the results of that study accurately foretold the
future. In 2000, Chicago hit aviation gridlock as the runways, airspace
and ground transportation network near the airports reached capacity.
Today, peak travel times to and from O'Hare and Downtown often exceed
one hour. Remote parking access to or from the terminals can often take
35 to 45 minutes.
The gridlock at O'Hare and Midway not only affects Chicago and its
suburbs, but the entire state and nation. When air capacity is limited,
airlines focus on the most profitable routes (international route) and
ignore less lucrative business (short-range domestic routes). As we
have seen, the process of dumping short lower-profit flights in favor
of long, higher profit ones has already begun at O'Hare. In the past
two years, O'Hare eliminated service to 13 Midwestern markets, but
added service to more than 20 foreign cities. This shift has hurt the
downstate Illinois economy and limited transportation options for its
residents.
Chicago's capacity problems are well-documented. Numerous studies,
including ones by the USDOT, the FAA, IDOT and the City of Chicago,
conclude that Chicago needs new runways. The question is where.
The Greater Rockford Airport was once considered a possible third
airport site. While Rockford is very important to the northern Illinois
area, the Illinois Department of Transportation eliminated it as a
third airport site in the 1988 study for the following reasons: It was
deemed to be too far--97 miles--from the Chicago Business District.
Rockford is 50 miles past Elgin, which is at the edge of the Chicago
urbanized area. The Peotone site abuts the edge of suburbia and is 35
miles from Downtown Chicago. The Rockford market area for obtaining
origin and destination passengers was too small for a major commercial
airport. In comparsion, the Peotone site has 2.5 million people living
within a 45 minutes drive. According to the latest census data, Will
County is one of the fastest growing areas in Illinois. Two rivers
border the Greater Rockford Airport, thus hampering any growth
possibilities for longer runways. Additionally, the expanded airport
boundaries and accompanying noise contours would severely impact many
Rockford residents.
Gary Indiana Municipal Airport also has been considered. However,
Gary has very little room to grow. Expanding Gary to a size comparable
to the Peotone site would require relocating the Indiana Tollway, the
Calumet River, 47 miles of railroads, 1,000 acres of wetlands, several
toxic landfills, and about

[[Page 6460]]

24,000 residents. The $20 billion cost of expanding Gary would make it
virtually impossible for an airline to charge reasonable fares,
whereas, the cost of the Peotone site would result in ticket prices
comparable to O'Hare.
The Proposed South Suburban Airport would be safer due to its
parallel-runway design and ability for future growth. Further, the
South Suburban Airport is less expensive than other options. The cost
of an inaugural South Suburban Airport is approximately $560 million,
compared to $1.5 billion for building one runway at O'Hare. The third
airport can also be built sooner than adding an additional runway at
O'Hare. The airport can be operational in 4 to 5 years, but it would
take 8 to 15 years to design and build an additional runway at O'Hare.
The South Suburban Airport would be cleaner than the existing airports
as it would be sufficient in size to absorb noise and air pollution. It
has road and rail access, but less ground congestion.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify why I missed
Roll Call Votes on April 24, 2001 and to further explain the importance
of the proposed South Suburban Airport.

____________________

THE IMPORTANCE OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT

______

HON. JOE BARTON

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of National County
Government Week, I rise today to speak on the importance of county
government and to highlight the numerous contributions county
governments make in the everyday lives of citizens. Today, counties
fill an especially challenging role as they continue to meet the
complex demands of modern society.
In Texas, we have 254 counties that serve the needs of more than 18
million Texans. The responsiveness of county government to the needs of
the community is a long-standing tradition in Texas. Texas law
mandates, with certain exceptions, that all county courthouses be
centrally located so that each citizen can travel to the seat, vote,
and return home in a day. Most county seats fall within five miles of
the county's center.
The structure of Texas county government has its roots in the
``municipality,'' the local unit of government under Spanish and
Mexican rule. These large areas, embracing one or more settlements and
rural territories, are the foundation of the governmental organization
of our present day counties. The Texas Constitution declared counties
as the functional agents of the state, or as an ``arm of the state.''
Unlike cities, the areas of responsibility authorized to counties are
specifically spelled out in laws passed by the Legislature.
Texas counties range in size from less than 100 residents to more
than three million. Major responsibilities include county development
planning; building and maintaining roads and recreational facilities;
and in some cases, county airports; constructing and operating jails;
operating the judicial system; maintaining public records; collecting
property taxes; issung vehicle registration and transfers; and
registering voters. Counties also provide law enforcement, conduct
elections and provide in-valuable health and social services to
indigent members of the community. In this way, the county structures,
more than any other form of government, plays a central role in the
everyday functions of communities.
At the heart of each county is the commissioners court. These members
of the court collectively conduct the general business of the county
and oversee financial matters. Each Texas county has four precinct
commissioners and a county judge who serve on this court. Functions of
the county, run by individuals employed by the commissioners court,
include such departments as public health and human services, personnel
and budget, and in some counties, public transportation and emergency
medical services. Elected officials, found in most counties, include
county attorneys, county and district clerks, county treasurers,
sheriffs, tax assessor-collectors, justices of the peace, and
constables.
In the last twenty years, a growing number of federal and state
responsibilities have been delegated or mandated to the local level,
confirming the importance and necessity of local county governments in
Texas. Each day, counties deliver a long list of services and work to
respond to the ever-changing needs of our dynamic state.
Counties across America provide solutions at the local level that
help bring communities together. I believe this traditional form of
local county government, which fulfills a multitude of services to
communities, is truly indispensable to its citizens.

____________________

NATIONAL COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEEK

______

HON. E. CLAY SHAW, JR.

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of National County Government
Week, I rise today to honor the contributions and achievements of our
county governments.
We have the opportunity this week to reflect upon the importance of
our county governments and show our appreciation for our county
officials. As a former mayor, I am very familiar with the role of
county government and the need for govenunent at all levels to
cooperate in order to best serve Americans, and I appreciate the hard
work done at the county level.
I have the privilege of representing the three South Florida counties
of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach. These county governments serve
a diverse population. This population is truly a microcosm of our state
and our country. The needs facing these communities can be found in
other parts of the country as well. County government has been
successful in addressing these needs, and we in Congress can learn a
lot from them.
The backbone of county government is the people who provide the vital
services that are essential to our health, safety, and well-being. The
school teachers, the social workers, the firefighters, the police, and
others who are devoting their lives to public service help form the
fabric of our government.
County government is the government closest to the people. It is
often the face of government to most of our population. It is our
obligation as Members of Congress to help support county governments
all across the country in order that they may more effectively serve
Americans.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILL TO MAKE LEAF TOBACCO AN ELIGIBLE COMMODITY FOR THE
MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM

______

HON. BOB ETHERIDGE

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues from
other tobacco producing states to introduce a bill to put an end to
discrimination against tobacco farmers. For almost eight years, hard-
working, God-fearing, taxpaying tobacco farmers have been denied access
to the funds provided by the federal Market Access Program, commonly
known as MAP.
More than $90 million in MAP funds are available from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to promote U.S. agricultural products
overseas. Under MAP, agricultural industry trade associations,
cooperatives, and state or regional trade groups each year are invited
to submit proposals to USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) to
conduct approved foreign market development projects for various U.S.
agricultural, fishery and forestry products. Examples include consumer
promotions, market research, technical assistance, and trade servicing.
MAP funds have been used to promote a wide range of products from
sunflower seeds to catfish and cotton to hops for use in making beer.
Since 1993 USDA has been prohibited from using MAP funds to promote
tobacco leaf sales overseas. This is patently unfair, and it is time
for this discrimination to end. The future of American agriculture is
tied to international trade. Currently, 25% of farmers' gross income
comes from exports. The futures of thousands of Tar Heel tobacco farm
families depend on exports, and I am not going to stand by and watch
other commodities benefit from federal funds to access these markets
while tobacco farmers are left out in the cold.
It is high time that tobacco is treated like the legal product that
it is, and this legislation is a step in the right direction. I call on
President Bush, Secretary Veneman, and my colleagues to support this
bill and give our struggling tobacco farm families an opportunity to
not just survive, but thrive.

[[Page 6461]]

____________________

COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

______

speech of

HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 24, 2001

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I join with my colleagues in
commemorating the 86th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Along with
the Armenian-American community in my district and with people of
goodwill throughout the country, Congress today is observing the death
of 1.5 million Armenians from the years 1915-1923.
As we gather today, many of my constituents over the weekend
participated in solemn services held in the memory of the martyrs of
the Armenian Genocide. Whether at St. Leon Armenian Apostolic Church in
Fair Lawn, Saints Vartanantz Armenian Apostolic Church in Ridgefield,
or at Saint Thomas Armenian Apostolic Church in Tenafly, thousands of
Americans of Armenian descent will be joining together in Northern New
Jersey this evening to ensure that the world does not forget the first
crime against humanity of the 20th century.
And so let me offer my solidarity with those remembering the Armenian
Genocide today. And let me also emphasize that we should today not only
remember the martyred, but as well, the survivors of the Armenian
genocide. Though few survivors of the Armenian Genocide are still
living today, those who endured the horrors of 1915, are heroes for all
time.
Today, the people of Armenia and her Diaspora are proudly looking to
rebuild their country. From the ashes of despair born of the genocide,
and from the ravages of seven decades of Communist rule, Armenians the
world over are striving to secure a safe and prosperous future for
Armenian and Nagonno-Karabagh.
As Armenian-Americans rebuild their homeland, and as they seek to
secure an economically prosperous state, founded on firm democratic
principles, I will stand by them.
Let me conclude my brief remarks today by encouraging the young
people of America to never forget the tragedy and lessons of 1915.
Because as George Santayana once remarked, ``Those who forget history
are condemned to repeat it.'' And if no clearer evidence of these
prescient words are necessary let us remind one another today that
before commencing the Holocaust, Hitler himself stated, ``Who today
remembers the Armenians?''
As a Jewish-American and being ever mindful of the Holocaust, I join
with my colleagues today in observing the Armenian Genocide. And I
promise to stand firm against the shameful efforts of those who today
seek to deny the Armenian Genocide.

____________________

COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

______

speech of

HON. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 24, 2001

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues
to remember a dark chapter in history and to honor and remember the 1.5
million Armenian Christians victims who lost their lives at the hands
of the Ottoman Empire during 1915 to 1923. I would like to thank the
Co-Chairs of the Armenian Caucus, the gentlemen from New Jersey,
Representative Frank Pallone and the gentlemen from Michigan,
Representative Joe Knollenberg for organizing this special order
commemorating the 86th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide--of one of
the greatest tragedies of history and the first genocide of the 20th
century.
Today, I join with Armenian-Americans in my congressional district,
the Armenian-American community throughout the United States and the
Armenian community abroad in mourning the loss of so many innocent
lives. It is important that we remember and learn from history, because
if we ignore the lessons of the past, we are destined to repeat
history. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in the Preface to the Encyclopedia of
Genocide, published in 1999 by the Institute on the Holocaust and
Genocide in Jerusalem, writes: ``It is sadly true what a cynic has
said, that we learn from history that we do not learn from history. And
yet it is possible that if the world had been conscious of the genocide
that was committed by the Ottoman Turks against the Armenians, the
first genocide of the twentieth century, then perhaps humanity might
have been more alert to the warning signs that were being given before
Hitler's madness was unleashed on an unbelieving world.''
The facts of the Armenian Genocide are clear and amply documented as
demonstrated by official reports and accounts by the U.S. Ambassador to
the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, Sr. In a July 1915 report to the
Department of State, U.S. Ambassador Morgenthau, Sr., reported: ``a
campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of
reprisal against rebellion.'' In describing the events in the Ottoman
Empire during 1915 to 1923, Henry Morgenthau stated ``I am confident
that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible
episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem
almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian
race in 1915.''
As we gather on this day to remember the past and mourn those who
lost their lives, their homes, their families and their freedom, let us
pledge to do all that we can to ensure that the Armenian Genocide is
properly recognized and remembered to prevent such atrocities from
occurring in the future.

____________________

U.S. MARINE OFFICERS' GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD

of guam

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this week, fifty veterans and retirees
are gathering in Washington to celebrate the Golden Anniversary of
their commissioning as officers of the United States Marines. Although
their officers' class (11th SBC) was a relatively small one at a little
over 200 members, their backgrounds portray a remarkable tapestry of
Americana. They came from hometowns in 34 States of the Union, the
District of Columbia, and the Territory of Guam; and, they earned their
baccalaureate degrees came from over 100 colleges and universities
throughout the land.
In 1951, against the backdrop of a raging war in the Korean
Peninsula, they volunteered to serve and took the oath to support and
defend the United States of America. And defend it they did, sustaining
their share of combat casualties, both wounded and killed in action.
One of their members, Sherrod E. Skinner, was awarded the Medal of
Honor posthumously; another, John Word, received the nation's second
highest combat award, the Navy Cross. Others still, received the medals
and decorations for heroism and valor shown on the awards list.
Although only a relatively few members of the class became career
officers, many served and retired from the Marine Corps Reserve while
pursuing careers in law, education, religious ministry, athletics,
engineering, business, and politics. Among those who went into politics
is someone well known to many of us, my predecessor, General Ben Blaz,
who was elected to the Congress after retiring from the Marines. As a
former Member of Congress, Ben will be escorting his comrades to this
chamber where deliberations and decisions were made that committed them
to combat in Korea and Vietnam.
There is a marvelous irony in my having the privilege to call my
colleagues' attention to the contributions that these courageous men of
the Corps have made to our country, both in war and peace. During the
Spanish-American War, a young man from Gastonia, North Carolina joined
the Marines and was part of the contingent that was sent to Guam to
formally occupy the island. He was so enchanted by the island and, I
hasten to add, its lovely senoritas, that he chose to stay in Guam. In
time, he married a native girl and started a family. His name was James
Underwood. He was my grandfather.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for extending me the honor of paying tribute
to these veterans and retirees of the Corps and to salute them, in
behalf of our grateful nation, on the Golden Anniversary of their
commissioning as officers of Marines.

(Roster of members/wives of deceased members of the 11th
SBC Marines celebrating the 50th Anniversary of their
commissioning as Officers of Marines, May 3-5, 2001):
Robert Altick, Al Bailey, Robert Beezer, Gene Benbow,
Charles Bentzen, John Bickley, Ben Blaz, Ted Brothers,
Charles

[[Page 6462]]

Clifford, John Connor, Frank Delaney, and Bill Diederich.
Tom Fallon, Dale Faust, Marshall Figgatt, Benis Frank, Ced
Gifford, Bill Gilwee, Fred Grube, (Mrs.) Don Helgeson,
Maurice Heartfield, Bill Keating, John Keck, and Paul
Kortepeter.
Bill Kyle, Tom Lamb, Bob Land, Bob Lavine, (Mrs.) James
Lindsey, John Lussenhop, Andy McDonald, Harold Marshall, Joe
Molitoris, Gene Moyers, (Mrs.) Dick Norlin, and Larry O'Nele.
Herb Oxnam, Dick Paschal, Jordan Peck, Hank Pruitt, Tom
Qualls, Stan Rauh, Chayne Stinemetz, Dick Stone, Noval
Stephens, Speros Thomaidis, Peter Walker, and Stan Wilson.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. LOIS CAPPS

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, due to recent death of a close friend I was
unable to attend votes this week. Had I been here I would have made the
following votes:
Rollcall No. 85--``Yes,'' No. 86--``Yes,'' and No. 87--``No.''

____________________

NATIONAL AUTISM AWARENESS MONTH

______

HON. RONNIE SHOWS

of mississippi

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud member of the
Congressional Autism Caucus to remind my colleagues that the month of
April is National Autism Awareness Month, and that tomorrow,
Mississippi, and many other states will recognize April 27th as
National Autism Day. The ribbon that I wear is the International symbol
for autism, symbolizing the complexity of the disorder. The different
colors and shapes represent the diversity of the people and families
living with autism, while the brightness of the ribbon signals hope--
the hope to be found through increasing research, resources and
awareness.
This month gives us a unique opportunity to celebrate the progress we
have made in understanding Autism, and the goals we must continue to
fulfill. This century we have come a long way in overturning the
misconceptions of what autism is. We know that autism is a
developmental disability that over 400,000 people in the United States
are estimated to have. We know that it is four times more likely to be
diagnosed in boys as in girls. We know that there are many degrees of
severity of autism, but that all autistic people tend to exhibit
deficient social behavior, language and cognitive development. What we
still don't know though, is what causes Autism.
Last year, Congress passed landmark bi-partisan legislation, the
Children's Health Act of 2000, which was signed into law last October.
Within this legislation were major provisions for the creation of five
regional ``centers for excellence'' for research into autism,
administered the National Institute for Mental Health, as well as
education programs on autism for the community. The bi-partisan spirit
of cooperation, fueled by the thousands of involved parents, teachers,
and doctors in the autism community, enabled us to do what we were
intended to do in Congress; to provide a voice and resources for those
most in need of advocacy.
So, what do we do now? As Congress looks forward to debating
education legislation, we should be vigilant in our support for the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In 1975, the U.S. Congress
passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, also known as
IDEA, mandating that local school districts provide appropriate
education to students with special needs. Understanding that this could
be a costly endeavor, Congress agreed to fund up to 40 percent of the
average per pupil expenditure. However, to date, Congress has only
provided States with about 14 percent of the funds promised.
I have listened to countless parents of children with disabilities in
my district talk about the struggles and challenges they have in
getting their schools to properly educate their children. The years of
frustration parents have endured in attempting to get their children
appropriate assistance is disgraceful. Parents, particularly those of
children who have special needs, should have strong partnerships with
their schools. Instead, due to an often appalling lack of resources,
our parents and teachers sometimes find themselves having adversarial
relationships. This helps no one, least of all the child, whom our
schools seek to educate.
National Autism month reminds us to reflect on our responsibility to
do a better job of keeping the IDEA promise. As members of Congress, we
should celebrate how far we have come in meeting the needs of children
with disabilities, but remember that our job is far from over, and our
goals far from being fulfilled.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO HON. DOUGLAS ``TIM'' JAMERSON--A GREAT FLORIDIAN AND A GREAT
AMERICAN

______

HON. CARRIE P. MEEK

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the
late Douglas L. ``Tim'' Jamerson, the former Florida Education
Commissioner, Labor Secretary, and state legislator who died of cancer
this past Saturday at age 53.
I will not recount his incalculable, enormous contributions, other
than to say that without Doug Jamerson, Florida would be much less than
it is today. Without Doug Jamerson Florida would not be one of the
greatest state's in this union.
Mr. Jamerson understood that he was the first African American to
serve as Florida's Commissioner of Education. He understood that gave
him an obligation beyond his own race. He understood that Floridians
would be looking at what he did very carefully, but he also understood
that his role was that of doing what he could to improve education in a
far more universal sense. Through his many efforts--as Education
Commissioner, Labor Secretary, and State Legislator, guidance counselor
and friend, he improved the quality of life for millions of Floridians,
many more who were not Black, and not the least of them women.
Doug Jamerson, throughout his life, reminded us that Florida is a
state of opportunity, and America is a country of great promise, but
that that promise and opportunity has not yet been totally fulfilled.
Doug reminded us all that we all have a duty to help our state and our
nation fulfill its true promise.
The words of the great poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in his eulogy
to Charles Sumner, apply equally to Doug Jamerson. Wadsworth said:

Were a star quenched on high for ages would its light still
traveling downward from the sky shine on our mortal sight so
when a great man dies for years beyond our ken the light
behind lies upon the paths of men.

Douglas Jamerson is a uniquely special individual who was a
thoughtful and a principled public servant whose life will serve as a
reminder of everything that we must all strive to become. He has taught
us all, that its not how many years you live, but what you accomplish
in the years you have. Doug Jamerson accomplished much in his 53 years.

____________________

HONORING SUSAN MUSGRAVE AND THE LOS ALAMOS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

______

HON. TOM UDALL

of new mexico

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, when a deadly fire devastated
Los Alamos, New Mexico, and surrounding communities in May, 2000, Susan
Musgrave, the executive director of the Los Alamos Chamber of Commerce
stepped up to the challenge of helping the community recover and
rebuild. There are hundreds of unsung heroes from the Cerro Grande
fire, and Ms. Musgrave is one of them.
The intense Cerro Grande fire forced local residents to evacuate and
essentially closed down Los Alamos for eight days. When residents were
allowed to return on May 15, they found the fire had left more than 420
people homeless and destroyed a number of local businesses. To help the
town get back on its feet, the Chamber took the lead in coordinating
relief and rebuilding efforts.
I can attest that Ms. Musgrave and others met with me and my staff
during this time to see what they could do and to continue to provide
us with assistance. Within five days after the fire, in conjunction
with local banking institutions, the Chamber had established a loan
fund for Los Alamos businesses. These businesses could apply for a six-
month loan up to $25,000 with a 7.5 percent interest rate. The Chamber
paid the interest expense on the loans for six months.
Through this effort, more than $640,000 in loans were made available
to 37 companies in

[[Page 6463]]

Los Alamos. Businesses were able to take care of short-term financial
needs and stabilize the effects of lost revenue after being closed for
almost eight days. A Web site for construction contractors interested
in helping Los Alamos rebuild was on line within a week of the
disaster.
Thanks to generous donations from member businesses and individuals,
the Chamber was able to extend help to others with an immediate need
for funds, including renters and homeowners without insurance. By May
20, gifts in the amount of $1,000 were distributed to 97 families who
had lost their homes. As the fund grew, the Chamber was able to make a
second distribution in the amount of $500 to the same individuals. The
Chamber's total contribution topped $142,000. In addition, 12 college
students who lost their homes were each given $1,000 towards their
recovery needs.
The Chamber also helped spread the word that Los Alamos was once
again ``open for business'' through an innovative advertising campaign.
The Chamber underwrote 80 percent of the costs for member businesses
who took out advertisements to let the community know their businesses
were up and running against. The Chamber set up a similar advertising
campaign with the State of New Mexico's Economic Development Department
as a means to successfully bring tourists back to the area.
The Chamber's good deeds did not go unnoticed. Ms. Musgrave was named
New Mexico's Chamber Executive of the Year 2000 by the New Mexico
Business Journal and the Association of Commerce and Industry. The
award recognized her exceptional and exemplary services to the Chamber
and the community.
Thanks to the Los Alamos Chamber of Commerce's strong leadership and
coordination, Los Alamos recovered quickly. And, the Chamber has earned
respect and gratitude from its member businesses and the local
community.
Additionally, since then the recovery began, Ms. Musgrave has
continually been a leader in seeking to correct the technical setbacks
that have faced victims of the Cerro Grande fire. She has kept me
informed of the concerns of local businesses and the community in
general. Her actions led to my introducing legislation in the House of
Representatives, H.R. 1095, intended to make claims of the fire tax-
free.
The Chamber has also contacted me on issues that are not fire-
related. I am proud to serve as a member of the Small Business
Committee and, as a result, work on matters vital to the Chamber. For
example, we have worked together on daycare issues facing employees of
the Los Alamos National Laboratory and other equally important items.
Mr. Speaker, Susan Musgrave is not only a wonderful asset for the
Chamber of Commerce, but she is a true champion for the state of New
Mexico. I am proud to know her, and I thank her for her continued
service.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE LATE JOEY RAMONE

______

HON. ANTHONY D. WEINER

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent of
mine and an icon in the music world who recently passed away. Joey
Ramone, lead singer of the Ramones died after a long battle with cancer
on Easter Sunday. Born Jeff Hyman in Forest Hills, Queens, he changed
his name to Joey Ramone at age 23 and began stirring up the music world
with what was to become known as punk rock. The Ramones were at the
leading edge of the punk rock movement in the early to mid-1970s and
spoke to a generation of adolescents looking to find their way through
that decade.
Many of my colleagues here in Congress may not be familiar with the
music of the Ramones, or the impact they had on many in my generation
and on music in general. The Ramones were everything a classic rock and
roll band were not. They played short, simple songs. And they did it
loudly. They abhorred convention but compared to many of the bands
today, they did it with style. Irony, sincerity and humor ran through
many of their simple lyrics. They poked fun at the latest fad, and
often themselves, in a way that caused adolescents everywhere to nod
their heads in agreement.
The Ramones lasted an impressive 22 years. Their music helped spawn
musicians who would go on to create their own styles of rock and grunge
and rap-rock. At the heart of the Ramones was Joey, a notoriously shy,
gangly, nice guy, who until his death, loved to visit the local clubs
in New York and listen to the music he helped create.
I would like to submit for the Record a story from the April 22, 2001
edition of the New York Times which summarizes well, the life of Joey
Ramone:

A Star of Anti-Charisma, Joey Ramone Made Geeks Chic

(By John Leland)

FROM his home in Queens last week, Monte Melnick remembered
a time the Ramones stopped for gas in rural Texas. It was the
early days of punk rock, and the woman at the gas station
gave the band the once-over: matching leather bomber jackets
and ripped jeans, dopey mops of hair, four guys taking the
surname Ramone. Mr. Melnick, who was the tour manager, feared
there might be trouble. Instead, the woman smiled at him
indulgently. As Mr. Melnick, 51, recalled, ``She said, `It's
really nice, you taking care of these retarded boys.' ''
Joey Ramone, the gawky, geeky, lovable-loser singer of the
Ramones, died last Sunday of lymphatic cancer, never to be
underestimated again. His real name was Jeffrey Hyman; he was
49.
As the music world celebrates the 25th anniversary of punk,
the band's imprint--its goofy fury and delinquent humor--
echoes not just in the music of latter-day punks like Green
Day and Blink 182, but in the strain of self-aware, loser
comedy that has become the dominant adolescent rattle: ``The
Simpsons'' and ``South Park,'' pro wrestling and MTV's
blithely moronic ``Jackass.''
Mickey Leigh, Joey's younger brother, who played in a band
called the Rattlers, described the Ramones as a reaction to
the Queens streets where the band members grew up. ``The
humor was inherent to Forest Hills, a Jewish neighborhood,
and to the small circle of rejects and misfits that we
were,'' said Mr. Leigh, who, like his brother, was bar
mitzvahed. (Several other Ramones were not Jewish.) ``We were
always on the outside, rejected by the girls--not by all
girls, but by the pretty ones, who preferred guys with cars.
Our protective shell was to shock people.''
Picked on in Forest Hills, Joey made himself a star of
anti-charisma, fronting a band whose legend drew on failure
as easily as success. When my friends and I heard the Ramones
in the late 1970's, as underachieving college students, we
formed our own band--awful, but even at our lousiest, always
knowing. I like to think we were post-awful.
A set by the Ramones was a furious race to the finish line,
blurring bubble-gum riffs and cartoon pathologies: ``Now I
Wanna Sniff Some Glue,'' ``Teenage Lobotomy,'' ``I Wanna Be
Sedated.'' What you came away with depended in large part on
how you took the joke.
``We thought punk rock was going to be the biggest thing
ever,'' said John Holmstrom, 48, a cofounder of Punk
magazine, which coined the name for the music. ``We thought
we were mainstream. It was a shock to everyone at CBGB when
one by one it didn't happen.''
Charlotte Lesser, Joey's mother, always got the joke. Ms.
Lesser ran an art gallery and is a commercial artist. At
CBGB, the Bowery dive where the band got started, people used
to call her Mama Ramone, she said, adding: ``CBGB struck me
as too narrow, too crowded, and it had the worst bathrooms
you ever saw. But I always saw the whole thing as a funny
show.''
The Ramones emerged just when the radical thrust in pop
music was turning in on itself Hip-hop whittled down disco;
punk trimmed rock `n' roll to its loud essentials.
Writing about the Ramones and CBGB in The Village Voice in
1975, James Wolcott observed, ``No longer is the rock impulse
revolutionary--i.e., the transformation of oneself and
society--but conservative: to carry on the rock tradition.''
For all their locomotive mayhem, the Ramones were
preservationists. Even the name harked back, to the days when
Paul McCartney, as a Silver Beatle, called himself Paul
Ramon.
I think the impulse had much to do with age. Lou Reed,
punk's eminence grise, born in 1942, was able to sing of a
girl whose life was saved by rock `n' roll. For Mr. Reed,
whose childhood began before rock, the music bred
transformation, both personal and societal. Joey Ramone, born
in 1951, arrived as the shutter was closing on this
perspective. Punk was a last loud call to embrace these
moments of transition, when the world before rock became the
world after.
For later punks, these moments were only hearsay. By the
time Kurt Cobain, born in 1967, took up the legacy of the
Ramones, the music could aspire to be alternative, but not
revolutionary.
In his engagingly lurid memoir, ``Lobotomy: Surviving the
Ramones'' (1997), Dee Dee Ramone observed, ``A Ramones story
can't really have a happy ending.'' To the end, Joey lived in
a one-bedroom apartment in the East Village, originally
decorated by

[[Page 6464]]

his mother but long since submerged in his accumulated
clutter. On good days he walked around the neighborhood in an
odd, obsessive-compulsive fashion, always walking past a
curb, then back to touch it before moving on.
He became fixated by the stock market; the last great song
he wrote, said his friend Arturo Vega, the band's artistic
director, was a love song to Maria Bartiromo, the CNBC
business anchor.
Last week, fans turned the doorway of CBGB into a shrine
and filled Internet message boards with tributes--a testament
not just to Joey but to the eternal loneliness of
adolescence.
Mickey Leigh continued to ponder the deceptive complexity
of the Ramones' music. ``The intelligence was well
disguised,'' he said. Then he paused. ``Maybe there wasn't
that much intelligence.'' But there was, and warmth as well.
And for a still-growing legion of misfits, there is
community. As Joey sang, in a signature line culled from the
movie ``Freaks,'' ``Gabba gabba, we accept you, we accept
you, one of us.''

____________________

RE-OPEN PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE

______

HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, nearly six years ago, Treasury Secretary
Robert Rubin ordered Pennsylvania Avenue closed to vehicular traffic in
front of the White House. The Secretary did so with the powers granted
to him as head of the Secret Service, which allow him to
``temporarily'' shut down any road in the District of Columbia to
protect Presidential safety.
As anyone who has been stuck in the gridlock while trying to drive
across town certainly knows, that ``temporary'' blockade still exists.
And it exists much to the detriment of our nation's capital, where
unsightly concrete barriers make us look like a city under siege, as
well as to the detriment of the city of Washington, D.C., which has
suffered serious economic consequences as a result.
It's high time to re-open Pennsylvania Avenue and return Pierre
L'Enfant's grand boulevard--America's Main Street--to its proper role
as an uninterrupted link between the White House and the Congress and
as a vital east-west artery for the District of Columbia.
The National Capital Planning Commission is now evaluating what
impact the security measures around the White House, the national
memorials and Federal buildings have on our nation's capital. The first
subject they will be tackling is Pennsylvania Avenue, and the
Commission expects to make a recommendation on the Avenue to the
President by July.
I am today introducing a Sense of the House resolution urging the
Commission to adopt a plan that restores vehicular traffic--and, with
it, a sense of democratic openness--to Pennsylvania Avenue.
I do so with the support of Eleanor Holmes Norton and other members
of the local congressional delegation--Tom Davis and Jim Moran--and
other colleagues who share our concern about the closure of one of
America's most famous avenues. D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams and the City
Council are fully behind our efforts to re-open the Avenue as well.
To be sure, the security of the President remains paramount to us.
But we cannot build a glass bubble around the White House. I am
convinced there are prudent steps we can take--including slightly
reconfiguring the road and using pedestrian bridges to block truck
traffic from the stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White
House--that will allow us to re-open the road while protecting those
who live, work and visit the White House.

____________________

EXTRA MILE AWARDS

______

HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to salute the recipients of
the ``Extra Mile'' Awards given by the VNACare Network, Inc. The Extra
Mile Award for Caregivers recognizes the dedication of family
caregivers who go the extra mile in caring for a loved one. These
individuals inspire with their never-ending energy, devotion, and
compassion. The Extra Mile Award for Staff is presented to employees
who go above and beyond expectations. Their dedication to the VNACare
Network makes life easier for those in the office and improves the
quality of life for patients and their families.
The Caregiver Award is being given to Gilda Ryan of Ipswich,
Massachusetts for the constant care and love she gives her daughter
Julie. Staff working with her say this 80-year-old dynamo is a fearless
advocate, loving caregiver and her tenacity throughout these past 20
years has allowed her daughter to receive the absolute best care
available. She is a true model to nurses and home health aides alike in
character and caregiving. Leo Lavigne of Hudson, Massachusetts is also
receiving the award for taking care of his wife Frances. His caring and
careful attention to her complex medical problems has prompted the
staff to say that he may need to be recruited to alleviate the nursing
shortage. Richard Law of Worcester, Massachusetts is being recognized
for his steadfast, hands-on, loving, and devoted care of his late wife
Mary during her last days. He stayed strong--even though his heart was
breaking--so that Mary would not feel like a burden to her family. Alan
Basmajian and Family of Burlington, Massachusetts are recognized for
their courage, commitment, honesty, and love during the last days of
their wife and mother, Linda. Her goal of seeing her daughter graduate
from eighth grade was realized with incredible support from her family.
The Staff ``Extra Mile'' award is being given to Kathy Cronin-Reardon
of Gloucester, Massachusetts for her extraordinary caring and
compassion. Her workweek does not consist of 40 hours; she works
countless extra hours going unrecognized and even unpaid at times for
the sake of the families and patients that need her in difficult times.
Laurine Frykberg of Worcester, Massachusetts is being recognized for
her willingness to help both patients and staff alike. She is credited
with bringing the term ``flexibility'' to a new level, covering New
Year's Eve staff shortage with a smile dressed in her evening attire.
Sandra Stone of the Watertown, Massachusetts office is an exceptional
Home Care Aide who adapts readily to changing department needs with an
outstanding commitment to patients needing coverage. Her quiet calmness
and professionalism soothes the anxious--both patients and family
members. Ana Rodriguez is being recognized for her exemplary work as a
Home Care Aide Scheduling Coordinator. Not only has she been a cohesive
factor in uniting the office staff, but also she is praised by family
members and clinicians for her positive, enthusiastic, and consistent
efforts. Finally, Marion Ray is being recognized for her record in the
performance of her main responsibility of timely billing and collection
of accounts, her ability to manage a large staff with great skill, and
her diligence, work ethic and ``can do'' attitude.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to recognize these
outstanding individuals, and to thank them for all they have done to
improve the lives of the people of Massachusetts.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE BRONX SHEPHERDS RESTORATION CORPORATION

______

HON. JOSE E. SERRANO

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor for me to
recognize The Bronx Shepherds Restoration Corporation on its twenty-
second anniversary. Following is a congratulation letter I wrote to the
Executive Director for their continued service to the people of my
congressional district.

Mr. Theodore Jefferson,
Executive Director, Bronx Shepherds Restoration Corp., Bronx,
NY.
Dear Ted: On the auspicious occasion of the 22nd
Anniversary of The Bronx Shepherds Restoration Corporation I
want to be amongst the first to once again congratulate you
on the outstanding job you do. Your programs have greatly
enhanced the lives of the people of our district and your
continued commitment to them gives us all hope.
The Bronx Shepherds Restoration Corporation has served as
an exemplary model for other agencies seeking to serve
neighborhoods such as ours. I believe that as role models you
will continue to impact upon more organizations, and in this
way in the very near future the development of our Bronx
Community will amaze those that did not think such stability
and prosperity possible.
Your organization has always provided the support services
necessary for individuals to develop into active members of
society. Bronx Shepherds Restoration Corporation's record of
helping residents find affordable housing, education, and
better health care for our senior citizens is both invaluable
and impressive.
Once again, congratulations to the Bronx Shepherds on the
occasion of your 22nd anniversary. I remain ever grateful for
your work

[[Page 6465]]

in helping our community resolve the many dilemmas that we
encounter. I look forward to the continued growth and
development of your Corporation and wish you and your staff
every success.

____________________

HONORING HILLSBORO HIGH SCHOOL OF NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

______

HON. BOB CLEMENT

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my alma mater
Hillsboro High School of Nashville, Tennessee for significant
accomplishments in the ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the
Constitution'' Program. I am proud to announce that these fine students
are representing the state of Tennessee in the national finals of this
program on April 21-23 right here in Washington, DC.
More than 1200 students from across the nation will participate in
this national event. I know these young scholars from the 5th
Congressional District have 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 would like to commend these students and their teacher, Mary
Catherine Bradshaw, on this success. These students include: Sherrell
Bean, Maria Borea, Amanda Cox, Allysia Chamberlain, Doriada deLeon-
Chamorro, Elizabeth Dohrman, Kali Edwards, Adam Finch, Annallise Frank,
Jenny Hansen, Chase Hasbrook, Titiana Howell, Aubrey Hunt, Kate Hunter,
Enin Hutchenson, Elliot Layda, David McDaniel, Clay Morgan, Dalila
Paquiot, Sarah Payne, Riya Perkins, Casey Raetxloff, Ben Rigsby, Julie
Schneider, Niti Snighdha, Emily Tarpley, Kathy Tek, Kelly Tek, Shannon
Turbeville, Vanja Trubajic, and Savannah Welch.
``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' is the most
extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to
educate young people about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The
three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United
States Congress.
These hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students
before a panel of adult judges. The students' testimony is followed by
a period of questioning by the simulated congressional committee. The
judges probe students for their depth of understanding and ability to
apply their constitutional knowledge. This year's national finals will
include questions on James Madison and his legacy in honor of the 250th
Anniversary of his birth in 1751.
Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the ``We the People .
. .'' Program has provided curricular materials at upper elementary,
middle, and high school levels for more than 26.5 million students
nationwide.
The class from Hillsboro High School is currently conducting research
and preparing for the upcoming national competition in Washington, DC.
I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the
national finals and I look forward to seeing them when they visit
Capitol Hill.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO HENRY P. BECTON

______

HON. MARGE ROUKEMA

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Henry P. Becton,
Director Emeritus of Becton Dickinson (BD). On May 3, 2001 Henry Becton
will be honored by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) for his
``legacy of discovery in diabetes care''.
It is estimated that 300 million people will be affected by diabetes
by the year 2005. Currently, in the United States alone, the total
annual cost of diabetes is staggering at an estimated $98 billion.
Nearly 16 million Americans have the disease and many more are
undiagnosed. We desperately need more education and research. BD has
been instrumental in furthering efforts to treat and cure diabetes. I
am proud that the ADA has chosen to honor Henry and BD as partners in
their fine work.
BD has a long history of supporting the development of products and
services to people with diabetes. In fact in 1924, BD began to
manufacture all-glass syringes for insulin injection. New diabetes
initiatives include platforms for enhanced insulin delivery, our
inhaled liquid insulin program and the blood glucose monitoring
platform.
Some other facts about BD's work with the ADA include:
BD worked in partnership with the ADA to increase awareness of
diabetes and promote National Diabetes Awareness Month (now marked each
November).
BD is a member of ADA's Banting Circle, denoting participation at the
highest level of corporate sponsorship. (The Banting Circle is named
for the discoverer of insulin.)
BD provides free products and programs for the 20,000 children who
attend ADA summer camps each year. Many BD people volunteer at the
camps; others bike, walk and jog to raise funds for diabetes programs
and research. In each BD ``getting started kit'' provided to new
diabetes patients and new-to-insulin patients, BD also includes
information about the ADA to introduce patients to the organization.
Many BD employees have supported ADA programs by serving in
leadership positions throughout the ADA. BD has and continues to offer
professional workshops in conjunction with the ADA for healthcare
professionals and families as well as patients dealing with the
disease.
Henry Becton has been a tireless advocate for advancing diabetes
research and treatment. Henry epitomizes the care and commitment with
his own lifelong spirit of volunteerism and action. In fact, even today
Henry sits on the BD corporate contributions committee where he
continues to shape BD's charitable programs. For instance, he was a
member of the committee in 1994 that established the Diabetes Care Fund
to support non-profit public education initiatives, research
activities, and programs to benefit people with diabetes.
Throughout a century of growth, Becton Dickinson's commitment to
raising the quality of health care worldwide has remained constant. I
can testify to the high standards of personal character and integrity
that Henry Becton has brought to the business community and
philanthropic and civic communities of northern New Jersey. I
congratulate Henry Becton and wish him many years of continued success.

____________________

AFFORDABLE STUDENT LOANS

______

HON. GEORGE MILLER

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support
of the Affordable Student Loan Act, which I am introducing today.
Student loans--like Pell grants and work-study jobs--are essential to
providing all Americans with the opportunity to earn a college degree.
Now more than ever, a college education is one of the best
investments of a lifetime. In the workplace, a college degree is worth
75 percent more than a high school diploma, or $600,000 over a career.
Our children should pursue their academic dreams, but the loan
burdens we ask them to shoulder are increasingly troubling. Student
loan volume has more than doubled over the last seven years to $35
billion a year.
The average student loan debt at four-year public colleges is
$12,000. At four-year private colleges, it is $14,300. College
graduates with high loan debts may think twice about entering public
service, be more likely to default, and delay the purchase of their
first home.
To make matters worse, the Federal Government needlessly raises the
cost of student loans by charging a fee of up to 4 percent of the loan
principal. Students borrowing $1,000 actually receive as little as
$960. However, they will still be expected to repay the full $1,000,
plus interest.
Nearly all of these fees--up to 3 percent on guaranteed student loans
and up to 4 percent on direct student loans--are origination fees,
enacted in 1981 to reduce the deficit. Because their only purpose is to
raise revenue, the fees are often called ``the student loan tax.'' They
do not pay for administrative costs or serve any program purpose.
Nor are the fees necessary to limit the federal cost of student
loans. For example, on direct student loans, the Federal Government
will ``earn'' more than $5 for every $100 in loans made this year, even
after paying for all administrative and default costs. If Congress
eliminated on all fees, students would still pay a surcharge--rather
than receive a subsidy--on loans through the Direct Student Loan
program this year.
Students who borrow guaranteed loans also pay up to I percent
insurance fee into reserve funds to pay future default costs. Because
these reserve funds are larger than necessary to pay for defaulted
loans, the large majority of guaranty agencies waive this fee.

[[Page 6466]]

Finally, eliminating the fees will benefit all students. Over the
last two years, the Department of Education reduced interest rates and
fees on its direct student loans to match terms available from banks on
federally guaranteed student loans. The lower rates will save students
over $1 billion over the next five years, reduce defaults, and treat
students in both the direct and guaranteed loan programs fairly.
In response, a group of financial institutions sued Education to make
direct loans more expensive for students and drum up business for their
own student loans. The legislation I am introducing today will promote
stability in the loan programs by resolving this dispute and benefiting
students in both programs. It will leave students and schools free to
choose among the programs based upon the quality of service they offer.
Now is the time to end the student loan tax. The Affordable Student
Loans Act will save the typical student roughly $400 on their loans and
make college more affordable for students in both loan programs. I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

____________________

THE MEDICAID OBESITY TREATMENT ACT OF 2001

______

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, in honor of National Minority Health Month,
today I am introducing the ``Medicaid Obesity Treatment Act of 2001``
to elevate the visibility of a national health epidemic that is
wreaking particular havoc upon our minority communities. For too long,
obesity has escaped adequate attention from both policymakers,
scientists and the general public. With this bill, which will simply
provide Medicaid coverage for medically necessary treatments for
chronically obese beneficiaries, I hope to raise the level of attention
to this devastating illness. The Medicaid Obesity Treatment Act of 2001
is the first legislation ever introduced in the Congress to
specifically address the need to ensure access for all Americans to
drug therapies designed to treat obesity and its related comorbidities,
and I am proud to be its sponsor.
Obesity has truly become a national health care crisis. The National
Center for Health Statistics reports that 60 percent of Americans over
20 years of age are overweight or clinically obese. Weight-related
conditions represent the second leading cause of death in the United
States, and result in approximately 300,000 preventable deaths each
year.
According to the Surgeon General, the prevalence of overweight and
obesity has almost doubled among America's children and adolescents
since 1980. It is estimated that one out of five children is obese. The
epidemic growth in obesity acquired during childhood or adolescence is
particularly threatening to the national health because it often
persists into adulthood and increases the risk for some chronic
diseases later in life.
The prevalence of obesity in America is at an all time high,
affecting every State, both men and women, all ages, races, and
education levels. Disparities in health status indicators and risk
factors for diet-related disease are evident in many segments of the
population based on gender, age, race and ethnicity, and income.
Overweight and obesity are observed in all population groups, but
obesity is particularly common among Hispanic, African American, Native
American, and Pacific Islander women.
Too many Americans, particularly urban residents, have inadequate
access to fresh produce and healthy food products. Too many Americans
have desk jobs that afford them little opportunity to maintain adequate
physical conditioning. And for too many Americans today, the most
plentiful, available and affordable food is often the least nutritious.
For years, obesity was considered a lifestyle choice. Now, however,
it is increasingly understood to be an illness with serious health
consequences. It is proven that overweight and obesity are associated
with significantly higher mortality rates. Additionally, obesity
substantially increases the risk of other illnesses, including breast
cancer, colon cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, cardiovascular
disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, heart
disease, stroke, gallbladder disease, arthritis, sleep disturbances and
respiratory problems.
The costs of obesity on the public health system are truly
staggering. The total cost, both in terms of health care and lost
productivity, of obesity alone was estimated as $99 billion in 1995. As
it becomes more prevalent, obesity's toll on the national economy will
only grow.
There is some promising news, however. Science has made great strides
in recent years to both understand and combat obesity. Several new
drugs offer great promise in the fight to prevent and treat obesity and
its related comorbidities.
Unfortunately, however, coverage of these drugs is excludable under
Medicaid due to an eleven year old provision that allows states to
exclude weight loss drugs, even in cases where these drugs have the
potential to save lives. This provision is based upon the outdated
notion of obesity as a ``lifestyle choice'' and the notion of anti-
obesity medication as cosmetic in nature. These notions, and the
provision based upon them, are no longer valid scientifically, and must
be stricken from the law. Medically necessary medicine for the
treatment of chronic obesity should be covered under Medicaid like any
other medically necessary drug. This is the purpose and goal of this
bill.

Although this expansion in Medicaid coverage might incur some
marginal cost to the overall program, requiring states to cover proven
obesity medication may actually reduce Medicaid expenditures as a
result of decreases in the costs associated with treating obesity-
related comorbidities such as diabetes and heart disease. Given the
numerous collateral benefits of reducing obesity, in addition to the
underlying treatment of obesity for the disease that it is, it makes
good sense and good public policy to provide Medicaid beneficiaries
access to life saving antiobesity medicines.
Finally, as the Congress looks towards the formation of a
prescription drug benefit for all Americans, we must be wary of simply
importing the outdated notions implicit in Medicaid coverage
definitions which might have the effect of denying access to medically
necessary weight loss drugs. Any prescription drug benefit must provide
coverage for medically necessary medications for chronic obesity
consistent with its coverage of other medically necessary disease
treatments.
Obesity is a growing epidemic across the nation which must be
addressed with more than just words. This bill offers an important
first step towards stemming the tide against this preventable killer.
During this year's observance of National Minority Health Month, I am
pleased to introduce this bill to both highlight the epidemic of
obesity, which strikes particularly hard in the minority community, and
to do something substantive about it. I encourage my colleagues to join
me in supporting it.

____________________

TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

______

speech of

HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN

of rhode island

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, April 25, 2001

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 41, the
Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment, which would require a two-
thirds majority vote in Congress to pass legislation increasing
internal Federal revenues, except in time of war or military conflict.
While I support a simpler, fairer and more efficient tax code, I cannot
back this fiscally irresponsible proposal, which would unnecessarily
tamper with the Constitution and undermine its principle of majority
rule.
This resolution would deny Congress its legislative ability to
address weaknesses in our current tax code and possibly close outdated
and costly tax loopholes. Further, this constitutional amendment would
prevent us from passing reconciliation bills, which reduce future
deficits by making balanced spending cuts and raising revenues, unless
there are tax cuts of equal size.
The philosophical battle over supermajorities was waged after the
Articles of Confederation was enacted. During, this debate, our
Founders became convinced that supermajorities were unfeasible and that
a simple majority--our present system for the passage of tax bills--was
the most practical. For centuries, our government has abided by this
fundamental principle and concluded that our republic would be
compromised if a two-thirds majority vote were required for revenue
bills and other day-to-day legislative matters routinely before us.
We all want to protect hard-working families from tax increases, but
requiring a two-thirds vote to raise revenues to pay for spending
initiatives that we have already authorized would make funding our
national priorities even more problematic. Furthermore, this
constitutional amendment would make it extraordinarily difficult to
extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and reduce our
national debt. Finally, this legislation is largely unworkable, given
the vagueness and ambiguity of its language. If Congress is truly
concerned about

[[Page 6467]]

guarding the American public from unwarranted tax increases, it should
pass meaningful tax reform legislation, maintain a balanced budget, and
trust American citizens to elect representatives who will legislate in
their best interests.
For these reasons, I cannot support this proposed change to the
Constitution. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this
imprudent measure.

____________________

HONORING THE MEMORY OF RICHARDSON PREYER, FORMER MEMBER OF THE HOUSE

______

speech of

HON. EVA M. CLAYTON

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, April 25, 2001

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words about a North
Carolina native son, the Honorable Lunsford Richardson Preyer. He died
this month but left a legacy of dedicated, visionary and exemplary
service to his family, community, state and nation.
He was bom in Greensboro, NC in 1919 and lived and served during a
difficult time in the history of our state and nation. Racial
discrimination was widespread during his early life. African Americans
were objects of legal, social and economic oppression. However,
Richardson Preyer rose above the prevailing conditions and displayed
remarkable moral integrity, tolerance and support for racial diversity
and human rights.
After graduating from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, he
returned home. Although an heir to a family fortune, he chose to engage
in efforts to resolve conflicts between contending groups in society.
He was well-suited to be a judge; he served as a state court trial
judge and in 1961 was appointed to a lifetime position on the federal
District Court. A few years later, he left this comfort zone seeking
other opportunities to serve. In 1964, he ran unsuccessfully for
Governor of North Carolina. He served several years as a bank executive
and, in 1968, was elected and served the 6th District of North Carolina
for six terms in the United States Congress.
Mr. Preyer was a gentleman and a scholar and a bold and courageous
leader. He was given much and he gave much. It is fitting that we pay
tribute to his life and legacy. He was a good man.

____________________

JESSIE ROBERSON--A GOOD CHOICE FOR A CRUCIAL JOB

______

HON. MARK UDALL

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, one of the most difficult and
most important jobs in the Federal Government is overseeing the cleanup
of the vast complex of Department of Energy sites where plutonium and
other nuclear weapons components were produced or processed.
Coloradans have a big stake in this because our State is home to a
number of these sites, notably the Rocky flats site in the district I
represent.
So, I rise to applaud the reported decision of President Bush to
nominate Ms. Jessie Roberson, to the important position of Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management. I think it is an
excellent choice.
I had the opportunity to work with Jessie when she headed the Rocky
flats project in Colorado. I took an immediate liking to her--not just
because of her professionalism and no-nonsense style, but also because
she seemed to me to enjoy working hard, while maintaining a sense of
good humor.
Her tenure at Rocky flats was highly successful. She led agency
efforts to keep the commitment, first made by Energy Secretary Federico
Pena, to give a high priority to finishing full cleanup and closure of
rocky flats on a much earlier timetable than had previously been
proposed.
I know I speak for all of my colleagues in the Colorado delegation in
wishing her the very best as she undertakes important new
responsibilities at the Department of Energy.
A recent editorial by the Denver Post put it right by calling Jessie
Roberson a ``top flight'' pick. For the information of our colleagues,
I submit that editorial for the Record:

[From the Denver Post, April 3, 2001]

Roberson a Top-Flight Pick

U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abrahams is getting some top-
flight help in cleaning up the nation's Cold War legacy:
Jessie Roberson, who headed the Department of Energy's Rocky
Flats closure project in Colorado, is being nominated to
manage DOE's entire environmental cleanup program nationwide.
Roberson will be the second Rocky Flats veteran to move
into a key DOE post. Earlier, the White House announced it
will nominate Robert Card for undersecretary of energy. Card
previously headed Kaiser-Hill, the contractor doing the
cleanup at Rocky Flats, the mothballed nuclear bomb trigger
factory north of Golden.
The Rocky Flats crew led by Roberson and Card accomplished,
in just three years of teamwork, more progress toward cleanup
and closure than the facility had logged in the previous
decade.
It's understandable that Abrahams would look toward the
people who brought DOE past success to move the entire
department toward its future goals.
Roberson is an excellent choice. She is a nuclear engineer
who in 1996 was named the national Black Engineer of the Year
for Professional Achievement in Government. That same year,
she took the reins at Rocky Flats, where her personable but
no-nonsense style got the flagging project on track.
In 1999, the Democratic Clinton administration tapped
Roberson for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, which
provides independent oversight at DOE nuclear sites on all
issues affecting health and safety.
Now the Republican Bush Administration also has recognized
the value of her 17 years of nuclear safety experience.
As assistant energy secretary for environmental management,
Roberson will oversee the cleanup of all the country's Cold
War atomic sites. Among them: Hanford, the toxic and
radioactive nightmare in eastern Washington. Savannah River,
the South Carolina reactor and processing plant that must be
modernized. And Rocky Flats, the one place DOE has scored
read progress toward cleanup.
With Abrahams at the top and Card in the No. 2 slot,
Roberson will round out DOE's civilian management team.
The department's environmental management job, in fact, is
one of the toughest positions in the federal government
today. There likely isn't a better person around to tackle
the task, however, that Jessie Roberson.

____________________

TAX LIMITATION AMENDMENT: H.J. RES. 41

______

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. J. Res. 41,
the Tax Limitation Amendment 2001.
H.J. Res. 41 amends the U.S. Constitution to require that any bill,
resolution or legislative measure that proposes to change Internal
Revenue laws must have the approval of two-thirds of those voting in
the House of Representatives and the Senate. This requirement would not
apply when a declaration of war is in effect, or when the United States
is engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and serious
threat to national security as found by both Chambers and the
President.
Mr. Speaker, in his famous McCulloch vs. Maryland opinion, Chief
Justice John Marshall stated that ``The power to tax is the power to
destroy.'' This amendment sets out to make it more difficult for the
Congress to arbitrarily erase taxes, and presumably, makes the Federal
Government more efficient and less bloated with unnecessary spending.
History has demonstrated that it is far easier for Congress to raise
taxes to cover spending deficits than it is to reduce that spending to
reasonable levels. This is all the more true today, now that the
government is operating at a surplus. Neither party wants to be held
responsible for any future return to peacetime deficit spending. Should
such an event appear likely to occur, the temptation to raise taxes to
cover any potential deficit would be overwhelming.
The enactment and ratification of this amendment would thus prevent a
return to the situation which existed in this country 25 years ago.
During the 1970s, middle-class families were struggling to get by under
crippling high marginal tax rates, which, thanks to high inflation and
bracket creep, reached deeper into the working class ranks with every
passing year.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to fully support H. J. Res. 41, The
Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. SUSAN DAVIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on roll call No. 85 and 86, I
was delayed due to

[[Page 6468]]

aircraft mechanical problems. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on both.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. HENRY E. BROWN, JR.

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on roll call No. 59 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

WALTER ARBIB

______

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 26, 2001

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I stand to recognize and salute a
dear friend and a wonderful human being, Walter Arbib.
A resident and native of Israel before moving to Canada in 1988,
Walter Arbib started his career as an Israeli tourist agent and took
advantage of the normalized relations between Israel and Egypt for his
business. As his work progressed and new horizons seemed to dawn,
Walter came upon the idea of moving his work into the international
relief area. Already, at this point, as co-owner of a number of SkyLink
discount travel offices, Walter established his headquarters in
Toronto, Canada and was the catalyst for a dream that has grown
exponentially since that time. What began as a group of small travel
offices has evolved into SkyLink Group which includes SkyLink Express,
an air courier business; SkyLink Travel, a discount airline ticket
agency; Sishost Corp., an Internet-based application hosting platform;
and Dollar Rent-A-Car.
At a cursory glance, the SkyLink group of companies seems no more
than an affordable, expansive travel group. However, Walter Arbib's
vision has gone much further than simply affordable travel. SkyLink
Aviation, Inc. is an internationally licensed operator of aircraft and
helicopters which specializes in Air Support Project Management, Air
Charters, Aviation Support, Aircraft Maintenance, Air Courier,
Executive Aircraft, Flight Planning and Clearance Services. In short,
SkyLink supplies much needed air support for humanitarian and other
missions throughout the globe.
Walter's clientele has become as diverse as the United Nations
(incidentally one of SkyLink's first contracts). Foreign governments,
as well as the United States, have hired Walter Arbib and SkyLink to
deliver food to refugees, evacuate workers, and fly into dangerous
areas to provide aid and transportation. SkyLink owns approximately
fourteen planes and four helicopters, but leases the bulk of its
aircraft from a network of companies, sometimes as many as one hundred
planes can be involved in any given operation in a matter of hours.
Walter's company is always on call. If an emergency request comes
through, SkyLink is prepared to act immediately.
Often, Walter doesn't even wait for a call before his aircraft are on
their way to participate or spearhead disaster relief halfway across
the globe. During severe flooding in Mozambique, SkyLink started to
move their helicopters before Walter was even asked. His pro-active
approach to work is a combination of good business sense and an
understanding of the international need for an operation like SkyLink.
Walter Arbib and SkyLink have received thankful letters and honors from
many countries that are grateful for the service that he has provided.
SkyLink's work can sometimes deviate from the stated objective. The
most illustrative example occurred in 1994 when SkyLink was hired to
bring aid to Rwanda, in the midst of war. During this operation,
SkyLink's Operation Manager discovered nine hundred orphans with two
aid workers struggling in abysmal working conditions. A decision was
quickly made that SkyLink would donate its aircraft and manpower to the
first wave of supplies, and would help set up an adequate shelter for
the orphans. Back at headquarters, Walter stated matter-of-factly that
he had heard this incredible story from his manager, and decided to
lend a helping hand, because those children were in the middle of
nowhere and the people in the field said that they were not leaving
before they had a chance to help. Such devotion and goodwill is ever-
pervasive in SkyLink under Arbib's leadership.
Walter Arbib has prospered because of SkyLink's extensive business
ventures, but never lost sight of the main reason that this business is
such a success on a number of levels. More often than not, the SkyLink
symbol can be seen on the helicopters and planes evacuating refugees or
bringing aid and supplies to needy citizens of other countries. While
this has meant greater profits for Walter, it also fills him with a
sense of pride that even in a business venture, comfort and aid can be
brought to the needy throughout the world.
The international community is extremely grateful to this
humanitarian whose work many times provides the difference of life or
death for countless people in the path of danger.