Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 107th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m.Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

.

H203

Vol. 147 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2001 No. 17

House of RepresentativesThe House met at 10 a.m. and was

called to order by the Speaker pro tem-pore (Mr. MILLER of Florida).

f

DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be-fore the House the following commu-nication from the Speaker:

WASHINGTON, DC,February 7, 2001.

I hereby appoint the Honorable DAN MIL-LER to act as Speaker pro tempore on thisday.

J. DENNIS HASTERT,Speaker of the House of Representatives.

f

PRAYER

Imam Bassam A. Estwani, Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center, Herndon, Vir-ginia, offered the following prayer:

All praise is for God, the Lord of theworlds.

The compassionate, the merciful.Master of the day of judgment.O God, You alone we worship and You

alone we call on for help.O God, guide us to the straight way.The way of those whom You have

blessed; not of those who have earnedYour anger, or of those who have lostthe way.

We pray that You guide this noblebody of men and women to seek justiceand equality for all. For as You said:

O mankind. We created you from amale and a female and made you intonations and tribes that you may knowand honor each other. Indeed the mosthonorable of you in the sight of God isthe most righteous. Amen.

f

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheChair has examined the Journal of thelast day’s proceedings and announcesto the House his approval thereof.

Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour-nal stands approved.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the

gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.MURTHA) come forward and lead theHouse in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. MURTHA led the Pledge of Alle-giance as follows:

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

f

WELCOME TO IMAM BASSAM A.ESTWANI, DAR AL-HIJRAH IS-LAMIC CENTER, HERNDON, VIR-GINIA(Mr. THOMAS M. DAVIS of Virginia

asked and was given permission to ad-dress the House for 1 minute and to re-vise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS M. DAVIS of Virginia.Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr.Imam Bassam A. Estwani for joining ustoday as the guest chaplain and offer-ing this morning’s prayer. He is thechairman of the board of the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center, which is one ofthe Nation’s most active and influen-tial mosques, located in the 11th Con-gressional District, which I represent.He has participated in many inter-national conferences that focus onIslam and religious values in America.He has been instrumental in bringingmembers of different faith commu-nities together to promote social jus-tice.

Mr. Estwani is a native of Syria. Hehas a law degree from the University ofDamascus. He studied Islamic law inDamascus and at the University ofCairo. In Kuwait, Mr. Estwani partici-pated in the publication of the Ency-clopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence. InLebanon, he established an Islamicpublishing house that produced morethan 200 titles in a number of differentlanguages. He also participated in andsponsored relief and literacy programsfor orphans and the homeless in thiscountry and overseas.

The American Muslim community isgrowing, both in Northern Virginia andaround this country, numbering over 6million Americans today. I am veryproud to represent one of the largestconcentrations of American Muslims,who have chosen Northern Virginia astheir home; and we are just very, veryproud to have you offer the prayertoday.

f

BETTERING RURAL HEALTH CAREIN AMERICA

(Mr. MCINTYRE asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. MCINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, as co-chairman of the Rural Health Care Co-alition, I want to thank my good friendand the former cochairman, the gen-tleman from Iowa (Mr. NUSSLE), for allof his hard work on behalf of ruralhealth care. His leadership will bemissed, but I am sure my colleagueswill join me in representing the gen-tleman from Kansas (Mr. MORAN) as co-chairman of our Rural Health Care Co-alition.

Just 2 days ago, I had the oppor-tunity to visit Cape Fear Valley Med-ical Center in Fayetteville, NorthCarolina, along with Senator JOHN ED-WARDS from North Carolina, to talkabout the impact that the BalancedBudget Act of 1997 has had on the qual-ity of care. While I am pleased thatthose of us in Congress have taken sig-nificant steps over the last 2 years tostop cuts in Medicare, we have muchmore to do to ensure that all citizens,no matter where they live in America,have access to quality health care.

The voice of rural America needs tobe heard and to be heard loudly inthese halls of Congress. I encourage allof my colleagues here in the Congressto join our efforts to make sure that,as we talk about and work to improvehealth care, that we are improving it

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH204 February 7, 2001for all Americans everywhere, so thatno one is left behind.

f

TIME TO GIVE BACK THE BUDGETSURPLUS TO AMERICA’S FAMILIES

(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, manyNevadans have come to me and said,Jim, I just can’t make ends meet. Weare paying more and more in taxes.How are we supposed to save for our re-tirement, pay off our mortgage, or evensend our kids to college?

Well, Mr. Speaker, these concerns arereal. According to the Census Bureau,the average household today pays al-most $9,500 in Federal income taxesevery year, and that is twice what itpaid in 1985. By conservative estimates,the Federal Government will have arecord-breaking surplus this year of$5.6 trillion.

Now it is time to grant the hard-working Americans the tax relief theyso deserve and need. The tax reliefpackage that President Bush has out-lined will give $1,600 back to the aver-age working American family of four.This $1,600 could pay their mortgagefor a month, help pay off a credit carddebt, or the tuition at a communitycollege for one year.

The surplus was created by the taxdollars of the American people. It be-longs to them. There is no excuse forCongress not to give the hard-workingAmericans what they want, what theyneed and what they deserve, a taxbreak. It is time to give the extramoney back.

f

WASHINGTON-LINCOLNRECOGNITION ACT OF 2001

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland askedand was given permission to addressthe House for 1 minute and to reviseand extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr.Speaker, I am pleased to announce thatyesterday on the 90th birthday of oneof my favorite Presidents, RonaldReagan, I introduced legislation thatwill honor two of my most favoritePresidents, George Washington andAbraham Lincoln.

My legislation, the Washington-Lin-coln Recognition Act of 2001, will ac-complish two goals: first, my bill willcorrect a long-standing misconceptionregarding the Federal holiday honoringWashington’s birthday, which in law isdesignated Washington’s Birthday, butwhich is erroneously called President’sDay by many since a 1971 Nixon procla-mation.

Second, my legislation urges ourPresident to issue a proclamation eachyear recognizing the anniversary of thebirth of President Abraham Lincoln.Although this does not create a newFederal holiday, I believe it will serveto bring this great leader the recogni-tion he deserves. At the present time,

there is no official Federal recognitionof President Lincoln’s birthday.

As I have always said, when youhonor everyone, you honor no one.Simply celebrating a generic Presi-dent’s Day diminishes the accomplish-ments of great Presidents like Wash-ington and Lincoln and rewards themediocrity of others.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to work-ing with my colleagues on this issueand the passage of the Washington-Lin-coln Recognition Act of 2001.

f

BUYING OUR WAY INTOBANKRUPTCY

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, thetrade deficit is at $10 billion a week, $40billion a month, a half trillion dollarsa year. Unbelievable. Japan continuesto take $60 billion out of our economya year, and China is now taking over$100 billion a year out of America, andboth Japan and China continue to keepAmerican products out.

Now, if that is not enough to neuteryour dragon, China has missiles point-ed at us.

Beam me up. A Nation that buysmore than they sell will go bankrupt,and a Nation that allows illegal tradedestroys all American industry.

I yield back the bankruptcy of Amer-ica’s steel industry. Day after day thefilings continue to mount up.

f

HIGHLIGHTING THE IMPORTANCEOF THE RURAL HEALTH CARECOALITION

(Mr. MORAN of Kansas asked andwas given permission to address theHouse for 1 minute and to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker,I rise today to join the gentleman fromNorth Carolina (Mr. MCINTYRE) inhighlighting the importance of a cau-cus here in this Congress, the RuralHealth Care Coalition. It is a group ofus, 160 strong, both Republicans andDemocrats, who have come together toadvance the cause on behalf of ruralAmerica and to make certain that ourconstituents, our citizens across thiscountry, can access health care, re-gardless of where they live.

I would encourage my colleagues, thenew Members of Congress and thosewho have not considered belonging toour organization, to do so, for the pur-pose of educating ourselves, advocatingour positions with other Members ofCongress and leveraging our votes.

We would encourage our urban col-leagues to join us as well, becausemany of them have very similar issues,as our constituents try to obtain thehealth care necessary.

I commend the gentleman from Iowa(Mr. NUSSLE) and thank him for hisleadership of this organization over thelast 2 years and look forward to work-

ing with my colleague from NorthCarolina for the next two.

f

CLOSING THE PRESIDENTIALOFFICE OF RACE RELATIONS

(Ms. MCKINNEY asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, how inthe world can a President who lost theAfrican American vote, the Latinovote, the Asian American vote and thepopular vote shut down the Presi-dential Office of Race Relations?

I thought George W. Bush wanted tochange the tone in Washington. Ormaybe changing the tone to PresidentBush means stifling minority voices. Ihope not.

Our President confided to us that heis just a ‘‘white guy Republican.’’ Well,we know that. But all of America isnot white or Republican, and he hasgot to serve us too. He said he would bePresident for all Americans. Our Presi-dent needs to listen to America’s mi-norities and give us a chance to beheard.

The Office of Race Relations was aneffort on the part of the previous Presi-dent to allow minority voices to beheard. This is not a good move to re-store healing in America or to allowthis administration to bridge the racialdivide. It sends a terrible message towhites and minorities who care aboutracial healing in this country.

I hope the President and his adviserswill reconsider this action.

f

ENSURING TAX CUTSSTRENGTHENS AMERICA

(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked andwas given permission to address theHouse for 1 minute and to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speak-er, we are now considering the questionof tax relief: What kind of tax reliefshould we have? How far should we goto stimulate the economy?

It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that wehave heard a lot of bragging out of theWhite House for the last 7 years thatthe 1993 tax increase was part of thereason that we have had such a goodeconomy. But now I see nobody, no-body on that side of the aisle or any-place else, suggesting that we shouldhave a tax increase now to stimulatethe economy. It is ridiculous.

The question is, how do we have somekind of tax cuts that are going to helpkeep this economy strong? One of thegreatest contributors to the surplus orovertaxation is the Social Securitytax. That is where most of the surplushas come from. The challenge is—howdo we use that money, how do we savethat money—because we are going toneed it starting in 2010 when the babyboomers retire. The challenge is great.

I urge the American people and thisbody to become familiar with the de-bate on how do we give the kind of tax

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H205February 7, 2001cuts that are best going to lead to astrong economy and a strong America.

f

b 1015

GORO HOKAMA POST OFFICEBUILDING

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker,I move to suspend the rules and passthe bill (H.R. 132) to designate the fa-cility of the United States Postal Serv-ice located at 620 Jacaranda Street inLanai City, Hawaii, as the ‘‘GoroHokama Post Office Building’’.

The Clerk read as follows:H.R. 132

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. GORO HOKAMA POST OFFICE BUILD-

ING.(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the

United States Postal Service located at 620Jacaranda Street in Lanai City, Hawaii,shall be known and designated as the ‘‘GoroHokama Post Office Building’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law,map, regulation, document, paper, or otherrecord of the United States to the facility re-ferred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed tobe a reference to the Goro Hokama Post Of-fice Building.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. GIB-BONS). Pursuant to the rule, the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. MILLER) andthe gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs.MINK) each will control 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. MILLER).

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker,I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume.

On January 3 of this year, I intro-duced H.R. 132, to designate the PostOffice on the island of Lanai as the‘‘Goro Hokama Post Office.’’ I thankthe majority of this committee for al-lowing me to bring this bill up at thisearly stage in our session, and I knowthat this is a moment of great honor toMr. Hokama, whom I advised yester-day. Although it is only 5:00 a.m. in Ha-waii, I believe that he and his familyare listening.

The Lanai Post Office came to my at-tention, and it is in my district; it is asmall island with only 3,000 people, butthe Post Office situation came to myattention several years ago. The popu-lation had grown at that point andthere were post office boxes on the out-side of the Old Post Office, and it be-came quite evident that a new buildinghad to be constructed. So, after yearsof waiting, finally in February of theyear 2000, a new post office was con-structed.

I think that it is extremely appro-priate, therefore, that this post officebe named the Goro Hokama Post Of-fice. I have known Mr. Hokama almostthe entire time that I have been activein politics, since the late 1950s. I haveknown him as a person of enormousdedication and integrity. He has givenof his life to the growth and develop-

ment of the island of Lanai where hewas born and where his family cur-rently resides. He was picked out as aperson of great leadership potential.Even in his high school, he was electedto serve as the student body president.

Like most other young men, he wentoff to war, served in the army, cameback and began his public service ca-reer. He was employed by the DolePineapple Company, which virtuallyran the entire economic industry ofLanai for many, many years, and was amember of the International Long-shoremen and Warehousemen’s Unionand served in many important capac-ities.

I recall that he came to Washingtonduring my first tenure here as a Mem-ber of Congress representing the inter-ests of the working people of this Na-tion, as well as the people of his union,the ILWU. He continues to serve inmany capacities as a member of thatunion.

His life story expands the traditionallife story of most people who are activein civic affairs, in athletic programs,giving of himself in every possible way.But the thing that singles out GoroHokama is someone who is deserving ofthis honor that we are bestowing onhim today is his 42 years in elective of-fice, representing his island on theMaui County Council and previously onthat same board which was then namedthe Board of Supervisors. He chairedthis County Council for 16 years, servedin all of the various capacities, andreally exerted not just a feeling ofLanai and his hometown, but the es-sence of Hawaii, the directions that wewanted to go, the concern that he al-ways expressed about working families.

He also was active in the Hawaii As-sociation of Counties and served aspresident 11 times and came to numer-ous meetings with NACO, the NationalAssociation of Counties. He has cur-rently not abandoned his responsibil-ities; in fact, he has engaged himself inmany, many more ways. He serves asthe chairman of the Maui County Hos-pital Management committee and hasbeen, since 1998, vice-chair of the MauiCivil Service Commission. In fact,when I called to reach him yesterday,he was presiding over that Civil Serv-ice Commission meeting over on Maui.

So with his family, his wife, KiwaeDeguchi and their two children, Rikiand Joy, who I know are all very, veryhonored and pleased at this efforttoday in the naming of the centralplace on Lanai Island where everybodygoes and to have the name of GoroHokama emblazoned over this post of-fice is just a small way to honor thishumble and simple public servant forall of the years that he has devoted tothe betterment of their lives. So I ampleased to stand and offer this bill andto ask Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as hemay consume to the gentleman fromthe First Congressional District of Ha-waii (Mr. ABERCROMBIE).

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, Iwant to particularly thank the chair-

man today for the opportunity to behere. Mr. Speaker, it is probably some-thing that many of us tend to take forgranted over time, that we have the op-portunity to be on this floor and tosponsor bills such as the Goro HokamaPost Office Building bill, and in somerespects could be seen by others as proforma. I think, Mr. Speaker, we havelearned, and I am sure the chairmanhas learned, that it is the obvious thatwe have to repeat to ourselves over andover again, because it is the obviousthat sometimes we take most forgranted and forget first. This, perhaps,Mr. Speaker, is one of those occasions,where we remind ourselves that wereally, in fact, do have the high honorand privilege of serving the people ofthis Nation.

While the issues may be weighty inmany respects and a somber and soberattitude required with respect to theadjudication of these issues and theresolution of these issues, today I cantell my colleagues, this is an occasionof joy for the gentlewoman from Ha-waii (Mrs. MINK) and myself, and Ihope, by extension in some small way,for the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.GIBBONS) as presiding officer, and forthe gentleman from Florida (Mr. MIL-LER) today, to be here because we have,in fact, the opportunity to recognize,as my colleague indicated, a publicservant, someone who has seen himselfalways as the humble servant of thepeople of Hawaii and, most particu-larly, the people of Lanai.

As the gentlewoman from Hawaii(Mrs. MINK) indicated, the island ofLanai is a small island; small in popu-lation, small in size, known the worldover as the Pineapple Island, and GoroHokama is central to the history ofthis island, not only from the timethat he spent as a young man beforehis service in the United States Army,but almost literally upon the time thathe returned from the service to Lanaito take up his duties as a member ofthe ILWU in representing the workingpeople of the island of Lanai. He waselected to public office. The people whoknew him best, who knew him from thetime he was a little boy, understoodthat in Goro Hokama, they had some-one of extraordinary ability. That abil-ity and insight, I might add, Mr.Speaker, was such that he encouragedpeople. He encouraged people to par-ticipate in the public life of Hawaii,and with statehood 41 years ago, theexperience that he had with the coun-ty, the experience he had with my goodand dear friend, the gentlewoman fromHawaii (Mrs. MINK), and in encouragingher, and this is not always possible. Itis something we take for granted now,Mr. Speaker.

It was not easy to be a member of aminority. It was not easy to be seen assomeone who did not have control ofthe levers of power, to be able to con-tinue to succeed, to encourage others,to participate in a way that gave oth-ers confidence in him, and GoroHokama was the person who did that.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH206 February 7, 2001Goro Hokama was someone who en-couraged the gentlewoman from Ha-waii (Mrs. MINK) to pursue her politicalcareer which has manifested itself inthe marvelous record that she has herein the United States Congress. GoroHokama was someone that encourageda young kid from the east coast of theUnited States who had come all theway to Hawaii in the hopes of begin-ning another life with statehood as Idid 41 years ago, not only encouragedme, but gave me the idea that it waswhat I had to contribute that counted.It was what was in my heart thatcounted. And when we have a man likeGoro Hokama as a guiding light, as amentor, as someone who can makeclear the path for you, encouraging youall the way, it is something that istruly to be treasured.

So my colleague and I come to thefloor today with a sense that with thenaming of the Goro Hokama Post Of-fice Building, there is a conclusion to alife of public service, and I hope thathis grandsons, Jordan and Trent, pos-sibly are up at 5 o’clock in the morn-ing, too, to see their grandfather hon-ored.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to concludemy remarks by again thanking thechairman, not only for his consider-ation, but for giving us the opportunityto honor someone who truly deservesit, a great American, a great son of Ha-waii, a true representative of every-thing that is great and good about theisland of Lanai, Goro Hokama.

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume.

I would like to conclude by sayingthat I want to thank two of my col-leagues who cosponsored this legisla-tion, the gentleman from California(Mr. GEORGE MILLER) and the gen-tleman from California (Mr. STARK),both of whom are cosponsors of thislegislation. I want to thank the major-ity for giving me this opportunity tobring this bill up so early in the ses-sion. I want to thank the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. DAN MILLER) for tak-ing on this responsibility of rep-resenting the majority. I certainlywant to thank the gentleman from In-diana (Mr. BURTON) for his support ofthis legislation, and certainly the gen-tleman from California (Mr. WAXMAN).I appreciate so much this opportunityto honor a longtime friend and col-league, and I hope that this bill will bepassed and reported over to the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balanceof my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker,I yield myself such time as I may con-sume.

On behalf of the majority, let mecongratulate the gentlewoman fromHawaii for bringing forth this methodof recognition of someone who has ap-parently done a great deal for LanaiCity and Hawaii. This is one small waythat the House of Representatives andCongress can help recognize peoplethat have made outstanding contribu-

tions to their areas, and certainly thisis the case here.

With that, I urge a vote in favor ofthis motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balanceof my time.

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, Iask unanimous consent to reclaim mytime.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gentle-woman from Hawaii?

There was no objection.Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I

yield such time as he may consume tothe gentleman from California (Mr.STARK).

(Mr. STARK asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise insupport of H.R. 132, designating theLanai City Post Office the GoroHokama Post Office.

To bring just some of the Stark fam-ily remembrance to this occasion, myfamily and I have been visiting the Is-land of Lanai for at least 10 years and,with all due respect to the rest of theHawaiian islands, pretty much thesame hibiscus, and pretty much thesame bougainvillea, pretty much thesame marvelous climate, pretty muchthe same sand.

b 1030

What is so different about Lanai? Itis the people. It really is. They havemade us and our children feel welcomethere, at home, comfortable, not over-burdened, just a wonderful group ofpeople. And when we have someone likeGoro Hokama, who is almost a legendon the island of Lanai, he has servedthe people as a public servant for theCounty of Maui, the State of Hawaii,over 40 years, long before it became thetourist mecca that it is today.

He has been a labor leader, an electedofficial, a Little League volunteer, andhe typifies the kind of pitch-in spirit oftogetherness that the Hawaiian peopleon the island of Lanai have every rightto be so proud of.

I am delighted to be here with mycolleagues from Hawaii today in sup-port of H.R. 132.

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, Iyield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. GIB-BONS). The question is on the motionoffered by the gentleman from Florida(Mr. MILLER) that the House suspendthe rules and pass the bill, H.R. 132.

The question was taken.The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds ofthose present have voted in the affirm-ative.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker,I object to the vote on the ground thata quorum is not present and make thepoint of order that a quorum is notpresent.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evi-dently a quorum is not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—yeas 413, nays 0,not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 11]

YEAS—413

AbercrombieAckermanAderholtAkinAllenAndrewsArmeyBacaBachusBakerBaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrBarrettBartlettBartonBassBentsenBereuterBerkleyBermanBerryBiggertBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brady (TX)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)Brown (SC)BryantBurrBurtonCallahanCampCantorCappsCapuanoCardinCarson (IN)Carson (OK)CastleChabotChamblissClayClaytonClyburnCobleCollinsCombestConditConyersCookseyCostelloCoxCoyneCramerCraneCrenshawCrowleyCubinCulbersonCummingsCunninghamDavis (CA)Davis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis, Jo AnnDavis, Thomas

M.DealDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeMintDeutschDiaz-Balart

DicksDingellDoggettDooleyDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEshooEtheridgeEverettFarrFattahFergusonFilnerFlakeFletcherFoleyFordFossellaFrankFrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGanskeGekasGephardtGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodeGoodlatteGordonGossGrahamGrangerGravesGreen (TX)Green (WI)GutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HansenHarmanHartHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHillHillearyHilliardHincheyHinojosaHobsonHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHoltHondaHooleyHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInsleeIsaksonIsraelIssaJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson (IL)

Johnson, E.B.Johnson, SamJones (NC)Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKellerKellyKennedy (MN)Kennedy (RI)KernsKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKirkKleczkaKnollenbergKolbeKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLangevinLantosLargentLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LathamLaTouretteLeachLeeLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)ManzulloMarkeyMascaraMathesonMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcDermottMcGovernMcHughMcInnisMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMiller, GeorgeMinkMollohanMooreMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MurthaMyrickNadlerNapolitanoNealNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtiz

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H207February 7, 2001OsborneOseOtterOwensOxleyPallonePascrellPastorPaulPaynePelosiPencePeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PetriPhelpsPickeringPittsPlattsPomboPomeroyPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)PutnamQuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRegulaRehbergReyesReynoldsRileyRiversRoemerRogers (MI)RohrabacherRos-LehtinenRossRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyan (WI)

Ryun (KS)SaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchafferSchakowskySchiffSchrockScottSensenbrennerSerranoSessionsShadeggShawShaysShermanSherwoodShimkusShowsSimmonsSimpsonSisiskySkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SnyderSolisSouderSpenceSprattStarkStearnsStenholmStricklandStumpStupakSununuSweeneyTancredo

TannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TerryThomasThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTiberiTierneyToomeyTownsTraficantTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonVelazquezViscloskyVitterWaldenWalshWampWatersWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfWoolseyWuWynnYoung (FL)

NOT VOTING—19

BairdBecerraBonoBuyerCalvertCannonCapito

ClementDoolittleEvansGreenwoodGrucciIstookMeehan

MoakleyMorellaRodriguezRogers (KY)Young (AK)

b 1059

So (two-thirds having voted in favorthereof) the rules were suspended andthe bill was passed.

The result of the vote was announcedas above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid onthe table.

Stated for:Mr. GRUCCI. Mr. Speaker, due to the death

of my mother-in-law, Mrs. Carmella Fierro, Iwas unable to participate in today’s recordedvote. However, I would have voted in the af-firmative on the suspension bill on today’sagenda: H.R. 132 to designate the facility ofthe United States Postal Service located at620 Jacaranda Street in Lanai City, Hawaii, asthe ‘‘Goro Hokama Post Office Building.’’

Ms. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No.11, I was not present due to erroneous infor-mation. Had I been present, I would havevoted ‘‘yea.’’

f

ENSURING FAIRNESS AND JUS-TICE WITH REGARD TO TREATYOF GUADALUPE HIDALGO

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico askedand was given permission to addressthe House for 1 minute and to reviseand extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr.Speaker, I rise to recognize an impor-

tant anniversary of the United States:153 years ago, the United States andMexico signed the Treaty of GuadalupeHidalgo. This treaty sought to protectthe property rights of those who re-mained in the United States and be-came United States citizens.

There is now substantial evidencethere were many violations of thistreaty’s provisions. The GAO has un-dertaken an investigation to get to theheart of this important matter. Thissituation cries out for justice.

I urge all my colleagues to followthis study closely so we can bring jus-tice to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, February 2nd marks the 153danniversary of the signing of the Treaty ofGuadalupe Hidalgo. The Treaty of GuadalupeHidalgo ended the Mexican War, and ceded tothe United States what is now California, Ari-zona and New Mexico. The Treaty also recog-nized U.S. claims over Texas, with the RioGrande as its southern boundary.

In turn, the United States paid Mexico$15,000,000, and among other things, agreedto recognize prior land grants issued by Spainand Mexico to individuals, communities, andindigenous pueblo people. Thus, during the 50years that followed the signing, numerous pro-cedures were developed to evaluate and vali-date the land grants.

However, the change in sovereignty in 1848brought together two different legal systems—the Spanish/Mexican and the Anglo-American.These competing legal systems resulted in theinability of the United States to properly recog-nize and honor the role that custom played inpreserving the lands and waters in accordancewith Spanish and Mexican law.

Mr. Speaker, this along with other facts,suggests that the manner in which these pri-vate and communal land grants were evalu-ated by the U.S. Courts and by Congress, didnot satisfy the obligations assumed by theUnited States when we signed the treaty. Toaddress this issue, the GAO has embarked ona study of whether the United States fulfilledits obligations under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo with regard to land grants made bySpain and Mexico. I am pleased that the initialexposure draft was recently completed, and Ibelieve that this ongoing study is a properstep in addressing the numerous issues re-garding the Treaty and its implementation.

Mr. Speaker, the issues that have evolvedfrom the signing of the Treaty of GuadalupeHidalgo center on the concept of fairness andjustice. Thus, I ask that all Americans ac-knowledge the 153d anniversary of the Treatyof Guadalupe Hidalgo, by recognizing themany issues that remain to be properly ad-dressed in order to assure a fair evaluation ofthe land grant claims.

f

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MIL-LER of Florida). Under the Speaker’sannounced policy of January 3, 2001,and under a previous order of theHouse, the following Members will berecognized for 5 minutes each.

f

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN) is rec-ognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. BROWN of Ohio addressed theHouse. His remarks will appear here-after in the Extensions of Remarks.].

f

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gentle-woman from Illinois (Mrs. BIGGERT) isrecognized for 5 minutes.

[Mrs. BIGGERT addressed the House.Her remarks will appear hereafter inthe Extensions of Remarks.]

f

CONTINUING ESCALATION OF HIVAND AIDS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Illinois (Mr. DAVIS) is rec-ognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,as we reconvene the Congress, as webegin to deal with the various issueswhich affect our Nation and our coun-try and our world, I thought I wouldtake some time this morning to high-light one of those; and it has to do withthe continuing escalation of HIV andAIDS.

As a matter of fact, I was looking ata report that suggests that, in the firstdetailed study to target some of theAIDS epidemic’s overlooked victims,researchers in Chicago reported Mon-day that fully 30 percent of young gayAfrican-American men are infectedwith HIV.

The infection rate for gay blacks wastwice that of any other ethnic group, afinding that shocked some experts de-spite the already well-documented ra-cial gap in AIDS cases.

‘‘This is a disturbing and frighteningnumber, and something should be doneabout it,’’ said Linda Valleroy, an epi-demiologist at the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention, who led thesix-city survey of gay men in theirtwenties. The results were outlinedMonday at the 8th Annual RetrovirusConference being held in Chicago thisweek.

The new figures reflect a troublingreality for gay black men who may nothave enough income to live in thelargely white gay enclaves where AIDShealth centers are located. Such prob-lems are amplified, gay advocates say,by lingering rifts over homosexualitywithin the African-American commu-nity itself.

For example, and I quote, ‘‘I am anAfrican-American gay man living withHIV. In some people’s eyes, I’m damnedseveral times over,’’ said FrankOldham, Jr., who is the assistant com-missioner of AIDS public policy at theChicago Department of Health.

Previous AIDS surveys tended tofocus on members of the white popu-lation, Valleroy said, in part becausethe researchers sampled gay neighbor-hoods where relatively few blacks live,men who frequented gay bars, clubs,restaurants and coffee houses.

Valleroy’s team succeed in recruiting408 gay black men for the survey, about17 percent of the total. Moreover, no

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH208 February 7, 2001previous study had looked at the infec-tion rate among gays in this age group,which included men, ages 23 to 29.

The findings suggest that gay men ofall races are engaging in risky behav-ior. Nearly half of the men interviewedhad unprotected anal sex during theprevious 6 months. Even those who arenot infected are in danger of becominginfected.

I think what this report suggests, Mr.Speaker, is that, notwithstandingwhatever the resources are that haveheretofore been made available, thatthere is a tremendous need.

I would urge President Bush, as heprepares his budget for the comingyear, to make absolutely certain thatthere are ample provisions for the pre-vention, detection, and treatment ofthe AIDS-HIV virus.

f

SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM VITALIN BUDGET PROCESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Michigan (Mr. SMITH) isrecognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speak-er, I would like to spend a couple min-utes talking about the challenges thatthis body faces over the next severalweeks and months.

We are talking about a tax cut. Weare talking about what is the status ofthe economy in the United States,where will we go with unemployment,what can we do as a body in Congressto help make sure that the economy ofthe United States continues.

We were talking about economic ex-pansion in the neighborhood of 1.8 per-cent a year for economic expansion.Now we are talking about maybe 2.8percent a year economic expansion,even with the slowdown. The tech-nology that we have acquired over thelast several years is a result of our in-vestment in research.

If there is one thing that I would sug-gest that we do in this body to helpmake sure that we have a strong econ-omy, it is capital investment.

I divide capital investment in twoareas. One is physical capital, where wemake sure that we put the effort intoresearch to develop the state-of-the-artequipment and technology and tech-niques that can maximize our produc-tivity. The other is investment inhuman capital so that we have a bettereducation system.

Now we are challenged with a ques-tion of how much do we excite theeconomy by leaving more money in thepockets of those individuals that haveearned that money. In other words,where do we cut taxes? How do we cuttaxes? How do we do it in such a waythat it is going to maximize the eco-nomic benefit of keeping a strong econ-omy?

I have a couple suggestions. One isthat we do not look away, or in anyway disregard the importance of pay-ing down the Federal debt. Today theFederal debt is $5.7 trillion. The Gov-

ernment has borrowed $5.7 trillion ei-ther from Social Security and theother trust funds or has issued Treas-ury paper to lend money to the public.

Out of that $5.7 trillion, and this isthe whole load of hay, out of that $5.7trillion, $3.6 trillion, that is, $3.6 tril-lion out of the $5.7 trillion, is debt heldby the public. So over the last severalyears, whether it is this body or wheth-er it is the White House, when theytalk about paying down the publicdebt, they are talking about only pay-ing down a portion of that debt thathas been lent to the public, Treasurybills, what I call the Wall Street debt.

As we pay down the debt, the ques-tion that we have to ask ourselves is,where is the money coming from to paydown that debt held by the public? Andwhere it is coming from is the surpluscoming into the trust fund. And thetrust fund that has the greatest dollaramount of surplus or other taxation isthe FICA tax.

In that FICA tax, most of it is SocialSecurity tax, 12.4 percent of the total15-odd percent is Social Security tax.

This year we will have $158 billionmore coming in from the Social Secu-rity tax than is needed to pay benefits.But when we hit the year 2010 to 2012,there will be less Social Security taxmoney coming in than is required tomeet the benefits just 10 years fromnow.

So the question before this body, thequestion before America, is, what dowe do with the extra surplus now tomake sure that that money is moreavailable when we need it 10 years fromnow?

Some have suggested, look, let usstart getting some real return on in-vestment, let us invest that money andlet us put it in the name of those indi-viduals so that Government and politi-cians cannot mess around with it inlater years. And that is important. Be-cause what we have done in the past is,when we were short of money, we cutbenefits or we increased taxes.

I think Social Security reform con-tinues to be a vital part of the decisionof where we go in the budget process,how much we cut taxes, and how muchwe increase spending in government.

Let me give my colleagues an exam-ple of the danger of not having a taxcut, not getting some of this moneyout of Washington. That danger is thatthis body and the body over on theother end of this building ends up in-creasing spending so much faster thaninflation.

The last three bills that we put to-gether and passed last December in-creased spending almost 14 percentover what those three particular appro-priation bills spent the year before.

The challenge before us is holdingdown spending, deciding what percent-age of our total income is reasonable interms of paying taxes.

Right now, if one is an American tax-payer, on the average, he spends 41cents out of every dollar he makes topay Government taxes at the local,

State, and national level. I suggestthat that amount is too much.

Let us decide on the priority for thelimit on taxes. And if that limit is lessthan what we are paying now, then letus decide on the best way to spend thatmoney so that we keep social securitysolvent and Medicare solvent and givesome priorities to important projects,like improving education.

f

ADJOURNMENT FROM THURSDAY,FEBRUARY 8, 2001 TO MONDAY,FEBRUARY 12, 2001

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-imous consent that when the House ad-journs on Thursday, February 8, 2001, itadjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday,February 12.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.f

HOUR OF MEETING ON TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 13, 2001

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-imous consent that when the House ad-journs on Monday, February 12, 2001, itadjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tues-day, February 13, for morning hour de-bates.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.f

GUAM JUDICIAL EMPOWERMENTACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Guam (Mr. UNDERWOOD) isrecognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker,today I am reintroducing the Guam Ju-dicial Empowerment Act, a bill whichseeks to mend the Organic Act ofGuam for the purposes of clarifying thelocal judicial structure.

This legislation will correct the de-fect in the Guam Organic Act relativeto the judicial branch of the govern-ment of Guam and seeks to correct alongstanding judicial anomaly.

It would establish the local courtsystem, including the Supreme Courtof Guam, as a coequal branch of thegovernment of Guam within the frame-work of the Guam Organic Act andplace the judiciary on equal footingwith Guam’s legislative and executivebranches of government.

Currently, the Organic Act of Guam,which functions as a de facto constitu-tion for Guam, clearly delineates theinherent powers of the legislative andexecutive branches of the Governmentof Guam, but it does not do so for thejudicial branches.

This legislation seeks to bring thecourts in Guam to a level that is com-parable and similar to other states andterritories and seeks to establish aframework that is equal to the powersof the other branches.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H209February 7, 2001Mr. Speaker, this legislation com-

pletes the process of establishing aclearly Republican form of governmentin Guam, one in which the threebranches of government are coequal.

The Organic Act of 1950 created theoriginal Government of Guam. At thattime, it had a legislature which waselected by the people, but it did nothave an independent judiciary, it wasnexused into the Federal judiciary andit had an appointed governor.

b 1115

Since that time, there has been anumber of incremental improvementsin this relationship, an elected gov-ernor in 1968, an elected representativein Congress in 1972, and Congress al-lowed for the establishment of a GuamSupreme Court in the 1980s; but thatGuam Supreme Court and that judicialbranch subjected it to the local legisla-tion. At first, it looked like a goodblow for local government; but itmeant that the judicial branch inGuam was not organized based on aconstitution, as in Guam’s case the Or-ganic Act, but based on local legisla-tion.

Well, the possibilities for mischiefwere enormous as the judicial branchremained at the behest and the wiles ofa local legislature and the executivebranch. This anomalous, atypical sys-tem must be rectified; and my legisla-tion seeks exactly to do that.

The architects of the U.S. Constitu-tion had the foresight to establish aninstitutional mechanism that wouldprotect this great Nation from an auto-cratic regime, and that is that it estab-lishes three coequal branches of gov-ernment. This doctrine of separation ofpowers is the fundamental principle ofthis great Nation and has since laid thefoundation for the democratic systemof government that has been estab-lished in subsequent States and terri-tories.

The passage of this legislation wouldsolidify the structure of Guam’s judici-ary and ensure a status as a separateand equal branch of government. I cer-tainly hope that Members of this bodywill support this legislation.

f

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.REHBERG). Under a previous order ofthe House, the gentlewoman from Ha-waii (Mrs. MINK) is recognized for 5minutes.

[Mrs. MINK of Hawaii addressed theHouse. Her remarks will appear here-after in the Extensions of Remarks.]

f

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIA-TION 55TH ANNUAL GOVERN-MENT SERVICE MERIT AWARDSLUNCHEON

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gentle-woman from Ohio (Mrs. JONES) is rec-ognized for 5 minutes.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Irise today as a part of a celebration of

the Cuyahoga County Bar’s Associa-tion 55th annual government servicemerit awards luncheon.

On Friday, in Cleveland, Ohio, theCuyahoga County Bar Association willrecognize public servants who havegiven at least 25 years of service in thepublic arena. I would like to briefly gothrough and say a little bit about eachof the persons who are going to be rec-ognized.

The first, Sandy Patton Campbell inthe Cuyahoga County prosecutor’s of-fice. Since 1974, she has been an em-ployee of the office of the prosecutor.Since 1999, she has been the adminis-trative secretary to the person whonominated her, County Prosecutor Wil-liam Mason. Mr. Mason is my suc-cessor.

I previously served as a CuyahogaCounty prosecutor and had the oppor-tunity to supervise Sandy PattonCampbell, and she did a wonderful job.

The second person, CarolynCervenak, she works in the Court ofCommon Pleas, Division of DomesticRelations. She is the assignment com-missioner nominated by the DomesticRelations Administrative Judge Tim-othy Flanagan, and she is the personwhose name is often spoken of at thecourt. Not only does she supervise theinitial processing of newly filed cases,she is also in charge of the processingof pre- and post-decree motions.

The third person, Albin T. Chesnik, isin the clerk’s office of the Court ofCommon Pleas. He has worked theresince 1973 and it is the only full-timeemployer he has ever had. That em-ployer is Gerald E. Fuerst, the clerk ofcourts.

Mr. Chesnik is the chief clerk for theEighth District Court of Appeals and isresponsible for maintaining the court’sdockets and files and supervising dataentry.

The fourth person, William Danko,he has been employed by the GeneralDivision of the Common Pleas Courtmost recently as a court adminis-trator. Again, I had the pleasure, whenI served as a judge on the Court ofCommon Pleas, to have Mr. Danko asthe administrator, where he did a finejob. It gives me great pleasure to cele-brate him today.

The fifth person, Linda Frolick in theCuyahoga County Probate Court. Sheis the deputy clerk in the psychiatricdepartment and has been with the Pro-bate Court for the past 30 years. Hernominator is presiding Judge John J.Donnelly.

The sixth person, Mary G. Gambosiof the Shaker Heights Municipal Courtsince 1975, she has worked for eitherthe Shaker Heights Law Department orthe Municipal Court, nominated byMunicipal Court Judge K.J. Mont-gomery.

The next person, Richard Graham ofthe Court of Common Pleas, JuvenileCourt Division, nominated by JudgePeter Sikora, he has been an employeeat the Juvenile Court since 1973, ad-vancing through the series of positions

to his current title of chief magistrateand judicial counsel. Again, I am ableto say that I had an opportunity towork closely with Mr. Graham when Iserved as a Cuyahoga County pros-ecutor and would like to personallycongratulate him.

The ninth person, Yvonne C. Wood,United States Bankruptcy Court since1969, she served in the Northern Dis-trict of Ohio, nominated by Judge Ran-dolph Baxter. She is now the deputyclerk in charge managing an officestaff of 23 persons trained in preparingbudgets, providing administrativetasks, and interacting with the public.

Finally, Frances Zagar of the EighthDistrict Court nominated by JudgeAnn Dyke. He has worked since 1977,been a judicial secretary at the EighthAppellate District Court. Currentlyserving for Judge Terrence O’Donnell,her duties include editing and pre-paring journal entries for circulationto other judges.

It gives me great pleasure, in light ofthe fact that I represent the 11th Con-gressional District of Ohio, to celebrateall of these public servants who havegiven of their time and energy on be-half of the public. Congratulations toeach and every one of them, and I willprovide them with a copy of the CON-GRESSIONAL RECORD.SANDY PATTON CAMPBELL—CUYAHOGA COUNTY

PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE

Since 1974, Sandra Patton Campbell, hasbeen an employee of the office of the Cuya-hoga County Prosecutor. Since 1999, she hasbeen the Administrative Secretary to theman who nominated her, County ProsecutorWilliam D. Mason. Sandy is responsible for amyriad of tasks from, among others, makingappointments for her boss to preparing cor-respondence and pleadings to maintainingbank accounts to preparing and processingoffice vouchers and employee time sheets tohelping with the extradition of defendantsfrom other states. She takes pride in helpingthe office become modernized. She recallshelping the Prosecutor’s office in its first at-tempts to computerize more than 20 yearsago and takes pride in her efforts in assistingsuch new programs as the Community BasedProsecution Program in East Cleveland.Married to Thomas Campbell since 1988,Sandy, the mother of Thomas and MaryKate, is a graduate of Our Lady of AngelsSchool and St. Joseph Academy. She con-tinues to be active as a coach for her chil-dren and those of others at Our Lady of An-gels and St. Mark’s. She enjoys being aworking Mom. Sandy spends her time in-volved in any kind of sport, making crafts,decorating and shopping.

CAROLYN CERVENAK—COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Assignment Commissioner CarolynCervenak, nominated by Domestic RelationsAdministrative Judge Timothy M. Flanagan,is, perhaps, the person whose name is mostspoken at the Court. Not only does she su-pervise the initial processing of newly-filedcases, she also is in charge of the processingof pre- and post-decree motions and thescheduling of hearings in front of more thana dozen motion and support magistrates. Shealso serves as Network Administrator of theDivision’s computer system and was ProjectManager in implementing the Case Manage-ment System. A graduate of St. AugustineAcademy, Carolyn joined the Court after

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH210 February 7, 2001service as a claims processor at an insurancecompany and as a secretary to an attorney.Carolyn and her husband of over three dec-ades, Richard, are the parents of Scott, Robband Cindy. Carolyn is an active member of awoman’s investment group and enjoys cook-ing classes (and cooking). She also attendsspecial classes in computers and databasetechnology to insure that she will acquitherself well of her position as ‘‘ComputerCzar’’ for the Court. Carolyn recalls one inci-dent, some years ago, when a fellow em-ployee was filing and was startled by some-one coming up behind her. She thought itwas a co-worker who liked to bother her andreacted by shouting ‘‘What are ya’ doin’, per-vert!’’ Carolyn remembers her colleague’sshock in turning around to find not the otherindividual, but instead Judge Flanagan, whocordially (and jokingly) invited the startledemployee to get her discharge notice fromthe Court Administrator’s office.

ALBIN T. CHESNIK—CLERK’S OFFICE, COMMONPLEAS COURT

Albin T. Chesnik works now, as he hassince 1973, for the only full time employer hehas ever had, the Common Pleas Court’sClerk’s Office. Nominated by Clerk Gerald E.Fuerst, Albin is Chief Clerk for the 8th Dis-trict Court of Appeals and is responsible formaintaining that Court’s dockets and filesand supervising data entry of filings in theappellate court. Beyond that, he insures thatthere is coordination between filings in the8th District with the necessary filings in thetrail courts and the Supreme Court of Ohioand coordinates the return of files to thetrial courts for proceedings consistent withthe decisions issued at the appellate level.After graduation from St. Peter Chanel HighSchool in Bedford, Albin attended CuyahogaCommunity College and Kent State Univer-sity. In his spare time, Albin enjoys modelrailroading and railroad photography and isproud of his collection of thousands of slideshe has taken in his travels around the coun-try.

WILLIAM DANKO—COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,GENERAL DIVISION

Since 1972, William Danko has been em-ployed by the General Division of the Courtof Common Pleas, most recently as theCourt Administrator, where he takes chargeof non-judicial employees and their compli-ance with court policies and procedures, is li-aison for the Court with other courts andgovernmental agencies, prepares the court’sannual budget, performs human resourcesfunctions and a myriad of other responsibil-ities. Prior to his current position, Presidingand Administrative Judge Richard J.McMonagle’s nominee served in a variety ofpositions from scheduler to project coordi-nator, among others. After receiving hisbachelor’s degree from John Carroll Univer-sity, William received graduate degrees insocial work and law, from Case Western Re-serve University and Cleveland State Univer-sity. Prior to his tenure at the CommonPleas Court, he was employed at CatholicFamily & Children’s Services and atParmadale Children’s Village. William isproud to have been married to his wife MaryLou since 1966, and they are the parents oftwo adult children, Michael and Kristen. Wil-liam is active in professional organizationsof court administrators and a number of di-ocesan organizations and is a member of theLeadership Cleveland Class of 1992.

LINDA FROLICK—CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROBATECOURT

Linda Frolick, Deputy Clerk in the Psy-chiatric Department, has been with the Pro-bate Court for the past thirty years. Hernominator, Presiding Judge John J. Don-nelly, writes that she is ‘‘a conscientious andwilling member’’ of the staff.

MARY JANE GAMBOSI—SHAKER HEIGHTSMUNICIPAL COURT

Since 1975, Mary Jane Gambosi, nominatedby Shaker Heights Municipal Court JudgeK.J. Montgomery, has worked for either theShaker Heights City Law Department or theShaker Heights Municipal Court. In her posi-tion as Administrative Manager of theCourt, she plans, organizes and directs theCourt’s activities, keeps the judge’s cal-endar, coordinates the judge, acting judgesand magistrates, deals with the public, han-dles human resources, prepares the budgetand has, from time-to-time, been involved inalmost every non-judicial activity of theCourt. Mary Jane is active in various localand state organizations for court clerks andadministrators and also has helped herbosses in the administrative work of theirprofessional organizations. A graduate ofMaple Heights High School, Mary Jane hasbeen married for over 40 years to Frank, andthey have three adult children: Frank, MaryCatherine and Theresa Ann. Previously hon-ored by the City of Shaker Heights for heryears of public service, Mary Jane, in herspare time enjoys swimming, golf, travel,music, dancing, computer classes, and, mostof all, her nine grandchildren. She takespride in solving problems, although she wasa little taken aback when an elderly ladyasked for permission to come into the securearea where Mary Jane’s office was located,after which that lady lifted her skirt aboveher head to get to funds she had ‘‘stored’’ inher lingerie prior to using those funds to paya traffic ticket.RICHARD T. GRAHAM—COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,

JUVENILE COURT DIVISION

Nominated by Juvenile Court Administra-tive Judge Peter Sikora, Richard Grahamhas been an employee at the Juvenile Courtsince 1973 (with one short hiatus), advancingthrough a series of positions to his currenttitle of Chief Magistrate and Judicial Coun-sel. Prior to this position, Richard served inother positions, including Director of LegalServices and Referee. He supervises theCourt’s magistrates, helps develop and up-date procedures, provides advice to thejudges and magistrates and helps implementnew law as they are promulgated from Co-lumbus. Raised in St. Clairsville, Ohio, Rich-ard received his undergraduate degree atAshland University and his law degree fromCleveland State University. He and his wife,Diane, to whom he has been married since1973, are the parents of Brent and Adam. Nowretired from a long-time commitment as asoccer referee for youth soccer leagues, Rich-ard enjoys golf, cooking and computers.YVONNE C. WOOD—UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY

COURT

Since 1969, Yvonne C. Wood has served atthe United States Bankruptcy Court for theNorthern District of Ohio. Nominated byBankruptcy Judge Randolph Baxter, Yvonneis now the Deputy Clerk in Charge, man-aging an office staff of 23 in training thosestaff members, preparing a budget, per-forming administrative tasks and inter-acting with the public. Yvonne rose to hercurrent position from service as an IntakeClerk, Docket Clerk and Case Administrator.Raised in McMinnville, Tennessee, Yvonne isthe mother of Ericha and enjoys cooking andgardening. She cites the reward of activitiesin which one can see the ‘‘fruits’’ of one’slabor.

FRANCES ZAGAR—EIGHTH DISTRICT COURT OFAPPEALS

Nominated by Chief Judge Ann Dyke,Frances Zagar has, since 1977, been a Judi-cial Secretary at the 8th Appellate District,Court of Appeals of Ohio. Currently servingfor Judge Terrence O’Donnell, her duties in-

clude edit and preparing journal entries forcirculation to other judges, tracking casestatus, data entry and any other tasks re-quired of her. For over 40 years, she was mar-ried to William, who passed away in October1997, and she still finds his loss devastating.William was in advertising and art, andFrances treasures his oils and watercolors.She is fond of bridge, her cats and music.Prior to assisting Judge O’Donnell, Francesis proud to have worked for now-retiredJudges Thomas Parrino and BlancheKrupansky. She maintains close contactwith her ‘‘wonderful, fun’’ family and stillcan count on them, including her identicaltwin, Catherine. She is pleased that the stat-ute of limitations has passed and that shecan now confess that her sister took a coursein high school for her and that she and hersister are still so close that, on a vacation,they brought the same books to read andthat they have even separately ordered thesame dress from a catalogue.

f

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. GREEN) is rec-ognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. GREEN of Texas addressed theHouse. His remarks will appear here-after in the Extensions of Remarks.]

f

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gentle-woman from Texas (Ms. JACKSON-LEE)is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas ad-dressed the House. Her remarks willappear hereafter in the Extensions ofRemarks.]

f

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gentle-woman from North Carolina (Mrs.CLAYTON) is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mrs. CLAYTON addressed the House.Her remarks will appear hereafter inthe Extensions of Remarks.]

f

THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY ANDGROWTH ACT OF 2001

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Underthe Speaker’s announced policy of Jan-uary 3, 2001, the gentleman from Indi-ana (Mr. PENCE) is recognized for 60minutes as the designee of the major-ity leader.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank theSpeaker for this opportunity to addressthe House on a topic that is importantto all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, while the Federal Gov-ernment prepares to inhale a nearly $6trillion tax revenue surplus over thenext 10 years, I join many of my col-leagues here on the floor today tospeak on behalf of American familieswho face a much less promising future.

Our goal today is to call attention tothe growing surplus here in Wash-ington and the moral imperative to re-turn this excess revenue to the peoplewho earned it. My colleagues and Ihave claimed this time today to arguein favor of the economic recoverypackage of 2001, a package not unlikethe one proposed by President RonaldReagan in 1981. While not nearly as am-bitious as its namesake, we are lucky

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H211February 7, 2001that we do not confront nearly thesame grave economic crisis. Today ourchallenge is preserving the economicprosperity first leveraged by that 1981Reagan tax cut made some 20 yearsago.

Despite the not inconsiderable eco-nomic successes of the past few years,Mr. Speaker, Hoosier families in mydistrict are confronting layoffs at arecord number of major employers. Ourhometown Cummins Engine in Colum-bus, Indiana, and DaimlerChrysler inNew Castle, Indiana, have both an-nounced layoffs that have garnered na-tional attention. I am sure their em-ployees and families are watching andwaiting for some sign of what is ahead.

So, too, I know that the small busi-nesses dependent on these companiesare fearful. Uncertainty stalks theheartland and these Americans arelooking to this Congress to at least re-turn the overpayment collected by theFederal Government, at a minimum.

This House of Representatives, Mr.Speaker, is the heart of the Americangovernment, and as such it should reso-nate with the hearts of the Americanpeople.

Mr. Speaker, the people’s hearts areanxious with increasingly dis-appointing news about our economy.All this while income tax rates, as apercentage of the economy, are at thehighest level ever recorded. The timehas come to cut taxes for working fam-ilies, small businesses, and familyfarms.

Federal Reserve Chairman AlanGreenspan’s decision to support a taxcut is not a change of heart, as somehave characterized it. He has long ar-gued that surplus revenues should notbe used for spending programs. He, likeme, recognizes that money not used topay down the debt will be spent inWashington. This is one of the manycompelling reasons for supporting taxrelief. It is not, however, the reasonthat moves the American people. Allthe media attention devoted to the re-cent downward pressure on interestrates and the wonkery of supply sidetheories has done little to answer avery important question. Why is thegovernment keeping so much of theNation’s wealth while watching theeconomy falter?

The plan proposed by President Bushis an excellent start, Mr. Speaker. Thisplan will indeed reduce personal in-come tax rates. A new 10 percent taxbracket would be created that wouldapply to a substantial portion of theincome that is currently taxed at 15percent. The 28 percent and 31 percenttax brackets would be reduced to 25,and the 36 percent bracket and 39.6would be lowered to 33. This is goodpublic policy for several reasons.

Number one, the current tax rate onwork, savings, and investment penal-izes productive behavior and impedeseconomic growth. Because of steep per-sonal income tax rates, highly produc-tive entrepreneurs and investors cantake home only about 60 cents of every

dollar they earn, not including Stateand local taxes and other Federaltaxes. This reduces the incentive to beproductive. Lower tax rates will reducethis tax wedge and encourage addi-tional work, savings and investment,risk taking and entrepreneurship.

This is also good public policy be-cause, Mr. Speaker, the budget surplusis growing. According to the latestCongressional Budget Office projec-tions, the aggregate budget surplus forthe 10-year period of 2001 to 2010 will beat least $4.6 trillion. The CBO is ex-pected to revise this projection upward.The Clinton White House reportedlyprojected tax surplus revenues between2002 and 2011 of $5 trillion. PresidentBush’s proposed tax relief package isexpected to save taxpayers $1.3 trillionto $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years,not including revenue, feedback fromthe additional economic growth thatwill follow.

Mr. Speaker, this is also good publicpolicy because reducing the tax burdenwill help control Federal spending.Without the specter of deficits, law-makers lose the will to say no to spe-cial interests and pork barrel projects.In the 3 years since the surplus mate-rialized in 1998, inflation adjusted Fed-eral spending has grown twice as fastas it did during the three prior yearswhen the government was running adeficit.

Also, Mr. Speaker, lower tax ratesare an important step toward funda-mental tax reform. When tax rates arehigh, deductions, credits and exemp-tions provide large savings to sometaxpayers, but roughly 70 percent of alltaxpayers receive no benefits sincethey claim the standard deduction. Asimple and fair Tax Code would treateveryone equally, without creatingwinners and losers, by taxing all in-come once and at one low rate.

Reducing marginal tax rates, Mr.Speaker, will move the Nation towarda low tax rate system and reduce thevalue of special interest tax breakswhich are more valuable when ratesare high. The economic distortionsthey cause, the political pressure theyadd, all command tax relief. Also, Mr.Speaker, tax increases did not causethe surplus; and tax cuts will not causea deficit.

Opponents of tax cuts often claimthat the 1993 tax increase is responsiblefor today’s budget surpluses. This iscontradicted by the Clinton adminis-tration’s budget documents. In early1995, nearly 18 months after the enact-ment of the 1993 tax increase, the Of-fice of Management and Budget pro-jected budget surpluses of more than$200 billion for the next 10 years. Clear-ly, events after that date, including the1997 capital gains tax cut and a tem-porary reduction in the growth of Fed-eral spending, caused the economy toexpand and the budget deficit to van-ish.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is goodpublic policy because tax rate reduc-tions and entitlement reforms are not

mutually exclusive actions. Criticsargue that a big tax cut would make itharder to reform Medicare or mod-ernize Social Security by allowingyounger workers to shift some of theirpayroll taxes into personal retirementaccounts.

b 1130

Given the magnitude of the projectedbudget surpluses, there is no conflictbetween these goals. Moreover, entitle-ment reform would be desirable, evenwithout a budget surplus, because itwould significantly reduce the long-rununfunded liability of both programs.Large projected surpluses simply makeit easier for legislators to implementthe necessary policies.

Opponents once argued that tax cutswere unwarranted because the FederalGovernment was running a budget def-icit. Now they argue that tax cuts areunwarranted because there is a surplus.Their real agenda is to block any taxreduction and a reduction in tax ratesand increase the dollars they haveavailable here in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, the American peopleare wise to this game. Hundreds of lay-offs in my Indiana district will attest,this economy is listing badly under theweight of 8 years of increased taxes andregulation.

This Congress must again become theCongress of economic recovery. Presi-dent Bush’s tax plan plus the addi-tional incentives for work and invest-ment contained in the Economic Re-covery and Growth Act of 2001 is thecure for what ails our economy. ThisCongress must turn this economyaround. This bill will achieve economicrecovery for the families, small busi-nesses, and family farms that makethis Nation great.

The supporters of the Economic Re-covery and Growth Act believe that theCongress should do all we can to giveAmerica’s families a tax cut they willfeel right away. We want Americanworkers to see the difference in theirweekly paycheck. As the President hassaid, this should include a cut effectiveat the beginning of this year. So, too,the cut should be designed to stimulateeconomic growth.

Our Economic Recovery and GrowthAct will, number one, continue to saveSocial Security and Medicare surplusesand thereby reduce the deficit; numbertwo, keep all existing components ofPresident Bush’s outstanding tax re-duction proposal; and, number three,the Economic Recovery and GrowthAct would accelerate and expand theacross-the-board cut in income taxrates, accelerate and expand the repealof the marriage penalty and deathtaxes; the capital gains tax reductionand small business tax relief all wouldbe accelerated and expanded under theEconomic Recovery and Growth Act.The bill will also repeal the 1993 SocialSecurity tax increase and provide IRAexpansion and pension reform.

While some have tried to argue thateven the Bush plan is extreme and a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH212 February 7, 2001risky scheme, a close analysis of thehistorical record, Mr. Speaker, willprove otherwise. Both Senator BOBGRAHAM of Florida and Alan Greenspanagree that the Bush tax cut is averageby historical standards.

Consider, for example, this chart,prepared by the nonpartisan NationalTaxpayers Union. The Bush tax cut andthe tax cut proposal we support in theEconomic Recovery and Growth Act of2001 are considerably smaller than ei-ther the Kennedy tax cut of the 1960s orsignificantly smaller than the Reagantax cut of 1981 as a percentage of grossnational product. So too, Mr. Speaker,the Bush tax cut and the Economic Re-covery and Growth Act proposal rep-resent a smaller portion of Federal rev-enues in constant 2000 dollars than ei-ther of the earlier tax reduction pro-posals.

In fact, even Democrat Speaker TipO’Neill, not exactly legendary for hissupport of big tax cuts, DemocratSpeaker Tip O’Neill’s alternative taxinitiative in 1981 was larger than theplan that many of us conservatives inthe Congress propose today. The Eco-nomic Recovery and Growth Act pro-posal is a well-reasoned and sensible al-ternative to plans that call for keepingmore money in Washington, D.C.

As the preceding comparisons dem-onstrate, Mr. Speaker, the Bush andour own Bush-plus tax cut are anythingbut dangerous or irresponsible. Theyare, instead, measured actions, takento alleviate two serious challenges fac-ing the American people today.

First, by reducing rates and thus in-creasing the incentive for work and in-vestment, both plans can help reinvigo-rate an economy that is finally begin-ning to collapse under the weight of 8years of ever-increasing tax and regu-latory burdens. Secondly, the proposalswill finally offer relief to Americanfamilies who are currently taxed at arate not seen since the world was atwar.

Hard-working Americans deserve tokeep more of their wages, Mr. Speaker,so that they may provide for their fam-ilies, not for bigger government bu-reaucracies.

f

CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CUR-RENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR RE-PUBLIC

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.REHBERG). Under the Speaker’s an-nounced policy of January 3, 2001, thegentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) isrecognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have askedfor this time to spend a little bit oftime talking about the assessment ofour American Republic.

Mr. Speaker, the beginning of the21st century lends itself to a reassess-ment of our history and gives us an op-portunity to redirect our country’s fu-ture course, if deemed prudent. Themain question before the new Congressand the administration is, are we tohave gridlock, or cooperation?

Today we refer to cooperation as bi-partisanship. Some argue that biparti-sanship is absolutely necessary for theAmerican democracy to survive. Themedia never mentions a concern for thesurvival of the Republic, but there arethose who argue that left-wing inter-ventionism should give no ground toright-wing interventionism, that toomuch is at stake.

The media are demanding the Bushadministration and the RepublicanCongress immediately yield to thoseinsisting on higher taxes and moreFederal Government intervention forthe sake of national unity because ourgovernment is neatly split between twoconcise philosophic views. But if onelooks closely, one is more likely to findonly a variation of a single system ofauthoritarianism, in contrast to therarely mentioned constitutional non-authoritarian approach to government.The big debate between the two fac-tions in Washington boils down tonothing more than a contest overpower and political cronyism, ratherthan any deep philosophic differences.

The feared gridlock anticipated forthe 107th Congress will differ littlefrom the other legislative battles in re-cent Congresses. Yes, there will beheated arguments regarding the size ofbudgets, local versus Federal control,private versus government solutions;but a serious debate over the preciserole for government is unlikely tooccur.

I do not expect any serious challengeto the 20th century consensus of bothmajor parties that the Federal Govern-ment has a significant responsibility todeal with education, health care, re-tirement programs, or managing thedistribution of the welfare-state bene-fits. Both parties are in general agree-ment on monetary management, envi-ronmental protection, safety and risk,both natural and man-made. Both par-ticipate in telling others around theworld how they must adopt a demo-cratic process similar to ours as we po-lice our worldwide financial interests.

We can expect most of the media-di-rected propaganda to be designed tospeed up and broaden the role of theFederal Government in our lives and inthe economy. Unfortunately, the tokenopposition will not present a principledchallenge to big government, only anargument that we must move moreslowly and make an effort to allowgreater local decision-making.

Without presenting a specific philo-sophic alternative to authoritarianintervention from the left, the opposi-tion concedes that the principle of gov-ernment involvement per se is proper,practical, and constitutional.

The cliche ‘‘the third way’’ has beenused to define the so-called com-promise between the conventional wis-dom of the conservative and liberalfirebrands. This nice-sounding com-promise refers not only to the noisyrhetoric we hear in the United StatesCongress, but also in Britain, Ger-many, and other nations as well.

The question, though, remains, isthere really anything new being of-fered? The demand for bipartisanship isnothing more than a continuation ofthe third-way movement of the lastseveral decades. The effort always is tosoften the image of the authoritarianswho see a need to run the economy andregulate people’s lives, while pre-tending not to give up any of the ad-vantages of the free market or the sup-posed benefits that come from compas-sionate welfare or a socialist govern-ment.

b 1145

It is nothing more than political,have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too, decep-tion.

Many insecure and wanting citizenscling to the notion that they can betaken care of through government be-nevolence without sacrificing the freemarket and personal liberty. Thosewho anxiously await next month’s gov-ernment check prefer not to deal withthe question of how goods and servicesare produced and under what politicalcircumstances they are most effi-ciently provided. Sadly, whether per-sonal freedom is sacrificed in the proc-ess is a serious concern for only a smallnumber of Americans.

The third way, a bipartisan com-promise that sounds lessconfrontational and circumvents theissue of individual liberty, free mar-kets and production is an alluring, butdangerous, alternative. The harsh re-ality is that it is difficult to sell theprinciples of liberty to those who aredependent on government programs,and this includes both the poor bene-ficiaries as well as the self-serving,wealthy elites who know how to ben-efit from government policies. The au-thoritarian demagogues are alwaysanxious to play on the needs of peoplemade dependent by a defective politicalsystem of government intervention,while perpetuating their own power.Anything that can help the people toavoid facing the reality of the short-comings of the welfare-warfare state iswelcomed. Thus, our system is destinedto perpetuate itself until the immu-table laws of economics bring it to ahalt at the expense of liberty and pros-perity.

The third-way compromise or bipar-tisan cooperation can never reconcilethe differences between those whoproduce and those who live off others.It will only make it worse. Theft istheft, and forced redistribution ofwealth is just that. The third way,though, can deceive and perpetuate anunworkable system when both majorfactions endorse the principle.

In the last session of the Congress,the majority party, with bipartisanagreement, increased the Labor, Healthand Human Services and Education ap-propriation by 26 percent over the pre-vious year, nine times the rate of infla-tion. The Education Department alonereceived $44 billion, nearly double Clin-ton’s first educational budget of 1993.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H213February 7, 2001The Labor, HHS and Education appro-priation was $34 billion more than theRepublican budget had authorized. Al-ready, the spirit of bipartisanship hasprompted a new administration to re-quest another $10 billion along withmore mandates on public schools. Thisis a far cry from the clear constitu-tional mandate that neither the Con-gress nor the Federal courts have anyauthority to be involved in public edu-cation. The argument that this bipar-tisan approach is a reasonable com-promise between the total free marketof local government or local govern-ment approach, and that of a huge ac-tivist centralized government approachmay appeal to some, but it is fraughtwith great danger. Big governmentclearly wins. Limited government andthe free market lose. Any talk of thethird way is nothing more than propa-ganda for big government. It is no com-promise at all.

The principle of Federal Governmentcontrol is fully endorsed by both sides,and the argument that the third waymight slow growth of big governmentfalls flat. Actually, with bipartisan co-operation, government growth maywell accelerate.

How true bipartisanship works inWashington is best illustrated by theway a number of former Members ofCongress make a living after leavingCongress. They find it quite convenientto associate with other former mem-bers of the opposing party and start alobbying firm. What might have ap-peared to be contentious differenceswhen in office are easily put aside tolobby their respective party members.Essentially, no philosophic differencesof importance exist; it is only a matterof degree and favors sought, since bothparties must be won over. The dif-ferences they might have had whilethey were voting Members of Congressexisted only for the purpose of appeal-ing to their different constituencies,not serious differences of opinion as towhat the role of government ought tobe. This is the reality of bipartisan-ship.

Sadly, our system handsomely re-wards those who lobby well and in a bi-partisan fashion. Congressional servicetoo often is a training ground or a farmsystem for the ultimate governmentservice: lobbying Congress for the ben-efit of powerful and wealthy special in-terests. It should be clearly evident,however, that all the campaign financereform and lobbying controls conceiv-able will not help the situation. Lim-iting the right to petition Congress orrestricting people’s right to spend theirown money will always fail and is notmorally acceptable and misses thepoint. As long as government has somuch to offer, public officials will betempted to accept the generous offersof support from special interests. Thosewho can benefit have too much atstake not to be in the business of influ-encing government.

Eliminating the power of governmentto pass out favors is the only real solu-

tion. Short of that, the only other rea-sonable solution must come from Mem-bers’ refusal to be influenced by thepressure the special interest money canexert. This requires moral restraint byour leaders. Since this has not hap-pened, special interest favoritism hascontinued to grow.

The bipartisanship of the last 50years has allowed our government togain control over half of the income ofmost Americans. Being enslaved halfthe time is hardly a good compromise,but supporters of the political statusquo point out that in spite of the lossof personal freedom, the country con-tinues to thrive in many ways. Butthere are some serious questions thatwe as a people must answer. Is thisprosperity real? Will it be long-lasting?What is the true cost in economicterms? Have we sacrificed our libertiesfor government security? Have we un-dermined the very system that has al-lowed productive effort to provide ahigh standard of living for so many?Has this system in recent years ex-cluded some from the benefits thatWall Street and others have enjoyed?Has it led to needless and dangerousU.S. interventions overseas and createdproblems that we are not yet fullyaware of? Is it morally permissible in acountry that professes to respect indi-vidual liberty to routinely give hand-outs to the poor and provide benefits tothe privileged and rich by stealing thefruits of labor from hard-workingAmericans?

As we move into the next Congress,some worry that gridlock will make itimpossible to get needed legislationpassed. This seems highly unlikely. Ifbig government supporters found waysto enlarge the government in the past,the current evenly-split Congress willhardly impede this trend and may evenaccelerate it. With a recession on thehorizon, both sides will be more eagerthan ever to cooperate on expandingFederal spending to stimulate theeconomy, whether the fictitious budgetsurplus shrinks or not. In this franticeffort to take care of the economy, pro-mote education, save Social Security,and provide for the medical needs of allAmericans, no serious discussion willtake place on the political conditionsrequired for a free people to thrive. Ifnot, all efforts to patch the currentsystem together will be at the expenseof personal liberty, private property,and sound money.

If we are truly taking a more dan-gerous course, the biggest question is,how long will it be before a major po-litical economic crisis engulfs ourland? That, of course, is not known,and certainly not necessary, if we as apeople and especially the Congress un-derstand the nature of the crisis and dosomething to prevent the crisis fromundermining our liberties. We should,instead, encourage prosperity by avoid-ing any international conflict thatthreatens our safety or wastefully con-sumes our needed resources.

Congressional leaders do have a re-sponsibility to work together for the

good of the country, but working to-gether to promote a giant interven-tionist state dangerous to us all is fardifferent from working together to pre-serve constitutionally protected lib-erties.

Many argue that the compromise ofbipartisanship is needed to get even alittle of what the limited governmentadvocates want, but this is a fallaciousargument. More freedom can never begained by giving up freedom, no matterthe rationale. If liberals want $46 bil-lion for the Department of Educationand conservatives argue for $42 billion,a compromise of $44 billion is a totalvictory for the advocates of FederalGovernment control of public edu-cation. Saving $2 billion means nothingin the scheme of things, especiallysince the case for the constitutionalposition of zero funding was never evenentertained. When the budget and gov-ernment controls are expanding eachyear, a token compromise in the pro-posed increase means nothing. Andthose who claim it to be a legitimatevictory do great harm to the cause ofliberty by condoning the process. In-stead of it being a third-way alter-native to the two sides arguing overminor details of how to use govern-ment force, the three options insteadare philosophically the same. A true al-ternative must be offered if the growthof the state is to be contained. Third-way bipartisanship is not the answer.

However, if, in the future, the con-stitutionalists argue for zero fundingfor the Education Department and theliberals argue to increase it to $50 bil-lion and finally $25 billion is acceptedas a compromise, progress will havebeen made. But this is not what isbeing talked about in D.C. When an ef-fort is made to find a third way, bothsides are talking about expanding gov-ernment and neither side questions thelegitimacy of the particular programinvolved. Unless the moral and Con-stitutional debate changes, there canbe no hope that the trend toward big-ger government with a sustained at-tack on personal liberty will be re-versed. It must become a moral andconstitutional issue.

Budgetary tokenism hides the realissue. Even if someone claims to havejust saved the taxpayer a couple billiondollars, the deception does great harmin the long run by failure to emphasizethe importance of the Constitution andthe moral principles of liberty. It in-stead helps to deceive the people intobelieving something productive isbeing done, but it is really worse thanthat, because neither party makes aneffort to cut the budget. The Americanpeople must prepare themselves forever more spending and taxes.

A different approach is needed if wewant to protect the freedoms of allAmericans, to perpetuate prosperity,and to avoid a major military con-frontation. All three options in realityrepresents only a variation of the onebased on authoritarian and interven-tionist principles. Nothing should be

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH214 February 7, 2001taken for granted, neither our lib-erties, nor our material well-being. Un-derstanding the nature of a free societyand favorably deciding on its meritsare required before true reform can beexpected. If, however, satisfaction andcomplacency with the current trend to-ward bigger and more centralized gov-ernment remain the dominant view,those who love liberty more thanpromised security must be prepared foran unpleasant future.

b 1200Those alternative plans will surely

vary from one to another. Tragically,for some it will contribute to the vio-lence that will surely come when prom-ises of government security are notforthcoming. We can expect furtherviolations of civil liberties by a govern-ment determined to maintain orderwhen difficult economic and politicalconditions develop.

But none of this needs occur if theprinciples that underpin our Republic,as designed by the Founders, can beresurrected and reinstituted. Currentproblems that we now confront aregovernment-created and can be muchmore easily dealt with when govern-ment is limited to its proper role ofprotecting liberty, instead of pro-moting a welfare-fascist state.

There are reasons to be optimisticthat the principles of the Republic, thefree market, and respect for privateproperty can be restored. However,there remains good reason, as well, tobe concerned that we must confrontthe serious political and economicfirestorm seen on the horizon beforethat happens.

My concerns are threefold: the healthof the economy, the potential for war,and the coming social discord. If ourproblems are ignored, they will furtherundermine the civil liberties of allAmericans. The next decade will be agreat challenge to all Americans.

The booming economy of the last 6years has come to an end. The onlyquestion remaining is how bad theslump will be. Although many econo-mists express surprise at the suddenand serious shift in sentiment, othershave been warning of its inevitability.Boom times built on central bank cred-it creation always end in recession ordepression. But central planners, beingextremely optimistic, hope that thistime it will be different, that a new erahas arrived.

For several years we have heard theendless nostrum of a technology andproductivity-driven paradigm thatwould make the excesses of the 1990spermanent and real. Arguments thatproductivity increases made the grandprosperity of the last 6 years possiblewere accepted as conventional wisdom,although sound free-market analystswarned otherwise.

We are now witnessing an economicdownturn that will, in all likelihood,be quite serious. If our economic plan-ners pursue the wrong course, they willmake it much worse and prolong therecovery.

Although computer technology hasbeen quite beneficial to the economy,in some ways these benefits have beenmisleading by hiding the ill effects ofcentral bank manipulation of interestrates and by causing many to believethat the usual business-cycle correc-tion could be averted. Instead, delayinga correction that is destined to comeonly contributes to greater distortionsin the economy, thus requiring an evengreater adjustment.

It seems obvious that we are dealingwith a financial bubble now deflating.Certainly, most observers recognizethat the NASDAQ was grossly over-priced. The question remains, though,as to what is needed for the entireeconomy to reach equilibrium andallow sound growth to resume.

Western leaders for most of the 20thcentury have come to accept a type ofcentral planning they believe is notburdened by the shortcomings of truesocialist-type central planning. Insteadof outright government ownership ofthe means of production, the economywas to be fine-tuned by fixing interestrates, that is, Fed funds rates, sub-sidizing credit, government-sponsoredenterprises, stimulating sluggish seg-ments of the economy, farming and theweapons industry, aiding the sick,Medicaid and Medicare, federally man-aging education, the Department ofEducation, and many other welfareschemes.

The majority of Americans have notyet accepted the harsh reality that thisless threatening, friendlier type of eco-nomic planning is minimally more effi-cient than that of the socialist plan-ners with their 5-year economic plans.

We must face the fact that the busi-ness cycle, with its recurring reces-sions, wage controls, wealth transfers,and social discord, is still with us, andwill get worse unless there is a funda-mental change in economic and mone-tary policy. Regardless of the type,central economic planning is a dan-gerous notion.

In an economic downturn, a largemajority of our political leaders be-lieve that recession’s ill effects can begreatly minimized by monetary andfiscal policy. Although cutting taxes isalways beneficial, spending one’s wayout of a recession is no panacea. Evenif some help is gained by cutting taxes,or temporary relief given by an in-crease in government spending, theydistract from the real cause of thedownturn: previously pursued faultymonetary policy.

The consequences of interest ratemanipulation in a recession, along withtax-and-spending changes, are unpre-dictable and do not always produce thesame results each time they are used.This is why interest rates of less than1 percent and massive spending pro-grams have not revitalized Japan’seconomy or her stock market.

We may well be witnessing the begin-ning of a major worldwide economicdownturn, making even more unpre-dictable the consequence of conven-

tional western-style central bankingtinkering.

There is good reason to believe thatCongress and the American peopleought to be concerned and start pre-paring for a slump that could playhavoc with our Federal budget and thevalue of the American dollar. Certainlythe Congress has a profound responsi-bility in this area. If we ignore theproblems or continue to endorse theeconomic myths of past generations,our prosperity will be threatened. Butour liberties could be lost as well if ex-panding the government’s role in theeconomy is pursued as the only solu-tion to the crisis.

It is important to understand how wegot ourselves into this mess. The blindfaith that wealth and capital can becreated by the central bank’s creatingmoney and credit out of thin air, usinggovernment debt as its collateral,along with fixing short-term interestrates, is a myth that must one day bedispelled. All the hopes of productivityincreases in a dreamed-about new eraeconomy cannot repeal eternal eco-nomic laws.

The big shift in sentiment of the pastseveral months has come with a loss ofconfidence in the status of the new par-adigm. If we are not careful, the likelyweakening of the U.S. dollar could leadto a loss of confidence in America andall her institutions.

U.S. political and economic powerhas propped up the world economy foryears. Trust in the dollar has given uslicense to borrow and spend way be-yond our means. But just becauseworld conditions have allowed us great-er leverage to borrow and inflate thecurrency than otherwise might havebeen permitted, the economic limita-tions of such a policy still exist. Thistrust, however, did allow for a greaterfinancial bubble to develop and disloca-tions to last longer, compared to simi-lar excesses in less powerful nations.

There is one remnant of the BrettonWoods gold exchange standard that hasaided U.S. dominance over the past 30years. Gold was once the reserve allcentral banks held to back up theircurrencies. After World War II, theworld central banks were satisfied tohold dollars, still considered to be asgood as gold, since internationally thedollar could still be exchanged for goldat $35 an ounce.

When the system broke down in 1971and we defaulted on our promises topay in gold, chaos broke out. By de-fault, the dollar maintained its statusas the reserve currency of the world.This is true even to this day. The dol-lar still represents approximately 77percent of all world central bank re-serves.

This means that the United Stateshas a license to steal. We print themoney and spend it overseas, whileworld trust continues because of ourdominant economic and military

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H215February 7, 2001power. This results in a current ac-count and trade deficit so large that al-most all economists agree that it can-not last. The longer and more exten-sive the distortions in the inter-national market, the greater will bethe crisis when the market dictates acorrection. That is what we are start-ing to see.

When the recession hits full force,even the extraordinary power and in-fluence of Alan Greenspan and the Fed-eral Reserve, along with all other cen-tral banks of the world, will not beenough to stop the powerful naturaleconomic forces that demand equi-librium. Liquidation of unreasonabledebt and the elimination of the over-capacity built into the system and areturn to trustworthy money andtrustworthy government will be nec-essary. Quite an undertaking.

Instead of looking at the real costand actual reasons for the recent goodyears, politicians and many Americanshave been all too eager to accept thenewfound wealth as permanent and de-served, as part of a grand new era.Even with a national debt that contin-ued to grow, all the talk in Washingtonwas about how to handle the magnifi-cent budget surpluses.

Since 1998, when it was announcedthat we had a budgetary surplus to dealwith, the national debt has neverthe-less grown by more than $230 billion,albeit at a rate less than in the past,but certainly a sum that should not beignored. But the really big borrowinghas been what the U.S. as a whole hasborrowed from foreigners to pay for thehuge deficit we have in our current ac-count. We are now by far the largestforeign debtor in the world and in all ofhistory.

The convenient arrangement has al-lowed us to live beyond our means, andaccording to long-understood economiclaws must end. A declining dollar con-firms that our ability to painlessly bor-row huge sums will no longer be cheapor wise. During the past 30 years, in thepost-Bretton Woods era, worldwide sen-timent has permitted us to inflate ourmoney supply and get others to acceptthe dollar as if it were as good as gold.This convenient arrangement has dis-couraged savings, which are now at anhistoric low.

Savings in a capitalist economy arecrucial for furnishing capital and es-tablishing market interest rates. Withnegative savings and with the Fed fix-ing rates by creating credit out of thinair and calling it capital, we haveabandoned a necessary part of freemarket capitalism, without which asmooth and growing economy is notsustainable.

No one should be surprised when re-cessions hit, or bewildered as to theircause or danger. The greater surprisewould be the endurance of an economyfine-tuned by a manipulative centralbank and a compulsively interven-tionist Congress.

But the full payment for our last eco-nomic sins may now be required. Let us

hope we can keep the pain and suf-fering to a minimum.

The most recent new era of the 1990sappeared to be an answer to all politi-cians’ dreams: a good economy, low un-employment, minimal price inflation, askyrocketing stock market, with cap-ital gains tax revenues flooding theTreasury, thus providing money to ac-commodate every special-interest de-mand.

But it was too good to be true. It wasbased on an inflated currency and mas-sive corporate, personal and govern-ment borrowing. A recession was inevi-table to pay for the extravagance thatmany knew was an inherent part of thenew era, understanding that abundancewithout a commensurate amount ofwork was not achievable.

The mantra now is for the Fed toquickly lower short-term interest ratesto stimulate the economy and alleviatea liquidity crisis. This policy maystimulate a boom and may help in amild downturn, but it does not alwayswork in a bad recession. It actuallycould do great harm since it couldweaken the dollar, which in turn wouldallow market forces instead to pushlong-term interest rates higher. Delib-erately lowering interest rates is noteven necessary for the dollar to drop,since our policy has led to a current ac-count deficit of a magnitude that de-mands the dollar eventually readjustand weaken.

A slumping stock market will alsocause the dollar to decline and interestrates to rise. Federal Reserve Boardcentral planning, though, through in-terest rate control, is not a panacea. Itis, instead, the culprit that producesthe business cycle. Government andFed officials have been reassuring thepublic that no structural problemsexist, citing no inflation and a goldprice that reassures the world that thedollar is indeed still king.

The Fed can create excess credit, butit cannot control where it goes as itcirculates throughout the economy,nor can it dictate value. Claiming thata subdued government-rigged CPI andPPI proves that no inflation exists ispure nonsense. It is well establishedthat, under certain circumstances, newcredit inflation can find its way intothe stock or real estate market, as itdid in the 1920s, while consumer pricesremained relatively stable. This doesnot negate the distortions inherent ina system charged with artificially lowinterest rates. Instead, it allows thedistortion to last longer and becomemore serious, leading to a bigger cor-rection.

If gold prices reflected the true ex-tent of the inflated dollar, confidencein the dollar specifically and in papermore generally would be undermined.It is a high priority of the Fed and allcentral banks of the world for this notto happen. Revealing to the public thefraud associated with all paper moneywould cause loss of credibility of allcentral banks. This knowledge wouldjeopardize the central bank’s ability to

perform the role of lender of last re-sort, and to finance and monetize gov-ernment debt. It is for this reason thatthe price of gold, in their eyes, must beheld in check.

From 1945 to 1971, the United Statesliterally dumped nearly 500 millionounces of gold at $35 an ounce in an ef-fort to do the same thing by continuingthe policy of printing money at will,with the hopes that there would be noconsequences to the value of the dollar.That all ended in 1971, when the mar-kets overwhelmed the world centralbankers.

A similar effort continues today,with central banks selling and loaninggold to keep the price in check. It isworking and does convey false con-fidence, but it cannot last. Most Amer-icans are wise to the government sta-tistics regarding prices and the no-in-flation-exists rhetoric. Everyone isaware that the prices of oil, gasoline,natural gas, medical care, repairs,houses, and entertainment have allbeen rapidly rising.

The artificially low gold price hasaided the government’s charade, but ithas also allowed a bigger bubble to de-velop.

b 1215

This policy cannot continue. Eco-nomic law dictates a correction thatmost Americans will find distastefuland painful. Duration and severity ofthe liquidation phase of the businesscycle can be limited by proper re-sponses, but it cannot be avoided andcould be made worse if the wrongcourse is chosen.

Recent deterioration of the junkbond market indicates how serious thesituation is. Junk bonds are now pay-ing 9 to 10 percent more than short-term government securities. The qual-ity of business loans is suffering, whilemore and more corporate bonds arequalifying for junk status. The Fedtries to reassure us by attempting tostimulate the economy with low, short-term Fed fund rates at the same timeinterest rates for businesses and con-sumers are rising. There comes a timewhen Fed policy is ineffective, much toeveryone’s chagrin.

Micromanaging an economy effec-tively for a long period of time, evenwith the power a central bank wields,is an impossible task. The good timesare ephemeral and eventually must bepaid for by contraction and renewedreal savings.

There is much more to inflation thanrising prices. Inflation is defined as theincrease in the supply of money andcredit. Obsessively sticking to the ‘‘ris-ing prices’’ definition conveniently ig-nores placing the blame on the respon-sible party: The Federal Reserve. Thelast thing central banks, or the politi-cians who need a backup for all theirspending mischief, want is for the gov-ernment to lose its power for creatingmoney out of thin air, which serves po-litical and privileged financial inter-ests.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH216 February 7, 2001When the people are forced to think

only about rising prices, government-doctored price indexes can dampen con-cerns for inflation. Blame then can belaid at the doorstep of corporate profit-eers, price gougers, labor unions, oilsheiks, or greedy doctors. But it isnever placed at the feet of the highlypaid athletes or entertainers. It wouldbe economically incorrect to do so, butit is political correctness that does notallow some groups to be vilified.

Much else related to artificially lowinterest rates goes unnoticed. An over-priced stock market, overcapacity incertain industries, excesses in real es-tate markets, artificially high bondprices, general mal-investments, exces-sive debt and speculation all resultfrom the generous and artificial creditthe Federal Reserve pumps into the fi-nancial system. These distortions areevery bit, if not more, harmful thanrising prices. As the economy soarsfrom the stimulus effect of low interestrates, growth and distortions com-pound themselves. In a slump, the re-verse is true and the pain and sufferingis magnified as the adjustment back toreality occurs.

The extra credit in the 1990s hasfound its way especially into the hous-ing market like never before. Govern-ment Sponsored Enterprises, in par-ticular Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae,have gobbled up huge sums to finance abooming housing market. GSE securi-ties enjoy implicit government guaran-tees that have allowed for a generousdiscount on most housing loans. Theyhave also been the vehicles used byconsumers to refinance and borrowagainst their home equity to use thesefunds for other purposes, such as in-vestment in the stock market. This hasfurther undermined savings by usingthe equity that builds with price infla-tion that homeowners enjoy whenmoney is debased.

In addition, the Federal Reserve nowbuys and holds GSE securities as col-lateral in their monetary operations.These securities are then literally usedas collateral for printing Federal Re-serve notes. This is a dangerous prece-dent.

If monetary inflation merely raisedprices and all prices and labor costsmoved up at the same rate and it didnot cause disequilibrium in the mar-ket, it would be of little consequence.But inflation is far more than risingprices. Creating money out of thin airis morally equivalent to counter-feiting. It is fraud and theft, because itsteals purchasing power from the sav-ers and those on fixed incomes. That initself should compel all nations to pro-hibit it, as did the authors of our Con-stitution.

Inflation is socially disruptive inthat the management of fiat money, asall today’s currencies are, causes greathardships. Unemployment is a directconsequence of the constantly recur-ring recessions. Persistent rising costsimpoverish many as the standard ofliving of unfortunate groups erodes.

Because the pain and suffering thatcomes from monetary debasement isnever evenly distributed, certain seg-ments of society actually benefit.

In the 1990s, Wall Streeters thrivedwhile some low-income, non-welfare,non-homeowners suffered with risingcosts for fuel, rent, repairs, and med-ical care. Generally, one should expectthe middle class to suffer and to lit-erally be wiped out in severe inflation.When this happens, as it did in manycountries throughout the 20th century,social and political conflicts becomeparamount when finger-pointing be-comes commonplace by those who suf-fer, looking for scapegoats. Almost al-ways, the hostility is inaccurately di-rected.

There is a greater threat from themonetary mischief than just the eco-nomic harm it does. The threat to lib-erty resulting when economic strifehits and finger-pointing increasesshould concern us most. We shouldnever be complacent about monetarypolicy.

We must reassess the responsibilityCongress has in maintaining a soundmonetary system. In the 19th century,the constitutionality of a central bankwas questioned and challenged. Notuntil 1913 were the advocates of astrong federalist system able to foist apowerful central bank on us, while de-stroying the gold standard. This bank-ing system, which now serves as the fi-nancial arm of Congress, has chosen topursue massive welfare spending and aforeign policy that has caused us to beat war for much of the 20th century.

Without the central bank creatingmoney out of thin air, our welfarestate and worldwide imperialism wouldhave been impossible to finance. At-tempts at economic fine-tuning bymonetary authorities would have beenimpossible without a powerful centralbank. Propping up the stock market asit falters would be impossible as well.

But the day will come when we willhave no choice but to question the cur-rent system. Yes, the Fed does help tofinance the welfare state. Yes, the Feddoes come to the rescue when funds areneeded to fight wars and for us to paythe cost of maintaining our empire.Yes, the Fed is able to stimulate theeconomy and help create what appearsto be good times. But it is all built onan illusion. Wealth cannot come from aprinting press. Empires crumble and aprice is eventually paid for arrogancetoward others. And booms inevitablyturn into busts.

Talk of a new era these past 5 yearshas had many believing, includingGreenspan, that this time it reallywould be different. And it may indeedbe different this time. The correctioncould be an especially big one, sincethe Fed-driven distortion of the past 10years, plus the lingering distortion ofthe past decades, have been massive.The correction could be made bigenough to challenge all of our institu-tions, the entire welfare state, SocialSecurity, foreign intervention, and ournational defense.

This will only happen if the dollar isknocked off its pedestal. No one knowsif that is going to happen sooner orlater. But when it does, our constitu-tional system of government will bechallenged to the core.

Ultimately, the solution will requirea recommitment to the principles ofliberty, including a belief in soundmoney, when money once again will besomething of value rather than piecesof paper or mere blips from a FederalReserve computer. In spite of the grandtechnological revolution, we are stillhaving trouble with a few simple, basictasks: counting votes, keeping thelights on, or even understanding thesinister nature of paper money.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue this spe-cial order tomorrow.

f

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-mous consent that all Members mayhave 5 legislative days within which torevise and extend their remarks and in-clude extraneous material on the sub-ject of the special order by the gen-tleman from Indiana (Mr. PENCE)today.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.SIMPSON). Is there objection to the re-quest of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.f

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of ab-sence was granted to:

Mr. CALVERT (at the request of Mr.ARMEY) for today on account of officialbusiness.

f

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission toaddress the House, following the legis-lative program and any special ordersheretofore entered, was granted to:

(The following Members (at the re-quest of Mr. ABERCROMBIE) to reviseand extend their remarks and includeextraneous material:)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio, for 5 minutes,today.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, for 5 minutes,today.

Mr. UNDERWOOD, for 5 minutes, today.Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, for 5 minutes,

today.Mrs. JONES of Ohio, for 5 minutes,

today.Mr. GREEN of Texas, for 5 minutes,

today.Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, for 5 min-

utes, today.Mrs. CLAYTON, for 5 minutes, today.The following Members (at the re-

quest of Mr. PENCE) to revise and ex-tend their remarks and include extra-neous material:

Mr. SMITH of Michigan, for 5 minutes,today.

f

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move thatthe House do now adjourn.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H217February 7, 2001The motion was agreed to; accord-

ingly (at 12 o’clock and 25 minutesp.m.), the House adjourned until to-morrow, Thursday, February 8, 2001, at10 a.m.

f

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS,ETC.

Under clause 8 of rule XII, executivecommunications were taken from theSpeaker’s table and referred as follows:

673. A letter from the Comptroller, Depart-ment of Defense, transmitting a report of aviolation of the Antideficiency Act by theDepartment of the Air Force in the 1stFighter Wing, Langley Air Force Base, Vir-ginia, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1517(b); to theCommittee on Appropriations.

674. A letter from the Director, Office ofSmall and Disadvantaged Business Utiliza-tion, Department of Defense, transmitting areport on the Department’s efforts andplanned initiatives to achieve the five per-cent goals for women-owned business con-cerns; to the Committee on Armed Services.

675. A letter from the Counsel for Legisla-tion and Regulations, Department of Hous-ing and Urban Development, transmittingthe Department’s final rule—Rule ToDeconcentrate Poverty and Promote Inte-gration in Public Housing; Change in Appli-cability Date of Deconcentration Componentof PHA Plan [Docket No. FR–4420–F–11] (RIN:2577–AB89) received February 5, 2001, pursu-ant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committeeon Financial Services.

676. A letter from the Managing Director,Federal Housing Finance Board, transmit-ting the Board’s final rule—Capital Require-ments for Federal Home Loan Banks [No.2000–46] (RIN: 3069–AB01) received February 2,2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to theCommittee on Financial Services.

677. A letter from the Legislative and Reg-ulatory Activities Division, Office of theComptroller of the Currency, transmittingthe Office’s final rule—Interagency Guide-lines Establishing Standards for Safe-guarding Customer Information and Rescis-sion of Year 2000 Standards for Safety andSoundness [Docket No. 00–35] (RIN: 1557–AB84) received February 2, 2001, pursuant to5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Fi-nancial Services.

678. A letter from the Deputy Secretary,Division of Corporation Finance, Securitiesand Exchange Commission, transmitting theCommission’s final rule—Integration ofAbandoned Offerings [Release No. 33–7943;File No. S7–30–98] (RIN: 3235–AG83) receivedJanuary 31, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on FinancialServices.

679. A letter from the Deputy Associate Ad-ministrator, Environmental ProtectionAgency, transmitting the Agency’s finalrule—OMB Approvals Under the PaperworkReduction Act; Technical Amendment [FRL–6935–8] received January 17, 2001, pursuant to5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee onEnergy and Commerce.

680. A letter from the Deputy Associate Ad-ministrator, Environmental ProtectionAgency, transmitting the Agency’s finalrule—Approval and Promulgation of Imple-mentation Plans; Illinois [IL198–1a; FRL–6935–4] received January 17, 2001, pursuant to5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee onEnergy and Commerce.

681. A letter from the Deputy Associate Ad-ministrator, Environmental ProtectionAgency, transmitting the Agency’s finalrule—Approval and Promulgation of AirQuality State Implementation Plans; Texas;Approval of Clean Fuel Fleet Substitution

Program Revision [TX–105–1–7404; FRL–6935–3] received January 17, 2001, pursuant to 5U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on En-ergy and Commerce.

682. A letter from the Secretary, FederalTrade Commission, transmitting the Com-mission’s final rule—Guides for the Jewelry,Precious Metals and Pewter Industries—re-ceived February 2, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy andCommerce.

683. A letter from the Director, Defense Se-curity Cooperation Agency, transmitting theDepartment of the Army’s proposed lease ofdefense articles to the United Kingdom(Transmittal No. 02–01), pursuant to 22 U.S.C.2796a(a); to the Committee on InternationalRelations.

684. A letter from the Acting AssistantSecretary for Legislative Affairs, Depart-ment of State, transmitting certificationthat the Russian Federation and Ukraine arecommitted to the courses of action describedin Section 1203 (d) of the Cooperative ThreatReduction Act of 1993 (Title XII of the PublicLaw 103–160), Section 1412 (d) of the FormerSoviet Union Demilitarization Act of 1992(Title XIV of Public Law 102–484) and Section502 of the FREEDOM Support Act (PublicLaw 102–511); to the Committee on Inter-national Relations.

685. A letter from the Chairman, Council ofthe District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. ACT 13–570, ‘‘CommemorativeWorks on Public Space Amendment Act of2000’’ received February 7, 2001, pursuant toD.C. Code section 1—233(c)(1); to the Com-mittee on Government Reform.

686. A letter from the Chairman, Council ofthe District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. ACT 13–568, ‘‘Equity in Con-tracting Amendment Act of 2000’’ receivedFebruary 7, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code sec-tion 1—233(c)(1); to the Committee on Gov-ernment Reform.

687. A letter from the Chairman, Council ofthe District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. ACT 13–572, ‘‘Newborn HearingScreening Act of 2000’’ received February 7,2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1—233(c)(1); to the Committee on GovernmentReform.

688. A letter from the Chairman, Council ofthe District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. ACT 13–590, ‘‘Child and FamilyServices Agency Establishment AmendmentAct of 2000’’ received February 7, 2001, pursu-ant to D.C. Code section 1—233(c)(1); to theCommittee on Government Reform.

689. A letter from the Chairman, Council ofthe District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. ACT 13–560, ‘‘Anti-GraffitiAmendment Act of 2000’’ received February7, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1—233(c)(1); to the Committee on GovernmentReform.

690. A letter from the Chairman, Council ofthe District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. ACT 13–567, ‘‘Bail Reform Act of2000’’ received February 7, 2001, pursuant toD.C. Code section 1—233(c)(1); to the Com-mittee on Government Reform.

691. A letter from the Chairman, Council ofthe District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. ACT 13–566, ‘‘Foster Children’sGuardianship Act of 2000’’ received February7, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1—233(c)(1); to the Committee on GovernmentReform.

692. A letter from the Chairman, Council ofthe District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. ACT 13–565, ‘‘Safe Needle Act of2000’’ received February 7, 2001, pursuant toD.C. Code section 1—233(c)(1); to the Com-mittee on Government Reform.

693. A letter from the Chairman, Council ofthe District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. ACT 13–562, ‘‘Health Care and

Community Residence Facility, Hospice andHome Care Licensure Penalties TemporaryAmendment Act of 2000’’ received February7, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1—233(c)(1); to the Committee on GovernmentReform.

694. A letter from the Chairman, Council ofthe District of Columbia, transmitting acopy of D.C. ACT 13–561, ‘‘UnemploymentCompensation Administration EnhancementAmendment Act of 2000’’ received February7, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1—233(c)(1); to the Committee on GovernmentReform.

695. A letter from the Comptroller General,General Accounting Office, transmitting alist of reports issued or released by GAO dur-ing the month of November 2000; to the Com-mittee on Government Reform.

696. A letter from the President, JamesMadison Memorial Fellowship Foundation,transmitting the 2000 annual report of theFoundation, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 4513; tothe Committee on Government Reform.

697. A letter from the Director, Office ofManagement and Budget, transmitting the2000 Federal Financial Management Report;to the Committee on Government Reform.

698. A letter from the the Chief Adminis-trative Officer, transmitting the quarterlyreport of receipts and expenditures of appro-priations and other funds for the period Oc-tober 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000 ascompiled by the Chief Administrative Offi-cer, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 104a; (H. Doc. No.107—40); to the Committee on House Admin-istration and ordered to be printed.

699. A letter from the Director, Policy Di-rectives and Instructions Branch, Immigra-tion and Naturalization Service, Departmentof Justice, transmitting the Department’sfinal rule—Update of the List of CountriesWhose Citizens or Nationals Are Ineligiblefor Transit Without Visa (TWOV) Privilegesto the United States Under the TWOV Pro-gram [INS No. 2020–99] (RIN: 1115–AF81) re-ceived February 2, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judici-ary.

700. A letter from the Regulations Officer,Federal Highway Administration, Depart-ment of Transportation, transmitting theDepartment’s final rule—Intelligent Trans-portation System Architecture and Stand-ards: Delay of Effective Date [FHWA DocketNo. FHWA–99–5899] (RIN: 2125–AE65) receivedFebruary 2, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transpor-tation and Infrastructure.

701. A letter from the Assistant ChiefCounsel for Legislation and Regulations,Federal Transit Administration, Departmentof Transportation, transmitting the Depart-ment’s final rule—Major Capital InvestmentProjects; Delay of Effective Date (RIN: 2132–AA63) received February 2, 2001, pursuant to5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure.

702. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regu-lations and Administrative Law, USCG, De-partment of Transportation, transmittingthe Department’s final rule—Regattas andMarine Parades: Delay of Effective Date(RIN: 2115–AF17) received February 2, 2001,pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Com-mittee on Transportation and Infrastruc-ture.

703. A letter from the Deputy Chief Coun-sel, Research and Special Programs Adminis-tration, Department of Transportation,transmitting the Department’s final rule—Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Manage-ment in High Consequence Areas (HazardousLiquid Operators with 500 or More Miles ofPipelines) [Docket No. RSPA–99–6355; Amdt.195–70] (RIN: 2137–AD45) received February 2,2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to theCommittee on Transportation and Infra-structure.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH218 February 7, 2001704. A letter from the Deputy Chief Coun-

sel, Research and Special Programs Adminis-tration, Department of Transportation,transmitting the Department’s final rule—Pipeline Safety: Areas Unusually Sensitiveto Environmental Damage [Docket No. SPA–99–5455; Amdt. 195–71] (RIN: 2137–AC34) re-ceived February 2, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transpor-tation and Infrastructure.

705. A communication from the Presidentof the United States, transmitting principlesfor a bipartisan Patients’ Bill of Rights toprovide all Americans with protections inmanaged care; (H. Doc. No. 107—42); jointlyto the Committees on Energy and Com-merce, Ways and Means, and Education andthe Workforce and ordered to be printed.

f

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, publicbills and resolutions of the followingtitles were introduced and severally re-ferred, as follows:

[Omitted from the Record of February 6, 2001]

By Mr. NETHERCUTT (for himself, Mr.FOLEY, Mr. REYES, Ms. DUNN, Mr.WATKINS, Mr. DOYLE, Mrs. EMERSON,Mr. ENGLISH, and Mrs. THURMAN):

H.R. 394. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to allow employers a creditagainst income tax with respect to employ-ees who participate in the military reserves,to allow a comparable credit for partici-pating self-employed individuals, and to re-store the pre-1986 status of deductions in-curred in connection with services performedas a member of a Reserve component of theArmed Forces; to the Committee on Waysand Means.

By Mr. WELDON of Florida (for him-self, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. SHAW,Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. STEARNS, Mr.MICA, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr.KELLER, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr.GOSS, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr.DEUTSCH, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. FOLEY,Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Mr. HASTINGSof Florida, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. PUT-NAM, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. SCAR-BOROUGH, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. BOYD, andMrs. THURMAN):

H.R. 395. A bill to designate the facility ofthe United States Postal Service located at2305 Minton Road in West Melbourne, Flor-ida, as the ‘‘Ronald W. Reagan Post Office ofWest Melbourne, Florida’’; to the Committeeon Government Reform.

By Mr. PICKERING:H.R. 396. A bill to amend the emergency

crop loss assistance provisions of the Agri-culture, Rural Development, Food and DrugAdministration, and Related Agencies Ap-propriations Act, 2001, to respond to the se-vere economic losses being incurred by cropproducers, livestock and poultry producers,and greenhouse operators as a result of thesharp increase in energy prices; to the Com-mittee on Agriculture.

By Mr. GALLEGLY (for himself, Mr.BEREUTER, Mr. GEORGE MILLER ofCalifornia, Mrs. JOHNSON of Con-necticut, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. GILMAN,Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. LEACH, Mr.TANCREDO, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey,Mr. PALLONE, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SMITHof Washington, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr.LEVIN, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. ACKERMAN,Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr. BERMAN, Mr.HORN, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. MICA, Mr.MENENDEZ, Mr. BASS, Ms. LEE, Mr.BOEHLERT, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. INSLEE,Mr. NADLER, Mrs. MALONEY of NewYork, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. PELOSI, Mr.DOYLE, Mr. BOUCHER, Ms. NORTON,

Mr. BORSKI, Mr. OLVER, Ms. BALDWIN,Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Ms. RIV-ERS, Mr. HOLT, Mr. NEAL of Massa-chusetts, Mr. BENTSEN, Mr.BLAGOJEVICH, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. FIL-NER, Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. ESHOO, Ms.SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr.ROTHMAN, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mr.SIMMONS, Mr. WEINER, Ms. DELAURO,Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. LUTHER, Mr.KUCINICH, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. FRELING-HUYSEN, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr.THOMPSON of California, Mr. LIPINSKI,Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. EVANS,Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. PHELPS, Mr.OBERSTAR, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. HINCHEY,Mr. EHLERS, Ms. MCKINNEY, Ms. ROY-BAL-ALLARD, Mr. FRANK, Mr. PAYNE,Mr. TIERNEY, and Mr. STARK):

H.R. 397. A bill to conserve global bear pop-ulations by prohibiting the importation, ex-portation, and interstate trade of bearviscera and items, products, or substancescontaining or labeled or advertised as con-taining, bear viscera, and for other purposes;to the Committee on Resources, and in addi-tion to the Committees on International Re-lations, and Ways and Means, for a period tobe subsequently determined by the Speaker,in each case for consideration of such provi-sions as fall within the jurisdiction of thecommittee concerned.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 398. A bill to make supplemental ap-

propriations for fiscal year 2001 to ensure theinclusion of commonly used pesticides inState source water assessment programs,and for other purposes; to the Committee onAppropriations.

By Mr. BISHOP (for himself, Mr. SHER-MAN, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. CONDIT, Mr.CAPUANO, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mrs.CHRISTENSEN, Mr. BARR of Georgia,Mr. FROST, Mr. BRADY of Pennsyl-vania, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr.HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HALL ofOhio, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. KILDEE, Mr.KUCINICH, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. JEF-FERSON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSONof Texas, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr.MEEHAN, Ms. NORTON, Mr. GEORGEMILLER of California, Mr. MCGOVERN,Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. MCKINNEY, Ms.MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. PAYNE,Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. NEY, Mrs. MEEK ofFlorida, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs.NAPOLITANO, Mr. THOMPSON of Mis-sissippi, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. LANTOS, Mr.FILNER, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. SABO, Mr.FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. PHELPS, Mr.WYNN, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. THOMPSON ofCalifornia, Mr. RUSH, Mr. OWENS,Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. UDALL of Colo-rado, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, and Mr.LEWIS of Georgia):

H.R. 399. A bill to authorize the Presidentto present gold medals on behalf of the Con-gress to former President Jimmy Carter andhis wife Rosalynn Carter in recognition oftheir service to the Nation; to the Com-mittee on Financial Services.

By Mr. HASTERT:H.R. 400. A bill to authorize the Secretary

of the Interior to establish the RonaldReagan Boyhood Home National HistoricSite, and for other purposes; to the Com-mittee on Resources.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 401. A bill to amend the Higher Edu-

cation Act of 1965 to require institutions ofhigher education to notify parents con-cerning missing person reports about theirchildren, and for other purposes; to the Com-mittee on Education and the Workforce.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 402. A bill to amend the Higher Edu-

cation Act of 1965 to recognize the time re-quired to save funds for the college edu-

cation of adopted children; to the Committeeon Education and the Workforce.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 403. A bill to amend title I of the Em-

ployee Retirement Income Security Act of1974 to require persons who are plan adminis-trators of employee pension benefit plans orprovide administrative services to suchplans, and who also provide automobile in-surance coverage or provide persons offeringsuch coverage identifying information relat-ing to plan participants or beneficiaries, tosubmit to the Federal Trade Commissioncertain information relating to such auto-mobile insurance coverage; to the Com-mittee on Education and the Workforce.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 404. A bill to amend the National

Labor Relations Act to ensure that certainorders of the National Labor Relations Boardare enforced to protect the rights of employ-ees; to the Committee on Education and theWorkforce.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 405. A bill to amend title 49 of the

United States Code to require automobilemanufacturers to provide automatic doorlocks on new passenger cars manufacturedafter 2004; to the Committee on Energy andCommerce.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 406. A bill to prohibit an insurer from

treating a veteran differently in the terms orconditions of motor vehicle insurance be-cause a motor vehicle operated by the vet-eran, during a period of military service bythe veteran, was insured or owned by theUnited States; to the Committee on Finan-cial Services.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 407. A bill concerning denial of pass-

ports to noncustodial parents subject toState arrest warrants in cases of non-payment of child support; to the Committeeon International Relations.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 408. A bill to provide for the establish-

ment of a national database of ballistics in-formation about firearms for use in fightingcrime, and to require firearms manufactur-ers to provide ballistics information aboutnew firearms to the national database; to theCommittee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ANDREWS (for himself, Mr.SAXTON, and Mr. LOBIONDO):

H.R. 409. A bill to amend title 28, UnitedStates Code, to divide New Jersey into 2 ju-dicial districts; to the Committee on the Ju-diciary.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 410. A bill II of the Social Security

Act to restore child’s insurance benefits inthe case of children who are 18 through 22years of age and attend postsecondaryschools; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 411. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to provide an inflation ad-justment of the dollar limitation on the ex-clusion of gain on the sale of a principal resi-dence; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 412. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to exempt from income taxthe gain from the sale of a business closelyheld by an individual who has attained age62, and for other purposes; to the Committeeon Ways and Means.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 413. A bill to amend the Social Secu-

rity Act to require that anticipated childsupport be held in trust on the sale or refi-nancing of certain real property of an obli-gated parent; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 414. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to make the Hope and Life-time Learning Credits refundable, and to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H219February 7, 2001allow taxpayers to obtain short-term studentloans by using the future refund of suchcredits as collateral for the loans; to theCommittee on Ways and Means.

By Ms. SANCHEZ:H.R. 415. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to encourage new schoolconstruction through the creation of a newclass of bond; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 416. A bill to establish a Fund for En-

vironmental Priorities to be funded by a por-tion of the consumer savings resulting fromretail electricity choice, and for other pur-poses; to the Committee on Energy and Com-merce, and in addition to the Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure, for a pe-riod to be subsequently determined by theSpeaker, in each case for consideration ofsuch provisions as fall within the jurisdic-tion of the committee concerned.

By Mr. ANDREWS:H.R. 417. A bill to amend the Controlled

Substances Act to provide penalties for openair drug markets, and for other purposes; tothe Committee on the Judiciary, and in addi-tion to the Committee on Education and theWorkforce, for a period to be subsequentlydetermined by the Speaker, in each case forconsideration of such provisions as fall with-in the jurisdiction of the committee con-cerned.

By Mr. BALDACCI:H.R. 418. A bill to designate the facility of

the United States Postal Service located at14 Municipal Way in Cherryfield, Maine, asthe ‘‘Gardner C. Grant Post Office’’; to theCommittee on Government Reform.

By Mr. BARRETT (for himself, Mr.FARR of California, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr.BROWN of Ohio, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr.FROST, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr. HOLDEN,Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. CLEMENT, Mr.BECERRA, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico,Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California,Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. GREEN ofTexas, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. KLECZKA,Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr.CAPUANO, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr.ALLEN, Mr. WAXMAN, Ms. SLAUGHTER,Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. NAD-LER, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr.RUSH, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr.TOWNS, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. MCDERMOTT,Mr. CARDIN, Ms. MCCARTHY of Mis-souri, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts,and Mr. LANTOS):

H.R. 419. A bill to amend the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act of 1965 to au-thorize the Secretary of Education to makeadditional grants under the 21st CenturyCommunity Learning Centers Program, andfor other purposes; to the Committee onEducation and the Workforce.

By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland (forhimself, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr.CHAMBLISS, Mr. WELDON of Pennsyl-vania, and Mr. PETRI):

H.R. 420. A bill to recognize the birthdaysof Presidents George Washington and Abra-ham Lincoln; to the Committee on Govern-ment Reform.

By Mr. BECERRA:H.R. 421. A bill to make single family prop-

erties owned by the Department of Housingand Urban Development available at a dis-count to elementary and secondary schoolteachers and public safety officers, and forother purposes; to the Committee on Finan-cial Services.

By Mr. BECERRA:H.R. 422. A bill to require ballistics testing

of the firearms manufactured in or importedinto the United States that are most com-monly used in crime, and to provide for thecompilation, use, and availability of ballis-tics information for the purpose of curbing

the use of firearms in crime; to the Com-mittee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BECERRA:H.R. 423. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a re-fundable credit against income tax for thefair market value of firearms turned in tolocal law enforcement agencies; to the Com-mittee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. BILIRAKIS:H.R. 424. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to provide to employers atax credit for compensation paid during theperiod employees are performing service asmembers of the Ready Reserve or the Na-tional Guard; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mr. NADLER (for himself, Mr.GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr.LANTOS, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. BONIOR,Ms. PELOSI, Mr. FARR of California,Mr. QUINN, Mr. SABO, Mr. GUTKNECHT,Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr.SANDERS, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. WAX-MAN, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr.CAPUANO, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr.ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. HILL-IARD, Mr. MEEHAN, Ms. VELAZQUEZ,Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. BRADY of Pennsyl-vania, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mrs.MORELLA, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr.OWENS, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island,Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mr. MOAKLEY,Mr. BERMAN, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms.MCCARTHY of Missouri, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. FROST, Mr. COYNE,Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. FILNER, Ms.LOFGREN, Mr. PASCRELL, and Mr.KUCINICH):

H.R. 425. A bill to authorize the Secretaryof Housing and Urban Development to makegrants to States to supplement State assist-ance for the preservation of affordable hous-ing for low-income families; to the Com-mittee on Financial Services.

By Mr. BILIRAKIS:H.R. 426. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit toemployers for the value of the service notperformed during the period employees areperforming service as members of the ReadyReserve or National Guard; to the Com-mittee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself,Mr. DEFAZIO, and Mr. WU):

H.R. 427. A bill to provide further protec-tions for the watershed of the Little SandyRiver as part of the Bull Run WatershedManagement Unit, Oregon, and for otherpurposes; to the Committee on Resources,and in addition to the Committee on Agri-culture, for a period to be subsequently de-termined by the Speaker, in each case forconsideration of such provisions as fall with-in the jurisdiction of the committee con-cerned.

By Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself,Mr. CHABOT, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. LAN-TOS, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. WEXLER, Mr.CALVERT, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. WYNN,Mr. WU, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. BILI-RAKIS, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mrs.TAUSCHER, Mr. COX, Mr. NEY, Mr.SESSIONS, Mr. ANDREWS, and Mr.STARK):

H.R. 428. A bill concerning the participa-tion of Taiwan in the World Health Organiza-tion; to the Committee on International Re-lations.

By Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Ms.BALDWIN, Mrs. MALONEY of NewYork, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. GEPHARDT,Mr. BONIOR, Mr. FRANK, Mr. BERMAN,Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. NADLER, Ms. JACK-SON-LEE of Texas, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr.DELAHUNT, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr.WEXLER, Mr. WEINER, Mr. CROWLEY,Mr. POMEROY, Mr. WU, Ms. RIVERS,

Mr. ANDREWS, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. SAND-ERS, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. WYNN, Mr.STARK, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. BACA,Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Ms. ROYBAL-AL-LARD, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr.FROST, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania,Ms. DELAURO, Mr. FOLEY, Mr.DEFAZIO, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mrs. MEEKof Florida, Mr. MOORE, Mr. THOMPSONof California, Mr. TIERNEY, Ms. NOR-TON, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of Cali-fornia, Ms. LEE, Mr. DICKS, Mr. ACK-ERMAN, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. KAP-TUR, Mr. BARCIA, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr.LANTOS, Mr. DOOLEY of California,Mr. FILNER, Mr. CARDIN, Ms.SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr.SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. COYNE,Mr. PALLONE, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. WAX-MAN, Mr. TOWNS, Mrs. MINK of Ha-waii, Mrs. THURMAN, and Mr.KUCINICH):

H.R. 429. A bill to restore the Federal civilremedy for crimes of violence motivated bygender; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. DELAHUNT (for himself, Mr.GRAHAM, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut,Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. FROST, Mr.GREENWOOD, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDON-ALD, Mr. SCARBOROUGH, Mrs. JONES ofOhio, Mr. DUNCAN, Ms. RIVERS, Mr.COOKSEY, Mr. HOLDEN, and Mr.MCGOVERN):

H.R. 430. A bill to establish a bipartisancommission to study the accuracy, integrity,and efficiency of Federal election proceduresand develop standards for the condut of Fed-eral elections, and to authorize grants andtechnical assistance to the States to assistthem in implementing such standards; to theCommittee on House Administration.

By Mr. DICKS:

H.R. 431. A bill to amend the Violent CrimeControl and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 toallow certain grant funds to be used to pro-vide parent education; to the Committee onthe Judiciary, and in addition to the Com-mittee on Education and the Workforce, fora period to be subsequently determined bythe Speaker, in each case for considerationof such provisions as fall within the jurisdic-tion of the committee concerned.

By Mr. DINGELL:

H.R. 432. A bill to authorize State and localgovernments to regulate, for public safetypurposes, trains that block road traffic; tothe Committee on Transportation and Infra-structure.

By Mr. DINGELL:

H.R. 433. A bill to require the Secretary ofTransportation to issue regulations address-ing safety concerns in minimizing delay forautomobile traffic at railroad grade cross-ings; to the Committee on Transportationand Infrastructure.

By Mr. DOOLITTLE (for himself andMr. CONDIT):

H.R. 434. A bill to direct the Secretary ofAgriculture to enter into a cooperativeagreement to provide fro retention, mainte-nance, and operation, at private expense, ofthe 18 concrete dams and weirs located with-in the boudaries of the Emigrant Wildernessin the Stanislaus National Forest, Cali-fornia, and for other purposes; to the Com-mittee on Resources.

By Mr. DUNCAN:

H.R. 435. A bill to amend title 38, UnitedStates Code, to improve access to medicalservices for veterans seeking treatment atDepartment of Veterans Affairs outpatientclinics with exceptionally long waiting peri-ods; to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

By Mr. ENGLISH (for himself and Mr.HULSHOF):

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH220 February 7, 2001H.R. 436. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to repeal the dollar limita-tion on the deduction for interest on edu-cation loans, to increase the income thresh-old for the phase out of such deduction, andto repeal the 60 month limitation on theamount of such interest that is allowable asa deduction; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mr. ENGLISH:H.R. 437. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to repeal the alternativeminimum tax; to the Committee on Waysand Means.

By Mr. ENGLISH (for himself, Ms.HART, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. SCHAFFER,Ms. RIVERS, Mr. BALDACCI, and Mr.GOODE):

H.R. 438. A bill to eliminate automatic payadjustments for Members of Congress; to theCommittee on House Administration, and inaddition to the Committee on GovernmentReform, for a period to be subsequently de-termined by the Speaker, in each case forconsideration of such provisions as fall with-in the jurisdiction of the committee con-cerned.

By Mr. FILNER:H.R. 439. A bill to amend title 10, United

States Code, to extend commissary and ex-change store privileges to veterans with aservice-connected disability rated at 30 per-cent or more and to the dependents of suchveterans; to the Committee on Armed Serv-ices.

By Mr. FILNER:H.R. 440. A bill to amend title 10, United

States Code, to authorize transportation onmilitary aircraft on a space-available basisfor veterans with a service-connected dis-ability rated 50 percent or more; to the Com-mittee on Armed Services.

By Mr. FILNER:H.R. 441. A bill to direct the Secretary of

Veterans Affairs to establish a national cem-etery for veterans in the San Diego, Cali-fornia, metropolitan area; to the Committeeon Veterans’ Affairs.

By Mr. FILNER (for himself and Mr.EVANS):

H.R. 442. A bill to amend title 38, UnitedStates Code, to increase the maximumamount of a home loan guarantee availableto a veteran; to the Committee on Veterans’Affairs.

By Mr. FILNER:H.R. 443. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to impose a windfall profittax on wholesale electric energy sold in theWestern System Coordinating Council; tothe Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. FOSSELLA:H.R. 444. A bill to amend title 36, United

States Code, to grant a Federal charter tothe National Lighthouse Center and Mu-seum; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FOSSELLA:H.R. 445. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to reduce individual in-come tax rates by 30 percent; to the Com-mittee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. FOSSELLA:H.R. 446. A bill to amend certain provisions

of title 5, United States Code, relating to dis-ability annuities for law enforcement offi-cers, firefighters, and members of the Cap-itol Police; to the Committee on Govern-ment Reform, and in addition to the Com-mittee on House Administration, for a periodto be subsequently determined by the Speak-er, in each case for consideration of such pro-visions as fall within the jurisdiction of thecommittee concerned.

By Mr. GIBBONS:H.R. 447. A bill to require the Secretary of

the Interior to make reimbursement for cer-tain damages incurred as a result of bondingregulations adopted by the Bureau of Land

Management on February 28, 1997, and subse-quently determined to be in violation of Fed-eral law; to the Committee on Resources.

By Mr. GIBBONS:H.R. 448. A bill to limit the age restrictions

imposed by the Administrator of the FederalAviation Administration for the issuance orrenewal of certain airman certificates, andfor other purposes; to the Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure.

By Mr. GILCHREST:H.R. 449. A bill to amend the Federal Elec-

tion Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibitnonparty multicandidate political com-mittee contributions in elections for Federaloffice; to the Committee on House Adminis-tration.

By Mr. GILCHREST:H.R. 450. A bill to amend the Federal Elec-

tion Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit can-didates for election to the House of Rep-resentatives from accepting contributionsfrom individuals who do not reside in the dis-trict the candidate seeks to represent; to theCommittee on House Administration.

By Mr. HANSEN:H.R. 451. A bill to make certain adjust-

ments to the boundaries of the Mount NeboWilderness Area, and for other purposes; tothe Committee on Resources.

By Mr. HANSEN:H.R. 452. A bill to authorize the establish-

ment of a memorial to former PresidentRonald Reagan within the area in the Dis-trict of Columbia referred to in the Com-memorative Works Act as ‘Area I’, to pro-vide for the design and construction of suchmemorial, and for other purposes; to theCommittee on Resources.

By Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon (for herself,Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr.FROST, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. BROWN ofOhio, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr.KILDEE, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr.GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms.SLAUGHTER, Mr. MCGOVERN, and Mr.RUSH):

H.R. 453. A bill to amend title XIX of theSocial Security Act to require criminalbackground checks on drivers providingMedicaid medical assistance transportationservices; to the Committee on Energy andCommerce.

By Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois:H.R. 454. A bill to prohibit the use of, and

provide for remediation of water contami-nated by, methyl tertiary butyl ether; to theCommittee on Energy and Commerce.

By Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (forhimself and Mr. CARDIN):

H.R. 455. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to restore the deduction forlobbying expenses in connection with Statelegislation; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas:H.R. 456. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriagepenalty in the income tax rates and standarddeduction and to reduce individual incometax rates; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Ms. KAPTUR (for herself, Mr.HUNTER, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. SANDERS,Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr.BORSKI, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr.SHOWS, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. WYNN, Mr.LATOURETTE, Mr. BRADY of Pennsyl-vania, Mr. MCHUGH, Ms. PELOSI, Mr.NEY, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. BACA, Mr.FILNER, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. MCINTYRE,Mr. CONYERS, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr.MCNULTY, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. LIPINSKI,Mr. DINGELL, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr.FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. LANTOS, Mrs.THURMAN, Mr. FROST, and Mr.MCDERMOTT):

H.R. 457. A bill to amend the Trade Act of1974 to establish a transitional adjustment

assistance program for workers adversely af-fected by reason of the extension of non-discriminatory treatment (normal trade re-lations treatment) to the products of thePeople’s Republic of China; to the Com-mittee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. KELLER:H.R. 458. A bill to amend title 18, United

States Code, to provide that Federal prisonsmay not provide cable television and similarluxuries to their inmates; to the Committeeon the Judiciary.

By Mr. LARSEN of Washington (forhimself, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. DICKS, Mr.PALLONE, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr.BAIRD, and Mr. SMITH of Wash-ington):

H.R. 459. A bill to provide for enhancedsafety, public awareness, and environmentalprotection in pipeline transportation, and forother purposes; to the Committee on Trans-portation and Infrastructure, and in additionto the Committee on Education and theWorkforce, for a period to be subsequentlydetermined by the Speaker, in each case forconsideration of such provisions as fall with-in the jurisdiction of the committee con-cerned.

By Ms. MCKINNEY:H.R. 460. A bill to require nationals of the

United States that employ individuals in aforeign country to provide full transparencyand disclosure in all their operations; to theCommittee on International Relations.

By Mr. MCNULTY:H.R. 461. A bill to authorize the President

to award the Medal of Honor posthumouslyto Henry Johnson for acts of valor duringWorld War I; to the Committee on ArmedServices.

By Mr. MCNULTY:H.R. 462. A bill to amend title 10, United

States Code, to provide that military reserv-ists who are retained in active status afterqualifying for reserve retired pay shall begiven credit toward computation of such re-tired pay for service performed after soqualifying; to the Committee on ArmedServices.

By Mr. MCNULTY:H.R. 463. A bill to prohibit discrimination

by the States on the basis of nonresidency inthe licensing of dental health care profes-sionals, and for other purposes; to the Com-mittee on Energy and Commerce.

By Mr. MCNULTY:H.R. 464. A bill to establish the Kate

Mullany National Historic Site in the Stateof New York, and for other purposes; to theCommittee on Resources.

By Mr. MCCNULTY:H.R. 465. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to allow rollover contribu-tions to individual retirement plans from de-ferred compensation plans maintained byStates and local governments and to allowState and local governments to maintain401(k) plans; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mrs. MINK of Hawaii (for herself,Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. AN-DREWS, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. GEORGE MIL-LER of California, Mr. ENGEL, Mr.STARK, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. TIERNEY,Mr. FORD, Mr. RUSH, Mr. HINOJOSA,Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. OWENS, Mr.PAYNE, and Mr. KUCINICH):

H.R. 466. A bill to amend the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act of 1965 to di-rect the Secretary of Education to makegrants to local educational agencies for therecruitment, training, and hiring of 100,000individuals to serve as school-based resourcestaff; to the Committee on Education andthe Workforce.

By Mr. NADLER:H.R. 467. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to exclude from the gross

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H221February 7, 2001estate the value of certain works of artisticproperty created by the decedent; to theCommittee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts:H.R. 468. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to simplify the $500 perchild tax credit and other individual non-re-fundable credits by repealing the complexlimitations on the allowance of those creditsresulting from their interaction with the al-ternative minimum tax; to the Committeeon Ways and Means.

By Mr. OWENS:H.R. 469. A bill to amend title XII of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of1965 to provide grants to improve the infra-structure of elementary and secondaryschools; to the Committee on Education andthe Workforce.

By Mr. PALLONE:H.R. 470. A bill to prohibit the commercial

harvesting of Atlantic striped bass in thecoastal waters and the exclusive economiczone; to the Committee on Resources.

By Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, Mrs.ROUKEMA, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. PALLONE,Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. SMITH of New Jer-sey, Ms. BALDWIN, Mrs. MALONEY ofNew York, Mr. HOYER, Mrs. MORELLA,Ms. DELAURO, Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr.SKELTON, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. CLEMENT,Mr. BOEHLERT, and Mr. RUSH):

H.R. 471. A bill to provide for disclosure offire safety standards and measures with re-spect to campus buildings, and for other pur-poses; to the Committee on Education andthe Workforce.

By Mr. RADANOVICH:H.R. 472. A bill to amend the Endangered

Species Act of 1973 to exempt the WoodrowWilson Bridge project from certain provi-sions of that Act and allow the bridge andactivities elsewhere to proceed in compli-ance with that Act, and for other purposes;to the Committee on Resources.

By Ms. RIVERS:H.R. 473. A bill to assess the impact of the

North American Free Trade Agreement ondomestic job loss and the environment, andfor other purposes; to the Committee onWays and Means.

By Ms. RIVERS:H.R. 474. A bill to repeal the War Powers

Resolution; to the Committee on Inter-national Relations, and in addition to theCommittee on Rules, for a period to be sub-sequently determined by the Speaker, ineach case for consideration of such provi-sions as fall within the jurisdiction of thecommittee concerned.

By Mr. ROGERS of Michigan (for him-self, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. CAMP, Mrs.KELLY, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. SMITH ofMichigan, and Mr. KNOLLENBERG):

H.R. 475. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction foramounts paid to any qualified State tuitionprogram and to provide that distributionsfrom such programs which are used to payeducational expenses shall not be includiblein gross income; to the Committee on Waysand Means.

By Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself,Mr. BARCIA, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. PITTS,Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BURTON of Indiana,Mr. CAMP, Mr. CHABOT, Mr.FOSSELLA, Mr. WALSH, Mr. PETERSONof Pennsylvania, Mr. PHELPS, Mr.PORTMAN, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. RYUN ofKansas, Mr. BAKER, Mr. RILEY, Mr.SHOWS, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. POMBO, Mr.SHADEGG, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. HUTCH-INSON, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BURRof North Carolina, Mr. DEMINT, Mr.HOEKSTRA, Mr. HYDE, Mr. MCCRERY,Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. KING,Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. DELAY, Mr.FLETCHER, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. SMITH

of Texas, Mr. THUNE, Mr. GOODLATTE,Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. STEARNS, Mr.CUNNINGHAM, Mr. BUYER, Mr. SCHAF-FER, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr.SUNUNU, Mr. TERRY, Mr. CANTOR, Mr.COMBEST, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, and Mrs.JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia):

H.R. 476. A bill to amend title 18, UnitedStates Code, to prohibit taking minorsacross State lines in circumvention of lawsrequiring the involvement of parents in abor-tion decisions; to the Committee on the Ju-diciary.

By Mr. SAXTON (for himself, Mr. AN-DREWS, Mr. WEINER, Mr. ACKERMAN,Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. SANDERS, Mr.KUCINICH, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr.HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. LAMPSON,Mr. MORAN of Virginia, and Mr.CARDIN):

H.R. 477. A bill to direct the Secretary ofEducation to provide grants to promote Hol-ocaust education and awareness; to the Com-mittee on Education and the Workforce.

By Mr. SHOWS (for himself, Mr. TURN-ER, Mr. HOLDEN, and Mr. THOMPSON ofMississippi):

H.R. 478. A bill to require the Secretary ofAgriculture to make emergency loans underthe Consolidated Farm and Rural Develop-ment Act and to provide emergency assist-ance to agricultural producers whose energycosts have escalated sharply; to the Com-mittee on Agriculture.

By Mr. SHOWS:H.R. 479. A bill to authorize the Secretary

of Agriculture to make emergency loansunder the Consolidated Farm and Rural De-velopment Act to greenhouse farmers whoseenergy costs have escalated sharply; to theCommittee on Agriculture.

By Mr. SHOWS:H.R. 480. A bill to require the Secretary of

Agriculture to make emergency loans underthe Consolidated Farm and Rural Develop-ment Act and to provide emergency assist-ance to greenhouse farming operationswhose energy costs have escalated sharply;to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. STARK (for himself, Mr. MAT-SUI, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. RANGEL, Mr.LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. CARDIN, Mr.COYNE, Mr. DOGGETT, Mrs. THURMAN,Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr.WAXMAN, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. KUCINICH,Mr. FROST, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. HOLDEN,Mr. FRANK, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. HILL-IARD, Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri, Mr.BERMAN, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. HINCHEY,Mr. BAIRD, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mrs.CHRISTENSEN, Mr. LANTOS, Mr.GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms.BALDWIN, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr.MCDERMOTT, and Mr. RUSH):

H.R. 481. A bill to amend the Social Secu-rity Act to remove the limitation on the pe-riod of Medicare eligibility for disabledworkers; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mr. VITTER:H.R. 482. A bill to require the Food and

Drug Administration to establish restric-tions regarding the qualifications of physi-cians to prescribe the abortion drug com-monly known as RU09486; to the Committeeon Energy and Commerce.

By Mr. WALDEN of Oregon (for him-self, Mr. WU, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr.DEFAZIO, and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon):

H.R. 483. A bill regarding the use of thetrust land and resources of the ConfederatedTribes of the Warm Springs Reservation ofOregon; to the Committee on Resources.

By Mr. SHAYS (for himself, Mrs.MALONEY of New York, Mr. SMITH ofNew Jersey, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. SIM-MONS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mrs.MORELLA, Mr. PALLONE, Mr.

DELAHUNT, Mr. MORAN of Virginia,Mr. RANGEL, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr.OLVER, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of Cali-fornia, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. WEXLER,Ms. PELOSI, Mr. CAPUANO, Ms. MCKIN-NEY, Mr. ALLEN, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. HIN-CHEY, Mr. WEINER, Mr. KUCINICH, Ms.LEE, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. TIERNEY,Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms.EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr.CONYERS, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. PRICE ofNorth Carolina, Mr. BONIOR, Mr.MARKEY, Mr. EVANS, Ms. BALDWIN,and Mr. SERRANO):

H.R. 488. A bill to designate as wilderness,wild and scenic rivers, national park and pre-serve study areas, wild land recovery areas,and biological connecting corridors certainpublic lands in the States of Idaho, Montana,Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming, and forother purposes; to the Committee on Re-sources.

By Mr. MCNULTY:H. Con. Res. 21. Concurrent resolution ex-

pressing the sense of Congress regarding theprimary author and the official home of‘‘Yankee Doodle’’; to the Committee on Gov-ernment Reform.

By Mr. SAXTON (for himself and Mr.CHAMBLISS):

H. Con. Res. 22. Concurrent resolution ex-pressing the sense of Congress regardingInternet security and ‘‘cyberterrorism’’; tothe Committee on the Judiciary, and in addi-tion to the Committee on Education and theWorkforce, for a period to be subsequentlydetermined by the Speaker, in each case forconsideration of such provisions as fall with-in the jurisdiction of the committee con-cerned.

By Mr. SCHAFFER (for himself, Mr.BOEHNER, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr.TANCREDO, Mr. TIBERI, Mrs. BIGGERT,Mr. PLATTS, Ms. SANCHEZ, Mr. BAKER,Mr. CHABOT, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. KING,Mr. BACHUS, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr.ENGLISH, Mr. VITTER, Mr. SESSIONS,Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. LANTOS, Mr.CANTOR, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. WELDONof Florida, Mrs. NORTHUP, Mr. AKIN,Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. BACA, Mr. STUPAK,Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. FERGUSON,Ms. HART, Mr. TOOMEY, and Mr.REHBERG):

H. Res. 28. A resolution honoring the con-tributions of Catholic schools; to the Com-mittee on Education and the Workforce.

By Mr. BALDACCI:H. Res. 29. A resolution relating to the

treatment of veterans with Alzheimer’s dis-ease; to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

By Ms. RIVERS:H. Res. 30. A resolution amending the

Rules of the House of Representatives to re-quire that the expenses of special-orderspeeches be paid from the Members Rep-resentational Allowance of the Membersmaking the speeches; to the Committee onRules.

[Submitted February 7, 2001]

By Mr. GALLEGLY:H.R. 489. A bill to expand the teacher loan

forgiveness programs under the guaranteedand direct student loan programs for teach-ers of mathematics and science, and forother purposes; to the Committee on Edu-cation and the Workforce.

By Mr. GALLEGLY (for himself, Mr.ETHERIDGE, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mrs.MINK of Hawaii, Mrs. BONO, Mr.BALDACCI, Mr. ENGLISH, Ms. BERKLEY,Mr. BURR of North Carolina, Mr.ALLEN, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr.DAVIS of Florida, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr.BOUCHER, Mr. FILNER, Mr. STARK, andMr. MOORE):

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH222 February 7, 2001H.R. 490. A bill to give gifted and talented

students the opportunity to develop their ca-pabilities; to the Committee on Educationand the Workforce.

By Mr. GILMAN:H.R. 491. A bill to amend title 38, United

States Code, to deem certain service in theorganized military forces of the Governmentof the Commonwealth of the Philippines andthe Philippine Scouts to have been activeservice for purposes of benefits under pro-grams administered by the Secretary of Vet-erans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans’Affairs.

By Mr. BACHUS:H.R. 492. A bill to prohibit a State from de-

termining that a ballot submitted by an ab-sent uniformed services voter was improp-erly or fraudulently cast unless the Statefinds clear and convincing evidence of fraud,to direct the Secretary of Defense to conducta study of methods to improve the proce-dures used to enable absent uniformed serv-ices voters to register to vote and vote inelections for Federal office, and for otherpurposes; to the Committee on House Admin-istration.

By Mr. BARRETT:H.R. 493. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a re-fundable credit against income tax for pay-roll taxes; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mr. BURTON of Indiana (for him-self, Mr. DUNCAN, Ms. HART, Mr.HORN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. PITTS, and Mr.TERRY):

H.R. 494. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to allow all taxpayers acredit against income tax for up to $200 ofcharitable contributions; to the Committeeon Ways and Means.

By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN (for herself,Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, and Mr. UNDER-WOOD):

H.R. 495. A bill to designate the Federalbuilding located in Charlotte Amalie, St.THOMAS, United States Virgin Islands, as the‘‘Ron de Lugo Federal Building’’; to theCommittee on Transportation and Infra-structure.

By Mrs. CUBIN (for herself, Mr. GOR-DON, Mr. BARRETT, Mr. PICKERING,and Mr. LARGENT):

H.R. 496. A bill to amend the Communica-tions Act of 1934 to promote deployment ofadvanced services and foster the develop-ment of competition for the benefit of con-sumers in all regions of the Nation by reliev-ing unnecessary burdens on the Nation’s twopercent local exchange telecommunicationscarriers, and for other purposes; to the Com-mittee on Energy and Commerce.

By Mr. DUNCAN:H.R. 497. A bill to provide that of amounts

available to a designated agency for adminis-trative expenses for a fiscal year that are notobligated in the fiscal year, up to 50 percentmay be used to pay bonuses to agency per-sonnel; to the Committee on GovernmentReform.

By Mr. EHRLICH (for himself, Mr.CHAMBLISS, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. LAHOOD,Mr. FROST, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. COBLE,Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. NEY,Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. UDALL ofNew Mexico, Mr. SENSENBRENNER,Mr. KIND, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mrs. BONO,Mr. CRAMER, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr.NETHERCUTT, Mr. GREEN of Texas,Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. BARTLETT ofMaryland, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. BOU-CHER, Mr. PAUL, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr.MCNULTY, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. PHELPS,Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. RYUN of Kansas,Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. LAFALCE, Mr. ROG-ERS of Michigan, Mr. FRANK, Mrs.NORTHUP, Mr. HOLT, Mr. CANTOR, Mr.

ALLEN, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. ABER-CROMBIE, Mr. HANSEN, Mr. BALDACCI,Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr.TANCREDO, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. ISAKSON,Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. GILMAN,Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA, Mr. FOLEY, Ms.PELOSI, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. DEFAZIO,Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. JACKSON-LEE ofTexas, Mr. TRAFICANT, Ms. VELAZ-QUEZ, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mrs.KELLY, Mr. GANSKE, Mrs. MORELLA,and Mr. KING):

H.R. 498. A bill to amend title II of the So-cial Security Act to increase the level ofearnings under which no individual who isblind is determined to have demonstrated anability to engage in substantial gainful ac-tivity for purposes of determining disability;to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. ENGEL (for himself and Mr.MARKEY):

H.R. 499. A bill to amend the ConsumerProduct Safety Act to confirm the ConsumerProduct Safety Commission’s jurisdictionover child safety devices for handguns, andfor other purposes; to the Committee on En-ergy and Commerce.

By Mr. GUTIERREZ:H.R. 500. A bill to revise various provisions

of the Immigration and Nationality Act; tothe Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ENGEL:H.R. 501. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to provide for designationof overpayments and contributions to theUnited States Textbook and TechnologyTrust Fund, and for other purposes; to theCommittee on Ways and Means, and in addi-tion to the Committee on Education and theWorkforce, for a period to be subsequentlydetermined by the Speaker, in each case forconsideration of such provisions as fall with-in the jurisdiction of the committee con-cerned.

By Mr. GALLEGLY:H.R. 502. A bill to amend the Foreign As-

sistance Act of 1961 to establish a coordi-nated program to provide economic and de-velopment assistance for the countries of theCaribbean region; to the Committee onInternational Relations.

By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr.BACHUS, Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr.CHABOT, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. DELAY,Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. HYDE, Mr. BAR-CIA, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr.VITTER, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. BURTON ofIndiana, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr.HALL of Texas, Mr. SHOWS, Mr.LARGENT, Mr. PITTS, Mr. GREEN ofWisconsin, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. GOOD-LATTE, Mr. GARY MILLER of Cali-fornia, Mr. BLUNT, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr.PHELPS, Mr. HANSEN, Mr. SHIMKUS,Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. KNOLLENBERG,Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr.DEMINT, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr.CHAMBLISS, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. WELDONof Florida, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr.JONES of North Carolina, Mr. SCHAF-FER, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. DEAL of Geor-gia, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. EVERETT, Mrs.JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr.LAHOOD, Mr. HASTINGS of Wash-ington, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. LEWIS ofKentucky, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. DOO-LITTLE, and Mr. ROGERS of Michigan):

H.R. 503. A bill to amend title 18, UnitedStates Code, and the Uniform Code of Mili-tary Justice to protect unborn children fromassault and murder, and for other purposes;to the Committee on the Judiciary, and inaddition to the Committee on Armed Serv-ices, for a period to be subsequently deter-mined by the Speaker, in each case for con-sideration of such provisions as fall withinthe jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

By Mr. GREEN of Texas (for himself,Ms. PELOSI, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. NAD-

LER, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FROST, Mr. JEF-FERSON, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. COYNE,Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. STARK, Mr.RODRIGUEZ, Mr. BASS, Mr. BENTSEN,Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. BARRETT, Mr.REYES, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. STEN-HOLM, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. KLECZKA,Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mrs. MORELLA,Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. FORD, Ms.MCCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. CLYBURN,Mr. RUSH, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr.MCDERMOTT, Mr. LANTOS, Mr.WEXLER, Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Mr.UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. PASTOR,and Mr. MATSUI):

H.R. 504. A bill to amend part D of title IIIof the Public Health Service Act to providegrants to strengthen the effectiveness, effi-ciency, and coordination of services for theuninsured and underinsured; to the Com-mittee on Energy and Commerce.

By Mr. HASTINGS of Florida:H.R. 505. A bill to amend the Immigration

and Nationality Act to provide for the ad-justment of status of certain unaccompaniedalien children and the establishment of apanel of advisors to assist unaccompaniedalien children in immigration proceedings;to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HASTINGS of Florida:H.R. 506. A bill to establish a commission

to make recommendations on the appro-priate size of membership of the House ofRepresentatives and the method by whichRepresentatives are elected; to the Com-mittee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HILLEARY (for himself, Mr.ETHERIDGE, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. HALLof Texas, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. CRAMER,Mr. PAUL, Mr. ROSS, Mr. NEY, Mr.GOODE, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. HUTCH-INSON, and Mr. BISHOP):

H.R. 507. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to provide for a nonrefund-able tax credit against income tax for indi-viduals who purchase a residential safe stor-age device for the safe storage of firearms; tothe Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. LAFALCE (for himself, Mr.GUTIERREZ, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. GON-ZALEZ, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, and Mr.CAPUANO):

H.R. 508. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a re-fundable credit based on their earned in-come; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mrs. MINK of Hawaii:H.R. 509. A bill to amend title II of the So-

cial Security Act to provide for treatment ofsevere spinal cord injury equivalent to thetreatment of blindness in determiningwhether earnings derived from services dem-onstrate an ability to engage in substantialgainful activity; to the Committee on Waysand Means.

By Mr. MURTHA (for himself, Mr.WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. BARTLETTof Maryland, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. BOS-WELL, Mr. BOYD, Mr. BROWN of SouthCarolina, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. COYNE, Mr.CUNNINGHAM, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois,Mr. DOYLE, Mr. EVANS, Mr. FILNER,Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr.GOODE, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL ofTexas, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mrs. KELLY, Mr.KOLBE, Mr. KING, Mr. MARKEY, Mr.MORAN of Virginia, Mr. NETHERCUTT,Mr. REYES, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. SISI-SKY, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. TOWNS, and Mr.FOSSELLA):

H.R. 510. A bill to authorize the design andconstruction of a temporary education cen-ter at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in theDistrict of Columbia; to the Committee onResources.

By Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, Mr.EVANS, Mr. FILNER, Mr. DOYLE, Mr.PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. ABER-CROMBIE, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr. BARCIA,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H223February 7, 2001Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr.CAPUANO, Mr. COYNE, Mr. DAVIS ofFlorida, Mr. FROST, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms.HOOLEY of Oregon, Mrs. KELLY, Mr.MALONEY of Connecticut, Mrs.MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. MCGOV-ERN, Mr. MOORE, Mr. OLVER, Mr.PHELPS, Mr. SHOWS, Mr. STARK, Mrs.THURMAN, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr.HOLDEN, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. PALLONE,Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr.BONIOR, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. GOR-DON, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. HOYER, Mr.OBEY, Mr. FRANK, Mr. HOLT, Mrs.CAPPS, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. BAIRD,Mr. WAXMAN, Ms. PELOSI, and Mr.SKELTON):

H.R. 511. A bill to amend title 38, UnitedStates Code, to improve outreach programscarried out by the Department of VeteransAffairs to provide for more fully informingveterans of benefits available to them underlaws administered by the Secretary of Vet-erans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans’Affairs.

By Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota (forhimself, Mr. OBERSTAR, and Mr.SANDERS):

H.R. 512. A bill to amend title 32, UnitedStates Code, to end the prohibition againstovertime pay for National Guard techni-cians; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota (forhimself, Mr. WALSH, Mr. MCGOVERN,Mr. CRAMER, Mr. EVANS, Mr. LAHOOD,Mr. PETRI, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. STEN-HOLM, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr.OBERSTAR, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr.PHELPS, Mr. FROST, Mr. STRICKLAND,Mrs. KELLY, Mr. FILNER, Mr. HIN-CHEY, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr.KIND, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. BONIOR, Mr.MCDERMOTT, Mr. CALVERT, Mr.TERRY, Mr. GOODLATTE, and Mr.GREEN of Wisconsin):

H.R. 513. A bill to amend title 10, UnitedStates Code, to provide more equitable civilservice retirement and retention provisionsfor National Guard technicians; to the Com-mittee on Armed Services.

By Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota:H.R. 514. A bill To amend title 38, United

States Code, to provide a presumption ofservice connection for certain specified dis-eases and disabilities in the case of veteranswho were exposed during military service tocarbon tetrachloride; to the Committee onVeterans’ Affairs.

By Mr. PETRI:H.R. 515. A bill to require that employers

offering benefits to associates of its employ-ees who are not spouses or dependents of theemployees not discriminate on the basis ofthe nature of the relationship between theemployee and the designated associates; tothe Committee on Education and the Work-force.

By Ms. PRYCE of Ohio (for herself, Mr.PITTS, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. HANSEN, Mr.MILLER of Florida, Mrs. ROUKEMA,Mr. HORN, Mr. FLETCHER, Mr. SIMP-SON, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. MCINTYRE,Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Ms. HART,Mr. PAUL, Mr. MCHUGH, Mrs. KELLY,Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. OSE, Mrs.CHRISTENSEN, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr.BLAGOJEVICH, Mr. NEY, Mrs. JONES ofOhio, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr.FROST, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. BAKER, Mr.LAHOOD, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr.GILCHREST, Mr. MICA, Mr. GARY MIL-LER of California, and Mr. LANTOS):

H.R. 516. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief to ele-mentary and secondary school teachers; tothe Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. RAHALL:H.R. 517. A bill to provide for the correct

implementation of the Railroad Rehabilita-

tion and Improvement Financing Program;to the Committee on Transportation and In-frastructure.

By Mr. REGULA:H.R. 518. A bill to amend the Trade Act of

1974, and for other purposes; to the Com-mittee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. REYES (for himself, Mrs. BONO,Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr.HUNTER, Mr. FILNER, Mr. HINOJOSA,and Mrs. DAVIS of California):

H.R. 519. A bill to amend section 4723 of theBalanced Budget Act of 1997 to assure thatthe additional funds provided for State emer-gency health services furnished to undocu-mented aliens are used to reimburse hos-pitals and their related providers that treatundocumented aliens and to extend addi-tional funding for 2 additional fiscal years;to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

By Mr. TRAFICANT:H.R. 520. A bill to amend the Emergency

Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999 to providefor increased loan guarantees for steel com-panies under that Act, and for other pur-poses; to the Committee on Financial Serv-ices.

By Mr. UNDERWOOD:H.R. 521. A bill to amend the Organic Act

of Guam for the purposes of clarifying thelocal judicial structure of Guam; to the Com-mittee on Resources.

By Mrs. EMERSON:H.J. Res. 9. A joint resolution proposing an

amendment to the Constitution to providefor a balanced budget for the United StatesGovernment and for greater accountabilityin the enactment of tax legislation; to theCommittee on the Judiciary.

By Mrs. EMERSON:H.J. Res. 10. A joint resolution proposing

an amendment to the constitution of theUnited States with respect to the right tolife; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mrs. EMERSON:H.J. Res. 11. A joint resolution proposing

an amendment to the Constitution of theUnited States authorizing the Congress andthe States to prohibit the act of desecrationof the flag of the United States and to setcriminal penalties for that; to the Com-mittee on the Judiciary.

By Mrs. EMERSON:H.J. Res. 12. A joint resolution proposing

an amendment to Constitution of the UnitedStates relating to voluntary school prayer;to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. STARK (for himself, Mr. WAX-MAN, Mr. COYNE, Mr. FROST, Mr. LAN-TOS, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of Cali-fornia, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, and Mr.STRICKLAND):

H.J. Res. 13. A joint resolution expressingthe sense of Congress regarding the need fora White House Conference to discuss and de-velop national recommendations concerningquality of care in assisted living facilities inthe United States; to the Committee on En-ergy and Commerce.

By Mr. CANTOR (for himself, Mr.ARMEY, Mr. DELAY, Mr. HYDE, Mr.GILMAN, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. WAXMAN,Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. SISISKY,Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. TIBERI, Mr.CULBERSON, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr.CRENSHAW, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr.CARDIN, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. TOWNS, Mr.DIAZ-BALART, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr.FOSSELLA, Mr. WATKINS, Mrs. DAVISof California, and Mr. THOMAS M.Davis of Virginia):

H. Res. 31. A resolution commending thepeople of Israel for reaffirming, throughtheir participation in the election of Feb-ruary 6, 2001, their dedication to democraticideals, and for other purposes; to the Com-mittee on International Relations.

MEMORIALS

Under clause 3 of rule XII,2. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of

the Senate of the State of Idaho, relative toSenate Joint Memorial No. 101 memori-alizing the United States Congress to providediversion funds that have been earmarked byCongress for potato producers to help easethe economic crisis they face in 2001; to theCommittee on Agriculture.

f

PRIVATE BILLS ANDRESOLUTIONS

Under clause 3 of rule XII, privatebills and resolutions of the followingtitles were introduced and severally re-ferred, as follows:

[Omitted from the Record of February 6, 2001]

By Mr. DICKS:H.R. 484. A bill for the relief of James

Mervyn Salmon; to the Committee on theJudiciary.

By Ms. LEE:H.R. 485. A bill for the relief of Geert

Botzen; to the Committee on the Judiciary.By Mr. REYNOLDS:

H.R. 486. A bill for the relief of BarbaraMakuch; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. REYNOLDS:H.R. 487. A bill for the relief of Eugene

Makuch; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[Submitted February 7, 2001]

By Mrs. KELLY:H.R. 522. A bill for the relief of Frank

Redendo; to the Committee on the Judiciary.By Mrs. KELLY:

H.R. 523. A bill for the relief of Thomas J.Sansone, Jr.; to the Committee on the Judi-ciary.

f

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsorswere added to public bills and resolu-tions as follows:

[Omitted from the RECORD of February 6, 2001]

H.R. 12: Mr. THUNE, Mr. DELAY, Mr. SEN-SENBRENNER, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. REY-NOLDS, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. BARTONof Texas, Mr. BARCIA, Mr. THOMAS M. DAVISof Virginia, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. FILNER, Mr.OTTER, Mr. PETRI, Mr. WELDON of Florida,Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr.TAUZIN, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FOSSELLA, and Mr.PASCRELL.

H.R. 17: Mrs. CHRISTENSEN.H.R. 27: Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. SCHAFFER, and

Mr. STUMP.H.R. 28: Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. SPRATT, Mrs.

CAPPS, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mrs.NAPOLITANO, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. BROWN of Ohio,Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. KENNEDYof Rhode Island, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. DOOLEY ofCalifornia, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr.BACA, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. OLVER, Mr. COYNE,and Ms. HARMAN.

H.R. 42: Mr. SCHAFFER.H.R. 57: Mr. LUTHER.H.R. 65: Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr. SCHAF-

FER, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr.WELDON of Florida, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. CRAMER,Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. CLEMENT, Mr.CUNNINGHAM, Mr. EVANS, Mr. FOLEY, Mr.ROHRABACHER, Mr. WEINER, Ms. DUNN, Mr.DAVIS of Florida, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. MALONEYof Connecticut, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. FILNER, Mr.BOUCHER, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr.FRANK, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Ms. BERK-LEY.

H.R. 68: Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. BENTSEN, Mr.SHIMKUS, Mr. PAUL, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. BURTONof Indiana, and Mr. WEXLER.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH224 February 7, 2001H.R. 80: Mr. HAYWORTH.H.R. 85: Mr. NEY, Mr. GOODE, Mr.

WHITFIELD, Mr. GILLMOR, Ms. LOFGREN, andMr. MCGOVERN.

H.R. 100: Mr. PETRI, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. JEN-KINS, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mrs. BIGGERT,Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mrs. BONO, Mr. MOORE,Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr.DEAL of Georgia, Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Mr.GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. WHITFIELD, Ms.GRANGER, Mr. UPTON, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BILI-RAKIS, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr.GUTKNECHT, and Mr. FROST.

H.R. 101: Mr. PETRI, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. JEN-KINS, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mrs. BIGGERT,Mrs. BONO, Mr. MOORE, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr.SHAYS, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. FRANK, Mr. DEALof Georgia, Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Mr. WHITFIELD,Ms. GRANGER, Mr. UPTON, Mr. ALLEN, Mr.BILIRAKIS, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, andMr. FROST.

H.R. 102: Mr. PETRI, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. JEN-KINS, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mrs. BIGGERT,Mrs. BONO, Mr. MOORE, Mr. SENSENBRENNER,Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr.FRANK, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr.BLAGOJEVICH, Mr. WHITFIELD, Ms. GRANGER,Mr. UPTON, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BILIRAKIS, andMr. FROST.

H.R. 108: Mr. UDALL of Colorado.H.R. 110: Mr. UDALL of Colorado.H.R. 122: Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr.

CRANE, Mr. PAUL, Mr. COOKSEY, Mr. EVER-ETT, Mr. GOSS, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. GILMAN,Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. BACHUS,Mr. TERRY, Mr. BURR of North Carolina, Mr.HAYWORTH, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. GANSKE,Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. SCHAF-FER, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. CUNNINGHAM,Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina,Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mrs. JO ANNDAVIS of Virginia, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. ROG-ERS of Michigan, Mr. STUMP, Mr. HANSEN,Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. AKIN, Mr.REYNOLDS, Mr. KERNS, Mr. RYUN of Kansas,Mr. FOSSELLA, and Mrs. KELLY.

H.R. 123: Mr. SHOWS, Mr. ISAKSON, and Mr.EVERETT.

H.R. 129: Ms. HART.H.R. 132: Mr. ABERCROMBIE and Mr. GEORGE

MILLER of California.H.R. 159: Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. LATOURETTE,

Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. TERRY,Mr. LAHOOD, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York,and Mr. LOBIONDO.

H.R. 162: Mr. HORN, Mr. FRANK, and Mr.ORTIZ.

H.R. 168: Mr. GRUCCI.H.R. 179: Mr. ANDREWS, Mrs. BONO, Mr.

CAMP, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr.COYNE, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. DEAL ofGeorgia, Mr. DICKS, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. FOLEY,Mr. GILLMOR, Ms. HART, Mr. JACKSON of Illi-nois, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. KENNEDY ofRhode Island, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. LAHOOD,Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LANTOS,Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr.LUCAS of Kentucky, Mr. MALONEY of Con-necticut, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. PAUL,Mr. PENCE, Ms. RIVERS, Mr. RUSH, Mr.SPENCE, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. THOMPSON of Mis-sissippi, Mr. WATKINS, and Mr. WEXLER.

H.R. 184: Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr.FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. LUTHER, Mrs. THURMAN,Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. DOYLE, andMr. NADLER.

H.R. 187: Mr. MCGOVERN, Mrs. JOHNSON ofConnecticut, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr.WHITFIELD, Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut, Mr.NEAL of Massachusetts, and Mrs. MCCARTHYof New York.

H.R. 190: Mr. SCHROCK.H.R. 191: Mr. OTTER.H.R. 192: Mr. LAHOOD and Mr. PAUL.H.R. 200: Mr. EVANS and Mr. CUNNINGHAM.H.R. 210: Mr. GILLMOR.H.R. 218: Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. BUYER, Mr.

GILLMOR, Mr. HULSHOF, Mr. RYAN of Wis-

consin, Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri, Mr.TOOMEY, Mr. CALVERT, and Mr. MANZULLO.

H.R. 232: Mr. DEAL of Georgia.H.R. 236: Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. PITTS, Mr.

HULSHOF, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr.DEAL of Georgia, Mr. CULBERSON, Ms. HART,Mr. DEMINT, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mrs. EMERSON,Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. RILEY, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr.WELDON of Florida, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin,Mr. BAKER, Mr. SESSIONS, Ms. MCCARTHY ofMissouri, Mr. RUSH, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. BAIRD,and Mr. NEY.

H.R. 239: Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mr. BENT-SEN, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Mr.BONIOR.

H.R. 241: Mr. GOODE, Mr. COOKSEY, and Mrs.EMERSON.

H.R. 244: Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr.EDWARDS, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. DINGELL, Mr.SKELTON, Mr. FILNER, Ms. JACKSON-LEE ofTexas, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr.ETHERIDGE, Mr. PASTOR, Ms. MCCARTHY ofMissouri, Mr. REYES, and Mr. SISISKY.

H.R. 245: Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr.FILNER, Mr. MCHUGH, and Mr. NEY.

H.R. 250: Mr. TERRY, Mr. UDALL of NewMexico, Mr. THUNE, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin,Ms. DELAURO, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. ENGLISH,Mr. COOKSEY, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr.GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. MCKINNEY,Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. GUTKNECHT,Mr. LANTOS, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. LARSEN ofWashington, and Mr. RYUN of Kansas.

H.R. 257: Ms. HART.H.R. 259: Mr. CALVERT, Mr. SMITH of New

Jersey, and Ms. HART.H.R. 261: Mr. CALVERT.H.R. 262: Mr. SMITH of New Jersey.H.R. 267: Mr. SWEENEY, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr.

PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. OSE, Ms. ROY-BAL-ALLARD, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. CUNNINGHAM,Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. LANTOS,Mr. THUNE, and Mr. RILEY.

H.R. 270: Mr. NADLER, Ms. PELOSI, Ms. LEE,and Mr. MCGOVERN.

H.R. 275: Mr. COX, Mr. STUMP, Mr. ISSA, Mr.SESSIONS, and Mr. PAUL.

H.R. 276: Mr. MCINNIS and Mr. HOUGHTON.H.R. 288: Mr. TOWNS, Mr. FRANK, and Ms.

MCCARTHY of Missouri.H.R. 294: Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr.

SHIMKUS, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr.CHAMBLISS, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. GREEN of Wis-consin, and Mr. WHITFIELD.

H.R. 296: Ms. SLAUGHTER and Mr. DEAL ofGeorgia.

H.R. 301: Mr. HILLIARD, Mr. TURNER, Mr.CRAMER, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, and Mr.THOMPSON of Mississippi.

H.R. 302: Mr. HILLIARD, Mr. TURNER, Mr.CRAMER, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, and Mr.THOMPSON of Mississippi.

H.R. 303: Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr. KAN-JORSKI, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. EHRLICH, Mr.SMITH of Texas, Mr. WU, Mr. HALL of Texas,Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. COL-LINS, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. CLEMENT, Mr.YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. BASS, Mr. CRAMER, Mr.WHITFIELD, Mr. THUNE, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr.COOKSEY, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. CALLAHAN, Mr.EVANS, Ms. LEE, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. ROHR-ABACHER, Mr. WEINER, Mr. SANDERS, Mr.COYNE, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. HINCHEY,Mr. SHIMKUS, Ms. DUNN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. BURRof North Carolina, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Mr.CAPUANO, Mr. KING, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr.GORDON, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. JENKINS, Mr.MALONEY of Connecticut, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr.WEXLER, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr.BACA, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. FILNER, Mr. MENEN-DEZ, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. JONES of North Caro-lina, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. FRANK, Mrs. MEEK ofFlorida, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr.ISAKSON, Ms. BERKLEY, and Mr. BOEHLERT.

H.R. 306: Mr. HANSEN.H.R. 311: Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. ROHRABACHER,

Mr. FOLEY, Mr. WAMP, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. CAL-VERT, Mr. SHOWS, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. BAKER,and Mr. SESSIONS.

H.R. 316: Mr. CAMP, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr.WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr.SMITH of New Jersey, and Mr. PITTS.

H.R. 320: Mr. GONZALEZ, Ms. HART, Mrs.LOWEY, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr.DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Ms.LOFGREN, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr.HOYER, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. HOUGH-TON, Mr. BOUCHER, and Mr. LEVIN.

H.R. 322: Ms. BERKLEY, Ms. BROWN of Flor-ida, Mr. BRYANT, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. DICKS, Mr.DUNCAN, Ms. DUNN, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. FORD, Mr.GORDON, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. HASTINGSof Washington, Mr. INSLEE, Ms. JACKSON-LEEof Texas, Mr. JENKINS, Ms. EDDIE BERNICEJOHNSON of Texas, Mr. LARSEN of Wash-ington, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MURTHA, Mr.NETHERCUTT, Mr. PAUL, Mr. REYES, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr.TANNER, and Mr. WAMP.

H.R. 326: Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Mr. GUTIERREZ,Mr. BARRETT, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Ms.LOFGREN, Mr. BERMAN, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr.MCGOVERN, Mr. CLYBURN, and Mr. CALVERT.

H.R. 330: Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr.OTTER, and Mr. CULBERSON.

H.R. 333: Mr. NEY, Mr. BARCIA, Mr. ROE-MER, and Mr. THOMAS M. DAVIS of Virginia.

H.R. 340: Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. LANTOS, Mr.WAXMAN, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Ms. LEE, Mr.COSTELLO, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. BACA,Mr. BERMAN, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr.FARR of California, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Ms.JACKSON-LEE of Texas, and Mr. HOEFFEL.

H.R. 369: Mr. SMITH of New Jersey and Mr.DEAL of Georgia.

H.R. 380: Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BOYD, Mr.OLVER, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. HINOJOSA, andMrs. THURMAN.

H.R. 385: Mr. GOODE, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr.SCHAFFER, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. PITTS,and Mr. AKIN.

H.R. 389: Mr. ACKERMAN.H.J. Res. 7: Mr. HOYER and Ms. SANCHEZ.H.J. Res. 8: Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. WICKER, and

Mr. SCHROCK.H. Con. Res. 17: Ms. SLAUGHTER.H. Con. Res. 20: Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. RAN-

GEL, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr.BLAGOJEVICH, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. CAPUANO,Mr. CALVERT, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. GREEN ofWisconsin, Mr. MCHUGH, Ms. HART, Mr.MCGOVERN, Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut, Mr.GEKAS, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Ms.LOFGREN.

H. Res. 15: Mr. TERRY.H. Res. 27: Mr. PHELPS, Mr. BROWN of Ohio,

Mr. SANDERS, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Ms.HOOLEY of Oregon, and Mr. LANTOS.

[Submitted February 7, 2001]

H.R. 41: Mr. TOWNS, Mr. SAM JOHNSON ofTexas, Mr. HULSHOF, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr.ENGEL, Mr. SHOWS, Mrs. MCCARTHY of NewYork, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr.ETHERIDGE, Ms. DUNN, and Mr. BENTSEN.

H.R. 65: Mr. SCARBOROUGH, Mr. MICA, andMr. SAXTON.

H.R. 126: Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. FARR of Cali-fornia, Ms. RIVERS, and Mr. FRANK.

H.R. 168: Mr. PAUL.H.R. 179: Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Ms.

MCCOLLUM, Mr. PHELPS, and Mr. SAXTON.H.R. 225: Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr.

TIERNEY, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr.BLAGOJEVICH, Mrs. MALONEY of New York,Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FIL-NER, Mr. SABO, Mr. STARK, Mr. FRANK, Mr.LIPINSKI, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr.DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. MCKINNEY,Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mrs.MORELLA, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. LEE, Ms.SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. HOLT, Mr.BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. OLVER, Mr.MOAKLEY, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr.DELAHUNT, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. PALLONE, Mr.WYNN, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. BECERRA, Ms.MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. RUSH, Mrs. MEEK

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H225February 7, 2001of Florida, Mr. DEUTSCH, Ms. BROWN of Flor-ida, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. JACKSON-LEEof Texas, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mrs.MINK of Hawaii, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Ms.NORTON, and Mr. SERRANO.

H.R. 296: Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi.H.R. 301: Ms. KAPTUR.H.R. 302: Ms. KAPTUR.

H.R. 303: Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. ROSS, Ms.MCCOLLUM, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr.GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. SCAR-BOROUGH, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr.SANDLIN, Mr. MICA, Mr. SAXTON, Mr.STEARNS, and Mr. GOODE.

H.R. 322: Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. FROST, Mr.GONZALEZ, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr.

LAMPSON, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. SCARBOROUGH, andMrs. THURMAN.

H.R. 419: Mr. STARK, Mr. LAHOOD, and Mr.HILL.

H.R. 420: Mr. WOLF and Mr. STEARNS.H.R. 429: Ms. VELAZQUEZ.H.R. 478: Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota and

Mr. SANDERS.

Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 107th

CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

.

S1097

Vol. 147 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2001 No. 17

SenateThe Senate met at 10:00 a.m. and was

called to order by the Honorable SUSANM. COLLINS, a Senator from the Stateof Maine.

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd JohnOgilvie, offered the following prayer:

The Lord bless you and keep you; theLord make His face to shine upon you,and be gracious to you; the Lord lift upHis countenance upon you, and give youpeace.—Numbers 6:24–26.

Father, we begin this day by claim-ing this magnificent fivefold assurance.We ask You to make this a blessed day,filled with the assurance of Your bless-ings. May we live today with the godlyesteem of knowing You have chosen usand called us to receive Your love andto serve You. Keep us safe from dangerand the forces of evil. Give us the hel-met of salvation to protect our think-ing brains from any intrusion of temp-tation to pride, resistance to Yourguidance, or negative attitudes. Smileon us as Your face, Your presence, liftsus from fear and frustration.

Thank You for Your grace to over-come the grimness that sometimes per-vades our countenance. Instead, mayour faces reflect Your joy. May Yourpeace flow into us, calming our agi-tated spirits, conditioning our disposi-tions, and controlling all we say anddo. Help us to say to one another,‘‘Have a blessed day,’’ and expect noth-ing less for ourselves. For 22 years, Ar-thur ‘‘Tinker’’ St. Clair, Senior Demo-cratic Doorkeeper, has helped this Sen-ate have great days. On the eve of hisretirement, we want to thank You forhis faithfulness, kindness, and loyalty.Through our Lord and Saviour. Amen.

f

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEThe Honorable SUSAN M. COLLINS led

the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the

United States of America, and to the Repub-lic for which it stands, one nation under God,indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

APPOINTMENT OF ACTINGPRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will please read a communicationto the Senate from the President protempore [Mr. THURMOND].

The legislative clerk read the fol-lowing letter:

U.S. SENATE,PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,

Washington, DC, February 7, 2001.To the Senate:

Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3,of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I herebyappoint the Honorable SUSAN M. COLLINS, aSenator from the State of Maine, to performthe duties of the Chair.

STROM THURMOND,President pro tempore.

Ms. COLLINS thereupon assumed thechair as Acting President pro tempore.

f

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTINGMAJORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The acting majority leader is rec-ognized.

f

SCHEDULE

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President,today the Senate will begin a period ofmorning business until 1 p.m. Fol-lowing morning business, the Senatewill begin consideration of S. 248, theUnited Nations debt reduction legisla-tion. Senators should be prepared tovote on the legislation at approxi-mately 2 p.m. today. Therefore, thoseSenators who intend to debate the billshould work with the bill managers toschedule floor time as soon as possible.Senators will be notified as soon as thevote time has been locked in.

I wish to thank my colleagues fortheir cooperation.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. REID. Madam President, theSenate is getting a lot of importantwork done. The more we can work

without having a lot of quorums, thebetter off we are. The time for morningbusiness has been used well. I think wehad even the beginnings of a good de-bate on the tax issue. That is impor-tant. The American people are lookingto Members to come up with somethingthat is important to them and impor-tant to the country with the tax issuebefore the Senate.

With the bipartisan tone that hasbeen set in the early stages of this Con-gress, I hope the debate will continueto be civil and constructive, and I hopewe can come up with something con-structive that is the best for the Amer-ican people.

f

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Under the previous order, theleadership time is reserved.

f

MORNING BUSINESS

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Under the previous order, therewill now be a period for the transactionof morning business not to exceed thehour of 1 p.m.

Mr. NICKLES. I suggest the absenceof a quorum.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro-ceeded to call the roll.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr.BUNNING). Without objection, it is soordered.

f

ARTHUR LEVITT: THE INVESTORS’ADVOCATE

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I risetoday to recognize the remarkable pub-lic service of the Honorable Arthur M.Levitt, Chairman of the Securities andExchange Commission, the longest-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:46 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.000 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1098 February 7, 2001serving chairman in the history of theSEC. Mr. Levitt will be departing theCommission soon with a proud legacyof accomplishment—a legacy that hasmade his tenure as Chairman one of ex-traordinary distinction as well as oneof unusual duration.

Correctly seeing his position as astewardship for the public good, Chair-man Levitt has consistently set asidepartisan concerns to advocate tire-lessly on behalf of the individual inves-tor. He has also implemented changesthat have strengthened the public’strust in U.S. securities markets.

Chairman Levitt was first appointedto a five-year term in 1993, and was re-appointed in 1998. No stranger to eco-nomic issues and the American securi-ties market, he previously had servedas Chairman of the New York City Eco-nomic Development Corporation, aswell as Chairman of the AmericanStock Exchange. In addition, Mr.Levitt owned a newspaper that is veryfamiliar to those of us who work onCapital Hill: Roll Call.

During his eight-year tenure, Chair-man Levitt has consistently worked todeliver the important message that in-vestors must use the increasingamounts of information available tothem to do more research before in-vesting. He traveled extensively acrossthe country to spread this message,holding 43 Investors’ Town Meetings.At these events, Chairman Levitt tookpains personally to educate investorsabout their rights and their obliga-tions, while giving them the tools theyneed to invest wisely and to protectthemselves from securities scams.

On one particularly memorable occa-sion in 1998, Chairman Levitt wasscheduled to speak at an Investor’sTown Meeting in Bangor, Maine. Whenbad weather thwarted his efforts toreach Bangor and the nearly 600 Mainecitizens awaiting him, Chairman Levittimprovised, answering all of the ques-tions from the audience by phone inwhat may have been the biggest con-ference call in the history of the State.In Maine, we truly appreciate a per-son’s ability to overcome the elements.

Chairman Levitt also brought his ex-pertise to Capitol Hill, testifying in1997 before the Permanent Sub-committee on Investigations, which Ichair, about problems in the micro-capmarkets—including penny stockfraud—and providing investors valu-able insights on how to avoid fallingvictims to the predators who lie inwait for the unwary. Chairman Levitttestified before my Subcommitteeagain in 1999, this time on the risks as-sociated with day trading. Investoralertness and diligence have been hiswatchwords, and his advice in this re-gard has been consistently sound.

A strong proponent of technologicaladvances, Chairman Levitt worked topromote the use of technology not onlyin securities transactions, but also inhelping inform and educate investorsthrough the Internet. Under his guid-ance, the SEC’s first Web site went on-

line in 1995. Today, it provides valuableinformation and services—includingaccess to the Electronic Data Gath-ering Analysis and Retrieval database(also known as ‘‘EDGAR’’), which con-tains a large volume of informationabout public companies, including cor-porate annual reports filed with theSEC and disclosures of purchases andsales by corporate insiders. The SEC’sWeb site also has an Investor Edu-cation and Assistance service, whichadvises investors on how to investwisely and avoid fraud, answers thepublic’s questions, and reviews inves-tors’ complaints.

Chairman Levitt has truly been aman for his time. With Americansflocking to take part in what has beenthe longest bull market in U.S. his-tory, he championed the right of thesmall investor to a level playing fieldwith the big institutions. Last year, forexample, the SEC approved the adop-tion of a regulation on Fair Disclosure,which requires companies to disclosematerial, nonpublic information—suchas earnings results and projections—si-multaneously to Wall Street analystsand the public. This new regulationmakes significant strides toward bring-ing individual investors into the infor-mation ‘‘loop’’ on a timely basis.

In addition, Chairman Levitt oversawthe SEC’s adoption in 1998 of the PlainEnglish Rule, which requires that pub-lic companies and mutual funds pre-pare the cover page, summary, and riskfactor portions of their prospectuses inclear, concise, and understandableEnglish. The Plain English Rule finallymakes prospectuses accessible to thoseoutside the small circle of securitieslawyers and market professionals ac-customed to reading them.

Chairman Levitt has worked to en-sure that the small investor gets thebest available price. In 1997, the SECadopted its Order Handling Rule, whichplaces individual investors’ bids on anequal footing with those of professionaltraders on the NASDAQ. This Rule isdesigned to prevent collusion amongdealer and to promote competition inthe market. At the same time, Chair-man Levitt has overseen the SEC’s vig-orous efforts to root out Internet secu-rities fraud and bring the perpetratorsto justice.

Protecting investors’ rights and root-ing out securities fraud have long beenamong my primary interests, and Ihave been both delighted and very for-tunate to be able to work toward theseends with an SEC Chairman who sharesa powerful commitment to these goals.Mr. President, while small investorsare losing a true friend at the SEC, Iam confident that the benefits hebrought them will endure for manyyears to come.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Chair-man Levitt for shepherding the securi-ties market into the 21st Century, andensuring that America’s thriving mar-kets are open to all investors, big andsmall, and are worthy of the public’sconfidence. I offer him my very bestwishes for his future undertakings.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Oklahoma is recognized.

f

TAX CUTS INCREASE REVENUEMr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as a lot

of people have been doing, I have beenwatching and listening with a greatdeal of interest to the debate and thebrilliant things that have been saidabout the proposed tax cut.

I think there are three significantthings that have not come across inthis debate, and I think we need to talkabout that and concentrate on it.

One is the myth that if we cut rates,somehow that is going to have the re-sult of cutting revenues. I do not knowwhat we have to do in history to showthat is not correct.

The first time that the whole idea—some call it supply side—came out wasway back, following the First WorldWar. At that time, it was the Hardingadministration and the Coolidge ad-ministration. They raised money inorder to fight the war. And, of course,that was successful. But after the war,they decided that with the war effortgone, they could reduce the taxes.They reduced the top rate from 73 per-cent to 25 percent. They thought thatwould have a dramatic reduction in therevenues that were produced aroundour country. But they were willing todo it. To their surprise—this is thefirst time they had learned this—theeconomy, as a result of that reductionfrom the top rate of 73 percent down to25 percent, actually grew the economy59 percent between 1921 and 1929. Andthe revenues during that time grewfrom $719 million in 1921 to $1.16 billionin 1928.

Then along came the Kennedy admin-istration. This is the one where I don’tunderstand how liberal Democrats canstand here and ignore the lesson thatwe learned during the Kennedy admin-istration. Yes. Kennedy wanted moremoney spent on social programs. Andhe said on this floor that we neededmore money to raise more revenues topay for all the domestic programs wewere getting into, and the best way toincrease revenue was to reduce taxes.At that time, the top tax rate was 91percent.

So he reduced the taxes with the helpof Congress from 91 percent down to 70percent, and exactly the same thingwith exactly the same percentages thattook place after World War I tookplace. Tax revenues grew during thatperiod of time, 1961 through 1968, by 62percent.

I know there are a lot of people whodon’t want to believe this. I don’t wantto unfairly attribute a quote to LauraTyson, but I remember in 1993 shemade a statement I interpreted to be:There is no relationship between thetaxes that a country pays and its eco-nomic performance. Theoretically, ifthat is true, you could tax Americans100 percent and they would have thesame motivation to stimulate theeconomy as if they were taxed 50 per-cent. We knew that is not right.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:46 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.001 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1099February 7, 2001We had gone through that during the

1960s. For some reason, Democratstoday will not acknowledge that. Thisis a lesson we learned from Democrats.Of course, the 1980s came. In 1980, thetotal amount of revenue raised to runthe United States of America was $517billion. In 1990, that was $1 trillion. Italmost doubled in that 10-year-period.Those are the 10 years we had the mostdramatic marginal rate reductions inthe history of America. If you take justthe marginal rates, it was $244 billionraised in 1980 and $446 billion raised in1990. In that 10-year period it almostdoubled, and that was dropping therate from the 70-percent top bracket weinherited from President Kennedywhen he brought it from 91 percent to28 percent.

History has shown it will happen.Never once in the debate do we talk atall about the fact that it will not re-duce revenues; it will increase reve-nues. I have watched this happen overmy short lifespan in politics and havebeen surprised to find this is true. Ifthe money is there, the politicians willspend it.

One of the best political speeches Iheard in my life was the first one thatRonald Reagan made, ‘‘A RendezvousWith Destiny.’’ I bet some don’t re-member it at all. In the speech he said,the closest thing to immortality on theface of this Earth is a government pro-gram once started. That means if thereis a problem, form a government pro-gram to take care of it; the problemgoes away but the program remainsthere. This is a fact of life. It has re-peated itself over and over again.

The second item—a lot of the liberalssay this because it sounds good to con-servatives—let’s go ahead and not havetax cuts until we pay down the debt.

The Wall Street Journal had an arti-cle entitled, ‘‘Where Do We Put theSurplus?’’ A couple of professors say wehave a serious problem because if wewanted to take the surpluses projected,which is $5.5 trillion in the next 10years—upgraded by OMB to $6 trillionin that same timeframe we would haveto find someplace to put the money. Ifyou don’t return it to the taxpayers, itwill get spent. There aren’t enoughplaces you can put money like that be-cause you can’t pay down the debt im-mediately. Some things have not ma-tured. You can’t force a debt repay-ment in the publicly held portion, andthe debt is $3 trillion. You have to finda place to put it.

You can go into the equity market. Ifyou go into the equity market, thatwill create a problem. According toGreenspan, by the year 2020, if we takethis course, the Government will ownone-fifth of all domestic equities. Ifthere is anything we don’t want to hap-pen, it is to have Government owning50 percent of the private equities inthis country.

The last point is how modest this cutis. I would like to have it much greaterthan $1.6 trillion because I believe wecan afford to do that. During the

Reagan administration, it was $1.6 tril-lion, but in today’s dollars that wouldequal $6 trillion that we would actuallyhave as tax cuts. If you look at it an-other way, taking it as a percentage ofthe gross domestic product, what weare suggesting is somewhere between a0.9 and 1.2 percent cut in the gross do-mestic product. In the Kennedy years,it was 2.2 percent; during Reagan it was3.3 percent. This is far less than thosetax cuts would have been.

I conclude by saying we have a deci-sion to make—and it is a very difficultdecision—as to what to do with thatamount of surplus.

I ask unanimous consent the WallStreet Journal article I referred to beprinted in the RECORD at the conclu-sion of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

(See Exhibit 1)Mr. INHOFE. I don’t think there is

any question, if we are honest, wewould deny that if we leave thismoney, it will be spent. Parkinson’slaw is: Government expands to con-sume the resources allocated to it, plus10 percent. This has proven to be trueover and over again.

I can argue as to the fairness ofwhere this cut takes place. I could talkabout the fact that the top 5 percent ofthe income makers in this country ac-tually pay 54 percent of the taxes; thebottom 50 percent only pay 4.2 percentof the taxes. That begs the question.There is no reason to talk about thefairness of this because it is too log-ical. Obviously, what we are goingthrough now is an overpayment. Wehave taxed the American people, andanyone out there right now—and thereare millions of people who have paidany type of taxes—is entitled to a re-fund. To redistribute that wealthwould be as unfair as it would be if youwent down to an auto dealership,bought a new car, paid the stickerprice, got home and said: Wait, I paid$2,000 too much. And you get in the carand drive to the auto dealer and say:You overcharged me $2,000, and hesays: I just gave it to my mother-in-law.

This is an overpayment of taxes wehave made and I think people are enti-tled to have the overpayment back. Ifyou do that, it will have the effect ofincreasing revenue, and stimulatingthe economy, which we desperatelyneed. We are on the brink right now ofa recession.

I yield the floor.EXHIBIT 1

[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 29, 2001]

WHERE DO WE PUT THE SURPLUS?

(By Kevin A. Hassett and R. Glenn Hubbard)

When historians look back on Alan Green-span’s tenure as chairman of the Federal Re-serve and attempt to identify the source ofhis enormous success, last Thursday’s Con-gressional testimony—in which he advancedthe course of tax reform—will likely provideone answer. Mr. Greenspan raised a pressingpublic-policy question that has been over-looked by most, a question that will likely

become the focal point of political and eco-nomic debate during President Bush’s firstfour-year term.

If the U.S. government starts accumu-lating big surpluses, where should it put themoney?

That might not seem so tricky. After all,the government already occasionally placesdeposits in private banks. But this time wearen’t talking nickels and dimes. Currentsurplus estimates are so large that the gov-ernment’s passbook savings account, if noth-ing changes, will soon become the Mount Ev-erest of cash hoards.

Let’s look at the numbers. The latest Of-fice of Management and Budget forecast isfor the surplus to reach about $5.5 trillionover the next 10 years. Rumor has it that thesoon-to-be-released Congressional Budget Of-fice forecast will peg it at $6 trillion, with al-most $1 trillion arriving in 2011 alone. (Note:actual CBO numbers are $5.61 trillion, ofwhich $3.12 trillion will be the non-Social Se-curity surplus)

Why not just pay down the debt? Put sim-ply, there’s not that much debt to pay. Ac-cording to the Treasury Department, totalgovernment debt held by the public is onlyabout $3 trillion. With no change in tax pol-icy, projected surpluses would pay down thedebt by around 2008. Government will subse-quently have to decide in what it will investthe massive surpluses.

But that is far in the future. Many oppo-nents of tax reduction have suggested thatwe wait until the uncertain surpluses arrive,and the $3 trillion of existing governmentdebt is retired, before considering tax cuts.Mr. Greenspan had an answer for that aswell: ‘‘Private asset accumulation may beforced upon us well short of reaching zerodebt.’’

Indeed, by some estimates, as much as halfof existing government debt will be almostimpossible to retire, since savings bonds andstate and local government series bondsoften aren’t redeemed until maturity, andbecause many holders of long-term treasurybills will be unwilling to sell them back tothe government. Factor in that surplus esti-mates keep getting revised upward, and gov-ernment may well be forced to invest in pri-vate assets in just three or four years.

How big could the hoard get? Investingthat much public money would likely meanthe government purchase of stocks, becauseonly equity markets are large enough to ab-sorb such inflows and still remain liquid. As-suming the Treasury begins to invest sur-pluses in the stock market as soon as it hasretired all the debt that it can, and thatthese investments earn a 10 percent annualreturn, our government will be sitting on astock-market portfolio worth $20 trillion by2020. To put that in perspective, the currentmarket value of all equities in the U.S. isabout $17 trillion, according to the FederalReserve. Projecting forward, the U.S. gov-ernment could own about one-fifth of all do-mestic equities by 2020.

Allowing the government to own thatmuch of the private economy is an invitationto unbounded mischief. Firms will lobby tobe put on the list of acceptable investments;those firms or assets left off will suffer hard-ship. Calls to sell firms that aren’t ‘‘green’’or that fail to pass litmus tests will becomethe latest in political lobbying. Which is whyMr. Greenspan stated flatly: ‘‘The federalgovernment should eschew private asset ac-cumulation because it would be exception-ally difficult to insulate the government’sinvestment decisions from political pres-sures.’’ The risks are just too great.

His argument on Thursday caught Demo-crats flat-footed. Sen. ERNEST HOLLINGS ofSouth Carolina told Mr. Greenspan that ‘‘inall candor, you shock me with your state-ment.’’ An apoplectic Sen. CHARLES SCHUMER

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:46 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.013 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1100 February 7, 2001of New York dubbed Mr. Greenspan’s anal-ysis a mistake.’’ Such venom is reserved fortruly decisive arguments. Indeed, word is outthat economists at President Clinton’s Coun-cil of Economic Advisers prepared an anal-ysis of this issue that wasn’t allowed to seethe light of day.

Perhaps the Democratic senators had notpreviously recognized that their oppositionto tax cuts would require the government tobuy a massive share of private America. Mr.HOLLINGS later warned Mr. Greenspan thathe was ‘‘going to start a stampede.’’ It is nota stampede we will observe, but a wholesaleretreat by poll-conscious opponents of taxreform, who will have little stomach to de-fend such a massive government intrusioninto private life. A large tax cut is virtuallya sure thing.

Which doesn’t mean we’ve seen the last ofthis important question. First, if supply-sidearguments are correct, then the marginal-rate reductions proposed by Mr. Bush willeventually increase tax revenues and sur-pluses, presenting us once again with thequandary of what to buy. Second, Social Se-curity continues to be on very weak footingin the long run, and something must be doneto stave off fiscal disaster. This puts Demo-crats in a tough position. For if they rejectthe option of allowing the government tohoard private assets in anticipation of retir-ing baby boomers, there is—as Mr. Green-span highlighted elsewhere in his remarks—one inevitable alternative: individual ac-counts.

In taking a stand on such important issuesin such a public forum, Mr. Greenspan hasfundamentally altered the debate on the sur-plus, taxes and government investment.From now on, opponents of privatization willhave to reveal just where it is they intend toput our money, and convince us that thoseinvestments will be economically benign.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Kansas.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, Irise to speak about the tax cuts pro-posed this week by President Bush andto join my colleagues in this discus-sion. As I listened to my colleaguefrom Oklahoma, Senator INHOFE, anumber of the points he was makingare the ones that I think are most ger-mane to this discussion. He spoke elo-quently; I have some charts that sup-port what he said.

He was talking about the one lawthat Government spending expands toreach the amount of Government re-sources we have available, plus 10 per-cent. I had not heard of that law, but itsounds as if it is fairly accurate.

I have a chart that shows that thesurpluses lead to higher spending. Wecan see that is what has taken place aswe have had surpluses coming on linein 1995 through the year 2002. We hadan enormous growth in discretionaryspending during the same period oftime. This is a time period when wehad a Democrat President and a Repub-lican Congress. There were supposed tobe some restraints in spending, but theironclad rule of Government is if thereis a dollar left on the table anywhere,it will be spent. We now see that is, in-deed, what has taken place where thediscretionary spending has increased. Ifyou leave the money on the table, itwill get spent.

I want to talk about another thingthat my colleague addressed, as have

others, and that is tax freedom day,the day we finally start working forourselves and stop working for theGovernment. This day, unfortunately,has continued to grow longer in the ca-reer. We have less freedom from tax-ation in this country right now than atany time since World War II.

I will first show the size of the over-all tax cuts President Bush has put for-ward. They are pretty modest. My col-league from Oklahoma was discussingthe relatively small size of the tax cutsin proportion to the economy. This isthe percentage of Gross Domestic Prod-uct. The Bush tax cut is 1.2 percent ofGDP which is quite small, in my esti-mation. We should be talking about alarger tax cut given the difficulty oureconomy is starting to show. We areseeing some slowness in the economy.We need to stimulate it both in fiscaland in monetary policy. The Fed iscoming forward with monetary policy,and we need to come forward with fis-cal policy.

You can see Ronald Reagan had a 3.3-percent cut in percentage of GDP, andPresident Kennedy had a 2-percent cut.I think we ought to be getting up tothis 2-percent category and talkingmore along the lines of a $2 trillion taxcut. This will stimulate the economy,keeping it from going into recession.That is the best thing to do to ensurethat we maintain a surplus; with peo-ple doing well in this country, we canavoid an economic recession. That iswhat we are starting to face.

This is a modest tax cut, particularlygiven the times and situation. We needto do so to help stimulate the overalleconomy. I think a 2-percent cut over-all, a $2 trillion tax cut, would be morein keeping with traditional sizes ofmajor tax cuts and would keep oureconomy from slipping into an actualrecession.

You can see what has happened totax freedom day. This is the day youstop working for the Government andstart working for yourself. It extendeduntil May 3 in the year 2000. People areworking for government at all levels ofthe government until May 3.

I just bought a used car from an indi-vidual. He asked me what I did, and Itold him I worked in the Senate. Hesaid: If you guys can, do anything tocut taxes, I have a paycheck thatcomes in, and I never look at the grossnumber because it just depresses me. Ijust basically cut my gross wage inhalf, and that is how much I get totake home. Just cut it in half, was hisstatement.

We ask people why they are havingdifficulties with the situation at home,with their families. They don’t haveenough money to take care of theirkids, buy braces, pay for education,and take care of the normal expenses.They need to have at least two jobs inthis family, maybe more.

Why is that? We look at this chartand see one of the big cost drivers inthat situation. It is the tax burden.

Look at what happened in the 1990s.In this time period, it has gone up pre-

cipitously. That shows how much peo-ple work for the Government ratherthan working for themselves. Is it anywonder people experience stress orhave difficulty in their family situa-tion, when they are working for some-body else, who gets close to half theyear?

How does this break down? I want tobreak down this tax freedom day issue.These are the minutes in an 8-hour daythat you are working for government,or other taxes that you are paying.Look at how many minutes of an 8-hour day you are working for Federaltaxes: 112 minutes. It is getting closeto 2 hours a day that you are workingfor the Federal Government. I appre-ciate you working for us that much. Iam glad people are doing that.

My point in highlighting this is thatit is too much. It is too long. Youshould not be working for the Govern-ment that amount of time.

Look at the Federal Government, butalso look at State and local taxes. Youadd another 50 minutes to that. We aregetting close to 3 hours of your work-day to pay for Federal taxes and Stateand local taxes. That is before you everpay for housing, health care, food,recreation, transportation, clothing,and put money away in savings. Whathappens to savings when you take thisbig of a bite out of it?

This chart puts a graphic on it, and itshows that if you start working at 9a.m., you are basically working in themorning for the Government, and thenthe rest of the day you are working forother things. The morning is basicallygiven to the Government.

It is nice that people are willing todo that, but my point is that it is toolong, it is too much, it is taking toomuch from them, and it is hurting ourfamilies and individuals. This is just topoint out how much it is, how it breaksdown. This is from the Tax Founda-tion.

How much per dollar of a medianfamily income goes to taxes, com-paring 1955 to 1998? In 1955—Federal in-come tax was 9 cents. Federal payrolltax, other Federal tax, State and localtaxes, were 3 cents. In 1955, we had apretty good size Government. In 1998,after-tax income was 61 cents; we arenearly at 40 percent today.

Look at the size of this Federal pay-roll tax. When I go to high school sen-ior classes, two-thirds of the groupswith which I speak are paying taxes.The tax that they are paying is Federalpayroll tax, which for most people inthis country is larger than any othersingle tax they pay. This is one taxabout which we are going to have a lotof discussion.

This chart shows other Federal taxesand State and local taxes, which haveincreased a great deal as well. Thisbreaks it down on the dollar.

Finally, this is tax freedom day bytype of tax. Many people don’t realizeall of the taxes that they pay. Basi-cally, on anything you do, you are pay-ing a tax. If you turn on a water faucet

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:39 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.003 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1101February 7, 2001in the morning, there is going to be atax on the water that comes through. Ifyou use the phone, there is a phone tax.If you die, there is going to be a deathtax, and if you get married, there is amarriage penalty tax—both of which Ithink we need to address and elimi-nate.

We have a system where we have fig-ured out how to tax virtually every-thing you do or that happens to you. Itcreates these type of burdens.

To pay individual income taxes, weare working 50 days a year. You canlook at the others. Business taxes, cor-porate taxes, property taxes, estateand excise taxes, social insurance taxesare also on this chart. It is a big over-all burden.

One person has suggested, instead ofhaving payroll taxes, that we require aperson to each month write a checkout to the Government for their levelof taxes rather than taking it out ofthe account. If we really wanted to cuttaxes, we should do that so peoplecould see that each month when theywrote that check out. It is a heavy bur-den.

I wanted to put that forward to putsome context on this. When we talkabout a $1.6 trillion tax cut—which Ithink actually should be at the $2 tril-lion category—we are overburdeningpeople on taxes now. This is clear. Weneed help in stimulating the economy.This is clear. We should not be taxingthings such as marriage when it is thefoundational unit for the family. Weneed to get rid of the marriage penaltytax.

I want my colleagues, particularlyfrom Texas and Georgia, who put thistax plan forward, to know I am goingto be aggressively pushing to get rid ofthe full marriage penalty tax ratherthan a portion of it, which is in thiscurrent bill. I think we have to domuch better towards our working fami-lies, particularly getting rid of themarriage penalty tax. I also hope thatwe can make these tax cuts retroactiveto stimulate the economy.

I point out to my colleagues as wellabout the surplus—we have been pay-ing down the debt, and we will con-tinue to do so. We have paid down thedebt by about $360 billion over the last3 years. We will continue to pay thedebt down. However, those surpluseshave led to increased governmentspending as well. So we need to getsome of the tax dollars out of the sys-tem and back into people’s individualpockets.

Finally, we have the wherewithal todo this and to protect Social Security.We can do a $2 trillion tax cut and wecan still pay the debt down at the cur-rent rate (if not more than what we arecurrently doing) and provide for sub-stantial Federal Government needsthat we have identified. That is all do-able because the projection on our ownreceipts is substantial enough that wecan get that accommodated—roughlyin the $5.6 trillion surplus over thenext 10 years.

We need to do this. American work-ing families need this to take place. Itis the right thing to do. It is the righttime to do it. I hope we do not wastemuch more time before we actually getthese tax cuts in place.

Mr. President, I thank my colleaguefrom Wyoming for hosting this dialogand I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Wyoming.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this,obviously, is the week and the time tobe talking about taxes, tax relief, andtax reductions.

It is an appropriate time to deal withall of the involved issues. Certainly,the President has talked a great dealabout his tax plan not only in the cam-paign but certainly now as he is pre-pared to reveal and unveil this plan ofrelieving the tax burden on all tax-payers.

The plan, of course, is oriented to-ward stimulating economic growth, re-ducing family tax burdens, and savingfamily estates from the auction block,and hopefully making this Tax Codesimpler and more fair. That is an im-portant aspect of it. We talk all thetime about the Tax Code being so de-tailed and complex, and yet we do notdo much about it.

I hope we do not start seeking tohave directed tax reductions here,there, and other places, aimed more atbehavior than at tax reductions. Thisis designed to make it simpler, andthat is important.

The case for the President’s reliefpackage is strong. First, there is arecord surplus of taxes coming in. It isreally a tax overpayment. That makespossible a policy of paying down thedebt and reducing taxes on workingfamilies.

Second, the slowing down of theeconomy has many people concernedand properly so. Absent some kind offiscal stimulus, our record economicexpansion may turn downward and intoa recession.

The third argument is the one myfriends have talked about this morn-ing, but I think it is really the issue formost of us, and that is the burgeoningtax burden on American families.

No matter how one looks at it as aproportion of national income, the bur-den persists as compared to other fam-ily expenses. Actual time spent work-ing just to fund the Federal Govern-ment is taking more of a typical fam-ily’s income than at any other time inhistory. Isn’t that interesting? Almostany time in history.

Federal revenues for fiscal year 2000pulled more than $2 trillion out of theeconomy for the first time in Americanhistory. Along with that being thehighest level ever, the Federal tax bur-den is also the highest rate of gross do-mestic product since World War II. In1944, revenues reached 20.9 percent ofGDP. Today, revenues have returned tothat extraordinary level. They are at20.6 percent, well above the historicalnorm.

Interestingly enough, since 1935, theaverage tax burden has been 17.2 per-cent. Never during the Korean war, theVietnam war, or the cold war did itever reach 20 percent. Yet the Federaltax burden continues to take more fi-nancial power out of the economywithout a particular cause.

In the last few years, the Americanpeople have had to pay 20 percent ofwhat they earned. The impact on theeconomy, on families, and the tax-payers has been extraordinary. Wehave an opportunity to do some thingsdifferently, and I hope we do that.

The current tax system, I believe, isa mess. Just think how difficult it isfor all of us as we prepare our tax re-turns. We often say if anyone cannotmake out their own return, it must betoo complex. Seldom are people able tomake out their own.

After 80 years of lawmakers, lobby-ists, and special interests working onit—which will continue—it is unfair; itis complex; it is costly. Those are thekinds of things of which I hope, as wemove forward, we can take advantage.Someone suggested taxpayers devotealmost 5.5 billion hours a year to thepreparation of tax returns. The otherthing—and it depends, I suppose, onyour point of view and philosophy withrespect to Government; if one believesGovernment ought to be contained inits growth, that there are limits to inwhat the Government ought to be in-volved—the Federal Government inparticular—why, this has something todo with that.

When there is a surplus, it is moredifficult to maintain limits on thegrowth of Government than it is whenthere is not a surplus. Obviously, wewant to fund the essentials such ashealth care, education, and Social Se-curity. There also ought to be a limiton the growth of Government, the in-volvement of Government.

We are saying all the time that theFederal Government is involved in toomany things; we ought to give moreemphasis to State and local govern-ments; we ought to evaluate what isthe legitimate role of the Federal Gov-ernment. I believe that is true, butthat depends on your philosophy ofgovernment.

We are going to hear arguments dur-ing the course of this discussion thatthere needs to be more Government,more Government spending. If one be-lieves that is the direction we ought togo, there is no end to the programs. Itis very difficult, once a Federal Gov-ernment program is in place and buildsa constituency around it, to change it,to eliminate it, to reduce it.

It comes down to a philosophy of gov-ernment. When you have, as in thiscase, a surplus of dollars, what do youdo with it? You can spend it and in-crease the size of Government. That isa philosophy we hear quite often inthis Chamber. Another is we ought tolimit the role of the Federal Govern-ment; we ought to use our best judg-ment to determine which of those

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:46 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.017 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1102 February 7, 2001things are most important, which ofthose things are essential, which ofthose things can only be done by theFederal Government as opposed tolocal and State governments, which ofthose things should be done in the pri-vate sector as opposed to the FederalGovernment. All those things have aplay in what you do in the future.

I happen to believe we ought to bepaying down the debt. It is unfair forus to have gone into debt over the lastnumber of years to finance programsyoung people will have to pay for. Wecan do that.

I am persuaded that under the Presi-dent’s program we can pay down thedebt over this period of time. I am per-suaded that we will have adequatemoney to spend on essential programs.

At the same time, we can substan-tially reduce the tax burden on Amer-ican families, and that is very muchwhat we want to do.

I do believe one of the elements oftaxes ought to be fairness. One of theissues we have talked about for sometime and passed last year, only to bevetoed by the President, was the mar-riage tax penalty. It really does notmake sense from a fairness standpointthat a single man and woman earningthis amount of money pays x amountof dollars; if they are married, makingthe same amount of money, they paymore. That is a fairness issue and onethat needs to be decided.

Of course, the estate tax also is onethat many argue is a fairness issue.People, particularly on farms, ranches,and in small businesses, work theirwhole lives to create some capital andassets, and if they own property, asmany ranchers and farmers do, theyhave to pay this 55-percent estate tax.They have to dispose of the property todo that and that seems unfair. Thereare some legislative ideas, and I do notknow which one will prevail. There canbe expansion of exemptions, and therecan be elimination, which I favor.There can also be some efforts made topass these on without taxes and allowthen for a tax to be placed on theirgrowth.

There are many things we can do.The President has put forth a packagethat is very useful, one that deals withthe issues as we see them, one whichwill bring fairness, one which willbring a reduction in costs, one whichwill pay down the debt, one which willallow us to go ahead and fund thoseprograms that we deem to be essentialand of a high priority.

We have an opportunity to do thatnow. I am hopeful we will move for-ward and do it quickly, to the benefitof this country, its economy, its tax-payers, and all of its families.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Texas.Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I

am very pleased to be working with mycolleague, Senator THOMAS, today, andall of this week, to talk about the taxcuts we have tried to provide for hard-working American families.

We have been trying to give tax reliefto working Americans for the last 3years, but we had a President who didnot agree with us. Every time we senthim a tax relief bill, it got vetoed.

But today we have a President whoagrees with us that hard-workingAmericans deserve to keep more of themoney they earn. Because we believe itis their money, not ours, we want themto have the choices.

So we do have a proposal that Con-gress and the President are going towork together, hopefully, on a very bi-partisan basis, to produce for theAmerican people something they canrealize, not something that is so com-plicated and minuscule andfractionated that nobody is ever goingto know they got a tax cut. What wewant is real tax relief for hard-workingAmericans.

It is pretty simple. The basic part ofthis tax relief plan would replace thecurrent five-rate tax structure—whichis 15 percent, 28 percent, 31 percent, 36percent, and 39.6 percent—with fourlower tax brackets: 10 percent, not 15percent, would be the lower bracket;then 15 percent; then 25 percent; andthen 33 percent.

That is the bulk of the tax relief planthat we will send to President Bush ifwe can get the support of our col-leagues on the other side of the aisle.

For a couple with two children, mak-ing $35,000 they will have their taxeseliminated. For a couple with two chil-dren, making $50,000, their taxes will becut by 50 percent. For a couple withtwo children, making $75,000 theirtaxes will be cut by 25 percent.

This is tax relief that people will beable to experience. We also hope thatpeople will feel so good that they willbuy the car they have been waiting tobuy or that they will know then thatthey will be able to make the downpay-ment on the house they have been sav-ing for—something that will spur theeconomy because there is no questionour economy is not growing right now.It is stagnant.

But we think it can be revived ifthere is consumer confidence. Con-sumer confidence would come if peoplefeel good about their jobs and theirprospects and if they have more moneyin their pockets. So this is a very im-portant staple of the tax cut plan.

The part that I have been working onpersonally for so many years is themarriage penalty tax cut. Why, inAmerica, would we have to ask peopleto choose between love and money?The fact is, most couples in America,indeed, have to pay an average of $1,400more in taxes just because they gotmarried.

Who does this hit the hardest? It hitsthe policeman and the schoolteacherwho get married and all of a suddenfind they have $1,000 more that theyowe to Uncle Sam—$1,000 they couldcertainly use. So we want to help mar-ried couples not have to pay any pen-alty whatsoever.

Why should you pay a penalty justbecause you got married? It does not

make sense. So we want to eliminatethe marriage tax penalty. In fact, I amgoing to be working with others tomake the marriage penalty tax cutpart of our tax plan significant. We be-lieve we should double the standard de-duction, that you should not have topay more in a standard deduction be-cause you are married than you wouldif you had two single income-earningpeople. So we are going to try tochange that.

We are going to encourage charitablecontributions by allowing people whohave saved and put money in theirIRAs through the years—if they findout they do not need that money be-cause they are doing OK, and their kidsare doing OK—to give some of thatmoney to charity if they want. Butthere is a big bar to doing that today,and that is the tax consequence. Youcannot just take the money out andgive it to the charity; You have to paythe taxes.

So we want to eliminate that tax, ifit is going to go straight to charity.This will encourage people to do thingsthat will enhance our communities,and that is to give to the charity oftheir choice.

We want to try to help parents bydoubling the child tax credit. PresidentBush has made this a priority. Hewants to make sure that we have a$1,000 per child tax credit rather thanthe $500 per child tax credit that we areworking toward today because weknow it costs a lot of money to raise afamily. Children grow. They grow outof their clothes; they eat a lot; theyneed to be healthy; and they need to bewell fed and well dressed.

The occupant of the Chair is smilingbecause he has nine children. Heknows. He has been there. He has fedand clothed them. He knows this issomething that parents need the helpto do.

Mr. President, I am very pleased tobe here and be a part of the group thatis talking about the Bush tax cuts. Weare talking about the Bush tax cuts forhard-working American families. Weare talking about Congress workingwith the President on a bipartisanbasis for a lot of reasons to let peoplekeep more of the money they earn.That is the bottom line.

We want people to be able to keep themoney they earn because we believe itbelongs to them, not to us. We believefamilies, especially, should get thebreak they so badly need.

We are being taxed at a higher ratetoday than ever in peacetime. I amvery pleased that we have this tax re-lief plan. We know it is going to pass.That is what pleases me. Before, whenwe had been working on tax cuts, wehad a President who would threaten toveto them every time we sent them tohim. Today, we have a tax cut planwith a President who says he is goingto sign it.

So we feel very good about that. Weare going to be talking about it andhope the people of this country realize

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:39 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.020 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1103February 7, 2001we are going to do something signifi-cant for every taxpaying American.Those in the lowest brackets will getthe most relief; those in the upperbrackets will get the least relief, butthey will get some relief. We think it isfair to target it to middle-income andlow-income people. We want them toget the most benefit. They are the oneswho pay the most per capita, per in-come dollar. We want to relieve that,but we want every working Americanwho pays taxes to get relief.

Mr. President, I am very proud to behere with my colleague, Senator PETEDOMENICI. Senator DOMENICI is, ofcourse, the person who heads our Budg-et Committee. He knows, in the finalanalysis, it is his committee that isgoing to give us a budget that is bal-anced, that pays down the debt, thattakes care of the increases in spendingthat we know we are going to need inplaces such as education, national de-fense, Medicare reform, prescriptiondrug benefits and options, and giveback to hard-working Americans someof their tax money.

I cannot think of anyone that I wouldtrust to be able to do that than my col-league from New Mexico. I will nowturn the floor over to him.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from New Mexico.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my goodfriend from Texas.

Mr. President, I know that by somestrange coincidence the occupant ofthe Chair seems to occupy the Chairquite frequently when the Senatorfrom New Mexico speaks. I do not knowwhat that bodes for the distinguishedSenator, but I will try to make it in-teresting today, again, perhaps.

First, I am here because I want toshare with the American people, andmy constituents in New Mexico, thefact that this fiscal situation of ourNation is about as good as any genera-tion could expect. This is a good situa-tion. I have been here during timeswhen we were going into debt almostas fast as we were gaining surpluseseach year.

We had accumulated enormous an-nual debts that we called the ‘‘deficit,’’and the first good news is that by thetime this year ends, we will have re-duced the debt of our Nation by $600billion. That is for real. That is not agraph. That is not a projection. Wehave already paid it down substan-tially. Unless something very dramatichappens in the next few months, thattotal number will be $600 billion in re-duction.

Interestingly enough, a few weeksago, probably the most distinguishedAmerican on matters economic, andprobably the most distinguished Amer-ican in terms of impact for the positiveon the American economy, Dr. AlanGreenspan, appeared before the BudgetCommittee of the Senate. For somepeople, it was a bombshell when he saidin the course of his discussion, just asdeficits can get too big and hurt theeconomy, so can surpluses get too big

and, if not handled right, can hurt theeconomy. He came to that conclusionon the basis of his own assessment ofwhere we are going. And without say-ing it, he certainly lent great credenceto a big fact: surpluses are generatingon the inside of the American budgetat rates and levels never expected orunderstood in America.

He at least implicitly acknowledgedthat the Congressional Budget Officewas on the right track in estimatingthat the surpluses were growing andgrowing, and we were told a few dayslater by the Congressional Budget Of-fice—and when we say that, we meanthe whole paraphernalia that goes withestimating the American economygroups of economists, economists with-in the Congressional Budget Office,comparing their results with all kindsof outside estimators whose job it is,because of the businesses they work foror the funds they control, to be as rightas they can—that the CongressionalBudget Office which Dr. Greenspan waslooking at was giving us their best es-timate.

There are some who say it is only anestimate. They could give us an esti-mate that is not their best estimatethat would say the surplus is going tobe $9 trillion. They could give us an-other estimate which would not betheir best estimate that the surplus inthe next decade is going to be $1 tril-lion. But when they were asked, whichone should we build our policy on, theanswer was, the modest growth path,the modest path in terms of increasesin productivity, nonetheless sustainedproductivity increases and sustainedand very large over the next decade.Use the one we gave you, they said.

There are some people down heretalking about all the possibilities andall the probabilities. When we are toldabout Social Security 40 years fromnow, Medicare 30, 40, or 50 years fromnow, we are using the best we can ingiving those notions of costs and liabil-ities.

We have $5.6 trillion. Let’s just startright off and say, it is our responsi-bility to take a good look, with our fel-low Senators, at what we ought to dowith it. Let me start by saying, wewant to pay the debt down as soon aspracticable. It is no longer as soon aspossible because we have been told nowby both the Congressional Budget Of-fice, our experts, and Dr. Alan Green-span, that there is a limit as to howfast we pay it down.

First, there is a limit because thereis certain of our indebtedness that wecannot buy up; it is just not viable,such as savings bonds and the like;they are going to be there.

There is other long-term debt that istoo expensive to try to persuade theholders of those debts to cash them innow; it costs too much money. So closeto $1 trillion cannot be paid off as soonas we have the surplus.

We were told by Dr. Greenspan to usea glidepath for the reduction of thedebt, and we will use one in whatever

proposals we make to the committee—I will as chairman—and whatever wemake to the Senate and to the people.The debt will be coming down ratherfast, but not as fast as the money is ac-cruing in the surplus because we arebeing told it won’t work. We are alsobeing told that is probably not good forthe future of the American economy.

Let me talk about the future of theAmerican economy. There is a lotbeing discussed today about Social Se-curity 20, 30, 40 years from now, andMedicare during the same time inter-val. Those who work very hard at de-mographics, telling us how many peo-ple are going to be collecting fromthese two major beneficiaries pro-grams, how many are going to be pay-ing in, and how much money we aregoing to have sitting around, are allsuggesting, from what I hear, that thevery best thing that can happen is thatthe American economy has very pro-longed intervals of sustained growthwith high productivity, much like thelast 9 or 10 years. If we want the bestoutcome for the seniors of America,the baby boom population, in terms oftheir health care that we can pay forand their Social Security being pay-able, just have, during the next 40years, three 9-year growth patterns, orfour, like the immediate past ones wehave had. That will put us closer tobeing able to meet our obligations thanany other policy we can undertake inthe Congress.

In fact, another thing that has beendiscussed is a rainy day fund. The bestrainy day fund is sustained economicgrowth over a prolonged period of time.That is the best rainy day fund.

Why do I raise this right in the mid-dle of a discussion about surpluses andwhat should we do with them? Becausewe are in a slowdown right now. Wehave different versions of how severethis slowdown is in the economy.Again, he has been correct most of thetime. Dr. Greenspan says it is shortlived and it is not too deep, and he iscorrecting it in terms of the short termby substantially lowering the interest,which is within the Federal ReserveBoard’s power. They have done that ina rather dramatic fashion the last cou-ple months, and I surmise they will dosome more.

The question becomes, what policycould we adopt up here that would fitin with these interest reductions andproduce long-term growth at sustainedrates with low rates of inflation andprobably high productivity?

The best thing we can do is, one, paydown the debt on a glide path whichsays we will get it down but notabruptly. We will get it down within 2or 3 years of the time that we wouldget it down if we put all of it on there,or tried to. Then we would take all ofthe Social Security trust fund money,put it in a lockbox; Medicare. And thenwe could still provide for very high pri-ority items, both in appropriations andelsewhere. And what is left could, in-deed, be $1.6 trillion that we ought to

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:39 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.022 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1104 February 7, 2001give back to the American people rath-er than keep up here to be spent.

If we do not give some of this back tothe American people, and start soongiving it back a little bit each year, Ithink the highest probability is thatthe pressure that will be responded towill be to spend it. There is alreadysome evidence that in the last 6months we have spent over the base-line, over the amount that would havebeen expected, $561 billion over thenext decade. That is what we have donein appropriations. That is what wehave done in entitlements. That iswhat we have done for veterans and awhole list of them. Surplus was here inabundance. Spending occurred in abun-dance, and I believe the American peo-ple would not like to see a much largerGovernment because of these surpluses.I think they would like to see Govern-ment at the most efficient level pos-sible.

They would clearly like us to givesome of this money back to them. Iwill leave for others on another daywhose tax plan is best. I already hearDemocrats saying they want a tax cutbut not as large as the President does,and they want different shapes andmodels of it. So, from my standpoint, Iam not going to discuss the details ofthe plan, other than to say one thing:That same Dr. Alan Greenspan whocame upon these facts and suggested tous that if we didn’t give some of thismoney back to the people, there wouldbe an accumulation of money in thehands of the Federal Government—andhe saw no alternative other than theFederal Government would start in-vesting it in assets of America—con-tends that would be a negative factoron the growth, prosperity, and effi-ciency of the American economy,which is what we need for the future ofSocial Security and Medicare and forour people to have sustained, increas-ing paychecks.

When you add all this together, youwould then say if you are going to givepart of it back to the American peo-ple—and I want everybody to under-stand that after you take all the SocialSecurity money and put it where it be-longs, you have $3.1 trillion that is sit-ting there over the next decade if youbelieve, or at least have sufficient trustin the estimating, as I do, to act uponit. It is $3.1 trillion. That is almostunfathomable to people listening, andprobably to most Senators and theirstaffs and my staff and me—$3.1 tril-lion. I could give you a number. Ourwhole budget for everything, includingentitlements, appropriations, and thelike is somewhere around $1.6 trillionto $1.8 trillion per year. So here wehave a surplus that is almost twice asbig as the total outlays of the FederalGovernment for a full year. That is atleast a comparable.

That same Dr. Greenspan has con-sistently told us, if you have a surplus,the best thing you can do is pay downthe debt. He has qualified that now andsaid, yes, pay it down under a glidepath

that is best for America. Don’t pay itdown abruptly because you are apt tocreate money in the pockets and draw-ers of the American Government thatwill invest it in less efficient Govern-ment by acquiring assets, owningthings.

Having said that, what else has hesaid repeatedly and reconfirmed? If youare going to have a positive impact onthe prosperity level of Americans andhave the economy grow, the best taxmedicine is marginal rate reductions.Cut everybody’s marginal taxes some.He says it will increase savings, it willincrease investment, and it is the bestway to use tax dollars. He says thethird and worst way to have a positiveimpact on our future is to spend thesurplus.

I believe we are moving in the rightdirection. Debate is good and the Presi-dent is leading well. I think before weare finished, we will have a significanttax cut of the right kind and still dothe marriage penalty and death taxes,and we will have a very formidable ex-penditure budget. Everything can growsubstantially, especially priorityitems. I think if we work together andwork with the President, we can givethe American people something verygood by the end of this year.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

BURNS). Under the previous order, thetime from 12 noon to 1 p.m. is underthe control of the Senator from WestVirginia, Mr. BYRD.

f

PROJECTED SURPLUSES

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have lis-tened to my distinguished friend fromNew Mexico with great interest. May Icompliment him on the broad range oftestimony that his Budget Committeehas been acquiring through expert wit-nesses. I am a new member of the com-mittee. I am very impressed with thewell-organized, well-focused hearingsthat are being conducted in that com-mittee.

Mr. President, our Nation is facing afork in the road. The CongressionalBudget Office is projecting a 10-yearsurplus of $2.7 trillion, excluding theSocial Security and Medicare sur-pluses. These surpluses provide us withthe opportunity to invest in our futureand to deal with the long-term threatsto the budget, such as the retirementof the baby boom generation.

The administration is proposinglarge and ballooning tax cuts which, ifenacted, would have a significant im-pact on the Federal budget for decadesto come. It falls to the Congress to de-cide how much to allocate to tax cuts,how much to spending increases, andhow much to reserve for debt reduc-tion.

Before we make these decisions, wemust first decide whether we have suf-ficient confidence in the surplus esti-mates to use them to make long-termbudget decisions. In his recent testi-mony before the Senate Budget Com-

mittee, Federal Reserve Board Chair-man Alan Greenspan—and his namehas been referred to already by mydear colleague, Mr. DOMENICI—ex-pressed his hope that we use caution.He said:

In recognition of the uncertainties in theeconomic and budget outlook, it is impor-tant that any long-term tax plan or spendinginitiative, for that matter, be phased in.Conceivably, (the long-term tax plan) couldinclude provisions that, in some way, wouldlimit surplus-reducing actions if specifiedtargets for the budget surplus and federaldebt were not satisfied.

Now, while we all rely on the profes-sional estimates provided by the Con-gressional Budget Office, we must rec-ognize that long-term budget projec-tions often have proved to be wrong. Inits own report, entitled ‘‘The Budgetand Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years2002–2011,’’ released last week, CBOcharacterizes its estimates as uncer-tain. On page 95 of that report, CBOStates that the estimated surpluscould be off in one direction or theother, on average, by about $52 billionin fiscal year 2001, by $120 billion in fis-cal year 2002, and by $412 billion in fis-cal year 2006. CBO confirmed in testi-mony before the Senate Budget Com-mittee last week that this uncertaintywould grow even larger for fiscal year2007 through fiscal year 2011.

Further evidence of the volatility ofthese estimates can be found on pageXV of the summary of the CBO report.In summary table 2, entitled ‘‘Changesin CBO’s Projections of the SurplusSince July 2000,’’ CBO changes its 10-year revenue estimate by $919 billion.In just 6 months, therefore, from Julyof 2000 to January of 2001, CBO changedits revenue estimate, I repeat, by $919billion and its 10-year estimate of thesurplus by over $1 trillion for economicand technical reasons alone.

In its report, CBO concludes thatthere is ‘‘some significant probability’’that the surpluses will be quite dif-ferent from the CBO baseline projec-tions.

Let me now use this chart, entitled‘‘Uncertainty in CBO’s Projections ofthe Surplus Under Current Policies, inTrillions of Dollars.’’ In fact, CBO indi-cates that, ‘‘there is some probability,albeit small, that the budget might fallinto deficit in the year 2006, even with-out policy changes.’’ So on page xviii ofthe report, CBO indicates that theprobability that actual surpluses willfall—we can see that in the darkestarea on the chart—is only 10 percent.

The probability that the surplus willfall in the shaded area is 90 percent.Imagine that after some 15 years ofcrawling and scratching to get out ofthe deficit hole, the ‘‘d’’ word justmight reappear in our national vocabu-lary in a scant 5 years even if we staythe course. The ‘‘d’’ word of course, is‘‘deficit.’’

Yet we are now being asked by Presi-dent Bush and the Republican leader-ship to use these extremely tenuous 10-year budget estimates as the baselinefor considering a tax cut that could

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:46 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.025 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1105February 7, 2001cost $2 trillion or more over the next 10years. We have been down this road be-fore, and sadly I went along for theride. In 1981, as my good friend, thesenior Senator from Maryland, Mr.SARBANES, well knows, PresidentReagan proposed a large tax cut over 5years. There are not many in this townwho remember that his 5-year budgetplan projected a surplus for fiscal year1984 of $1 billion; for fiscal year 1985, asurplus of $6 billion; and for fiscal year1986, a surplus of $28 billion.

Congress passed the tax cut bill thatreduced revenues by over $1 trillionfrom fiscal year 1982 to fiscal year 1987.Did the Reagan administration’s pro-jected surpluses come to pass? No. Infact, precisely the opposite occurred.The fiscal year 1984 deficit was not asurplus of $1 billion as projected. Thefiscal year 1984 deficit was $185 bil-lion—using the ‘‘d’’ word, ‘‘deficit.’’The fiscal year 1985 deficit was $212 bil-lion. The fiscal year 1986 deficit was$221 billion.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I yield.Mr. SARBANES. These figures are

the actual deficit figures the Senator istalking about.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, indeed.Mr. SARBANES. They should be con-

trasted with the projections whichwere made only a few years before—projections which projected surpluses.Am I correct?

Mr. BYRD. Precisely.Mr. SARBANES. I think this is an

extraordinarily important point. Wehave these projections now. We aretalking about having a surplus of tril-lions over 10 years, and yet two-thirdsof the surplus being projected now is inthe last 5 years of the 10-year period.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.Mr. SARBANES. Everyone has un-

derscored that you can’t really base apolicy on these projections, they are souncertain. As the Senator pointed outearlier in his statement, in just 6months the Congressional Budget Of-fice changed its projections to raise thesurplus estimate by about $1 trillionbetween last summer and last month.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. That is remarkable.Mr. SARBANES. I want to bring one

other fact to your attention, and thenI will certainly yield back to the Sen-ator.

Just to show you how fragile thesebudget surplus estimates are, in 1995CBO estimated that in the year 2000 wewould have a deficit of $342 billion.Five years out they were making thatprojection. Instead, we had a surplus of$236 billion, because we restrained our-selves on spending. We recouped taxesin order to balance the budget. That isa swing of $578 billion from the projec-tions to the actuality. That was onlyprojecting 5 years. Now we are talkingabout projections that go for 10 years.

I think the Senator is absolutelyright to underscore the fragile nature,which would be the best way to put it,of budget projections. These projec-

tions have almost an evaporating di-mension to them. I think we have to beextremely careful, cautious, and pru-dent in planning our policy if we areusing these kinds of projections.

Of course, the Senator just under-scored it, by outlining the projectionsthat were made in the Reagan years tosupport the tax cut and how far fromthe mark they were, only a few yearslater—not quite immediately, but onlya few years later.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator

for yielding.Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished

Senator. He served with me as wesought to have the President postponethe third year of that 3-year tax cutuntil such time as we could see whatthe impact of the 2 previous years’ taxcuts was going to be on the budget andon the economy.

I remember going down to the WhiteHouse. I was the minority leader atthat time. As I say, there in the OvalOffice I said to the President: Mr.President, you are proposing a tax cutover 3 years—I believe it was 3 years—5 percent, then 10 percent, and then 10percent? It may not be the exact se-quence, but those are the correct num-bers. Why not wait until we see whatthe results are and the impact is forthe first 2 years? Why go ahead nowand add a third year of tax cuts? Whydo it now? Why not wait?

President Reagan responded. After heresponded, I said: Mr. President, thatdoesn’t answer my question. So heturned to Mr. Regan, who was the Sec-retary of the Treasury, and asked Mr.Regan to explain to me why we had tohave 3 consecutive years all at once.Mr. Regan sought to explain it. Whenhe finished, I said: Well, Mr. Regan,you still haven’t answered my ques-tion.

President Reagan then turned to Mr.Meese and asked Mr. Meese to explainit. This was all down in the Oval Office.Mr. Meese explained it somewhat likethis: Senator, in order to give to thebusiness people of this country cer-tainty that there will be 3 years of taxcuts and in these amounts, in orderthat they might plan ahead with cer-tainty, we need to package the threetax cuts in one bill.

That was a reasonable explanation. Ididn’t buy it. But there were some peo-ple who might buy it. And there wassomething to it.

I came back to the Hill, and on theSenate floor I, with Mr. SARBANES andothers on this side—we were in the mi-nority then as we are now—offered anamendment to postpone that third yearuntil after the first 2 years of tax cutshad been implemented. We lost, ofcourse. As we see, the projections didnot pan out.

Lord Byron said, ‘‘History, with allthy volumes vast, hath but one page.’’Well, the one page of history that wesee today tells us very clearly that wecannot depend upon these projections.

I know of no one who can better tes-tify to this fact than the distinguished

Senator from Maryland, Mr. SARBANES.He has served on the Joint EconomicCommittee for several years.

Regarding the administration’s 3-year across-the-board tax cut, we tried.We lost. In order to help give PresidentReagan’s economic program a chance, Ivoted for the final bill because my peo-ple in West Virginia who send me heresaid: Give him a chance. Give this newPresident a chance.

‘‘Give him a chance.’’ So I did, I gavehim a chance. I voted for the Reagantax cut. It was a mistake on my part.

On October 1, 1981, I went out on thefloor as minority leader to take a lookforward to the new fiscal year. On thatday I said: ‘‘Today is the beginning ofthe new fiscal year. Yesterday, therewas a kind of New Year’s Eve celebra-tion. The trouble with New Year’s Evecelebrations, we all have to wake upthe next day and face reality.’’

I quoted Arthur Schlesinger whowrote: ‘‘This supply side fantasy is voo-doo economics. The witch doctors havehad their day. Reality is awaiting.’’

On that October day, I noted: ‘‘. . .The administration’s brave words androsy predictions began to wilt.’’

The reality was that deficits as far asthe human eye could see were outthere. Deficits peaked in fiscal year1992 at $290 billion. Not until fiscalyear 1998, 17 years after the 1981Reagan tax cuts, were we able toachieve a budget surplus. Havingpassed the Reagan tax cuts in 1981,which in large part created these un-precedented triple-digit, billion-dollardeficits, the Congress had no choice butto pass, and Presidents Reagan, Bush,and Clinton signed, numerous bills tocorrect our mistake and increase taxesin hopes of stemming the unprece-dented tide of red ink.

The Budget anachronisms of thosetax increase measures are painful to re-call: TEFRA, DeFRA, OBRA of 1987,OBRA of 1990, OBRA of 1993, and so on.

Despite all of these efforts to stemthe red ink during the 12 years ofPresidents Reagan and Bush, the na-tional debt rose from $932 billion, theday Mr. Reagan took office on January20, 1981, to $2.683 trillion the day Mr.Reagan left office; to $4.097 trillion theday President Bush left office on Janu-ary 20, 1993. These protracted deficitsalso resulted in higher interest ratesfor you and for you and for you, theAmerican taxpayer, to pay. This forcedthe average American to pay more forhis mortgage, more for his car, morefor his child’s education because of ourrush to enact a huge tax cut. Becauseof our rush to enact a huge tax cut, thebenefits of which went mainly to thewealthiest taxpayer, many, many mid-dle-class American taxpayers were leftwith shrinking paychecks and shriv-eled dreams.

As a result of the tough votes wetook on the deficit reduction bills of1990, Senator SARBANES, and 1993, doyou remember 1990, when we went overto Andrews Air Force Base? And do youremember 1993 when we passed the bill

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:46 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.035 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1106 February 7, 2001for which no Republican in the Houseor in the Senate voted? We are now re-ducing the debt held by the public, butgross debt continues to grow to thisday.

Our current gross debt is $5.6 trillion.Here is the chart: $5.646 trillion. Thechart will show that, if these $5 trillionwere stacked in $1 bills, the nationaldebt would reach into the stratosphere382 miles.

May I ask Senator SARBANES if he re-members when Mr. Reagan first cameinto office, Mr. Reagan made a presen-tation to the American public on tele-vision, and in that presentation Mr.Reagan talked about the debt he hadinherited. It was $932 billion at thattime. Mr. Reagan very graphically pre-sented it by saying: If this $932 billionwere in $1 bills, that stack of $1 billsrepresenting the national debt of $932billion which I inherited would reachinto the stratosphere 63 miles.

When Mr. Reagan left office, thatsame stack of $1 bills would havereached into the stratosphere 182 miles,three times what it was when Mr.Reagan took office.

Our current gross debt worldwide is$929 for every man, woman, and child.Get that: Our current gross debt comesto $929 for every man, woman, andchild around the globe! That is notpocket change. It represents $20,062 perman, woman, and child in the UnitedStates.

Some may argue that increased Fed-eral spending is responsible for the def-icit. That is not so, not totally so.Looking at the chart entitled ‘‘TotalFederal Spending Lowest Level Since1966,’’ I have heard my ranking memberon the Budget Committee, Mr. CONRAD,refer to this chart and to this total ofFederal spending. He has said it is thelowest level since 1966.

Federal spending this year is only 1.2percent of GDP, the lowest since 1966,and almost 5 percentage points lessthan in 1982 during the Reagan admin-istration, and 4 percentage points lessthan in 1992 during the Bush Adminis-tration.

Once again, we face the fork in theroad. We have faced it before. We tookthe wrong path. We voted for that taxcut. But this time, we have a signpost.It is easy to vote for a tax cut. I loveto cast easy votes. The easiest vote Ihave ever cast in my 55 years in poli-tics has been a vote to cut taxes. Ohhow easy. It doesn’t take much courageto do that.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senatoryield?

Mr. BYRD. I yield.Mr. SARBANES. I want to under-

score what the Senator is saying. Somemake the argument that somehow ittakes great political courage to advo-cate a sweeping tax cut. I have neverencountered that in the course of mypublic career; a tax cut is always wel-come. If it is possible, if the fiscal cir-cumstances are such, I think we shouldconsider doing tax cuts. But the realproblem is always how to act in a re-

sponsible manner and how to thinkabout the future and not rush. Thepaper this morning has an article enti-tled ‘‘Congressional Republicans SeekBush’s Big Tax Cut and Think Bigger.’’

Another headline says, ‘‘BusinessVows to Seek Its Share of Tax Relief.’’

Once you take the lid off the punchbowl, everyone wants to come to thepunch bowl and gorge themselves. Thereal challenge, the difficult politicalchallenge, is not to do the tax cut. Thedifficult political challenge is to re-strain yourself so whatever you do isdone in a responsible manner, in amanner that takes into account the fu-ture of the country—by ‘‘the future’’ Idon’t just mean next year, but the nextgeneration and the generation afterthat—and in a manner that will buildthe strength of the Nation over time.That is the difficult challenge. I agreecompletely with the Senator in his ob-servation.

Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend.Does the Senator from Maryland

have grandchildren?Mr. SARBANES. I do, indeed.Mr. BYRD. Does he have great grand-

children?Mr. SARBANES. Not yet.Mr. BYRD. One day we will leave this

Chamber for the last time. And, if I amable to do so, I will look in a mirror. Iwill say to myself: How did you serve?Did you think mostly of yourself? Didyou think in terms of only your gen-eration? Did you think in terms ofyour children’s future? Did you thinkabout your great grandchildren? Whatabout that little great granddaughter?She is going to be in school one day.

When I look into that mirror, whatwill I say as to my stewardship duringthese years when I have served the peo-ple in the Congress? If I haven’t servedwell, I shall have cheated that greatgranddaughter. I shall have cheated mydaughters and my grandchildren.

I would say as I look in that mirror:When you get all you want in your struggle

for pelf,And the world makes you King for a day,Then go to the mirror and look at yourself,And see what that guy has to say.For it isn’t your Father, or Mother, or Wife,Who judgment upon you must pass.The fellow whose verdict counts most in

your lifeIs the man staring back from the glass.He’s the fellow to please, never mind all the

rest,For he’s with you clear down to the end,And you’ve passed your most dangerous,

most difficult testIf the man in the glass is your friend.You may be like Jack Horner and ‘‘chisel’’ a

plum,And think you’re a wonderful guy,But the man in the glass will just say you’re

a bumIf you can’t look him straight in the eye.You may fool the whole world down the

pathway of years,And get pats on the back as you pass,But your final reward will be heartaches and

tears,If you’ve cheated the man in the glass.

If I have cheated the people who sentme here, if I have cheated my grand-children, my children, your children,

then I shall have cheated myself mostof all.

Senator SARBANES and SenatorCONRAD, we will have to look in thatglass one day. And right here comingup, this year is one of the tests as tohow we are going to react to the chal-lenge before us.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yieldfor a question?

Mr. BYRD. Yes.Mr. CONRAD. The Senator attended

the Budget Committee yesterday inwhich we heard from the ComptrollerGeneral of the United States, the headof the General Accounting Office. Hewarned us of precisely what you aretalking about. He warned us that thisnear-term outlook has improved, butthe long-term outlook has gottenworse. Does the Senator rememberthat testimony?

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I do. I do. And I wasvery much impressed by that. We weretalking about 10 years. What was thetestimony, just beyond the 10 years?

Mr. CONRAD. The Comptroller Gen-eral of the United States alerted usthat just beyond the 10 years lie mas-sive deficits. We are talking aboutshort-term surpluses, but there aremassive deficits to come and we oughtto take this window of opportunity tostrengthen ourselves for the future.

We had four demographers today be-fore the Senate Budget Committeewith this same message, telling us thatif we would set aside some of theseacorns, instead of using them all, con-suming them all in a tax cut or spend-ing—but, instead use some of it to paydown this long-term debt and addressthis long-term demographic timebomb, the retirement of the baby boomgeneration—that we will have a muchstronger economy in the future.

It is really a message that SenatorSARBANES has delivered so powerfullyin the past to the members of the com-mittee. If we are really thinking ahead,we will realize we ought to take someof these funds and invest them for thefuture to reduce our long-term indebt-edness, to expand the pool of savings,to expand the pool of investment, totake pressure off of interest rates, andto have a much bigger economy whenthe baby boomers start to retire.

That is really the lesson that Sen-ator SARBANES has provided to us dayafter day in the committee as well.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Yes. I thank the dis-tinguished ranking member of theBudget committee, on which SenatorSARBANES and I serve.

Mr. President, once again we face thefork in the road. We have faced it be-fore and we took the wrong path—butthis time we have a signpost. The les-son of recent history is very clear, andwe have only to review it to see whichway to go.

The choices are these: Do we rely onuncertain, 10-year budget forecasts topass a colossal tax cut, or do we exer-cise a little caution in case the fore-casts prove to be only a mirage, asthey have so often proved to be before?

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:02 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.037 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1107February 7, 2001If we pass such a tax cut and the sur-pluses do not materialize, what needsof our citizens may have to be left be-hind?

Let’s take Social Security. Cur-rently, 44.8 million older Americans re-ceive Social Security. That is projectedto grow to 82.7 million in the year 2030when the baby boom generation has re-tired. The ratio of workers to bene-ficiaries was 42 to 1 in 1945, at the endof World War II. Today, that ratio is 3.4to 1, and it is projected to fall to 2.1 to1 in the year 2040. The Social Securitytrust fund is projected to be exhaustedin the year 2037. If we go along with theBush administration’s tax cut, whatabout our pledge to protect Social Se-curity?

Let’s take Medicare—33.4 millionAmericans rely on Medicare for theirhealth care costs. This is projected togrow to 77 million in 2030. The Medi-care—hospital insurance—trust fund isprojected to have benefits exceed re-ceipts in 2015 and to run out of moneyin 2023. If we go along with the Bushadministration’s tax cuts, shall we justpretend that the Medicare problem willsolve itself?

How about prescription drugs? SinceMedicare was created in 1965, the prac-tice of medicine has changed dramati-cally. Prescription drugs allow patientsto avoid more expensive and invasiveprocedures, such as surgery. Since 1990,national spending on prescriptiondrugs has tripled. The current Medi-care program does not provide a pre-scription drug benefit. How can we payfor a prescription drug benefit if wehave emptied the kitty with tax cuts?

Just go up to your local drugstore.Get yourself a comfortable place some-where over in the corner if you can,and watch that line as it progressesalong that counter. Listen to some ofthe people who come there. They gettheir drugs, and they pay $100, $150. Isometimes wonder, how can they do it?Drugs are so terribly expensive, andthey are becoming more expensive. Andyet these people rake and scrape andsave to try to have a little money withwhich to buy drugs. We have heardmany stories about how some of themhave to make a choice between food onthe table or drugs to keep down pain,and the problem is getting worse. Weare at a crossroads. What are we goingto do about it?

Discretionary spending—let’s talkabout it for a moment. I am an appro-priator. The population of this Nationgrew by 33 million, or 13.2 percent,from 1990 to 2000, and according to theU.S. Census is expected to grow by an-other 8.9 percent by 2010. Congressshould make sure that we allow for thefuture growth of our population.

There are those who argue that dis-cretionary spending is too high. Let merefer to this chart entitled ‘‘Total Dis-cretionary Outlays, Fiscal Years 1962to 2000.’’ The distinguished rankingmember of our Budget Committee hasreferred to this subject matter as wehave discussed the budget surplus fromday to day.

In fiscal year 2000, discretionaryspending as a share of our economy wasjust 6.3 percent. There it is. This shareof spending has been shrinking for dec-ades and is less than half of the sharein 1962. When I came to this Senate, Isay to Senator CONRAD—I came to thisSenate 43 years ago—the line on thegraph would have been up between 12.7and 14 percent. That was for discre-tionary spending. I was on the Appro-priations Committee. I went on it thefirst month I came here.

What is it today? At that time, theestimates—the latest estimates thatwere available were 1962. I came here in1959. But in that year, 68 percent of allFederal spending was discretionary. Onthe pie chart, one can see how much ofthat chart was for discretionary spend-ing: $72 billion; 68 percent was for dis-cretionary spending. That was theamount of money that went throughthe hands of the Appropriations Com-mittee.

Today, only 34 percent of the Federalbudget is discretionary. Entitlementspending has grown. We heard a wit-ness before the Budget Committee justthe other day talk about entitlementspending. Let’s look at this chart enti-tled ‘‘Entitlement Spending as a Shareof the Economy.’’ We see that entitle-ment spending has grown from 5.7 per-cent of GDP, gross domestic product—the source is CBO—in 1966 to 10.5 per-cent today. So America continues tohave real needs that are not being metin the areas of infrastructure, edu-cation, health care, national security,and the list goes on and on.

For example, the number of vehiclemiles traveled on our Nation’s high-ways has grown—from 1983 to 1999—from 1.65 trillion miles per year to over2.69 trillion miles per year. Of the roadmiles in rural America, 56.5 percent arein fair to poor condition, according tothe Federal Highway Administration;56.9 percent are in fair to poor condi-tion. One does not have to go very farto see that. Just travel along thestreets in this Capital city and see thepotholes, and what is happening totraffic congestion. I came to this city49 years ago.

Conditions are even worse in urbanAmerica, where 64.6 percent of the roadmiles are considered to be in somestate of disrepair.

The situation is no better when weturn our attention to the Nation’shighway bridges. According to themost recent data from the FederalHighway Administration, 28.8 percentof our Nation’s bridges are either func-tionally obsolete—they can no longerhandle the kind of traffic for whichthey were built—or they are struc-turally deficient.

We all should remember the SilverBridge disaster that took place a fewdays before Christmas at Point Pleas-ant, WV, a few years ago. That bridgecollapsed, sending many people to theirwatery graves, on the Ohio River. Dowe just cross our fingers and hope thatthese bridges do not collapse?

The EPA has estimated $200 billion inunmet needs for sewer, wastewater,and safe drinking water systems con-struction and maintenance, just tomaintain the current systems and toallow for necessary expansion. Cleanand safe drinking water should be abasic right of every man, woman, andchild in America. We simply must ad-dress these needs, and it will take dol-lars—billions of dollars—to do it.

According to the Department ofHousing and Urban Development, thereare 5.4 million families, representing12.3 million individuals, who are inneed of affordable housing. Do we sac-rifice these needs on the altar of tax-cut fever?

We are all familiar with the myriadproblems confronting our militaryforces today: Recruitment and reten-tion problems, crushing deploymentburdens, aging ships and tanks and air-craft, a scarcity of spare parts, a scar-city of ammunition—just read it in to-day’s Washington Post, a scarcity ofammunition—substandard housing,outdated facilities. All of these factorsaffect readiness.

Beyond the current budget, we arebracing for the likelihood of requestsof major leaps in defense spending, per-haps as much as $50 billion a year justover the horizon.

When we allocate the surplus, itwould be totally irresponsible—totallyirresponsible—to fail to provide enoughdiscretionary resources to allow us toinvest in our future. Ask the mayors ofthe big cities throughout this country.Ask the mayors of the little cities, thetowns throughout this country.

Debt reduction—let’s talk about itfor a moment. Our debt held by thepublic peaked in fiscal year 1997 at $3.8trillion. In recent years, we have paidabout $200 billion per year in interest—interest—on that debt. As we ap-proach the retirement of the babyboom generation, we could do no great-er favor for my granddaughter, for mygreat granddaughter, for your children,for all of our people, no greater favorthan to eliminate that debt and toeliminate those interest payments.

I know we have received testimony inthe committee that we can only elimi-nate it to a certain point as of a yearthat is not too far away. By the end offiscal year 2001, we expect to have re-duced the publicly held debt to $600 bil-lion from the level in fiscal year 1997.

We should make sure that we canstay on that course. If we enact largetax cuts that siphon away—that suckaway, that draw away—the on-budgetsurpluses, we could return to the dayswhen we had to use the Social Securitysurplus to help finance Federal oper-ations rather than using it for reducingdebt.

In July of 1999, when the Republicanleaders were pushing large tax cuts, Isuggested that Congress take fivesteps:

One, watch our investments carefullyand manage them prudently. Managethe economy and watch out for infla-tion.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:02 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.041 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1108 February 7, 2001Two, pay our debt. Pay down the na-

tional debt.Three, cover the necessities. Do not

shortchange our Nation’s core pro-grams, such as education, health care,and the like.

Four, put aside what we need to putaside for a rainy day. Reserve the So-cial Security and Medicare surplusesexclusively for future costs of thoseprograms.

Five, take prosperity in measureddoses. Ease up on taxes without pullingthe rug out from under projected sur-pluses.

Mr. President, our present conun-drum regarding budget surpluses re-minds me of that old Aesop’s fableabout the ant and the grasshopper. Itseems, as Aesop told it, that a com-monwealth of ants, busily employed inpreserving their corn, was approachedby a grasshopper which had chanced tooutlive the summer. The grasshopperwas ready to starve from the cold andhunger and begged the ants for a grainof the corn, much like the 10 virgins inthe Scripture; 5 who were wise and whohad oil in their lamps, and 5 who werefoolish who had no oil in their lamps.

In this case, one of the ant colonyasked the grasshopper why he had notanticipated the winter and put asidefood, as the ants had so wisely done.The grasshopper answered that he hadso enjoyed the abundance of summerthat he had never once thought of thepossibility of winter.

So we are going to have a big tax cut.Ah, we will enjoy that. How enjoyable.How sweet. How sweet it would be.

If that be the case, the ant replied,then all I can say is, those who spendall day reveling in summer may haveto starve in the winter. The moral is,of course, do not fail to provide for thefuture.

So a prudent course would demand,Mr. President, that we anticipate acold and chilly downturn in our eco-nomic fortunes and forecasts and putback something for the winter. Afterall, it is only a very few years after the10-year budget window that even theserosy estimates return to deficits as wecope with the retirement of the babyboom generation.

Given the pressing needs of our Na-tion in the coming decades and the un-certainty of the budget projections, Ibelieve it is critical we establish amechanism that would put a cau-tionary curve on tax cuts and newspending. In response to my questionat a recent Senate Budget Committeehearing, Mr. Barry Anderson of theCongressional Budget Office respondedthat it would be prudent to establishsuch a mechanism.

So I intend to work diligently withmy colleagues on the committee tocraft some way to put a cautionarybrake on these huge, foolhardy tax cutsthat are being proposed, until we canbe more sure that the surpluses willmaterialize. In my heart of hearts, Iwould prefer that any tax cuts thisyear be limited to no more than half a

trillion dollars. That is my own view-point: $500 billion.

Americans believe in prudence. Theywould not blow the mortgage money atthe race track. Neither should we. Mas-sive tax cuts of the size that is beingproposed, based merely on projections,merely on pieces of paper—here theyare. These are the projections. Theseare the projected surpluses. There theyare on paper. Can you spend it? What isit worth? It is money not even in ourpockets yet. It borders on reckless dis-regard for the needs of our people andthe promises we have made to them toproceed in this manner and spend itbased on 10-year forecasts.

Even worse, we risk a return to seri-ous budget deficits. As Mr. CONRAD hassaid so many times, let’s not get backinto the ditch which our childrenwould have to address. So, as we ap-proach this fork in the road, we owe itto our children and to our children’schildren to make the right choice. Weshould invest in our future. We shouldset aside funds for problems that weknow are lurking just over the horizon.Let us not make a risky U-turn and re-turn to the rocky road of deficits as faras the eye can see.

Mr. President, we will hear this re-frain, that: ‘‘It’s the people’s money.Let’s give it back. It’s their money. It’stheir money.’’ And it is. But it is alsotheir debt. It is also their deficits. It isalso their highway safety. It is alsotheir water and sewage treatmentneeds. It is also their children’s edu-cation. It is theirs. It is also their safe-ty in the skies. It is all theirs. And weare the stewards. How do we best servethem?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senatoryield?

Mr. BYRD. I will yield to SenatorSARBANES.

Mr. SARBANES. As always, I thinkthe very able Senator from West Vir-ginia has given us an extremely impor-tant message. Moderation in all thingsis essentially what the Senator is talk-ing about. He is saying: Be cautious. Beprudent. These steps that the Senatorset out, if one goes over them care-fully, are a balanced package which heis recommending. He says: Watch theinvestments. Manage the economy.Pay down the debt. Cover the neces-sities. Do those programs that are es-sential to our future strength: Edu-cation, health care. Put aside what weneed for a rainy day, preserve SocialSecurity and Medicare. And then easeup on the taxes.

The Senator is not saying: Don’t do atax cut, in light of these surpluses orprojected surpluses. But let’s be carefulabout it. And do not pull the rug outfrom under the projections in the fu-ture.

Now that is a package that makessense. That is what all the commenta-tors are telling us. The Baltimore Sunjust today had an editorial. I ask unan-imous consent it be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Baltimore Sun, Feb. 7, 2001]CALMING DOWN FRENZY FOR A BIG FEDERAL

TAX CUT

President Bush is a glib salesman for hismassive tax-cut program. But a closer lookat the numbers should prompt Congress to becareful.

For a conservative Republican, the presi-dent is using very rosy revenue forecasts.The numbers he’s using understate the costof ongoing programs. He’s ignoring the extracash needed for his other proposals and con-gressional initiatives, such as a prescription-drug plan. he hasn’t factored in spending tofix the Social Security and Medicare pro-grams.

Mr. Bush is promising more in tax cutsthan this country can probably afford. Hecalls it a $1.6 trillion plan, but other ana-lysts say the true cost is closer to $2.5 tril-lion. And that amount may not be afford-able, even if large surpluses pour in for a dec-ade.

Congressional leaders would be wise to lis-ten to David M. Walker, who heads the Gen-eral Accounting Office on Capitol Hill. Hesaid this week that ‘‘no one should designtax or spending policy pegged to the precisenumbers in any 10-year forecast.’’

Yet this is what President Bush is doing.It’s a mistake Congress shouldn’t duplicate.

Will there be a tax cut this year? Yes, in-deed. The momentum is there. But the sizeof the president’s proposal is unrealistic.And, sadly, some Republicans are talkingabout adding even more to it in this form ofcapital gains tax cuts and business tax re-ductions.

If there is to be a tax cut, Congress shouldsee that it is more tilted toward those at thelower and middle ranges of the income scalethan the president’s proposal. Prudence is es-sential in handling future surpluses thatmight never occur. And there must beenough left on the table to deal with otherpressing needs, such as modernizing the mili-tary and making repairs to old-age pro-grams.

Mr. Bush has raised expectations, but Con-gress still must carefully examine every as-pect of this major proposal. We all wantsmaller tax bills, but only if they are reason-able and responsible.

Mr. SARBANES. ‘‘Calming downfrenzy for a big federal tax cut. Con-gress should take a close look atBush’s forecast figures and a decidedlycautious approach.’’

They quote the Comptroller Generalfrom his testimony before our com-mittee where he said that: ‘‘No oneshould design tax or spending policypegged to the precise numbers in any10-year forecast’’—exactly the pointthat the able Senator made at the out-set of his statement.

And they conclude: ‘‘Mr. Bush hasraised expectations, but Congress stillmust carefully examine every aspect ofthis major proposal. We all want small-er tax bills, but only if they are reason-able and responsible.’’ Reasonable andresponsible—and, as the Senator haspointed out, in the context of dealingwith these basic needs: Education, in-frastructure, defense.

This administration has already sentthe signal that they are going to wanta major step up in defense and ofcourse, reserving a significant amount

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:02 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.044 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1109February 7, 2001of the surplus to pay down the debt.When are we going to pay off the debt,if we don’t do it when we are runninglarge surpluses and are at a 4.2 percentunemployment rate? We have a strongeconomy now. We don’t want to riskthe chance of knocking it off the track.

The Washington Post had an edi-torial entitled ‘‘Fiscal Souffle.’’ Theyconclude it by saying:

A rush to commit too much of the pro-jected surplus could take the country backto borrow and spend, just as the last big taxcut did 20 years ago.

Mr. BYRD. Right.Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous

consent that that editorial be printedin the RECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2001]FISCAL SOUFFLE

The Congressional Budget Office has raisedby another $1 trillion its estimate of thelikely budget surplus over the next 10 years,and Republicans, led by President Bush, saythe new figures prove there’s plenty of roomto enact the president’ tax cut and still ful-fill the government’s other obligations.Democrats, including notably the conserv-ative Blue Dogs in the House, say that’s notso, that the true surplus is unlikely to bethat large and that Congress, while it cansafely grant a tax cut, should exercise cau-tion in doing so.

The people flashing the caution signs areright. CBO itself warns that ‘‘considerableuncertainty surrounds’’ the projections, andthat once the baby boomers retire, the out-look shifts from sunny to bleak. About 70percent of the 10-year surplus is projected tooccur in the last five years of the period, forwhich the estimates are least dependable;only 30 percent is projected to occur in thenearer term. The supposed $3 trillion, 10-yearsurplus consists in part of Medicare fundsthat both parties in Congress have saidshould not be counted because Medicare isheaded for a deficit. The surplus makes noallowance for the funds that, even with ben-efit cuts, will be required to avert that def-icit, nor the Social Security deficit thatlikewise lies ahead, nor the increase in de-fense spending that both parties say is nec-essary.

Make these and similar, smaller allow-ances, all of them realistic, and the amountavailable for tax cuts quickly falls. A real-istic estimate, assuming everything goesright, is probably well under $2 trillion, andin the past, members of both parties havesaid they want to use some of that for debtreduction. The true 10-year cost of the Bushtax cut, meanwhile, is well in excess of the$1.3 trillion estimate used in the campaign.In part that’s because important provisionswould not take effect until toward the end ofthe 10-year estimating period. The 10-yearcost of the Bush proposals fully fledgedwould be more than $2 trillion.

‘‘It doesn’t leave room for much of any-thing else,’’ Rep. John Spratt, the rankingDemocrat on the House Budget Committee,said the other day. And it may grow; suchRepublicans as House Majority Leader DickArmey have begun to say that the Bush pro-posal may be too small. The Blue Dogsissued a statement yesterday warning that‘‘budget projections can deteriorate just asrapidly as they have improved in the last fewyears,’’ and that a ‘‘rush to commit’’ toomuch of the projected surplus could take thecountry back to borrow-and-spend, just as

the last big tax cut did 20 years ago. Thatrisk is real.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Sen-ator. He has set out for us what, really,is a historic decision we will be con-fronting. We must recognize it as such.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.Mr. SARBANES. It will affect gen-

erations to come. We must make a wiseand prudent decision. I thank the Sen-ator from West Virginia for his ex-traordinary leadership in this effort.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguishedSenator from Maryland.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yieldfor a question?

Mr. BYRD. Yes.Mr. CONRAD. The Senator may re-

call when we had the CongressionalBudget Office personnel before us, theywere the ones who made this forecastof the surplus, and yet they themselveswarned us of the uncertainty of theirprojections.

Mr. BYRD. They did.Mr. CONRAD. The Senator may re-

call that Mr. Anderson put up a chartand the chart showed that in the fifthyear of this 10-year forecast, based onthe previous variances in their projec-tions, we could have a budget that wasanywhere from a $50 billion deficit tomore than a $1 trillion surplus.

Mr. BYRD. Yes; here is the chart.Mr. CONRAD. I see the Senator has

that chart that shows in the year 2006,which is 5 years into this 10-year fore-cast, we could have anywhere from a$50 billion deficit to over a $1 trillionsurplus. That is the uncertainty oftheir forecast, according to them.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, that is just 5 yearsout.

Mr. CONRAD. That is just 5 years outin a 10-year forecast. They are warning,I take it—I would be interested in theSenator’s reaction——

Mr. BYRD. That is my reaction.Mr. CONRAD. That we should not bet

the farm on a specific number with a10-year forecast because of the failureof previous forecasts to be accurateover such an extended period.

Mr. BYRD. Exactly.Mr. CONRAD. Isn’t that the upshot

of their testimony?Mr. BYRD. That is the point we

should take home with us.Mr. SARBANES. In addition to the

Post editorial from which I quoted, Ihave a column that appeared in thePost written by Newsweek’s WallStreet Editor entitled ‘‘Iffy Long-TermNumbers are Poor Excuse for Huge TaxCuts and Wild Spending.’’ The dis-cipline has to be on both sides, on thetax cut and on the spending side.

No one is saying we should not dosome tax cuts. Obviously, we need tomake some investments on the expend-iture side if we are going to meet theneeds of our country. But they have tobe responsible, they have to be reason-able. And, as this says, iffy long-termnumbers are a poor excuse for huge taxcuts and wild spending. We need tokeep that admonition in mind as weproceed to engage in this debate.

I ask unanimous consent that thiseditorial be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 6, 2001.]IFFY LONG-TERM NUMBERS ARE POOR EXCUSE

FOR HUGE TAX CUTS AND WILD SPENDING

(By Allan Sloan)There are weeks when you have to wonder

whether the American economic attentionspan is longer than a sand flea’s. Considerlast week’s two big economic stories: TheCongressional Budget Office increased theprojected 10-year budget surplus by $1 tril-lion, and the Federal Reserve Board cutshort-term interest rates another half-per-centage point to try to keep the economyfrom tanking.

To me, the real story isn’t either of theseevents; it’s their connection. The Fed is cut-ting rates like a doctor trying to revive acardiac patient because as recently as lastfall, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan didn’tforsee what today’s economy would be like.Meanwhile, although it’s now clear that eventhe smart, savvy, data-inhaling Greenspancouldn’t see four months ahead, people aretreating the 10-year numbers from the Con-gressional Budget Office as holy writ.

Hello? If Greenspan missed a four-monthforecast, how can you treat 10-year numbersas anything other than educated guesswork?Especially when the CBO has for years de-voted a chapter in its reports to ‘‘The Uncer-tainly of Budget Projections’’?

Both the Fed’s rate cuts and the CBO’s pro-jection are being cited to justify a huge taxcut. Basing economic policy on long-termprojections is nuts, and I’d be saying thesame thing about Al Gore’s campaign spend-ing proposals if he had become president. Isure wouldn’t base my personal financial de-cisions on ultra-iffy long-term numbers. Ihope you wouldn’t run your life or businessthat way.

A stroll through the numbers would behelpful here, as would a little history. Re-member that through the mid-1990s, expertswere forecasting huge federal deficits as faras the eye could see. Now they are projectinghuge surpluses. When you’re dealing with a$10 trillion economy and looking 10 yearsout, relatively small changes make a hugedifference—if they come to pass.

The fact that the projected 10-year surplusgrew to $5.6 trillion from $4.6 trillion a meresix months ago is an obvious sign that thesearen’t the most reliable numbers in theworld.

Here’s the math: The surplus grew about $1trillion because the CBO increased the pro-jected average 10-year national growth rateto about 3 percent (adjusted for inflation)from the previous 2.8 percent or so. Another$600 billion comes from dropping fiscal 2001(the current year) from the 10-year numbersand adding fiscal 2011. The 2011 number,being the furthest out, is the shakiest one inthe projection.

Those two changes add up to $1.6 trillion ofhigher surpluses. But the total increased byonly $1 trillion. That’s because last year’slate-session congressional spending spreeknocked $600 billion off the 10-year number.So, even though these numbers are huge, yousee how vulnerable they are to moving dra-matically as taxes, spending and economicprojections change.

Now, let’s subtract the $2.5 trillion SocialSecurity surplus, which is supposedly goingto be ‘‘saved,’’ and you have $3.1 trillion toplay with. (I treat the Social Security num-ber as reliable because it’s based on demo-graphics rather than on economic guess-timates.) Substract another $500 billion for

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:02 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.028 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1110 February 7, 2001the Medicare surplus, because we’re sup-posedly saving that money, too. That leaves$2.6 trillion—provided the projections are ac-curate, which they won’t be.

The CBO hasn’t put a cost on PresidentBush’s proposed tax cut package. The pack-age supposedly costs $1.6 trillion, but I’ll betthat’s way understated, which is typical ofsuch things. And it doesn’t include the im-pact of the feeding frenzy that will undoubt-edly result with a big tax cut on the table.Remember what happened when the Reagantax cuts were enacted in the early 1980s? Inaddition, Bush’s campaign proposals are‘‘back-loaded’’—they cost far more in thelater years than in the earlier years.

The reason we used to have projected budg-et deficits as far as the eye could see andnow have seemingly endless surpluses lies inthe nature of projections—even those as so-phisticated and intellectually honest as theCBO’s. The CBO takes what’s going on now,projects it forward and adjusts for thingssuch as higher or lower interest rates or debtlevels, or for programs such as Social Secu-rity. It assumes that discretionary spendingrises at a fixed rate, which never happens,and that no major new changes in taxes willbe enacted. If things are going well inbudgetland, as they are now, projections willget better the further out you go. If thingsare going badly, the projections will getworse.

Now we come to Social Security, whichcontributes hugely to today’s happy surplussituation but is projected to start causingtrouble, big time, around 2015. That’s not allthat long after 2011, when the CBO’s 10-yearprojection ends. In 2015, Social Security ispredicted to start taking in less cash than itpays out, so it will have to start cashing inthe Treasury securities in its trust fund. Inremarkably short order, Social Security willstart running 12-figure cash deficits unlesssomething is done.

Until last year, the Social Security prob-lem was projected to start in 2013, but it’sbeen put off because the economy has beendoing better than expected. That, combinedwith now-slipping fiscal discipline, is whythe federal budget numbers turned around afew years ago. But if we go on a big tax-cut-and-spend spree, which seems increasinglylikely, and the economy performs worse thannow projected, we’ll be back in the fiscalsoup quicker than you can say ‘‘fiscal re-sponsibility.’’

For now, I’m going to pass on what manypeople have taken as Greenspan’s support fortax cuts. Even if you believe him to be semi-divine, you can parse his public utterancesas being cautious about tax cuts. (There isoccasionally an advantage to having been anEnglish major in college.)

Finally, despite 10 years of projected hugesurpluses, the CBO predicts that the totalnational debt ($6.7 trillion) would be higheron Sept. 30, 2011, than it is now ($5.6 trillion.)That’s because, even though publicly helddebt shrinks to $800 billion from $3.4 trillion,the debt held in government accounts, pri-marily Social Security, rises to $5.9 trillionfrom today’s $2.2 trillion.

So if we go on a tax-cutting and spendingspree, don’t be surprised to find us back inthe soup a few years down the road. Don’tsay that you had no way to know. The Fedand the CBO were telling you the risks lastweek. You just weren’t listening.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguishedSenator from Maryland, a very, veryfine Senator, knowledgeable. He hashad many years of experience. I thankhim for his contribution today and forthe articles which he has brought toour attention and which will be in-cluded in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

as he has requested. I value my asso-ciation with the Senator, and I thankhim very much.

I yield the floor.f

CONCLUSION OF MORNINGBUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NEL-SON of Nebraska). Morning business isnow closed.

f

UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPINGASSESSMENT ADJUSTMENT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the Senate will nowproceed to consideration of S. 248which the clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

A bill (S. 248) to amend the Admiral JamesW. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Rela-tions Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000and 2001, to adjust a condition on the pay-ment of arrearages to the United Nationsthat sets the maximum share of any UnitedNations peacekeeping operation’s budgetthat may be assessed of any country.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from North Carolina.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that it be in orderfor me to deliver my remarks seated atmy desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pend-ing legislation makes a small revisionin the United Nations reform legisla-tion approved by Congress in 1999known as the ‘‘Helms-Biden’’ law.

This legislation justifiably used theleverage of the United States to pressfor reforms, by linking payment of theUnited States’ so-called ‘‘U.N. arrears’’to specific U.N. reforms. And it was theproduct of bipartisan cooperation inthe Congress, cooperation between theExecutive Branch and the Congress,and cooperation between the UnitedStates and the United Nations. And itworked, thereby producing millions ofdollars in savings to the American peo-ple.

The Helms-Biden law gave the U.S.Ambassador to the United Nations,Richard Holbrooke, the tools he neededto negotiate much-needed reforms,ranging from restoring the membershipof the United States to the U.N.’s ad-ministrative and finance committee,known in the rarified language of theU.N. as the ‘‘A-C-A-B-Q’’, to the adop-tion of results-based budgeting.

But the most important reforms re-store an equitable burden-sharing forthe enormous cost of operating theUnited Nations.

This was achieved by reducing theU.S. share of the U.N.’s general budgetand its peacekeeping budget. In pains-taking negotiations, the U.S. faced op-position not merely from increasinglyaffluent non-Western nations, whichwere clinging to their cut-rate U.N. as-sessment rates, but from our richNATO allies as well.

Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded inpersuading the United Nations membercountries to reduce the U.S. share ofthe general U.N. budget to 22 percent,which was specified by Helms-Biden.This was the first reduction, in morethan 28 years, in the American tax-payers’ bloated share of the U.N.’sbudget.

Similarly, Ambassador Holbrookepersuaded U.N. member states to agreeto a new scale for assessments for U.N.peacekeeping.

This was an even more complicatedundertaking because it required con-vincing several nations to give up thebig discounts they had enjoyed for thebetter part of thirty years, when theywere regarded as so-called ‘‘devel-oping’’ countries.

Our friends Israel, South Korea, Hun-gary, Estonia, and Slovenia wereamong those who gave up those dis-counts. We should be grateful tothem—I certainly am—for their will-ingness to do that.

On the other hand, some other na-tions in the Middle East and EastAsia—which have become rich in re-cent years—dragged their feet—andshame on them.

But when all is said and done, theU.N. put in place a six-year plan to re-duce what the U.N. now says the U.S.owes for peacekeeping.

Here’s how it will work. The U.S.share of peacekeeping costs will drop:from 31 percent to about 28 percent inthe first six months of 2001; and then,Mr. President, to about 271⁄2 percent inthe second half of 2001; and then, Mr.President, to about 261⁄2 percent in 2002;and then, Mr. President, down to ap-proximately the 25 percent benchmarkspecified in the Helms-Biden law.

Now then, Mr. President, when allthis is fully implemented it will elimi-nate at least $170 million each yearfrom the amount that the United Na-tions had billed the American tax-payers.

While this does not quite meet theHelms-Biden specification of a 25 per-cent peacekeeping dues rate, not yet,at least, it comes close.

That is why Senator BIDEN, SenatorWARNER and I have offered this legisla-tion to propose making a relativelysmall change in the arithmetic of theoriginal Helms-Biden law.

Based on the clear prospect of U.S.peacekeeping dues moving down to 25percent in the coming years, we pro-pose to agree to releasing the Year 2dues payment of $582 million to theUnited Nations immediately—in rec-ognition of the savings alreadyachieved for the American taxpayers.

This $582 million payment is the larg-est of the three phases of arrears at-tached to reform conditions in theHelms-Biden law—and for good reason:the toughest conditions imposed uponthe United Nations by the Helms-Bidenlaw were included. These conditionshave already been met largely, and Ibelieve, in response, that the Senateshould now reward the enormous

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:39 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.009 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1111February 7, 2001progress made in New York last De-cember when the U.N. adopted most ofthe Helms-Biden benchmarks agreed towhen I met with Secretary-GeneralKofi Annan when we met shortly afterhe took office at the U.N.

I emphasize that the United Statesdoes not owe the United Nations onedime more than 25 percent of thepeacekeeping budget.

In fact, in 1994, Senator Bob Dole leda bipartisan effort to institute a cap onhow much the U.S. would pay to theU.N. for peacekeeping. That year, aDemocrat-controlled Congress passed,and President Clinton signed, a 25 per-cent cap on the U.S. share of the U.N.peacekeeping assessment.

I see no reason to abandon that bi-partisan policy. Some may argue that,in addition to releasing the Year 2 ar-rears, we should remove that cap aswell. I cannot and will not agree tothat, though there may be a way thatSenator BIDEN and I can work out to dosomething.

We are already taking an importantstep by releasing $582 million in ar-rears.

But we must not (and will not if Ihave anything to do with it) concedethat the United States expects, in thecoming years that the U.N. will ulti-mately reach the 25 percent rate man-dated by Congress in two separatepieces of legislation.

In any event, the Helms-Biden reformbenchmarks are working, which bringsus to the issue of: what next? What areprincipal remaining agenda items forthe Congress regarding the U.N.?

First, the Congress must continue totake public note of the size of the U.N.budget.

There will of course be a major cam-paign in the U.N., and even by some inthe American foreign policy establish-ment, to allow the U.N. to increase itsbudget.

Congress must make sure that thoseseeking another explosion of budgetarygrowth at the U.N. are stopped dead intheir tracks. It is one thing to allowadjustments in the U.N. budget for in-flation and currency fluctuations. ButCongress must not allow the floodgatesfor rampant bureaucratic spending tobe opened. Fiscal discipline at the U.N.will remain a priority for Congress.

Specifically, we need to focus on thebiggest outrage in the U.N.—the bloat-ed public information bureaucracy. TheU.N.’s ‘‘PR bureaucracy’’ is, quite sim-ply, out of control. I agree completelywith Ambassador Holbrooke’s assess-ment made to the Foreign RelationsCommittee this past January 9, whenhe declared (and I quote):

The Office of Public Information must becut. It still has over 800 people. And I believethat is inappropriate. . . . And that shouldbe one of the next major campaigns. . . . Weneed to attack the Office of Public Informa-tion and its over-padded structure.

I say again, I wholeheartedly agree.Finally, Congress must keep a vigi-

lant eye on plans to remodel and ex-pand the U.N. headquarters in New

York. The so-called ‘‘U.N. CapitalPlan’’ estimates that it will cost morethan $1 billion. The United States—theAmerican taxpayers—will be asked topay for at least 25 percent of that.

I’ve asked the General AccountingOffice to conduct a thorough study ofthe U.N.’s plans for the renovation.GAO’s initial judgment is that theproject will end up with major costoverruns well beyond the billion dol-lars estimated in the ‘‘U.N. CapitalPlan.’’

And that U.N. plan calls for interest-free loans from the American tax-payers. New York City will be calledupon to transfer even more land to theU.N. as a gift.

Before building plush new offices forU.N. bureaucrats, let’s first make surethat all of the reforms called for in theHelms-Biden law are completed first.

For the moment, Mr. President, weare at an encouraging stage in U.S.-U.N. relations. The exchange of visitsbetween the Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee and ambassadors on theU.N. Security Council last year in NewYork and Washington had a positiveimpact.

I believe this exchange gave the U.N.Ambassadors a greater appreciation ofthe role of the U.S. Congress in shapingour nation’s foreign policy. It certainlygave Senators a better understandingof views held at the U.N.

I’m told that the exchange of visitshelped bring about the diplomaticachievements of December of 2000 toreform the U.N.’s assessment scales.That kind of cooperation is certainlywelcome.

Mr. President, I must conclude. Butbefore I do, I must note that anyworthwhile and meaningful coopera-tion with the U.N. depends upon firmleadership by the United States—andparticularly the United States Con-gress. Almost every reform that hasbeen enacted by the U.N. in recentyears was mandated by the Congress ofthe United States.

Some at the U.N. will always objectto so-called Congressional ‘‘micro man-agement’’ of the U.N., and will chafe atthe United States Government seekingto ‘‘dictate’’ reforms. But, AmbassadorHolbrooke put it aptly in his final ap-pearance before the Foreign RelationsCommittee:

What I discovered was that since people as-sume the United States is overbearing andarrogant anyway, it is better to say what theU.S. view is. . . . America should be unafraidto say its views. . . . We were persistent.And sometimes to the point of being re-garded as a little bit obnoxious, but not arro-gant. And we got the job done. And I thinkthat can be a model.

Mr. President, the Foreign RelationsCommittee and I believe, the Americantaxpayers, are grateful to AmbassadorHolbrooke for a job well done. Needlessto say, Mr. President, I hope the Sen-ate will support the pending legisla-tion.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I havebeen asked to make this unanimous

consent request. I ask unanimous con-sent that at 3 p.m. today the bill be ad-vanced to third reading and final pas-sage occur at 3 p.m., with no inter-vening action, motion, or debate; thetime between now and 3 p.m. be equallydivided between the two managers; andparagraph 4 of rule XII be waived.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Delaware.Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, before I

begin, let me, as we say in the Senate,be afforded a personal privilege. I wantmy colleagues to know and the Amer-ican people to know that this was ac-complished not merely because of thehard, industrious, and imaginative ef-forts of Ambassador Holbrooke, butthis was accomplished primarily be-cause of the Senator from North Caro-lina. He has been resolute in his com-mitment to saving the American tax-payers’ money. He has been resolute inhis commitment to preventing waste,and he has been forthright in his asser-tion that when U.S. interests are atstake, we should speak up. That is pre-cisely what he did here with regard tothe United Nations.

As a consequence of his insistence,although this is called Helms-Biden—and I am proud to be a cosponsor of itand am proud to have worked all alongwith the Senator from North Caro-lina—but it was his insistence that wecondition our commitment to pay whatwe agree were the arrears, not what theU.N. asserted was the amount of the ar-rears, upon some serious and genuinereform at the United Nations. Again, itwas his insistence on saving the Amer-ican taxpayers’ money if it didn’t haveto be spent.

The result that no one anticipatedfrom his efforts—maybe he did; mostdidn’t; and I was not certain it wouldturn out this way—has been that notonly are the very folks upon whom con-ditions were forced not angry but theyare probably happier with U.S. partici-pation in the United Nations todaythan at any time in the last probably15 years—at least the last decade.

Senator HELMS demonstrated thatthere was nothing venal, nor was it anattempt at retribution, nor an ideolog-ical assault upon the United Nationswhen he opened this gambit by intro-ducing the legislation and immediatelyinviting the members of the United Na-tions to come to Washington, DC, tospeak before and meet with the For-eign Relations Committee. I may bemistaken, but I don’t think this wasever done before. I don’t think at anytime in the existence of the United Na-tions was there a wholesale invitationto the Security Council to come to theU.S. Foreign Relations Committee.

The amazing thing is, they all came.They came gleefully. They were slight-ly skeptical. This was as a consequenceof the Senator from North Carolinahaving first spoken to the SecurityCouncil.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:02 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.032 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1112 February 7, 2001Again, I don’t know how many Sen-

ators have addressed the SecurityCouncil in the Senate, and I don’tknow if he was the first, but I know hepreceded me, and I can’t think of any-one else in my memory who has donethat. He went to the United Nationsand in his typical southern gentle-manly fashion was bluntly forthrightabout his objectives.

I remember at the time reading inthe press some fairly harsh criticism ofhis assertions, assertions made in hisgentlemanly manner in New York.Again, almost everyone was wrong be-cause they anticipated the responsewould be a further freezing, ratherthan thawing, of the relationship be-tween the United States and theUnited Nations. A vast majoritythought the U.N. would deny us theright to vote because we were not pay-ing our dues.

My colleague, although we arrivedthe same year, arrived with more wis-dom than I did. My colleague, onceagain, demonstrated that he knewwhat he was doing. A very close friendof his and a man who actually was aformer Democratic State senator, I amtold, worked with Senator HELMS inyears gone by. This man was a publicdelegate to the United Nations andfrom North Carolina at the time.

I will never forget, and I don’t thinkanyone ever anticipated they wouldsee, a dinner in New York, organized byour Ambassador, to honor SenatorHELMS. If I am not mistaken, origi-nally something on the order of 100 in-vitations were sent out, and yet closeto 140 Ambassadors of the 180 nationsshowed up in the large ballroom of alarge hotel in New York City to honorthe man many in the press and otherplaces wanted to vilify.

I never thought I would live to seethe day when I saw Senator JESSEHELMS, Henry Kissinger, AmbassadorHolbrooke, Mr. Belk, the public dele-gate from North Carolina, and the U.N.brass have their picture taken in themiddle of that ballroom wearing blueU.N. caps. That was a bit of an epiph-any for me.

I was sitting at the table with theGerman Ambassador. My table had atleast three members of the SecurityCouncil sitting there. I was amazed towatch what happened. Everyone lookedsomewhat bemused and amused, andthen I noticed all these very dignifieddiplomats, among the highest rankingpersons in their governments, lining upvery tactfully, as if they really weren’twanting a picture, to have their pic-ture taken with Senator JESSE HELMS.

Now, I don’t know if Senator HELMSexpected that—I don’t think he did,knowing him. I cite it not to be humor-ous, not to say this was sort of inter-esting simply because it happened, butto point out that because of SenatorHELMS, for the first time in the 28years I have been here, there is a gen-uine sense of warmth, there is a degreeof trust, there is a greater opennessthat has occurred between the U.S. and

the U.N. as a consequence of his insist-ence in saving the American taxpayersmoney.

I reluctantly went along with theconditions, as my friend from NorthCarolina knows. I had no doubt the re-forms were needed. I thought we shouldpay the back dues and then prospec-tively insist on conditions in the fu-ture. It was a distinction with somedifference.

However, I expect we will have peoplecome to the floor and say the way wefinally went was the wrong way to goabout it. I point out when we were de-bating this, and I ask my friend fromNorth Carolina to correct me if I amwrong, I don’t remember anybody elsewho supported the U.N. that garneredone single penny in back dues.

I remember saying to a very signifi-cant former Member of the House whowas upset with the Helms-Biden ap-proach: I will withhold pushing this. Iwill give you a week if you can comeback to me and tell me you are able toraise one single cent in the House ofRepresentatives to pay the back dues;I’ll withdraw.

The point was, everyone talked aboutthe pure game, the purity of doing itthe ‘‘right way,’’ which leads to thesecond point. I have served with myfriend too long not to understand hehas a very healthy skepticism of inter-national organizations. Not a hostility,skepticism. I have served with him toolong not to know that he has a skep-ticism for international agreementsmade with people who have histories ofnot keeping international agreements.And I have served with him too long tounderestimate his ability to know howto get things done. He knew betterthan most of us that even if he thoughtthere should be no conditions—whichhe thought there should be—that youweren’t going to get anything donehere. You had to bring along a signifi-cant portion of the House and a signifi-cant minority in the Senate who didn’teven want to pay the back dues; didn’twant to pay anything, conditions ornot.

So as the old saw goes over the last30 years, anyway, just as only Nixoncould go to China, only HELMS can fixthe U.N. That is true. That is abso-lutely, positively true. I am sure he hastaken some heat from his historicallyloyal and traditional friends on thecenter right for doing this, I have nodoubt he has taken some heat, but, asusual, being a man who sticks to hisprinciples, he took the heat but in theprocess of doing so he put the argu-ment against U.S. participation in theU.N. in a position where it had nocredibility. How could anyone from thecenter right challenge the Senatorfrom North Carolina? Nobody doubtshis convictions and principle. He is toodarned conservative for me. I love him,but he is too darned conservative forme. But if JOE BIDEN had come alongand done this, if TRENT LOTT had comealong and done this, if DICK LUGAR andother respected Members did this, and

it had been Lott-Biden, anybody on theRepublican side, BIDEN and not HELMS,this would not have gotten done.

I pay tribute not only to the sub-stantive changes he has wrought, butpay tribute to his tactical genius andhow to get it done. It would not havegotten done, without him and we wouldbe standing here today in semicrisisabout whether or not we stay in theU.N., whether or not our vote had beentaken from us, whether or not it wasany longer relevant. We would havehad some bitter ideological debates onthis floor had he not gotten us to thisplace.

I, for one, think the United Nationsis an incredibly valuable institutionthat, on balance, overwhelmingly bene-fits the American people. But, I say tomy colleagues, don’t do what some ofus who have served with SenatorHELMS sometimes do—don’t underesti-mate what this fellow did and does, anddon’t underestimate how knowledge-able he is about getting somethingdone. I am just glad we were not onlyin the same hymnal on this one, but onthe same page on this one.

So I want to personally thank him.He did more than save the Americantaxpayers $170 million and more tocome. He did more than set an atmos-phere and tone where now in theUnited Nations, because of what he did,there is open discussion and debateamong the members, not including us,about the need to reform. He was sortof the fellow who came along and said:Hey, but the emperor has no clothes.

Everybody sitting there knew theemperor had no clothes on, but SenatorHELMS said, ‘‘The emperor has noclothes and until he starts gettingdressed I am not playing.’’ Now I ask arhetorical question. Did my friend everthink he would hear a debate with ev-eryone from the Chinese Ambassadorto the Russian Ambassador to the Ger-man Ambassador to the French Ambas-sador talking about the need for fur-ther reform? And going back to theirconstituents and saying: We need Re-form. They want to save taxpayersmoney as well.

So that is a big deal. But the biggerdeal, in my view, is there is a newsense of legitimacy and vitality in thisChamber, in this Government, in thiscountry, for the United Nations.

I am not Pollyannaish about this. Idon’t think the United Nations is aone-world government leading to nir-vana. That is the farthest from what itis. But it is a practical tool in a num-ber of circumstances, and an increas-ingly necessary forum for the one su-perpower in the world to be able tomake her views known and garner thesupport of—or at least prick the con-science of—the rest of the world. We donot want to constantly be put in theposition of being that great nation im-posing her view on all the rest of theworld.

What most of our foreign colleaguesdo not understand is we Americans areuncomfortable being the sole super-power. I often tell our European

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:34 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.047 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1113February 7, 2001friends—my colleague knows, I am, asis he, deeply involved with NATO andEurope—I often tell them when theycomplain about us being the only su-perpower: You don’t understand. Amer-icans were not looking or seeking thistitle. We don’t want to be the super-power. If there has to be one it will beus, but that is not our goal. We have nocountries to conquer. We have no de-sire to impose our will. Americanswould just as soon tend to their busi-ness and be home.

But that is how we are cast today.That is how we are cast by our friendsas well as by our foes. I think in thatcontext the United Nations takes on adifferent and dynamic role with thepossibility that we can use it to furtherour interests.

So what my friend from North Caro-lina did is make that possible. Whetherthe U.N. meets those expectations,whether it continues down the road ofreform, whether it does what it has thepotential to do, remains to be seen. Butwe would not even be in this positiontoday, February 7, 2001, talking aboutthis possibility were it not for his in-sistence.

As I said, only Nixon could go toChina. Only HELMS could make theU.N. relevant at the end of this centuryand the beginning of the next.

I know he understands, but knowinghow he is, he probably refuses to be-lieve how big a role that he played. Itis literally that big. That is the deal.That is why this is so consequential.This legislation before us is, in a sense,inconsequential. We are changing onenumber in a piece of legislation to ac-commodate what we believe to be thegood-faith serious effort to have em-barked upon and stay embarked uponmaking an institution of the 20th cen-tury relevant in the 21st century.

As my friend and I have pointed out,we have both spoken at the SecurityCouncil. We have both had privatemeetings, and jointly, with I think lit-erally almost every single delegate tothe United Nations. The luncheon heand I did up there, there were 160-someU.N. ambassadors. I doubt whetherthere is a single U.N. representative—there may be one; I will be dumb-founded if there are more than 20—whohas not personally met Senator HELMSand personally interfaced with him.

You know, it is an interesting phe-nomenon. When they looked him in theeye, when they heard him talk and sawhim, and kind of touched him, they re-alized this is the real deal. This isn’tabout bashing the United Nations forhometown political consumption. Andit has had a dramatic impact on the at-titude that institution has about itself,the attitude of the American peoplehave about it, the attitude of this bodyhas about it, and the potential utilityof that institution to work the way wehoped it would work.

As the chairman has explained, thislegislation was reported by the Com-mittee on Foreign Relations earliertoday by a vote of 18–0.

This bill is neither long nor com-plicated. Let me explain it briefly.

In late 1999, Congress passed legisla-tion—the so-called ‘‘Helms-Biden’’law—which authorizes payment of $926million owed to the United Nations inback dues, conditioned on certain re-forms in the United Nations.

The bill provided for payment of thefunds in three installments. Each in-stallment was linked to a set of re-forms in the United Nations.

The first installment of $100 millionwas paid in December 1999.

The second installment authorized is$582 million.

The key reform linked to this install-ment is a requirement that the amountof money the United States pays forU.N. operations be reduced.

We believed such reductions were im-portant because the United Nationshad become overly dependent on theUnited States for its funding.

Also, the economies of many othernations had grown considerably sincethe rates were last reviewed seriouslyin the early 1970s, and we believed itonly fair that a greater share of thebudget burden be assumed by thosecountries.

I am pleased to report that there hasbeen remarkable progress, not only inthe reduction of the U.S. assessmentrates, but in U.N. institutional reformin general. Let me talk about the budg-et reductions.

The United Nations has two budgets.The first budget is the so-called regularbudget, which pays for the day-to-dayoperations of the U.N. Secretariat inNew York.

The law that Congress enacted in 1999required that the rate we are chargedfor this budget be reduced from 25 per-cent to 22 percent of the total budget.

Our previous Ambassador to theUnited Nations, Richard Holbrooke,achieved this objective. Effective Janu-ary 1, our assessment for this budget is22 percent.

The second budget is for U.N. peace-keeping operations—for the soldiers inblue helmets around the world. TheHelms-Biden law required that our as-sessment be cut from a rate of justover 30 percent to 25 percent.

Here, as some in the new administra-tion who come from Texas might say,we did not get the whole enchilada—Ambassador Holbrooke did not get ourrate down to 25 percent, but Ambas-sador Holbrooke succeeded in reducingour peacekeeping assessment substan-tially.

Effective January 1, our peace-keeping rate has been cut to just over28 percent. It will continue to go downgradually to 26.5 percent by 2003, andpossibly lower after that.

It is not everything we wanted, butSenator HELMS and I believe that theUnited Nations has met us more thanhalfway—and that we should respond.

Accordingly, the bill before the Sen-ate amends the original Helms-Bidenlegislation to change the one legisla-tive provision that was not completelysatisfied.

Taking that step will release the sec-ond installment of $582 million .

The bill was approved unanimouslyby the Committee on Foreign Rela-tions, and I hope the vote in the Senatewill also be unanimous.

So let me reiterate. Dick Holbrooketook us a long way.

Mr. HELMS. You bet.Mr. BIDEN. My grandfather Abrose’s

name was Abrose Finnigan. He used tosay: Remember, God protects twogroups of people: well-intended Irish-men who are drunk, and the UnitedStates of America. And then he wouldjoke and say: You know, in our historywhere there are big and large issues, italways seems to be the right personcomes along at the right moment totackle the big issues. Dick Holbrooke,in another generation, maybe wouldnot have been as consequential, butwhat did we need? We needed a manwho was—remember when our friendfrom Texas won his first Senate race?He beat an incumbent, an appointedDemocrat who was a good guy. Theyasked the Democrat about how he feltthe night of the election when he lost.He said: There are two things youshould know about PHIL GRAMM: One,he is meaner than a junk yard dog,and, two, he is smarter than you.

There are two things you shouldknow about Dick Holbrooke: One, he ismore persistent than STROM THUR-MOND, which is almost impossible, andhe is likely to be smarter than you.

He kept his commitment to SenatorHELMS.

Mr. HELMS. He did.Mr. BIDEN. He kept his commit-

ment. Senator HELMS was wary at thefront end of this when he was named,whether or not he really was going todo it. He held up his nomination untilhe came before the committee to say: Iwill commit to Helms-Biden. Once hedid that, it was home free and he head-ed to work. But he did a remarkablejob.

So I do not, in my praise for SenatorHELMS, mean to in any way suggestthat at the end of the day this couldhave been done without the ingenuity,intelligence, and dedication of Ambas-sador Holbrooke and his staff, who, asthe chairman has pointed out, manynights toward the end stayed up closeto around the clock getting this lockeddown.

So I think we are at a good place. Ihave been with my friend from NorthCarolina too long not to think I under-stand what is behind his reluctance tolift a cap that locked into law theamount we would pay for peace-keeping. In 1994, out of frustration withthe United Nations and its waste andfailure to modernize, the U.S. Congresspassed a piece of legislation that saidstarting October 1, 1996 we will not payany more than 25 percent of the peace-keeping assessment. Then we werebeing charged about 31 percent, as theSenator said.

Now this may confuse people. Al-though the Helms-Biden change we are

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.049 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1114 February 7, 2001making today will allow over half abillion dollars to go to settle our ac-counts, if we do not do somethingabout that 25 percent cap—because inspite of everything AmbassadorHolbrooke, did our peacekeeping rateis not going to go down to 25 percentthis year—we will, by the end of theyear, accrue another roughly $70 mil-lion in debt. We will be behind the 8-ball another $70 million in terms ofwhat we ‘‘owe’’ the U.N.

If I did not know better, I would say,as the old saying goes, my friend fromNorth Carolina is from Missouri be-cause he is a show-me guy. I am hope-ful I can convince him or he can be-come convinced—not that I can con-vince him—but he will become con-vinced before the legislative year isover hopefully that these changes arereal and maybe we should lift that 25-percent cap. Knowing him, he may toywith the idea of either not doing it atall, doing it temporarily, doing it con-ditionally—I do not know what. I knowhe will come up with something.

I say to him and my colleagues, I forone feel very strongly—we have gonethis far—we should not now undo thegood will and circumstance we havecreated, primarily through his leader-ship.

Again, not lifting the 25 percent capnow does not do any damage, any in-justice, or any harm to the good thathas been done, but if we do not by theend of the year deal with this—and heis committed we will deal with it; nothow, not what the result will be, whathis position will be, but we will dealwith it—if we do not deal with it, I fearwe will have begun to undo some of thesignificant good that we did by chang-ing this legislation.

Mr. President, I thank former Presi-dent Clinton and former SecretaryAlbright who were also instrumental inlobbying world leaders to have theircountries accommodate this change,which is overdue.

I note parenthetically, when wesigned on to these commitments, itwas a different world. We were the onlygame in town economically. The com-bined GDP of Europe eclipses ours.Thank God, through the good works ofa lot of people, including the gen-erosity of the American people, therest of the world is doing pretty well inmany places, and they can afford topay more. But it still took a lot of ca-joling, it took a lot of nursing, it tooka lot of diplomatic skill to get it done.

I say to my friend from North Caro-lina, I look forward to, before the sum-mer passes, being back on the floor,hopefully with an agreement on whatto do about the 25-percent cap set in1994, but at least here to ventilate it,debate it, and let the Senate work itswill on what we should do about it.

I note parenthetically that Secretaryof State Powell supports such anamendment to the 1994 law. I receiveda letter from him 2 days ago on thissubject.

I have no doubt the Senator hasthought about it a lot and will think

about it, and I have no doubt thatwhatever decision he comes to on the25-percent cap, it will be viewedthrough the prism of making sure theAmerican people are not paying morethan they should and that the Amer-ican taxpayers catch a break.

It has been an honor working withSenator HELMS. As I said, he and Icame the same year, 1972. We have bothbeen here 28 years, going on 29. Wehave, as the old saying goes, been to-gether and we have been agin one an-other. For me, it is always more com-fortable when we are together. It hasnever, never been anything other thana pleasure, since I shifted my respon-sibilities as top Democrat on the Judi-ciary Committee to Foreign Relations,working with Senator HELMS.

I am told there are some of our col-leagues who wish to speak to this. I,quite frankly, would be surprised ifthere is a controversial aspect to this.It passed out of our committee thismorning 18–0, unanimously, with verylittle debate and with some consider-able enthusiasm.

I hope there will be bipartisan sup-port for these objectives. I urge my col-leagues to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to print inthe RECORD the letter from SecretaryPowell.

There being no objection, the letterwas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

THE SECRETARY OF STATE,Washington, DC, February 5, 2001.

Hon. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr.,Committee on Foreign Relations,U.S. Senate.

DEAR SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you for yourJanuary 23 letter regarding the Senate For-eign Relations Committee’s plans, at nextweek’s business meeting, to take up thequestion of revising Helms-Biden legislationto allow a second tranche of payments of UNarrears to go forward. I appreciate the Com-mittee’s willingness to move forward soquickly with this needed step.

In your letter, you asked for my views asto whether a 1994 State Authorization Billprovision that places a 25 percent cap on ourcontribution to UN peacekeeping should alsobe revised, so that we can pay at the new as-sessment rate we negotiated in December.My staff have informed me that, unless thiscap is revised, we will accrue new arrears ofaround $77 million in this fiscal year alone.Clearly, this needs to be taken care of toavoid falling into new arrears; my preferencewould be to move on it now, so that we canput this behind us quickly and focus to-gether on further steps toward UN reform. Ihope that the Committee will take the nec-essary steps to amend the 1994 provision asrapidly as possible.

Again, thank you for your letter. I wel-come your partnership on this and othermatters as we seek to advance America’s for-eign policy interests in the months ahead.

Sincerely,COLIN L. POWELL.

Mr. BIDEN. I know we do not have avote until 3 o’clock. That is when ithas been set. I am not sure who isgoing to be here to speak when, but Iam not going to trespass on the Sen-ate’s time anymore. I am going toshortly yield the floor, and I look tomy colleague to ask whether I should

suggest the absence of a quorum ordoes he wish to speak?

Mr. President, I yield the floor andsuggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs.CLINTON). The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, Iask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered. Who yieldstime?

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous con-sent for such time that I may require.

Mr. HELMS. I yield to the Senator.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I

rise in strong support of the work thathas been done by our distinguishedchairman, the senior Senator fromNorth Carolina, and indeed the rankingmember, the senior Senator from Dela-ware. I have had the privilege of work-ing with them on this issue includingtraveling to New York City with themwhile we were working with the distin-guished Ambassador, Mr. Holbrooke,on this issue. I also traveled a secondtime to New York City at the invita-tion of then-Ambassador Holbrooke towork on this issue.

These three, the great triumvirate,have brought this about. It is a re-markable feat for freedom. This insti-tution, the U.N., through the years hascollected a good deal of disparagingcomment, but it is an essential institu-tion. Despite the disparaging ref-erences in years past, it is a strongerinstitution today under the currentleadership of the distinguished KofiAnnan, and it is performing tasks that,frankly, I would not want to see ourGovernment out in front on. Better wetake second place and work with othernations through the U.N. to achievecertain objectives, rather than the uni-lateral intervention or, indeed, the uni-lateral participation by the UnitedStates.

This funding issue has been a cloudthat has hung over the institution ofthe Congress and the U.N. for manyyears. Through the able leadership ofChairman HELMS and the rankingmember, Mr. BIDEN, that cloud is nowin a large measure dispelled. It is a jobthat should receive the commendationand support of all in this Chamber.

I see the Presiding Officer is a distin-guished Senator from the great Stateof New York which provides a home forthe United Nations. The United Na-tions is an institution that hopefullywill live long and will benefit from thestrong support expressed by this votein the Senate today.

I rise today as an original cosponsorof this very important legislation onthe payment of United States arrear-ages to the United Nations. We are atthis crucial point due to the deter-mined efforts of the distinguishedchairman and ranking member of theSenate Foreign Relations Committee

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:34 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.051 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1115February 7, 2001and our former Ambassador to theUnited Nations, Richard Holbrooke.

The United Nations Reform Act of1999, known as Helms-Biden, providedfor the payment of $926 million in U.S.arrears to the United Nations in returnfor a series of United Nations reforms,including a reduction in the U.S. as-sessment for the regular and peace-keeping budgets. The United Statesmade its first payment under Helms-Biden, which totaled $100 million, inDecember of 1999. Under Helms-Biden,however, the second installment, total-ing $582 million, could only be paidonce the Secretary of State certifiesthat the ceiling for the U.N.’s regularbudget scale of assessment for the U.S.is set at 22 percent, and that there is aceiling set at 25 percent for the U.S. as-sessment for the U.N.’s peacekeepingbudget.

After a lengthy and substantive de-bate, in late December 2000 the UnitedNation’s General Assembly agreed toreduce U.S. dues to the United Nations.The General Assembly voted to set theceiling for the regular budget scale ofassessment for the U.S. at 22 percent—down from 25 percent—and set the ceil-ing for the peacekeeping scale of as-sessment for the U.S. at 28.15 percent—previously there was no ceiling and theU.S. was assessed approximately 31 per-cent. While the new scale of assessmentceiling for the U.N. regular budgetmeets the requirements of Helms-Biden, the new scale of assessmentceiling for the U.N. peacekeeping budg-et falls just short of what is requiredunder Helms-Biden.

This legislation we are consideringtoday will amend Helms-Biden so as toallow the U.S. to make its second pay-ment of arrears to the U.N. Specifi-cally, the requirement that the U.N.’speacekeeping scale of assessment ceil-ing for the U.S. must be set at 25 per-cent is amended to the U.N. agreedupon number of 28.15 percent.

Although we all wish that the U.N.would have agreed to the 25 percentceiling for the U.S. share of the peace-keeping budget, the agreement thatwas reached is significant and deservesour wholehearted support. By passingthis legislation, we can move forwardwith the implementation of the goalsof Helms-Biden and continue tostrengthen our relationship with theUnited Nations.

At this point I want to recognizethree individuals whose heroic effortsmade this landmark agreement pos-sible. Senate Foreign Relations Com-mittee Chairman HELMS and RankingMember BIDEN spent years crafting theHelms-Biden legislation. Without theirtireless efforts and the bipartisanshipwith which they tackled a task whichmany felt was unachievable, we wouldnot be where we are today. Their com-mitment and total devotion tostrengthening and reforming theUnited Nations deserves our highestpraise.

Likewise, the unflagging efforts offormer U.S. Ambassador to the United

Nations Richard Holbrooke must berecognized. Ambassador Holbrookespent his 17 months at the U.N. work-ing incessantly to see that the reformscontained in Helms-Biden were imple-mented. To achieve this goal, he trav-eled repeatedly to Washington to con-sult with Members of Congress, invitednumerous Members, including myself,to New York for meetings with U.N.ambassadors and spent uncountablehours on the telephone promotingthese reforms. In fact, during Ambas-sador Holbrooke’s tenure I visited theU.N. twice to meet with numerous U.N.ambassadors and Secretary-GeneralKofi Annan in order to discuss U.N. re-form issues. Without AmbassadorHolbrooke’s efforts, it is unlikely, inmy view, that the U.N. General Assem-bly would have agreed to reform theU.N.’s regular and peacekeeping budg-ets.

The United Nations, under the strongleadership of Secretary-General KofiAnnan, plays a crucial role in global af-fairs. It is in our national interests tocontinue to work with the United Na-tions to ensure that it is strong and ef-fective.

In light of that, I reiterate my strongsupport for the rapid passage of thislegislation which will keep reforms atthe U.N. on schedule and allow for thecontinued payment of U.S. arrearages.

I yield the floor.Mr. GREGG of New Hampshire ad-

dressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields to the Senator from New Hamp-shire?

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, Iyield such time as the Senator mayneed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from New Hampshire.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair andcongratulate the Senator from NorthCarolina for his efforts in bringing aresolution to the U.N. arrearage issue.This is an issue in which I have had afair amount of involvement, as I chairthe appropriations subcommitteewhich is responsible for actually pay-ing the bills.

It was a pleasure to work with theSenator from North Carolina and theSenator from Delaware, the Senatorfrom Minnesota, Mr. Grams, and Sen-ator HOLLINGS, my ranking member, aswe worked with the prior administra-tion, especially the Secretary of State,to try to bring a resolution to this veryintricate and difficult issue—verytouchy issue in many ways—which hadhung over the U.N. and America’s rela-tionship with the U.N. for far too long.

There were very significant issues,however, that had to be addressed andwhich, as a result of the efforts of Sen-ator HELMS and Senator BIDEN and theworking group which I had a pleasureto work with, were addressed.

Two of the ones that have gotten themost visibility, of course, are our con-tribution levels to the U.N. operationaccounts, which were excessive, in myopinion and in the opinion of the Sen-

ate and the Congress, and also the con-tributions to the peacekeeping ac-counts, which were equally excessive.

So the adjustments in the contribu-tion levels, although not everything wedesire, are a significant step in theright direction. But I think we need toremember as we proceed, especially inthe area of peacekeeping, that basi-cally the United States is, no matterwhat the assessment level, giving theU.N. what amounts to essentially ablank check.

The tremendous expansion in peace-keeping activity which the U.N. hasundertaken over the last few years—much of it, quite honestly, not con-sistent with American policy—for ex-ample, what is happening today in Si-erra Leone, where the U.N. has one ofits major peacekeeping initiatives—isnot consistent with the present Amer-ican policy on how to handle that situ-ation. In fact, the British, who arephysically on the ground there, andwhose position we do agree with, aretaking the brunt of the legitimate ef-fort in that country; whereas the U.N.peacekeepers, regrettably, are not con-tributing to the process of resolvingthe Sierra Leone situation but are ac-tually, well, at best, on site but not apositive force. Yet we are paying forthat. American taxpayers are payingfor that.

It is inconsistent with the policy aslaid out in a letter from the then-Am-bassador to the U.N., Mr. Holbrooke, tothe Congress relative to what theAmerican policy was to be in SierraLeone. That letter, which was very spe-cific and quite appropriate and onpoint, unfortunately, is not the U.N.policy.

So as we move down the road, thiswhole issue of peacekeeping is going tobe a continuing concern to us, as thepayers of the bills, because I am notmuch interested, quite honestly, insending a large amount of tax dollars,in what amounts to an open check, tothe U.N. on the matter of peace-keeping, if the policies of the U.N. aregoing to be—in those areas where weare actually paying for the peace-keeping—180 degrees at odds withAmerican policy.

I do not understand why we should bepaying to underwrite policies which areinconsistent and, in some instances,actually at odds with what our policiesare as a nation. So this issue of an opencheck for U.N. peacekeeping is onewhich will require more attention.

But as to the question of arrearages,we have at least settled the matter ofwhat the percentage should be in thoseinstances where U.N. obligations aredue relative to peacekeeping. For thatreason, we are able to release the $582million which was held up relative tothat issue. There remains, however,one more payment, one more tranchehere—$244 million—which needs to bemade and which we have appropriated.

By the way, all this money was al-ways appropriated. We, in our com-mittee, put it on the table, signed the

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.024 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1116 February 7, 2001check, but we did not send the check.It was a letter of credit. We said: Whenyou meet the conditions of the letter ofcredit, which were basically the Helms-Biden proposal, then we will releasethe funds. But, again, the $244 million,which is available to the U.N., andwhich is the third payment, is stillconditioned on what I would call struc-tural reforms within the U.N. whichare very important, structural reformswhich go to the operation of the U.N.,specifically, stronger Inspector Generalactivities, stronger evaluation of theeffectiveness and the relevance of U.N.programs, a termination of programsthat are no longer needed, establish-ment of clearer budget priorities and,of course, an accounting office similarto the General Accounting Office wehave here in the U.S. which can actu-ally go in and audit what goes on inthe U.N.

One of the big problems we have hadin the U.N. was that for many years,regrettably, it was essentially, for lackof a better word, a patronage stop for alot of folks from other countries whofound it was a place where they couldbasically place friends and relatives,and, as a result, end up with the UnitedStates paying the cost of the salariesof those friends and relatives. It had ahuge inefficiency. It also had pro-grammatic activity which simply wasinconsistent with what you would callgood fiscal policy.

I understand it is not something youcan change overnight because, to somedegree, it is an institutional issue, butthe U.N. is moving towards trying toaddress this. And that is positive. Welook forward to these management sys-tems being put in place which can showthe American people that their tax dol-lars are not being wasted when theyare sent to the U.N.

The U.N. is a very important institu-tion. It is important that the Americanpeople have confidence in it. This is aninstitution which can play a huge andpositive role as we, as a nation, engagethe world. Since we are paying a quar-ter of the costs of the institution,American taxpayers have to know thatwhen they send the tax dollar up there,it is going to be used effectively and ef-ficiently. It is not because they oppose,at least in my State—there is some op-position, but there is general supportfor the U.N. funding. It is not becausethey oppose funding per se for the U.N;it is because they oppose the conceptthat money isn’t being used efficientlyand effectively. In fact, for a number ofyears it was being used inefficientlyand ineffectively and in some casesjust plain in a poor way.

So putting these systems in place—astrong Inspector General approach,general accounting rules along thelines of what we use in the U.S. Gen-eral Accounting Office, financial dataprocedures which allow us to track thedollars, where they go, who is usingthem, and actual personnel trackingprocedures which allow us to makesure the personnel that claims to be

doing things is actually doing them,and that we are not ending up payingno-show employees—is very importantin running a fiscal house effectively.

They are the basic elements of goodgovernance. If you are expecting tax-payers to support an undertaking, thenyou must expect that the taxpayerswill demand that there be an account-ing as to how their dollars are beingused. That is all we have asked forhere. We have not asked for anythingoutrageous or unreasonable, in myopinion. We have just asked for reason-able accounting procedures.

The U.N., to their credit, especiallythe present Secretary General, hasmade an extra effort to try to addressthese concerns. I congratulate the Sec-retary General for doing that. I espe-cially congratulate AmbassadorHolbrooke because really he has been afierce force for bringing responsibil-ities to the U.N. in the way they havedealt with American tax dollars overhis tenure there. He has been a con-scientious protector of the Americantax dollar. I think he has done it be-cause he understands that support forthe U.N. is critical, and support is tiedto American taxpayers having con-fidence in their dollars being used ef-fectively.

The agreement which has beenreached—I again congratulate the Sen-ator from North Carolina for his ex-traordinary effort, the Senator fromDelaware, and all those who played arole in it—is a very positive step for-ward in putting in place the systemsthat are necessary to give Americantaxpayers confidence in the U.N. Whenwe give that confidence to the Amer-ican taxpayer, we will in turn give theU.N. strength. When we give the U.N.strength, in the end it will benefit usas a nation and obviously the world. Itis a plus for us. It is a plus for the U.N.

I am very happy to be here today tosupport this initiative and look for-ward, as chairman of the appropriatingcommittee, to their completion of theadditional issues that are to be ad-dressed and the release of the addi-tional $244 million as a result of suc-cessful completion of those initiatives.

I yield the floor and suggest the ab-sence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro-ceeded to call the roll.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I alsorise to voice support for S. 248, a bill torelease $582 million in U.S. dues to theUnited Nations. Payment of our dues islong overdue, and I am glad to see thisbipartisan bill come before the Senate.

We know the United Nations is not aperfect organization. No organizationmade up of 189 countries could possiblysatisfy everyone. In that sense, it issort of like a country composed of 50

States. But just as the States rely onthe Federal Government to addressproblems that affect each of us collec-tively, the United States relies on thecollective diplomacy and security thatonly the United Nations can provide.

Every day the U.N. is fighting crit-ical battles to resolve conflicts, con-tain the spread of infectious diseases,stop environmental pollution, protecthuman rights, strengthen democracy,and prevent starvation, to mentionjust some of its roles. U.N. peace-keepers are deployed around theworld—from East Timor to Cyprus tothe Sinai—to help prevent violence andrestore stability where it is badly need-ed. Of the tens of thousands of U.N.peacekeepers deployed, only a tinyfraction are Americans. These missionshelp to avoid U.S. military interven-tion and far more costly humanitarianrelief operations.

We are the world’s only superpower,and we have a wide range of interestson every continent. We need to send astrong message that the United Statessupports the United Nations but thatother nations need to contribute theirshare as well. This legislation is a clearstep in that direction.

Getting here has not been easy, and Iwant to commend four individuals whodeserve special credit. First and fore-most, it was the determination of Am-bassador Richard Holbrooke who led usto this breakthrough that few thoughtwas possible. In January, he received astanding ovation from both Repub-licans and Democrats on the ForeignRelations Committee. It was well de-served.

We also had the bipartisan vision andleadership of Senator JESSE HELMS andSenator JOE BIDEN. They established aframework for this deal with theHelms-Biden legislation, and both de-serve a great deal of credit.

Finally, we should recognize TedTurner. It was his gift of $34 millionthat was the final piece of the puzzle.We should all be grateful for his gen-erosity and foresight, although it issomewhat embarrassing that the gov-ernment of the wealthiest, most power-ful nation in history had to rely on thepersonal donation of a private citizento help meet its obligations to theinternational community.

While I am very pleased with thislegislation, more still needs to be doneto address weaknesses in United Na-tions peacekeeping missions. We haveseen poorly conceived missions, seriouslogistical delays, ill-equipped andundertrained troops, and instances ofmisconduct. While these were excep-tions rather than the rule and werelargely the fault of the U.N.’s memberstates, I was encouraged by two devel-opments early this fall that began toaddress some of these problems.

First, the U.N. issued a report, pro-duced by an outside panel of experts,that included some common-sense rec-ommendations for improving the effec-tiveness of U.N. peacekeeping. This wasfollowed by a serious discussion of

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:28 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.053 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1117February 7, 2001peacekeeping reform by the heads ofstate of several key countries at theMillennium Summit.

These two events triggered wide-spread praise from the internationalcommunity and a number of supportiveeditorials in the U.S. press. The Bushadministration and Congress need totake a close look at these develop-ments and determine what the U.S. cando to further efforts to improve U.N.peacekeeping.

The administration and Congressshould also consider lifting the 25 per-cent cap on U.S. peacekeeping con-tributions. During the campaign, Presi-dent Bush called for the U.S. to act ina more ‘‘humble’’ manner in the inter-national arena. This may be a goodplace to start. The European Union,whose GDP is roughly equivalent ourown, pays over 39 percent of U.N.peacekeeping costs, while the U.S. con-tribution will fall to 26.5 percent. More-over, the agreement that was reachedin December requires 29 nations to ac-cept increases in their assessmentrates, ranging from 50 percent to 500percent. Yet, we still maintain the 25percent cap, and continue to accumu-late arrears—hardly a statement of hu-mility. The time may now be right toremove the cap, especially if the ad-ministration concludes that U.S. inter-ests are better served without it.

Mr. President, we all want to see re-form to continue at the U.N. However,refusing to pay our dues has irritatedour friends and allies, who were legiti-mately concerned that we wanted acontinued veto over U.N. decisions,without meeting our treaty obliga-tions. It hurt our credibility, and itweakened our influence.

So I am pleased that we are finallyacting to remedy this problem by pass-ing this legislation today.

I see the Senator from Florida, and Iyield the floor to him.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Florida is recognized.

(The remarks of Mr. NELSON of Flor-ida are located in today’s RECORDunder ‘‘Morning Business.’’)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Georgia is recognized.

(The remarks of Mr. CLELAND per-taining to the introduction of S. 269 arelocated in today’s RECORD under‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills andJoint Resolutions.’’)

Mr. CLELAND. I yield the floor. Isuggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro-ceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent the order for thequorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.CHAFEE). Without objection, it is so or-dered.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Irise today to express my support for S.248, a bill to amend the Helms-Bidenagreement on United Nations arrearspayments.

I have long supported the goals of theUnited Nations as it works to promotepeace, to protect human rights, and toimprove economic and social develop-ment throughout the world. Participa-tion in the UN acts as an incentive topromote peace and provides a forum fornegotiations and international actionwhich can avert the need for more ex-pensive unilateral or bilateral militaryinterventions in the future.

I believe repaying United States ar-rears to the UN is crucial to ensurethat the organization can continue tobe a force for peace and security in the21st Century.

As you know, significant steps havebeen undertaken in the last severalyears by the UN to reform their admin-istrative structure and to reduce costsas called for by the Helms-Biden agree-ment. Among other things, the UN hasreduced its budget and staffing levels,and has strengthened its Office of In-ternal Oversight.

In addition, the UN has agreed to re-duce the US assessment for the UN reg-ular budget from 25 percent to 22 per-cent, and the peacekeeping assessmentfrom more than 30 percent. I congratu-late Senator HELMS, Senator BIDEN,Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, andSecretary-General Kofi Annan for theirefforts and hard work on these issues.

It is my hope that the UN will con-tinue in this direction and enact fur-ther reforms designed to save costs andto make the UN a more effective andefficient organization. This bill recog-nizes that efforts have been made andwill continue to be made towardsachieving this goal. I urge my col-leagues to support it.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I cometo the floor to express my strong sup-port for S. 248, the U.N. dues bill. Thisis a straightforward bill that continuesour efforts to set right U.S. accounts atthe United Nations. Those efforts arenot yet complete, but in passing thisbill today we take a big step in theright direction.

This bill—and the $582 million in U.S.arrears it will allow us to pay—will goa long way to improving our relationsat the United Nations. The importanceof a solid relationship with a capableUN should not be underestimated. Inthe last year alone, we have workedwith the UN to bolster U.S. interests,including: Containing Saddam Hussein;combating the debilitating effects ofthe AIDS pandemic; confronting—anddetaining—war criminals in the Bal-kans; and controlling the potentiallydestabilizing conflicts in East Timorand East Africa.

Two years ago the outlook was muchdifferent. At that time, skepticismabout the effectiveness of the UN pre-vailed, and Congress outlined an ag-gressive agenda for reform at theUnited Nations. Behind the leadershipof Senators BIDEN and HELMS, Congressoutlined a series of conditions beforewe would pay the nearly $1 billion indebts.

Passing that bill was difficult here,including months of debate, delibera-

tion and negotiation. But it turns outthat we in Congress had the easy part.The heavy lifting was done by Ambas-sador Richard Holbrooke and his teamat the United States Mission to theUnited Nations, who took the demandswe made here in Congress and cameback from New York with a solid deal.

Let’s take a quick look at what Am-bassador Holbrooke and his team deliv-ered:

A reduction in the U.S. assessed costsfor the UN regular budget: That reduc-tion—from 25 percent to 22 percent—isthe first rate drop for the UnitedStates in the regular budget accountsince 1972.

A reduction in the U.S. assessed costsfor the UN peacekeeping budget: Thatreduction—from 31 percent to 27 per-cent—is the first rate drop for theUnited States in the peacekeeping ac-count since 1973.

A combined savings for the U.S. fromthese reductions is in excess of $100million annually; and, perhaps mostimportantly, rejuvenated Congres-sional support for the United Nations.

Yet the agreement that AmbassadorHolbrooke delivered does not spell theend of reform at the United Nations.

Last year saw the release of the so-called Brahimi Report, a series of com-mon sense improvements to the waythe United Nations handles peace-keeping operations. The report givescause for optimism, but aggressive im-plementation of the report’s rec-ommendations is crucial to ensure suc-cess. Those recommendations will go along way to burying the peacekeepingfailures of Srebrenica and Sierra Leoneand developing a Department of Peace-keeping Operations that can success-fully plan, deploy and manage complexpeacekeeping operations.

We will also watch the implementa-tion of a series of accountability, over-sight and planning measures created inthe last year. Secretary General Annanis demanding a high level of excellencefrom his team in New York, and wejoin him in expecting efficiency and re-sults.

Work here in Washington is not doneyet. Nor is our work in Congress doneyet. Continued reform at the UnitedNations demands U.S. leadership andinvolvement—and approving this billtoday is only the first step in con-vincing the international communitythat we are serious about reform.

As it stands right now, the UnitedStates will continue to accrue arrearsat the United Nations. A law we passedin 1994 that caps U.S. payments to theUN peacekeeping budget at 25 percent,but we will continue to be billed by theUN for between 26 percent and 28 per-cent of that budget, generating arrearsand engendering criticism of the U.S.—particularly from our European allieswhose combined assessments accountfor well over a third of UN peace-keeping operations.

If Congress does not make this fixthis year, we risk worsening U.S. rela-tions with the UN and its member

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:34 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.025 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1118 February 7, 2001states, limiting our ability to use theUnited Nations to advance vital U.S.interests, and setting back the effortsor reform that Ambassador Holbrookedid so much to move forward.

It is my hope that, before the end ofthis fiscal year, Congress will lift thecap on U.S. assessed contributions tointernational peacekeeping efforts.Doing otherwise will be a lost oppor-tunity.

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I ampleased the Senate will vote today torelease $582 million in U.S. arrearagesto the United Nations. In 1999, Congressmandated a series of reform bench-marks for the United Nations to meetin order for the United States to re-lease funds we were withholding. Onerequirement related to reform of thescales for peacekeeping assessments bymember nations, which were created in1973 to fund the Sinai mission and havebeen in place ever since. As we movetoday to release the so-called TrancheII funds for the U.N. under the terms ofthe Helms-Biden law, I commend mycolleagues for their work on this issueand note the efforts of AmbassadorRichard Holbrooke and the Americanmission to the United Nations thatmade this progress possible.

Over the years, the United Nationsand its subsidiary bodies have sup-ported U.S. humanitarian interests in anumber of ways, performed peace-keeping missions important to the se-curity of our nation and our allies, andprovided a useful forum for developingconsensus among nations, as dem-onstrated by former President Bush’sextraordinarily successful coalition-building to repel Saddam Hussein’s 1990invasion of Kuwait. But U.N. accom-plishments cannot hide the fact thatthe U.N. bureaucracy must be totallyreformed from top to bottom.

As Ambassador Holbrooke recentlytold the Foreign Relations Committee,‘‘I leave my position as confident asever that the United Nations remainsabsolutely indispensable to Americanforeign policy. . . . But at the sametime, I am even more convinced thatthe U.N. is deeply flawed, and that wemust fix it to save it.’’ Our vote todayto pay $582 million in U.S. arrearagesreflects this philosophy. I expect closeCongressional scrutiny of United Na-tions operations and administration tospur additional and much-needed re-forms. And I look forward to a con-tinuing debate in this body over thelevel of U.S. contributions for U.N.peacekeeping, which requires addi-tional review and may call for furtherCongressional action.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask forthe yeas and nays on the passage of thebill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will read the bill for the thirdtime.

The bill (S. 248) was read the thirdtime.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is, Shall the bill pass? Theyeas and nays have been ordered. Theclerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. REID. Announce that the Sen-

ator from Georgia (Mr. INOUYE) is nec-essarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are thereany other Senators in the Chamber de-siring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 99,nays 0, as follows:

The result was announced—yeas 99,nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]

YEAS—99

AkakaAllardAllenBaucusBayhBennettBidenBingamanBondBoxerBreauxBrownbackBunningBurnsByrdCampbellCantwellCarnahanCarperChafee, LClelandClintonCochranCollinsConradCorzineCraigCrapoDaschleDaytonDeWineDoddDomenici

DorganDurbinEdwardsEnsignEnziFeingoldFeinsteinFitzgeraldFristGrahamGrammGrassleyGreggHagelHarkinHatchHelmsHollingsHutchinsonHutchisonInhofeJeffordsJohnsonKennedyKerryKohlKylLandrieuLeahyLevinLiebermanLincolnLott

LugarMcCainMcConnellMikulskiMillerMurkowskiMurrayNelson (FL)Nelson (NE)NicklesReedReidRobertsRockefellerSantorumSarbanesSchumerSessionsShelbySmith (NH)Smith (OR)SnoweSpecterStabenowStevensThomasThompsonThurmondTorricelliVoinovichWarnerWellstoneWyden

NOT VOTING—1

Inouye

The bill (S. 248) was passed, as fol-lows:

S. 248

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON THE PER COUNTRY

SHARE OF ASSESSMENTS FORUNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPINGOPERATIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 931(b)(2) of theAdmiral James W. Nance and Meg DonovanForeign Relations Authorization Act, FiscalYears 2000 and 2001 (as enacted by section1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106–113 and containedin appendix G of that Act; 113 Stat. 1501A–480) is amended by striking ‘‘25 percent’’ andinserting ‘‘28.15 percent’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The undesig-nated paragraph under the heading ‘‘ARREAR-AGE PAYMENTS’’ in title IV of the Depart-ments of Commerce, Justice, and State, theJudiciary, and Related Agencies Appropria-tions Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(b)of division A of the Omnibus Consolidatedand Emergency Supplemental Appropria-tions Act, 1999; 112 Stat. 2681–96) is amendedby striking ‘‘25 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘28.15percent’’.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote and I move tolay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

MORNING BUSINESSMr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senatenow be in a period of morning businesswith Senators speaking therein for upto 10 minutes each.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

f

TAX CUT DEBATEMr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the

tax cut debate begins in earnest thisweek, I would like to commend to mycolleagues’ attention two editorialsthat appeared in separate South Da-kota newspapers this week, the PierreCapital Journal and the Madison DailyLeader. Both of these opinion piecesgive an excellent explication of thisyear’s budget and tax cut debate andresponsibly advocate a tax cut whilepaying down the national debt. In sodoing, each reminds us that beyond theBeltway and across the country theAmerican public can see through theoften overheated rhetoric of politicaldebate and focus on the bottom linepriority of maintaining the fiscal re-sponsibility that forms the foundationof the economic recovery of the 1990’s.

As these editorials underscore, bal-ance between tax cutting and debt re-duction should be a central principle ofthe tax and budget debate. While Con-gress should and will pass a significanttax cut this year, it must also makesure that we pay down the nationaldebt and address budget priorities likeeducation, defense and healthcare. Andso I commend Dana Hess of the PierreCapital Journal and Jon Hunter of theMadison Daily Leader for their excep-tional pieces advocating a tax cutwithin the parameters of sound fiscalpolicy. Their words should give us allpause for thought.

I ask consent that these editorials beprinted in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Madison Daily Leader]PAYING OFF NATIONAL DEBT WILL YIELD

GREAT RESULTS

(By Jon Hunter)Federal budget surpluses are now reducing

the massive federal debt after two decades ofrapid growth. The benefits of such debt re-duction will be broad and long-lasting.

The surpluses are so strong that the UnitedStates Treasury announced it will stopissuing one-year Treasury notes at the end ofFebruary. Why borrow money for one yearwhen cash receipts outweigh expenses everyday?

The change will permit the government toeliminate roughly $20 billion in debtissuance in the current fiscal year. Treasuryhad already eliminated sales of three-yearand seven-year notes.

The changes mean lower interest paymentson the national debt but also pose a chal-lenge for investors because there is a dwin-dling supply of Treasury securities, consid-ered the world’s safest investment.

Even this potential challenge will be goodfor the U.S., in our opinion. Investors whonow own maturing one-year bills will have tofind other places to invest, and the most log-ical place is short-term, high-quality cor-porate notes. The demand will drive down

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:34 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.027 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1119February 7, 2001borrowing costs for corporations, whichwould be similar to an interest-rate cut bythe federal reserve.

It makes sense to pay down the debt in anorderly fashion. If Treasury tried to pay offthe existing longer-term bonds, it wouldhave to buy them back at a high premium.That’s why Fed Chairman Alan Greenspansaid last week that since surplus estimatesare growing, he would support both debt re-duction and a tax cut.

On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Of-fice (headed by former Madison resident DanCrippen) projected that the overall budgetsurplus would be $5.6 trillion over the dec-ade, up from the $5 trillion bounty projectedby the Office of Management and Budgetnear the end of the Clinton administration.

In the early 1990s, the combination of ahuge budget deficit and higher interest rateswere a drain on our economy. Just the inter-est on the federal debt was consuming aboutone-seventh the entire federal budget.

We will soon experience the opposite ef-fect: lower interest payments will free upmoney for tax cuts or funding for programs.Provided Congress makes good decisionsabout the tax cuts or spending, both will pro-vide excellent long-term benefits for Amer-ica.

[From the Pierre Capital Journal, Feb. 1,2001]

PAYING DEBT SHOULD HAVE HIGHESTPRIORITY

(By Dana Hess)Maybe it’s his Texas roots that cause

President George W. Bush to think big. Ormaybe he’s just generous. Whatever the rea-son, the president is pushing for a $1.6 tril-lion tax cut over 10 years.

Bush pushed the tax cut idea throughouthis campaign for office, even though pollsshowed that it was getting a lukewarm re-ception from the public. Give him marks forconsistency because Bush still insists thatthe tax cut needs to happen.

We generally support the idea of the fed-eral government getting less of our money.After making such a mess of the budget forso many years, it stands to reason that theless money our representatives have to workwith, the less likely they’ll be to get intotrouble with it.

Bigger and bigger budget surplus projec-tions are giving Bush and everyone else inWashington, D.C., big ideas about what to dowith the money. It’s a politician’s dreamcome true—enough money to offer tax cutsand promote new spending.

We would hope that the years of deficitspending in Washington would have taughtlawmakers to be cautious when it comes tospending our money. No one seems to havelearned that lesson.

As much as we’d like to see taxes cuts,there are a couple of good reasons why Bushand our lawmakers should slow down.

The surplus exists, in a large part, becauseof the booming economy our country has en-joyed. If that economy goes sour—and indi-cations are that it may be ripening a littlemore every day—then the projections of abig surplus will turn out to have as muchtruth as the fears about the millennium bug.

With all the talk of surpluses and tax cuts,it’s easy to forget that there’s still a debt topay. Taking care of that obligation shouldhave a higher priority than trying to win thefavor of voters with tax cuts and new pro-grams.

We know they’re famous for doing thingsin a big way in Texas. But this nation has aTexas-sized debt. The president should makesure his plan places just as high a priority onpaying down the debt as it does on tax cutsand spending plans.

THE PRESIDENT’S TAX CUTPROPOSAL AND THE BUDGET

Mr. NELSON of Florida. MadamPresident—that has a nice ring to it—it is a privilege for me to take the floorand speak on an unrelated subject buta subject that is of considerable impor-tance to the country and to the deci-sions we will be making very shortly.That is the adoption of a budget andthe decision in that budget of howlarge the tax cut should be.

Just in the last 24 hours, we haveseen a consequence of the tax cut thatnow is proposed by the administrationthat is soaring upwards of $2.5 trillionover the next 10 years, a tax cut thatthe fiscal effect of $2.5 trillion would beso large as not only to wipe out all ofthe available surplus over the next 10years, but to cause us to suddenlyplunge back into deficit spending.

We see a consequence of this in thelast 24 hours in the fact that the ad-ministration is now not proposing toincrease the defense budget. Person-ally, I think we should be looking at aminimum of increasing the defensebudget over the next decade to thetune of $100 billion.

The administration, now recognizingthat its tax cut is going to absorb all ofthe available surplus, has just, in thelast 24 hours, laid out the fact that itwill not ask for an increase in the de-fense budget. When that occurs, I amquite concerned about our existingtroops and what their pay is, the factthat there would be no increase formaintenance and operating costs, suchas spare parts and rising fuel costs, apart of the defense budget that is abso-lutely essential to keeping our existingsystems and equipment ready in casethey have to be deployed, and the suffi-cient allocation of fuel so that ourtroops can have the proper trainingthat is essential to their readiness.

I can tell you there are a lot of pilotsout there right now whose morale ispretty low because they don’t feel as ifthey are getting enough flying hours,so that if the call comes and they haveto go abroad to defend this country—particularly the pilots who are flyingthese precise pinpoint missions, noteven to speak of the ones who have toengage in aerial combat—they willhave had that training. This is going tobe the consequence of keeping downthe defense budget that this adminis-tration is reflecting because of its fis-cal proposal of a tax cut so large thatit is going to absorb all of the projectedsurplus—and, by the way, that maynever materialize—over the next dec-ade.

If you cut the defense budget too se-verely, you are suddenly going to havesystems that have not been upgradedand we will have unsafe planes andships. That is simply a consequencethat I don’t think is in the interest ofthis country. After all, one of the mainreasons for a national Federal Govern-ment is to provide for the common de-fense. So we are starting to see the rip-ple effects of this proposed fiscal pol-

icy. Why can’t this fiscal policy insteadbe one that is balanced with a substan-tial tax cut?

The question is not a tax cut or not;the question is how large should thetax cut be? That is where I argue forbalance, so that we have a substantialtax cut balanced with the increasedspending needs. And I have just givenone example of defense.

To give you another example,strengthening the Social Securityfund; another example is modernizingMedicare with a prescription drug ben-efit; to give another example, increasedinvestment in education. I have justlisted only four additional areas. Inthis time of prosperity and budget sur-pluses, if we are fiscally disciplined,and if we are fiscally conservative,then we can meet all of the needs in abudget that will be balanced and thatwill protect the investment and spend-ing needs as well as returning part ofthe surplus in the form of a tax cut.

We have seen the charts offered bythe Congressional Budget Office as tothe projected surplus. I likened it, frommy old position as the State fire mar-shal in Florida, to a fireman’s hose.When that fireman takes that hoseinto a fire and he starts turning thenozzle, it first goes into fog, a lightspray, and then increasingly, as youturn the nozzle, it goes into a straightstream of water.

The charts we saw by the CBO pro-jecting what the surplus would be overthe next 10 years look like the spraycoming off of a fireman’s hose. For thechart with a line up to the presentshowing what the surplus is today, asyou project it over 10 years, the rangeis from a huge surplus 10 years out tono surplus at all 10 years out indeed,into deficit. That is the inaccuracy offorecasting that CBO has admitted istruth.

They also stated to us in the BudgetCommittee that the projected surplus—60 percent of it—will not materializeuntil the last 5 years of the 10-year pe-riod—all the more increasing the un-certainty of what is going to be avail-able.

So my plea to our colleagues, MadamPresident, is to let us be conservativein our planning, let us be fiscally dis-ciplined and not fall back into the trapthat I personally experienced when Ivoted for the Reagan tax cuts in 1981and suddenly realized that I had madea mistake—and the country at largeunderstood that it was a mistake—be-cause the cut was so big, we had toundo it in the decade of the 1980s notonce but three times. It had run us intosuch deficits in the range of about $20billion at the end of the decade of the1970s to deficits that were in excess of$300 billion per year by the end of thedecade of the 1980s. In other words, theGovernment of the United States wasspending $300 billion more each yearthan it had coming in in revenue, andthat was getting tacked on to the na-tional debt, which is what took us froma debt in the 1970s in the range of $700

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.011 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1120 February 7, 2001billion to a national debt that is in ex-cess of $3.5 trillion today.

My argument to our distinguishedcolleagues in this august body is to usebalance, let’s use fiscal discipline, andlet’s use fiscal conservatism as we planand adopt the next budget for theUnited States of America.

Madam President, I am pleased toyield to the distinguished Senator fromGeorgia, one of the most able and capa-ble of this body, a former Adminis-trator of the Veterans’ Administrationin the Carter administration, a formerdistinguished Secretary of State of theState of Georgia, a distinguished juniorSenator, now senior Senator, and evenmore so, I am proud that he is mygood, personal friend. I yield to theSenator from Georgia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Georgia is recognized.

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, itis an honor to share the floor with mydistinguished friend from Florida. Heand I have known each other for a long,long time. I was out in the corridorsand heard a familiar voice and realizedthat my friend was making his firstspeech on the floor of the Senate,which was a great pleasure for me tohear. He has eloquence, he has intel-ligence and everything it takes tomake a powerful impact on this body.It is an honor to be with him on thefloor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank theSenator.

f

HIGH SPEED RAIL IMPROVEMENTACT

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Iwish to express my gratitude to theleadership of both parties for makinggood on their commitment to makehigh speed rail a priority early in the107th Congress. The support of bothSenator LOTT and Senator DASCHLEand a majority of our colleagues willsend a message that Congress is seriousabout establishing rail as a viable al-ternative to our crowded roads andskies.

This innovative finance bill will pro-vide a dedicated source of capital fund-ing for high-speed rail that will notsubtract from the highway or aviationtrust funds, or general appropriations.This is not a handout. We will use amodest Federal investment to leverage$12 billion in rail improvements. Am-trak’s congressionally mandated re-quirement to become operationally selfsufficient is not affected by this legis-lation.

Air traffic congestion is at an alltime high and will only worsen overthe next ten years. U.S. airports willhave to deal with one billion annualpassengers in less than ten years. Al-ready, one in every four flights is de-layed or canceled. Meanwhile, highwayexpansion has become extremely ex-pensive and environmentally sensitive,as our major arteries grow ever moreclogged with traffic.

We desperately need a third leg toour national transportation strategy. I

believe passenger rail can function inthat role.

High-speed rail is a reliable, efficientalternative to both driving and airtravel—particularly over distances of500 miles or less. Investment in high-speed rail will ease overcrowding anddelays at the airports that have theworst problems. Of the 20 airports withthe most flight delays in 1999, 18 werelocated on high-speed rail corridors.And most of the airports projected tohave the worst flight delay problemsover the next ten years are located onhigh-speed rail corridors.

There has never been so much sup-port at the national, state and locallevels for such an innovative rail fi-nancing measure. Last year, we had 67United States Senators, 171 U.S. HouseMembers, the National Governors’ As-sociation, U.S. Conference of Mayors,National League of Cities, NationalConference of State Legislatures, theenvironmental community, organizedlabor and the business community—in-cluding such notables as Bank of Amer-ica and Goldman Sachs, and MorganStanley Dean Witter—all support theHigh Speed Rail Investment Act.Today, we enjoy similar support, withmore than half of the Senate joining usin sponsoring this landmark legisla-tion.

High-speed rail projects are ready togo in more than 20 states across thecountry. States that have promotedpassenger rail for years and thosewhich are just now investing in rail al-ternatives will benefit from this Fed-eral commitment to partnership in pas-senger rail funding. The 2001 version ofthe bill provides sufficient financing toensure that these new corridors canenjoy the benefits of passenger rail.

The United States currently investsless than $600 million on its rail infra-structure, while spending $80 billionper year on highways and $19 billionper year on aviation. We even spend $1billion every year clearing road killsand $1.4 billion salting icy roads, butonly a fraction of that amount on rail.

Where adding new highway and avia-tion capacity is now prohibitively ex-pensive, incremental improvements inrail capacity can provide a viable alter-native for intercity travelers who facerising congestion on existing highways.In fact, every dollar invested in newrail capacity can deliver 5 to 10 timesas much capacity as a dollar investedin new highway capacity, depending onthe location. A comparable mile of newhigh-speed track is estimated to costabout $8 million per track-mile—theequivalent of about 450 passengers perhour for every $1 million invested.

With this Federal investment, we canincrease speeds, further reduce triptimes and better compete with airlines.In states like Texas, these funds will beused to increase train speeds of exist-ing Amtrak trains, and to establishbetter, more reliable service along ourthree corridors.

NOMINATIONSGALE NORTON

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I sup-ported the nomination of Gale Nortonto be Secretary of the Interior.

As Secretary of the Interior, Ms. Nor-ton will be responsible for the manage-ment of nearly half a billion acres ofFederal land. She will assume the re-sponsibility of overseeing our Nation’spublic land treasures—namely our na-tional parks and wildlife refuges. Shewill also be responsible for enforcingthe laws that protect threatened andendangered species. The Secretary is incharge of many agencies that directlyaffect North Dakota, including the Bu-reau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau ofLand Management, the Bureau of Rec-lamation, the Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice, and the Geological Survey.

I met with Ms. Norton in my officeearlier this month to discuss some ofthe critical issues facing my State andfound her receptive to working to-gether to address these challenges.Water development is critical in myState and has been among my highestpriorities as Senator from North Da-kota. Last year Congress passed theDakota Water Resources Act, whichwill redirect the Garrison DiversionProject to meet North Dakota’s con-temporary water needs. The Bureau ofReclamation, working under the direc-tion of the Secretary, will be respon-sible for implementing that act, andMs. Norton indicated her desire to helpensure the DWRA is implemented re-sponsibly.

Ms. Norton will also face significantresponsibilities and challenges inmaintaining government-to-govern-ment relations with tribal nations. TheDepartment of the Interior, which in-cludes the Bureau of Indian Affairs, isthe entity most directly responsible forfederal policy in Indian country. Iknow she has worked with Coloradotribes in the past and therefore has anunderstanding of many of the diverseand complex issues that tribes face.The tribes in my State anticipatebuilding a productive relationship withMs. Norton and the new head of the Bu-reau of Indian affairs. I hope she willtake time early in her tenure to meetwith the United Tribes of North Da-kota and listen to their concerns andgoals for the future.

I was also pleased that during herconfirmation hearings she was giventhe opportunity to explain her beliefson public land management and to re-spond to some of the criticisms thathad been leveled against her. I hopeMs. Norton will continue to follow themoderate stands she identified duringher confirmation hearing. Public landmanagement issues are often very con-troversial locally as well as nationally,and Ms. Norton will have to work verycarefully to balance local interestswith the Nation’s interests when re-solving these conflicts.

Ms. Norton will face tremendouschallenges as Secretary of the Interior,and I look forward to working with heron those issues.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.063 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1121February 7, 2001ELAINE CHAO

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I sup-ported Elaine Chao’s nomination to beSecretary of Labor. I am confident thather experience and intellect will serveher well as she considers issues relat-ing to our Nation’s workforce andworkplaces.

Elaine’s career exemplifies her dedi-cation to public service and commit-ment to leadership. Elaine served asdeputy transportation secretary underformer President Bush and later be-came director of the Peace Corps in1991. She headed United Way of Amer-ica between 1992 and 1996, and she cur-rently serves as a Heritage Foundationfellow. Additionally, many of us in thisbody also know her as the distin-guished wife of our colleague, SenatorMITCH MCCONNELL.

As a member of the new Administra-tion, I hope that Elaine will be able tobuild coalitions and work effectivelywith groups holding a wide range of po-litical views. These skills will be essen-tial as we consider many of the impor-tant labor-related issues during the be-ginning of the 21st Century.

GOVERNOR WHITMAN

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I sup-ported the nomination of New JerseyGovernor Christie Whitman to serve asAdministrator of the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency.

As one of the organizers of the firstEarth Day more than 30 years ago, Iunderstand the importance of pro-tecting and improving our Nation’s en-vironment. The Clean Air Act, CleanWater Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,and other major environmental stat-utes have helped this Nation signifi-cantly improve our air and water qual-ity. We have made significant progressover the past three decades, and NorthDakota has done well to maintain itsclean environment. However, our Na-tion still has too many areas that havedirty air and unclean water. Too manyof our citizens develop diseases as a re-sult of pollution in our environment.We need to continue the progress of thepast three decades without sacrificingthe tremendous economic growth ofthe past eight years.

I met with Governor Whitman in myoffice last week to discuss some of thedifferences between rural westernStates and more urban, industrializedeastern States. I emphasized the needto develop different solutions to envi-ronmental problems in different areas,and also indicated my support for in-centive-based approaches to improvingour environment. I have been pleasedto hear some of Governor Whitman’spreliminary statements on that sub-ject. However, I also believe we cannotabandon enforcement efforts to im-prove compliance with our Nation’s en-vironmental laws. Governor Whitmanwill have to strike an appropriate bal-ance between the two. It will be a dif-ficult task, but after meeting with herand reviewing her record, I believe sheis up to the job.

President Bush made a good selectionwhen he asked Governor Whitman to

head the EPA. She assumes a tremen-dous new responsibility, and I look for-ward to working with her in her newrole as Administrator.

f

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSEUnder the authority of the order of

the Senate of January 3, 2001, the Sec-retary of the Senate, on February 6,2001, during the adjournment of theSenate, received a message from theHouse of Representatives announcingthat the House has passed the fol-lowing joint resolution, in which it re-quests the concurrence of the Senate:

H.J. Res. 7. Joint resolution recognizingthe 90th birthday of Ronald Reagan.

ENROLLED JOINT RESOLUTIONS SIGNED

At 11:35 a.m., a message from theHouse of Representatives, delivered byMr. Rota, one of its clerks, announcedthat the Speaker has signed the fol-lowing enrolled joint resolution:

H.J. Res. 7. Joint resolution recognizingthe 90th birthday or Ronald Reagan.

The enrolled joint resolution wassigned subsequently by the Presidentpro tempore (Mr. THURMOND).

At 12:43 p.m., a message from theHouse of Representatives, delivered byMs. Niland, one of its reading clerks,announced that the House has passedthe following bills, in which it requeststhe concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 132. An act to designate the facility ofthe United States Postal Service located at620 Jacaranda Street in Lanai City, Hawaii,as the ‘‘Goro Hokama Post Office Building.’’

H.R. 395. An act to designate the facility ofthe United States Postal Service located at2305 Minton Road in West Melborne, Florida,as the ‘‘Ronald W. Reagan Post Office ofWest Melbourne, Florida.’’

f

REPORTS OF COMMITTEESThe following reports of committees

were submitted:From the Committee on Foreign Relations,

without amendment and with a preamble:S. Res. 17: A resolution congratulating

President Chandrika BandaranaikeKumaratunga and the people of the Demo-cratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on thecelebration of 53 years of independence.

S. Res. 18: A resolution expressing sym-pathy for the victims of the devastatingearthquake that struck El Salvador on Janu-ary 13, 2001.

From the Committee on Foreign Relations,without amendment:

S. 248: A bill to amend the Admiral JamesW. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Rela-tions Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000and 2001, to adjust a condition on the pay-ment of arrearages to the United Nationsthat sets the maximum share of any UnitedNations peacekeeping operation’s budgetthat may be assessed of any country.

From the Committee on Foreign Relations,without amendment and with a preamble:

S. Con. Res. 6: A concurrent resolution ex-pressing the sympathy for the victims of thedevastating earthquake that struck India onJanuary 26, 2001, and support for ongoing aidefforts.

f

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OFCOMMITTEE

The following executive reports ofcommittee were submitted:

By Mr. HELMS for the Committee on For-eign Relations.

Paul Henry O’Neill, of Pennsylvania, to beUnited States Governor of the InternationalMonetary Fund for a term of five years;United States Governor of the InternationalBank for Reconstruction and Developmentfor a term of five years; United States Gov-ernor of the Inter-American DevelopmentBank for a term of five years; United StatesGovernor of the African Development Bankfor a term of five years; United States Gov-ernor of the Asian Development Bank;United States Governor of the African Devel-opment Fund; United States Governor of theEuropean Bank for Reconstruction and De-velopment.

(The above nomination was reportedwith the recommendation that it beconfirmed subject to the nominee’scommitment to respond to requests toappear and testify before any duly con-stituted committee of the Senate.)

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for theCommittee on Foreign Relations, I re-port favorably nomination lists whichwere printed in the RECORDS of thedates indicated, and ask unanimousconsent, to save the expense of reprint-ing on the Executive Calendar thatthese nominations lie at the Sec-retary’s desk for the information ofSenators.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Foreign Service nominations begin-ning James D. Grueff and ending RalphIwamoto Jr., which nominations werereceived by the Senate and appeared inthe CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on 2/1/01.

Foreign Service nominations begin-ning An Thanh Le and ending AmyWing Schedlbauer, which nominationswere received by the Senate and ap-peared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORDon 2/1/01.

f

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS ANDJOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolu-tions were introduced, read the firstand second times by unanimous con-sent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. CLELAND:S. 269. A bill to ensure that immigrant stu-

dents and their families receive the servicesthe students and families need to success-fully participate in elementary schools, sec-ondary schools, and communities in theUnited States, and for other purposes; to theCommittee on Health, Education, Labor, andPensions.

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr.JEFFORDS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr.BROWNBACK, and Mr. HELMS):

S. 270. A bill to amend title XVIII of theSocial Security Act to provide a transitionaladjustment for certain sole community hos-pitals in order to limit any decline in pay-ment under the prospective payment systemfor hospital outpatient department services;to the Committee on Finance.

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr.AKAKA, Mr. CRAPO, Ms. COLLINS, Mr.CLELAND, Mr. WARNER, Mr. COCHRAN,and Mr. VOINOVICH):

S. 271. A bill to amend title 5, UnitedStates Code, to provide that the mandatoryseparation age for Federal firefighters bemade the same as the age that applies withrespect to Federal law enforcement officers;to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.011 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1122 February 7, 2001By Mr. FEINGOLD:

S. 272. A bill to rescind fiscal year 2001 pro-curement funds for the V–22 Osprey aircraftprogram other than as necessary to maintainthe production base and to require certainreports to Congress concerning that pro-gram; to the Committee on Appropriationsand the Committee on the Budget, jointly,pursuant to the order of January 30, 1975, asmodified by the order of April 11, 1986, withinstructions that the Budget Committee beauthorized to report its views to the Appro-priations Committee, and that the latteralone be authorized to report the bill.

By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself andMr. CORZINE):

S. 273. A bill to amend title 28, UnitedStates Code, to divide New Jersey into 2 ju-dicial districts; to the Committee on the Ju-diciary.

By Mr. BAUCUS:S. 274. A bill to establish a Congressional

Trade Office; to the Committee on Finance.By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. BREAUX,

Mr. GRAMM, Mrs. LINCOLN, and Mr.BAYH):

S. 275. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to repeal the Federal estateand gift taxes and the tax on generation-skipping transfers, to preserve a step up inbasis of certain property acquired from a de-cedent, and for other purposes; to the Com-mittee on Finance.

By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr.BOND, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. HAGEL, Mr.SESSIONS, Mr. HELMS, Mr. INHOFE,Mr. BURNS, Mr. KYL, Mr. COCHRAN,Ms. SNOWE, and Mr. ALLARD):

S. 276. A bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5,United States Code, to provide for congres-sional review of any rule promulgated by theInternal Revenue Service that increases Fed-eral revenue, and for other purposes; to theCommittee on Governmental Affairs.

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr.AKAKA, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER,Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. CORZINE, Mr.DASCHLE, Mr. DODD, Mr. DURBIN, Mr.FEINGOLD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HAR-KIN, Mr. KERRY, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr.LIEBERMAN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LEVIN,Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.REED, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SAR-BANES, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. WELLSTONE,and Mr. WYDEN):

S. 277. A bill to amend the Fair LaborStandards Act of 1938 to provide for an in-crease in the Federal minimum wage; to theCommittee on Health, Education, Labor, andPensions.

By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr.BINGAMAN, and Ms. SNOWE):

S. 278. A bill to restore health care cov-erage to retired members of the uniformedservices; to the Committee on Armed Serv-ices.

By Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr.DASCHLE):

S. 279. A bill affecting the representationof the majority and minority membership ofthe Senate Members of the Joint EconomicCommittee; considered and passed.

By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr.GRAHAM, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. ENZI,Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. CLELAND, Mr.DASCHLE, and Mr. HOLLINGS):

S. 280. A bill to amend the AgricultureMarketing Act of 1946 to require retailers ofbeef, lamb, pork, and perishable agriculturalcommodities to inform consumers, at thefinal point of sale to consumers, of the coun-try of origin of the commodities; to the Com-mittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and For-estry.

By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr.MCCAIN, Mr. CLELAND, and Mr.KERRY):

S. 281. A bill to authorize the design andconstruction of a temporary education cen-

ter at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial; tothe Committee on Energy and Natural Re-sources.

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr.LUGAR):

S. 282. A bill to establish in the AntitrustDivision of the Department of Justice a posi-tion with responsibility for agriculture anti-trust matters; to the Committee on the Judi-ciary.

By Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. ED-WARDS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. CHAFEE,Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. SPECTER, Mrs. LIN-COLN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr.TORRICELLI, Mr. DODD, Mr. NELSON ofFlorida, and Mr. SCHUMER):

S. 283. A bill to amend the Public HealthService Act, the Employee Retirement In-come Security Act of 1974, and the InternalRevenue code of 1986 to protect consumers inmanaged care plans and other health cov-erage; to the Committee on Health, Edu-cation, Labor, and Pensions.

By Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. ED-WARDS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. CHAFEE,Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. SPECTER, Mrs. LIN-COLN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr.TORRICELLI, Mr. DODD, Mr. NELSON ofFlorida, and Mr. SCHUMER):

S. 284. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to provide incentives to ex-pand health care coverage for individuals; tothe Committee on Finance.

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr.SPECTER, Mr. CLELAND, and Mr.BYRD):

S.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution proposing anamendment to the Constitution of theUnited States relating to contributions andexpenditures intended to affect elections; tothe Committee on the Judiciary.

f

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT ANDSENATE RESOLUTIONS

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

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. LOTT,Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr.HUTCHINSON, Mr. THURMOND, Mr.CRAPO, and Mr. CRAIG):

S. Con. Res. 8. A concurrent resolution ex-pressing the sense of Congress regarding sub-sidized Canadian lumber exports; to theCommittee on Finance.

f

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCEDBILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. CLELAND:S. 269. A bill to ensure that immi-

grant students and their families re-ceive the services the students andfamilies need to successfully partici-pate in elementary schools, secondaryschools, and communities in the UnitedStates, and for other purposes; to theCommittee on Health, Education,Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, withinthe last decade, many States have ex-perienced a wave of immigration thatis rivaling the first and second waves ofGerman, Irish, Polish and Scandina-vian immigrants who arrived in theU.S. in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Infact, the Census Bureau is estimatingthat these recently arrived immigrantsand refugees will account for 75 percentof the U.S. population growth over thenext 50 years. These changing demo-graphics are impacting not just com-

munities accustomed to large immi-grant populations like New York, LosAngeles and Miami, but also non-tradi-tional immigrant communities likeGainesville, Georgia and FremontCounty, Idaho.

One result of our new wave of immi-grants is a significant increase in thenumber of children with diverse lin-guistic and cultural backgrounds en-rolling in our schools. The Waterloo,Iowa school system, for example, isbeing challenged to teach 400 Bosnianrefugee children, who came here with-out knowing our language, culture orcustoms. Schools in Wausau, Wisconsinare filled with Asian children who wantto achieve success in the UnitedStates. In Dalton, Georgia, over 51 per-cent of the student population in thepublic schools are Hispanic childreneager to participate in their newschools and communities. In Turner,Maine, the school-aged children of hun-dreds of recently arrived Latino immi-grant families are pouring into thisrural town’s schools.

It is clear that U.S. schools fromFlorida to Washington State are beingincreasingly challenged by thesechanging demographics. We need tomake sure that these children areserved appropriately—and that theirfamilies are as well. Studies haveshown that where quality educationalprograms are joined with community-based services, immigrants have an in-creased opportunity to become an inte-gral part of their community and theirchildren are better prepared to achievesuccess in school.

The recent influx of immigrants intoU.S. communities calls for innovativeand comprehensive solutions. Today Iam reintroducing the Immigrants toNew Americans Act. This legislationwould establish a competitive grantprogram within the Department ofEducation to assist schools and com-munities which are experiencing an in-flux of recently arrived immigrantfamilies. Specifically, this grant pro-gram would provide funding to partner-ships of local school districts and com-munity-based organizations for thepurpose of developing model programswith a two-fold purpose: to assist cul-turally and linguistically diverse chil-dren achieve success in America’sschools and to provide their familieswith access to comprehensive commu-nity services, including health care,child care, job training and transpor-tation.

It does take a village to raise a child,Mr. President.

I have seen firsthand the benefits ofone community’s program that bringstogether teachers, community leadersand businesses in an innovative part-nership to aid their linguistically andculturally diverse population. It is theGeorgia Project, and its mission is toassist immigrant children from Mexicoachieve to higher standards in Dalton,Georgia’s public schools.

In recent years, the carpet and poul-try industries in Dalton and sur-rounding Whitfield County experienced

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.014 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1123February 7, 2001the need for a larger workforce. Thecity’s visionary leaders encouraged im-migrants from Mexico to settle in theircommunity to fill that need. The chal-lenge has been in Dalton’s publicschool system where Hispanic enroll-ment went from being just four percentten years ago to over 51 percent today.

To deal with this sizable increase,Dalton and Whitfield County publicschool administrators and businessleaders formed a public-private consor-tium. This consortium, known as TheGeorgia Project, initiated a teacher ex-change program in 1996 with the Uni-versity of Monterrey in Mexico. Today,twenty teachers from Mexico are help-ing to bridge the language and culturegap by serving as instructors, coun-selors and role models and providingSpanish language training to English-speaking students. In addition, Daltonpublic school teachers spend a montheach year in Monterrey, Mexico learn-ing firsthand the culture, language andcustoms of the Hispanic students theyserve.

There are other programs across theUnited States that address similarchallenges experienced by the City ofDalton and Whitfield County. One suchexample is the Lao Family Project inSt. Paul, Minnesota. This is a commu-nity-based refugee assistance organiza-tion that provides a wide range of par-ent-student services to Hmong and Vi-etnamese refugees in St. Paul in an ef-fort to help parents become economi-cally self-sufficient and their childrensucceed in school. The Lao FamilyProject’s staff are bilingual/biculturalpara-professionals who provide servicesthat include adult English-languageacquisition programs and preschool lit-eracy activities for children.

In the rural communities ofHealdsburg and Windsor, California,the Even Start program provides a va-riety of instructional and support serv-ices to low-income, recently arrivedHispanic immigrant families and theirpreschool and elementary school chil-dren. The program focuses on increas-ing family involvement in their chil-dren’s education, helping parents andchildren with their literacy skills, andoffering English as a second languagecourse. Many of the instructional ac-tivities for the parents’ classes are co-ordinated with the classroom teachersto ensure consistency with what isbeing taught to both the parent andchild. One focus of these classes is tocommunicate what the children arelearning in their regular classes so thatparents can help their children athome.

The Exemplary Multicultural Prac-tices in Rural Education Program, orEMPIRE, operates in the Yakima re-gion of rural Central WashingtonState, an area with a diverse mix ofethnic groups, including Caucasians,Hispanics, Native Americans, AfricanAmericans, and Asian Americans. Theprogram promotes positive race rela-tions and an appreciation for ethnicand cultural differences. It encourages

schools to develop learning environ-ments where children of all back-grounds can be successful in school andin the community. With support fromEMPIRE’s board of advisors, eachschool designs and carries out its ownprojects based on local resources andneeds. Schools in which EMPIRE is ac-tive plan a wide variety of programsand activities with emphasis on staffdevelopment, student awareness, par-ent involvement and improvement ofcurriculum and instruction.

The Immigrants to New AmericansAct is not a one-size-fits-all approach.It rewards model programs designed byindividual communities to address thatcommunity’s specific needs and chal-lenges. The legislation is endorsed bythe National Association for BilingualEducation, the League of United LatinAmerican Citizens, the National Coun-cil of La Raza, the Hispanic EducationCoalition, the India Abroad Center forPolitical Awareness, the SoutheastAsia Resource Action Center, and theNational Korean American Service andEducation Consortium.

Our Nation’s communities are beingtransformed by the diverse culture oftheir citizens. Successfully addressingthis change will require leadership,creative thinking and an eagerness toencourage and promote the promisethat these new challenges bring. Bydoing so, we as a Nation will betterserve all our children—the best guar-antee we have of ensuring America’sstrength, well into the 21st Centuryand beyond.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that the text of the bill and theletters of support be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

S. 269Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Immigrantsto New Americans Act’’.SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:(1) In 1997, there were an estimated

25,800,000 foreign-born individuals residing inthe United States. That number is the larg-est number of such foreign-born individualsin United States history and represents a6,000,000, or 30 percent, increase over the 1990census figure of 19,800,000 of such foreign-born individuals. The Bureau of the Censusestimates that the recently arrived immi-grant population (including the refugee pop-ulation) currently residing in the Nation willaccount for 75 percent of the populationgrowth in the United States over the next 50years.

(2) For millions of immigrants settlinginto the Nation’s hamlets, towns, and cities,the dream of ‘‘life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness’’ has become a reality. The waveof immigrants, of various nationalities, whohave chosen the United States as their home,has positively influenced the Nation’s imageand relationship with other nations. The di-verse cultural heritage of the Nation’s immi-grants has helped define the Nation’s cul-ture, customs, economy, and communities.

By better understanding the people who haveimmigrated to the Nation, individuals in theUnited States better understand what itmeans to be an American.

(3) There is a critical shortage of teacherswith the skills needed to educate immigrantstudents and their families in noncon-centrated, nontraditional, immigrant com-munities as well as communities with largeimmigrant populations. The large influx ofimmigrant families over the last decade pre-sents a national dilemma: The number ofsuch families with school-age children re-quiring assistance to successfully participatein elementary schools, secondary schools,and communities in the United States, is in-creasing without a corresponding increase inthe number of teachers with skills to accom-modate their needs.

(4) Immigrants arriving in communitiesacross the Nation generally settle into high-poverty areas, where funding for programs toprovide immigrant students and their fami-lies with the services the students and fami-lies need to successfully participate in ele-mentary schools, secondary schools, andcommunities in the United States is inad-equate.

(5) The influx of immigrant families set-tling into many United States communitiesis often the result of concerted efforts bylocal employers who value immigrant labor.Those employers realize that helping immi-grants to become productive, prosperousmembers of a community is beneficial forthe local businesses involved, the immi-grants, and the community. Further, localbusinesses benefit from the presence of theimmigrant families because the familiespresent businesses with a committed and ef-fective workforce and help open up new mar-ket opportunities. However, many of thecommunities into which the immigrantshave settled need assistance in order to giveimmigrant students and their families theservices the students and families need tosuccessfully participate in elementaryschools, secondary schools, and communitiesin the United States.SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to establish agrant program, within the Department ofEducation, that provides funding to partner-ships of local educational agencies and com-munity-based organizations for the develop-ment of model programs to provide immi-grant students and their families with theservices the students and families need tosuccessfully participate in elementaryschools, secondary schools, and communitiesin the United States.SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

(1) IMMIGRANT.—In this Act, the term ‘‘im-migrant’’ has the meaning given the term insection 101 of the Immigration and Nation-ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101).

(2) OTHER TERMS.—Other terms used in thisAct have the meanings given the terms insection 14101 of the Elementary and Sec-ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).SEC. 5. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Edu-cation may award not more than 10 grants ina fiscal year to eligible partnerships for thedesign and implementation of model pro-grams to—

(1) assist immigrant students achieve in el-ementary schools and secondary schools inthe United States by offering such edu-cational services as English as a second lan-guage classes, literacy programs, programsfor introduction to the education system,and civics education; and

(2) assist parents of immigrant students byoffering such services as parent educationand literacy development services and by co-ordinating activities with other entities to

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:28 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.001 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1124 February 7, 2001provide comprehensive community socialservices such as health care, job training,child care, and transportation services.

(b) ELIGIBLE PARTNERSHIPS.—To be eligibleto receive a grant under this Act, a partner-ship—

(1) shall include—(A) at least 1 local educational agency; and(B) at least 1 community-based organiza-

tion; and(2) may include another entity such as—(A) an institution of higher education;(B) a local or State government agency;(C) a private sector entity; or(D) another entity with expertise in work-

ing with immigrants.(c) DURATION.—Each grant awarded under

this Act shall be awarded for a period of notmore than 5 years. A partnership may usefunds made available through the grant fornot more than 1 year for planning and pro-gram design.SEC. 6. APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Each eligible partnershipdesiring a grant under this Act shall submitan application to the Secretary at such timeand in such manner as the Secretary may re-quire.

(b) REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION.—Each appli-cation submitted by a partnership under thissection for a proposed program shall includedocumentation that—

(1) the partnership has the qualified per-sonnel required to develop, administer, andimplement the proposed program; and

(2) the leadership of each participatingschool has been involved in the developmentand planning of the program in the school.

(c) OTHER APPLICATION CONTENTS.—Eachapplication submitted by a partnershipunder this section for a proposed programshall include—

(1) a list of the organizations entering intothe partnership;

(2) a description of the need for the pro-posed program, including data on the num-ber of immigrant students, and the numberof such students with limited English pro-ficiency in the schools or school districts tobe served through the program and the char-acteristics of the students described in thisparagraph, including—

(A) the native languages of the students tobe served;

(B) the proficiency of the students inEnglish and the students’ native languages;

(C) achievement data for the students in—(i) reading or language arts (in English and

in the students’ native languages, if applica-ble); and

(ii) mathematics; and(D) the previous schooling experiences of

the students;(3) a description of the goals of the pro-

gram;(4) a description of how the funds made

available through the grant will be used tosupplement the basic services provided tothe immigrant students to be served;

(5) a description of activities that will bepursued by the partnership through the pro-gram, including a description of—

(A) how parents, students, and other mem-bers of the community, including membersof private organizations and nonprofit orga-nizations, will be involved in the design andimplementation of the program;

(B) how the activities will further the aca-demic achievement of immigrant studentsserved through the program;

(C) methods of teacher training and parenteducation that will be used or developedthrough the program, including the dissemi-nation of information to immigrant parents,that is easily understandable in the languageof the parents, about educational programsand the rights of the parents to participate

in educational decisions involving their chil-dren; and

(D) methods of coordinating comprehen-sive community social services to assist im-migrant families;

(6) a description of how the partnershipwill evaluate the progress of the partnershipin achieving the goals of the program;

(7) a description of how the local edu-cational agency will disseminate informa-tion on model programs, materials, andother information developed under this Actthat the local educational agency deter-mines to be appropriate for use by otherlocal educational agencies in establishingsimilar programs to facilitate the edu-cational achievement of immigrant students;

(8) an assurance that the partnership willannually provide to the Secretary such infor-mation as may be required to determine theeffectiveness of the program; and

(9) any other information that the Sec-retary may require.SEC. 7. SELECTION OF GRANTEES.

(a) CRITERIA.—The Secretary, through apeer review process, shall select partnershipsto receive grants under this Act on the basisof the quality of the programs proposed inthe applications submitted under section 6,taking into consideration such factors as—

(1) the extent to which the program pro-posed in such an application effectively ad-dresses differences in language, culture, andcustoms;

(2) the quality of the activities proposed bya partnership;

(3) the extent of parental, student, andcommunity involvement;

(4) the extent to which the partnership willensure the coordination of comprehensivecommunity social services with the program;

(5) the quality of the plan for measuringand assessing success; and

(6) the likelihood that the goals of the pro-gram will be achieved.

(b) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF PRO-GRAMS.—The Secretary shall approve appli-cations under this Act in a manner that en-sures, to the extent practicable, that pro-grams assisted under this Act serve differentareas of the Nation, including urban, subur-ban, and rural areas, with special attentionto areas that are experiencing an influx ofimmigrant groups (including refugeegroups), and that have limited prior experi-ence in serving the immigrant community.SEC. 8. EVALUATION AND PROGRAM DEVELOP-

MENT.(a) REQUIREMENT.—Each partnership re-

ceiving a grant under this Act shall—(1) conduct a comprehensive evaluation of

the program assisted under this Act, includ-ing an evaluation of the impact of the pro-gram on students, teachers, administrators,parents, and others; and

(2) prepare and submit to the Secretary areport containing the results of the evalua-tion.

(b) EVALUATION REPORT COMPONENTS.—Each evaluation report submitted under thissection for a program shall include—

(1) data on the partnership’s progress inachieving the goals of the program;

(2) data showing the extent to which allstudents served by the program are meetingthe State’s student performance standards,including—

(A) data comparing the students servedunder this Act with other students, with re-gard to grade retention and academicachievement in reading and language arts, inEnglish and in the native languages of thestudents if the program develops native lan-guage proficiency, and in mathematics; and

(B) a description of how the activities car-ried out through the program are coordi-nated and integrated with the overall school

program of the school in which the programdescribed in this Act is carried out, and withother Federal, State, or local programs serv-ing limited English proficient students;

(3) data showing the extent to which fami-lies served by the program have been af-forded access to comprehensive communitysocial services; and

(4) such other information as the Secretarymay require.SEC. 9. ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS.

A partnership that receives a grant underthis Act may use not more than 5 percent ofthe grant funds received under this Act foradministrative purposes.SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated tocarry out this Act $10,000,000 for fiscal year2002 and such sums as may be necessary foreach of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FORBILINGUAL EDUCATION,

Washington, DC, January 29, 2001.Hon. MAX CLELAND,U.S. Senate, Senate Dirksen Building, Wash-

ington, DC.DEAR SENATOR CLELAND: On behalf of the

National Association for Bilingual Edu-cation (NABE), I want to thank you for in-troducing legislation that will help addressone of the greatest challenges facing theAmerican educational system—that of ad-dressing the changing needs of emerging im-migrant populations.

The dramatic demographic changes thatare taking place in our nation are forcingschool districts and communities to reevalu-ate their ability to integrate America’s new-comers. While it was once the case that im-migrants settled primarily in urban areaslike New York City or Los Angeles, poultryprocessing plants, meat packing firms, andother businesses are attracting immigrantsto states like Georgia, Iowa, Arkansas,North Carolina and Idaho. Often, these com-munities have no experience in helping im-migrant children and families integrate sothat they too will attain the Americandream and help make our country stronger.

Your bill clearly recognizes the contribu-tions that immigrants have made to theUnited States over its history, and takes adefinitive step forward in the spirit of em-powerment through education and commu-nity-based collaboration. NABE strongly be-lieves that given the appropriate tools andsupport immigrant students will rise to thehighest of levels of achievement. Our en-dorsement of this forward-thinking legisla-tion is a reaffirmation of this philosophy,and we hope your colleagues in Congress willgrant it prompt approval. Once again, I com-mend you on the introduction of this impor-tant piece of legislation.

Sincerely,DELIA POMPA,Executive Director.

LEAGUE OF UNITEDLATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS,

Washington, DC, January 26, 2001.Hon. MAX CLELAND,U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Building, Wash-

ington, DC.DEAR SENATOR CLELAND: The League of

United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)wishes to thank you for your efforts at fa-cilitating and enhancing the ability of immi-grant children and their families to achievesuccess in America’s schools and commu-nities. We would like to strongly supportyour legislation, ‘‘The Immigrants to NewAmericans Act.’’

We believe that this act will greatly en-hance the ability for schools and commu-nity-based services to develop model pro-grams aimed at helping immigrant students

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:41 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.031 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1125February 7, 2001and their families to receive the tools thatthey need to be successful in their newhomeland.

We find that this closely supports our mis-sion and beliefs that immigrants should besupported in any way possible. LULAC is theoldest and largest Latino civil rights organi-zation in the United States. LULAC ad-vances the economic conditions, educationalattainment, political influence, health andcivil rights of Hispanic Americans throughcommunity-based programs operating atmore than 700 LULAC Councils nationwide.

Once again, thank you for putting forththis effort to help those who need a littlehelp getting started in this country. Yourlegislation will help to carry the UnitedStates in a positive way well into the 21stcentury.

Sincerely,RICK DOVALINA,

LULAC National President.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA,Washington, DC, January 30, 2001.

Senator MAX CLELAND,Senate Dirksen Office Building,Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR CLELAND: The NationalCouncil of La Raza (NCLR) thanks you foryour effort to facilitate and enhance the par-ticipation of immigrants in American soci-ety. In particular, we would like to expressour support for your legislation, the ‘‘Immi-grants to New Americans Act,’’ which wouldprovide education, adult English as a SecondLanguage (ESL), job training, and other im-portant services to immigrants in ‘‘emerg-ing’’ communities.

Over the past decade, dramatic shifts haveoccurred in the immigrant population in theUnited States, particularly among Hispanicimmigrants. Many Hispanic immigrantshave settled in areas where their presencehad previously been virtually invisible. Forexample, the U.S. Census Bureau determinedthat the South (Alabama, Arkansas, Geor-gia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,South Carolina, and Tennessee) experienceda 93% increase in its Hispanic populationfrom 1990 to 1998, far outpacing growth in‘‘traditional’’ Hispanic states like California,New York, and Texas, where increases hov-ered around 32%. While the U.S. Census Bu-reau estimated the total Hispanic populationin the South in 1998 to be 640,870, unofficialestimates place the Hispanic population ofboth Georgia and North Carolina at close to500,000 in each state. Midwestern states havealso experienced significant increases intheir Hispanic populations during this pe-riod, such as Iowa (74%), Minnesota (61%),and Nebraska (96%). Many of these Hispanicsare immigrants in search of employment.

The emergence of new immigrant popu-lations has created a significant need foreducational and social services. The searchfor employment opportunities has histori-cally been the primary impetus for the mi-gration of immigrants. An ever-increasingavailability of permanent employment hasprovided the opportunity for many immi-grants to settle with their spouses and chil-dren, often in areas where previously therehad only been seasonal agricultural workavailable. However, these opportunities havelargely been in unskilled or low-skilled, low-paying jobs, such as the textile, poultry, andconstruction industries in the South; meat-and vegetable-packing in the Midwest; andlight manufacturing and service-sector workin major cities like New York City, Los An-geles, and Houston. As these new immigrantpopulations form permanent settlements,they often face social isolation and dis-connection from mainstream society.

Emerging immigrant communities face amultitude of issues in adapting to their new

environment. Among the needs identified inthese communities are access to rigorousstandards-based curriculum in the publicschools, effective parental involvement intheir children’s education, adult English-lan-guage acquisition programs, quality childcare, and employment and training. Yourlegislation would help local communities toprovide services in each of these criticalareas.

NCLR believes that the ‘‘Immigrants toNew Americans Act’’ can have a significant,positive impact on the lives of many immi-grant children and families, and on the com-munities in which they are settling. That iswhy we strongly support your legislationand encourage the entire Congress to do thesame.

Sincerely,RAUL YZAGUIRRE,

President.

HISPANIC EDUCATION COALITION,January 29, 2001.

Hon. MAX CLELAND,U.S. Senate, Senate Dirksen Building, Wash-

ington, DC.DEAR SENATOR CLELAND: On behalf of the

Hispanic Education Coalition (HEC)—an adhoc coalition of national organizations dedi-cated to improving educational opportuni-ties for over 30 million Hispanics living inthe United States—we are writing to com-mend you for introducing The Immigrants toNew Americans Act. We support this legisla-tion because it will help improve educationalopportunities for Hispanic Americans by sup-porting education and community-based col-laboration.

Recent demographic data show that His-panic children are the fastest growing seg-ment of the school-aged population. Whilethe majority of Hispanic children live inlarge urban areas in states like California,Texas and Florida, more and more Hispanicfamilies are migrating to states like Arkan-sas, Iowa, North Carolina and Georgia.Emerging immigrant communities face amultitude of issues in adapting to their newenvironment such as academic and languagesupport and effective parental involvementin their children’s public schools, adultEnglish-language acquisition programs, andemployment and training. Communities likeRogers, Arkansas are in dire need of assist-ance to ensure new Hispanic and immigrantfamilies are integrated in their communitiesand schools.

The Immigrants to Americans Act recog-nizes that while local communities may needsupport, they are ultimately in the best posi-tion to address the needs of the newly ar-rived Hispanic immigrant families. We areparticularly supportive of the inclusion ofcommunity-based organizations as partnersin developing model programs that help im-migrant children succeed in schools and pro-vide families with access to community serv-ices.

HEC believes that The Immigrants to NewAmericans Act can have a significant, posi-tive impact on the lives of many immigrantchildren and families, their local commu-nities and our nation. That is why we strong-ly support your legislation and encouragethe entire Congress to do the same.

Sincerely,PATRICIA LOERA,

Co-Chair, National AssociationFor Bilingual Education.

On behalf of: Association for the Advance-ment of Mexican Americans (AAMA); HEP-CAMP Association; Hispanic Association ofColleges and Universities (HACU); League ofUnited Latin American Citizens (LULAC);Migrant Legal Action Program; National As-sociation for Migrant Education (NAME);

National Association of Latino Elected andAppointed Officials (NALEO); NationalCouncil of La Raza (NLCR); National PuertoRican Coalition (NPRC).

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself,Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr.BROWNBACK, and Mr. HELMS):

S. 270. A bill to amend title XVIII ofthe Social Security Act to provide atransitional adjustment for certainsole community hospitals in order tolimit any decline in payment under theprospective payment system for hos-pital outpatient department services;to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I risetoday to introduce, along with my col-leagues Senators JEFFORDS, LEVIN,BROWNBACK, and HELMS the ‘‘RuralHospital and Health Network Preserva-tion Act of 2001.’’

As you are aware, rural health careproviders have operating margins thatare often much lower and more depend-ent upon Medicare and Medicaid reim-bursement then suburban or urban pro-viders. The Balanced Budget Refine-ment Act of 1999 (BBRA 99) allowedrural hospitals of less than 100 beds tobe held harmless in the conversion tothe new outpatient Prospective Pay-ment System by allowing them tochoose to stay essentially under theold fee-for-service program which pro-vided them with increased revenue.However, that 100-bed limit seems arbi-trary and will actually result in manyslightly larger rural hospitals, thathave even higher per patient costs andlower per patient margins, beingsqueezed even harder under BBA 97rules.

With passage of the Medicare, Med-icaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improve-ment and Protection Act of 2000, sev-eral additional fixes were put in placefor rural providers. While these weresteps in the right direction, rural hos-pitals with between 100 and 400 beds arestill not being held harmless in theconversion to the new outpatient Pro-spective Payment System. This groupof hospitals is still suffering under pro-visions of the BBA of 1997.

Rural hospitals, and all hospitals forthat matter, operate on very slim mar-gins yet manage to bring cutting-edgemedical care to the communities theyserve. But changes in Medicare pay-ments to hospitals have put many in-stitutions in a bind.

The bill I am introducing today willextend the BBRA of 99 hold-harmlessprovisions to rural hospitals of up to400 beds that are both Rural ReferralCenters and Sole Community Hos-pitals. This will bring outpatient reim-bursement rates for these criticalhealth care providers closer in line tothe actual health care costs incurred inrural America by these valued pro-viders.

Rural communities across New Mex-ico have felt the negative impact of theBBA of 97. The Carlsbad Regional Med-ical Center, Eastern New Mexico Med-ical Center, San Juan Regional MedicalCenter, and Lea Regional Hospital have

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:41 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.018 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1126 February 7, 2001all been suffering because of the BBAof 97. They tell me that they are bear-ing substantially higher expenses perpatient due to diseconomies of scale forthe technically intensive specialitycare that is required at these types offacilities. In addition, they face dif-ficulties in recruiting qualified healthprofessionals, as well as qualified cod-ers and compliance experts that are re-quired under the new outpatient Pro-spective Payment System given Medi-care’s complexity. This is not a NewMexico only problem. There are atleast sixty-one other rural hospitalsthat fall in this same category acrossthe United States that are also suf-fering.

While the positive restorative effectsof BBRA of 99 and the recently enacted‘‘Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Bene-fits Improvement and Protection Actof 2000’’ were very helpful, they are notenough to protect rural providers. Wemust prevent rural hospitals from re-ducing services or closing completely.When a rural hospital reduces services,or worse yet closes, local residents loseaccess to preventive, routine, and evenemergency services. Doctors and otherhighly trained professionals moveaway. Then people must drive a hun-dred miles or more in some cases to getthe care city dwellers take for granted.Local economies suffer when jobs arelost. Existing businesses may have tomove, and new businesses won’t locatein places where health care is unavail-able. Hospital closure can be a death-knell for struggling towns. We mustmove forward to preserve and strength-en the ability of our Nation’s rural hos-pitals and other Medicare providers toprovide adequate health care to theirpatients.

I urge my colleagues to support andpass the Rural Hospital and HealthNetwork Preservation Act of 2001.

I ask consent that the text of the billbe printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

S. 270

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Hos-pital and Health Network Preservation Actof 2001’’.SEC. 2. TEMPORARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN

SOLE COMMUNITY HOSPITALS TOLIMIT DECLINE IN PAYMENT UNDERTHE OPD PPS.

(a) HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION.—Section1833(t)(7)(D)(i) of the Social Security Act (42U.S.C. 1395l(t)(7)(D)(i)) is amended by insert-ing ‘‘(or not more than 400 beds if such hos-pital is a sole community hospital (as de-fined in section 1886(d)(5)(D)(iii)) and is clas-sified as a rural referral center under section1886(d)(5)(C))’’ after ‘‘100 beds’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentmade by subsection (a) shall take effect as ifincluded in the amendments made by section202(a) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIPBalanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (113Stat. 1501A–342), as enacted into law by sec-tion 1000(a)(6) of Public Law 106–113.

By Mr. FEINGOLD:S. 272. A bill to rescind fiscal year

2001 procurement funds for the V–22 Os-prey aircraft program other than asnecessary to maintain the productionbase and to require certain reports toCongress concerning that program; tothe Committee on Appropriations andthe Committee on the Budget, concur-rently, pursuant to the order of Janu-ary 30, 1975, as modified by the order ofApril 11, 1986, with instructions thatthe Budget Committee be authorized toreport its views to the AppropriationsCommittee, and that the latter alonebe authorized to report the bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, todayI am introducing the Osprey Safety,Performance, and Reliability Evalua-tion Act of 2001. This legislation woulddelay the procurement of the V–22 Os-prey tilt-rotor aircraft for one year,and would require reports from theSecretary of the Navy and the Depart-ment of Defense’s Inspector General re-garding the program.

The Osprey is an experimental tilt-rotor aircraft that takes off and landslike a helicopter, but flies like an air-plane by tilting its wing-mounted ro-tors forward to serve as propellers. Thepremise for the aircraft is to combinethe operational flexibility of a heli-copter with the speed, range, and effi-ciency of a fixed-wing aircraft.

The Marines, Air Force, and Navy allwant to purchase versions of this air-craft. The MV–22 would be used by theMarines for missions such as troop andcargo transport and amphibious as-sault; the CV–22 would be used by theAir Force for special operations; andthe HV–22 would be used by the Navyfor search and rescue missions.

I want to be very clear. This bill doesnot terminate the V–22 program. Itdoes not affect the Marine Corps’ abil-ity to continue the research, develop-ment, testing, and evaluation of thisaircraft.

This bill delays the start of full-rateprocurement of the MV–22 Osprey, theMarines’ version of this aircraft, forone year. It also delays the procure-ment of four CV–22s, the Air Force’sversion of this aircraft, for one year.

There are serious allegations and se-rious questions surrounding the V–22program. Thirty Marines have died inOsprey crashes since 1991. Many ques-tions regarding the validity of mainte-nance records and the safety and via-bility of this aircraft remain unan-swered.

We cannot, in good conscience, moveforward with the full-scale procure-ment of the MV–22 until these allega-tions have been investigated fully anduntil these questions have been an-swered.

We should not move forward with theprocurement of this aircraft until fur-ther testing has been done to addresspotentially serious design flaws thatcould continue to endanger the lives ofour military personnel.

We owe it to our men and women inuniform to put their safety first. They

are willing to go into harm’s way whileserving their country. That serviceshould not include being put intoharm’s way by a potentially unsafe air-craft. We should not move forward withthe procurement of an aircraft thatcrashed as recently as December. Weshould not procure this aircraft untilthe Department of Defense is abso-lutely certain that all major designflaws have been corrected.

The legislation that I am introducingtoday will delay full-rate production ofthe MV–22 for one year. This delay isprudent given the ongoing controversythat has loomed over this program dur-ing the last weeks and months.

I want to reiterate that this legisla-tion does not require the Departmentof Defense to terminate the Osprey pro-gram. I appreciate the importance ofthis program to the Marine Corps. Iagree that they need to replace theaging CH–46 Sea Knight helicoptersthat they currently have. However, Iam not sure that the Osprey is thesafest and most cost-effective alter-native to the Sea Knight.

I know that the leaders of the Ma-rines and the Air Force have the great-est concern for the safety of their per-sonnel who are and who will be as-signed to the Osprey program. I sharethat concern. My bill would require theMarine Corps to wait one year to moveto full-rate production of the MV–22.Because the airframes for the MV–22and the CV–22 are 90 percent similar, itfollows that the four CV–22s the AirForce plans to buy this year may besubject to many of the same designflaws that have been found in the MV–22. For that reason, my bill would alsorequire the Air Force to wait one yearto procure the four CV–22s, whichwould be used to train their pilots.

I realize that an effort is being madeto address the design flaws found dur-ing testing of this aircraft resulting insome changes in the new planes thatare scheduled to go into production infiscal year 2001. However, I remain con-cerned about the many unansweredquestions, and the potentially costlyretrofits that these aircraft would re-quire as more information about thesafety and reliability of the Ospreycontinues to come to light. In my view,it would be more prudent and morecost effective to wait to move to full-rate production until these questionshave been answered.

For those reasons, my bill rescindsmost of the fiscal year 2001 procure-ment funds for the MV–22 and the CV–22, but leaves enough funding in placeto maintain the integrity of the pro-duction line. These rescissions wouldreturn to the taxpayers more than $1.2billion dollars. This kind of investmentshould not go forward until we are surethat the Osprey is safe.

The bill does not affect the $148 mil-lion in research and development fund-ing for this program. During the nextyear, vigorous research and testing onthe problems that remain should con-tinue once the decision has been madeto resume test flights.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.002 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1127February 7, 2001This program has a troubled history.

Thirty Marines have been killed in Os-prey crashes since 1991, twenty-three ofthem in the past eleven months alone.The Osprey program has been groundedsince the December crash that killedfour Marines. Following that crash,former Secretary of Defense WilliamCohen appointed a blue ribbon panel tostudy the Osprey program. That pan-el’s report is due to be presented toSecretary of Defense Rumsfeld inMarch or April of this year. In addi-tion, two investigations on the Decem-ber crash are ongoing.

The safety of our men and women inuniform should be the top priorityevery time the Department of Defensedevelops and procures new technology,whether it be weapons, ships, or air-craft.

During his tenure as Secretary of De-fense, Vice President CHENEY tried tocancel the V–22 program in each of hisbudget requests from fiscal year 1990through 1993 because he believed theprogram was too costly. Congress dis-agreed, and the program continued toreceive funds.

When asked about the Osprey pro-gram last month, the Vice Presidentsaid, ‘‘Given the track record and theloss of life so far, it would appear to methat there are very serious questionsthat can and should be—and I hope willbe—raised about the Osprey.’’

I agree with Vice President CHENEY’sstatement, and I hope that this legisla-tion will help to get answers to theseserious concerns.

One additional concern about thisprogram is its cost. The Marines, theAir Force, and the Navy each want tobuy a version of this aircraft, for atotal of 458 aircraft at a cost of $38.1billion, or about $83 million per Osprey.Some defense observers have arguedthat the mission of the Osprey could beperformed by less costly helicopters.

Another concern is the safety of theaircraft. One of the newspapers in myhome state of Wisconsin, the Mil-waukee Journal Sentinel, has calledthe Osprey a ‘‘lemon with wings.’’ Isthat a fair description? There is reasonto pause and take a good look at theprogram and find out. In addition tothe four crashes that have occurredsince 1991, there are also a number ofunanswered questions regarding the de-sign and performance of the aircraft.

The MV–22 underwent operationalevaluation, OPEVAL, between October1999 and August 2000. During OPEVAL,in June 2000, a draft DoD InspectorGeneral’s report cited 23 major oper-ational effectiveness and suitability re-quirements that would not be metprior to the scheduled December 2000Milestone III decision on whether toenter into full-rate production of theMV–22 in June 2001. The Marine Corpsconceded that these problems exist,and said they had been aware of thesedeficiencies prior to the beginning ofthe OPEVAL.

In October 2000, the Navy announcedthat the MV–22 had been judged oper-

ationally effective and suitable forland-based operations. In November2000, the MV–22 was also judged oper-ationally effective and suitable for sea-based operations.

Following the completion ofOPEVAL, the Department of Defense’sDirector of Operational Testing andEvaluation, Philip Coyle, released hisreport on the MV–22. This report,which was issued on November 17, 2000,makes a number of recommendationsregarding further testing that shouldbe conducted on this aircraft, includingtesting on a number of requirementsfor the aircraft that were waived dur-ing OPEVAL.

Particularly troubling are the MV–22’s Mission Capable, MC, and Full Mis-sion Capable, FMC, rates at the end ofOPEVAL. These ratings demonstratethe availability of the aircraft—theamount of time that each MV–22 is ableto fly versus the amount of time thateach MV–22 is unavailable due to main-tenance needs.

The Mission Capable rating rep-resents the percentage of time that thetest aircraft were able to perform atleast one of their assigned missions.The Marine Corps’ objective for the MCrate is between 82 and 87 percent. Atthe end of OPEVAL, the MC rate forthe MV–22 was 49 percent. That means,Mr. President, that the MV–22 testfleet was capable of performing at leastone of its missions only 49 percent ofthe time during OPEVAL. From 1995–1999, the entire CH–46 fleet Sea Knightfleet, which the Osprey is supposed toreplace, was rated Mission Capable 79percent of the time.

The Full Mission Capable rate, FMC,is defined as the percentage of timethat the aircraft could perform all ofits assigned missions. The MarineCorps’ objective for FMC is 75 percent.At the end of OPEVAL, the MV–22 hada FMC rate of only 20 percent. From1995–1999, the CH–46 fleet had a FMCrate of 74 percent.

I want to say this again—at the endof OPEVAL, the MV–22 test fleet wascapable of performing all of its as-signed missions only 20 percent of thetime. The Coyle report says that partof this low rating can be attributed toproblems with the blade fold wingstow, BFWS, system, and that meas-ures to address this problem will be in-corporated into all new MV–22s.

While both the MC and the FMC bothimproved over the course of OPEVAL,both rates are still well below the Ma-rines’ own requirements. By delayingthe full rate production of the MV–22for one year, the Marines will have theopportunity to further improve thesecrucial rates, including testing themodifications to the BFWS system,and potentially save countless mainte-nance hours and costs over the life ofthis program.

In addition to the problems outlinedin the Coyle report, a General Account-ing Office report released last monthtitled ‘‘Major Management Challengesand Program Risks: Department of De-

fense’’ also expresses concern about theOsprey program. The report states that‘‘the DoD . . . begins production onmany major and nonmajor weaponswithout first ensuring that the systemswill meet critical performance require-ments.’’ The report cites a number ofexamples, including the Osprey. GAOreports that ‘‘the Navy was moving to-ward a full-rate production decision onthe MV–22 Osprey aircraft without hav-ing an appropriate level of confidencethat the program would meet designparameters as well as cost and scheduleobjectives.’’

This finding is just another of themany reasons why the full-rate pro-curement of the MV–22 and the pro-curement of four CV–22s should be de-layed. I share GAO’s concern about thefrequency with which DoD moves intofull-rate production of systems thatmay not have been adequately tested.This rush to production often raisessafety concerns and costs the tax-payers large sums for costly retrofitsto address problems that were oftenevident—but not fixed—before full-rateproduction began. And even if the Os-prey is proven to be safe, questionsstill remain about its cost.

I am also deeply troubled by the alle-gations that the Commander of the Ma-rine Tilt-Rotor Training Squadron 204may have ordered his team to falsifymaintenance records for the MV–22. Ananonymous DoD whistle blower re-leased a letter and documentation, in-cluding an audio tape on which it is re-ported that the Commander is heardtelling his squadron to ‘‘lie’’ aboutmaintenance reports on the MV–22until the Milestone III decision tomove into full-rate production of theaircraft had been made. This decisionwas scheduled to be made in December2000, but has been postponed indefi-nitely. The Commander has been re-lieved of his command pending a fullinvestigation by the DoD InspectorGeneral’s office.

There have been reports that high-ranking Marine Corps officers mayhave known about the low MC andFMC rates for the MV–22 in November2000, and that one of them may have re-leased inaccurate information to thepress regarding the Mission Capablerates of the MV–22.

An electronic mail message from oneof these officers to a superior officerdated November 11, 2000, states thatthe information regarding the MV–22MC and FMC rates for November con-tained in the message should be ‘‘closeheld’’ and that the MC and FMC ratesfor Squadron 204 were 26.7 percent and7.9 percent, respectively. The messagealso said that the sender ‘‘had hoped tobe able to use some recent numbersnext month when [his superior] meet[s]with Dr. Buchanan for his MilestoneIII/FRP decision in December . . . thisisn’t going to help.’’

Later that month, on November 30,2000, the officer who reportedly sentthat electronic mail message partici-pated in a DoD press briefing at which

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.008 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1128 February 7, 2001the Osprey was discussed in some de-tail. During this press briefing, the of-ficer said the following regarding theMission Capable rates of the MV–22sbeing tested by Squadron 204: ‘‘. . . as Iwas walking down here [to the brief-ing], I pulled the first 13 days of No-vember, mission-capable rate on thoseairplanes, and the average is 73.2 per-cent for the first 13 days in Novemberof those nine airplanes. So when westart talking about the airplane, evensince OPEVAL, improving and gettingbetter, the answer is it is absolutely aresounding yes.’’

This information is contrary to theelectronic mail message that the offi-cer in question reportedly sent to a su-perior officer only nine days before,which stated that the MC rate for theMV–22s being tested by Squadron 204for November 2000 was only 26.7 per-cent. That is a difference of 46.5 per-cent. News reports last week said thatthe officer admitted sending the mes-sage and attributes the discrepancy inthe MC rate figures to a new softwaresystem.

I understand that these very seriousallegations are still being investigated,and I agree that all of those involveddeserve a fair and impartial investiga-tion. We should not rush to judgementabout the alleged conduct of any ofthese personnel, all of whom who havededicated their lives to serving andprotecting this country. However, wemust remain cognizant of the fact thatthe outcome of this investigation couldhave an enormous impact on the Os-prey program.

This still unfolding situation is an-other reason why the full rate procure-ment of the MV–22 should be delayed.Until these disturbing allegations havebeen fully investigated to determinewhether records were falsified in orderto make the Osprey appear safe and re-liable, the Department of Defenseshould not move ahead with this pro-gram.

Because of the safety concerns out-lined above, Mr. President, my bill re-quires the Secretary of the Navy tosubmit a report to the Congress on theV–22 program that includes: a descrip-tion of the planned uses for the fiscalyear 2001 research and developmentfunding for the Osprey program; a de-scription of the actions taken as a re-sult of the Coyle report; and a descrip-tion of the manner in which the Navyand the Marine Corps have respondedto the allegations of the falsification ofmaintenance records at Squadron 204.The bill also requires the DoD Inspec-tor General to report to the Congresson the results of its investigation intothe alleged falsification of mainte-nance records at Squadron 204. It wouldrequire that these reports be submittedthree months after the enactment ofthis legislation or on the date of theMilestone III decision regarding full-rate production of the MV–22 Osprey,whichever is earlier.

The safety of our men and women inuniform should be the principle that

guides this important decision. Weshould not begin to procure the MV–22in mass quantities until we know forcertain that this aircraft is safe, thatits maintenance records are accurate,and that the design flaws described inthe Coyle report have been adequatelyaddressed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that the text of the bill be printedin the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

S. 272Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Osprey Safe-ty, Performance, and Reliability EvaluationAct of 2001’’.SEC. 2. RESCISSIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Of the funds made avail-able in the Department of Defense Appro-priations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106–259), thefollowing amounts are rescinded from thefollowing accounts:

(1) ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Navy’’,$856,618,000, of which $776,760,000 shall be de-rived from ‘‘V–22 (Medium Lift)’’ and$79,858,000 shall be derived from ‘‘V–22 (Me-dium Lift) (AP–CY)’’.

(2) ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Air Force’’,$358,440,000, of which $335,766,000 shall be de-rived from ‘‘V–22 Osprey’’ and $22,674,000shall be derived from ‘‘V–22 Osprey (AP–CY)’’.

(b) LIMITATION ON USE OF REMAININGFUNDS.—Following the rescission made bysubsection (a)(1), the balance of the funds re-maining available for obligation in the ac-count involved for ‘‘V–22 (Medium Lift)’’may be used only to carry out activities nec-essary to maintain the production base forsuch aircraft program.SEC. 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) SECRETARY OF THE NAVY REPORT.—TheSecretary of the Navy shall submit to Con-gress a report on the V–22 Osprey aircraftprogram. The report shall include the fol-lowing:

(1) A description of the activities carriedout, and programmed to be carried out, usingfunds appropriated for that program for re-search, development, test, and evaluation forfiscal year 2001.

(2) A description of the actions taken bythe Secretary as a result of the report onthat program issued by the Director of Oper-ational Test and Evaluation of the Depart-ment of Defense dated November 17, 2000.

(3) A description of the manner in whichthe Marine Corps and the Department of theNavy have responded to the reports of datafalsification concerning the Osprey aircraftby Marine Corps personnel assigned to Ma-rine Medium Tilt-Rotor Training Squadron204.

(b) INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT.—The In-spector General of the Department of De-fense shall submit to Congress a report onthe results, as of the submission of the re-port, of the investigation of the InspectorGeneral into the V–22 Osprey aircraft pro-gram.

(c) TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF REPORTS.—Thereports under subsections (a) and (b) shalleach be submitted not later than the earlierof the following:

(1) The date that is three months after thedate of the enactment of this Act.

(2) The date of the Milestone III decisionfor the V–22 Osprey aircraft program approv-ing the entry of that program into full-rateproduction.

By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himselfand Mr. CORZINE):

S. 273 A bill to amend title 28, UnitedStates Code, to divide New Jersey into2 judicial districts; to the Committeeon the Judiciary.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, Irise today to introduce, on behalf ofmyself and my distinguished colleague,Senator CORZINE, a bill that will helpbring more criminals to justice andcreate a better federal judicial systemin New Jersey. This legislation will di-vide the federal District of New Jerseyinto the Southern and Northern Dis-tricts of New Jersey thus enabling fed-eral courts and federal law enforce-ment to better serve the State’s ap-proximately eight million residents.

Currently, the District of New Jerseyhas 17 judges. This bill does not in-crease the number of judges, but di-vides them between the Southern andNorthern Districts giving the South 7judges and the North 10. The bill willalso result in the creation of severalnew federal positions for the SouthernDistrict including a Clerk of the Court,U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshal, and aFederal Public Defender.

The creation of two districts in NewJersey is called for by the additionalcrime-fighting resources a split willbring to the State and by the sheer sizeof the State. The current District ofNew Jersey is the third most populousfederal judicial district in the nation.Of the 25 states that have a single fed-eral judicial district, New Jersey hasthe largest population. More than adozen states with smaller populationshave multiple judicial districts. Infact, with more than 2 million resi-dents in the southern counties, thepopulation of the proposed SouthernDistrict of New Jersey would exceedthat of almost half of the current judi-cial districts. The proposed NorthernDistrict would rank even higher.

And while the bill would not createany new judgeships, it would meanthat, for the first time, the judges ofthe Southern District would nec-essarily come from and be part of theunique community they serve. This canonly lead to enhanced sensitivity tothe community’s needs.

The bill will also take a significantstep towards addressing the disparityin crime-fighting resources allocatedto northern and southern New Jersey.In 1998, southern New Jersey accountedfor 25 percent of the state’s urban mur-ders, 32 percent of the state’s murderarrests and 33 percent of the state’s ar-rests for violent crimes. Despite thesestatistics, only 10 percent of the FBIagents, 15 percent of U.S. Marshals and18 percent of DEA agents in New Jerseyare assigned to the southern counties.

The bill will also ensure that crime-fighting decisions are made locally in-stead of by officials who are based else-where in the state. This too would re-sult in a government more sensitiveand responsive to the people it serves.

Given these facts, it is not surprisingthat the bill has received a ringing en-dorsement from many in New Jersey’s

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.009 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1129February 7, 2001legal and law enforcement community.In the last Congress, the House versionof this bill was cosponsored by the en-tire southern New Jersey Congres-sional delegation. I hope to have theirsupport again. It is also supported bythe New Jersey State Bar Association,all of the southern county bar associa-tions, the South Jersey Police Chief’sAssociation, the Chamber of Commerceof Southern New Jersey, and variousformer county prosecutors and formerfederal law enforcement officials.

While the process of reviewing anddeliberating the merits of this legisla-tion will be lengthy and time con-suming, this is a change that is longoverdue. The citizens of New Jersey de-serve a better federal judicial systemand their fair share of federal crime-fighting resources. I look forward toworking with my colleagues to securepassage of this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that a copyof the legislation be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the bill wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

S. 273Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:(1) In 1978, the Judicial Conference of the

United States established a procedure forcreating new Federal judicial districts,which is still in force. According to the‘‘Proceedings of the Judicial Conference,September 21–22, 1978’’, this procedure re-quires that 4 principal criteria be taken intoconsideration in evaluating the establish-ment of a new Federal judicial district: case-load, judicial administration, geography, andcommunity convenience.

(2) The criterion of ‘‘caseload’’ is found toinclude the total number of Federal courtcases and the number of cases per Federaljudge, for both criminal and civil Federalcases.

(3)(A) The 13 southern counties of New Jer-sey, consisting of Atlantic, Burlington, Cam-den, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester,Hunterdon, Mercer, Monmouth, Ocean,Salem, Somerset, and Warren Counties, havea substantial criminal caseload which re-quires the creation of a separate judicial dis-trict.

(B) 463 Federal criminal cases originated inthe 13 southern New Jersey counties in fiscalyear 1999 and were handled principally by the5 judges of the Camden vicinage and the 3judges of the Trenton vicinage.

(C) In fiscal year 1999, the criminal casesoriginating in the 13 southern New Jerseycounties exceeded that of 57 of the current 93Federal judicial districts other than the Dis-trict of New Jersey. Only 36 of the other cur-rent Federal judicial districts had morecriminal cases than the southern region ofNew Jersey.

(D) For example, in the District of Massa-chusetts (19 judges), 434 criminal cases werefiled in fiscal year 1999. In the District ofConnecticut (14 judges), only 250 criminalcases were filed in fiscal year 1999.

(4)(A) The substantial civil caseload con-centrated in the southern counties of NewJersey requires the creation of a separate ju-dicial district.

(B) Approximately 2,983 Federal civil casesoriginated in the 13 southern New Jersey

counties in fiscal year 1999 and were handledprincipally by the 5 judges of the Camdenvicinage and the 3 judges of the Trenton vici-nage.

(C) In the fiscal year 1999, the civil casesoriginating in the 13 southern New Jerseycounties exceeded that of 68 of the currentFederal judicial districts other than the Dis-trict of New Jersey. Only 25 of the other Fed-eral judicial districts had more civil casesthan the southern region of New Jersey.

(D) For example, in the Southern Districtof West Virginia, a separate judicial districtwith 8 judges, only 1,203 civil cases werecommenced in fiscal year 1999. The WesternDistrict of Tennessee, with 6 judges, hadonly 1,512 civil cases commenced in fiscalyear 1999.

(5) The criterion of ‘‘judicial administra-tion’’ is found to include the backlog ofpending cases in a Federal judicial district,which hinders the effective resolution ofpending business before the court.

(6)(A) The size of the backlog of pendingcases concentrated in the 13 southern coun-ties of New Jersey requires the creation of aseparate judicial district.

(B) In fiscal year 1999, the pending criminalcases attributed to the 13 southern New Jer-sey counties exceeded that of 62 of the cur-rent 93 Federal judicial districts other thanthe District of New Jersey. Only 31 of theother current Federal judicial districts hadmore pending criminal cases than the south-ern region of New Jersey.

(C) In fiscal year 1999, the pending civilcases attributed to the 13 southern New Jer-sey counties exceeded that of 66 of the cur-rent 93 Federal judicial districts other thanthe District of New Jersey. Only 27 of theother current Federal judicial districts hadmore pending civil cases than the southernregion of New Jersey.

(D) The number of pending cases in theCamden vicinage of New Jersey exceeds thenumber of cases pending before entire judi-cial districts with similar numbers of judges,clearly indicating that southern New Jerseymerits a separate Federal judicial district.For example, as of October 1, 1999, there were1,431 civil cases pending before the Camdenvicinage, and only 113 of those were com-menced in fiscal year 1999. The Western Dis-trict of Tennessee, with 6 judges, had only1,079 civil cases pending in fiscal year 1999.The Western District of Oklahoma had only1,356 civil cases pending in fiscal year 1999before 9 judges. Finally, there are 161 crimi-nal cases pending before the Camden vici-nage, while the entire Southern District ofIndiana, with 7 judges, had only 117 criminalcases pending in fiscal year 1999.

(7) The criterion of ‘‘geography’’ is foundto mean the accessibility of the central ad-ministration of the Federal judicial districtto officers of the court, parties with businessbefore the court, and other citizens livingwithin the Federal judicial district.

(8)(A) The distance between the northernand southern regions of New Jersey and thedensity of New Jersey’s population create asubstantial barrier to the efficient adminis-tration of justice.

(B) The distance from Newark, New Jerseyto Camden, New Jersey is more than 85miles.

(C) When a new Federal court district wascreated in Louisiana in 1971, the distance be-tween New Orleans and Baton Rouge (nearly80 miles) was cited as a major factor in cre-ating a new district court, as travel difficul-ties were impeding the timely administra-tion of justice.

(9) The criterion of ‘‘community conven-ience’’ is found to mean the extent to whichcreating a new Federal judicial district willallow the court to better serve the popu-lation and diverse communities of the area.

(10)(A) New Jersey’s culturally and region-ally diverse population of over 8,000,000 citi-zens, widely distributed across a densely pop-ulated State, is inconvenienced by havingonly 1 judicial district.

(B) The District of New Jersey is the thirdmost populous Federal judicial district inthe United States.

(C) The population of the 13 southern NewJersey counties exceeds the population of 67of the current 93 Federal judicial districtsother than the District of New Jersey. Thepopulation of the 8 northern New Jerseycounties (consisting of Bergen, Essex, Hud-son, Middlesex, Morris, Passaic, Sussex, andUnion) exceeds the population of 73 of thecurrent 93 Federal judicial districts otherthan the District of New Jersey.

(D) Of the 25 States that have only a singleFederal judicial district (including PuertoRico, the United States territories, and theDistrict of Columbia), New Jersey has thehighest population.

(E) More than a dozen States have smallerpopulations than New Jersey, yet they havemultiple Federal judicial districts, includingWashington, Oklahoma, Iowa, Georgia, WestVirginia, and Missouri.

(11) In evaluating the creation of a newSouthern District of New Jersey, the Judi-cial Conference should seek the views of thechief judge of the affected district, the judi-cial council for the affected circuit court,and the affected United States Attorney asrepresentative of the views of the Depart-ment of Justice, as required in the procedureestablished by the ‘‘Proceedings of the Judi-cial Conference, September 21–22, 1978’’.SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF 2 DISTRICTS IN NEW

JERSEY.(a) CREATION.—Section 110 of title 28,

United States Code, is amended to read asfollows:‘‘§ 110. New Jersey

‘‘New Jersey is divided into 2 judicial dis-tricts to be known as the Northern andSouthern Districts of New Jersey.

‘‘Northern District‘‘(a) The Northern District comprises the

counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Mid-dlesex, Morris, Passaic, Sussex, and Union.

‘‘Court for the Northern District shall beheld at Newark.

‘‘Southern District‘‘(b) The Southern District comprises the

counties of Atlantic, Burlington, Camden,Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester,Hunterdon, Mercer, Monmouth, Ocean,Salem, Somerset, and Warren.‘‘Court for the Southern District shall beheld at Camden and Trenton.’’.

(b) JUDGESHIPS.—The item relating to NewJersey in the table set forth in section 133(a)of title 28, United States Code, is amended toread as follows:‘‘New Jersey:

‘‘Northern ....................................... 10‘‘Southern ....................................... 7’’.(c) BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS.—The item re-

lating to New Jersey in the table set forth insection 152(a)(1) of title 28, United StatesCode, is amended to read as follows:‘‘New Jersey:

‘‘Northern ....................................... 4‘‘Southern ....................................... 4’’.

SEC. 3. DISTRICT JUDGES, BANKRUPTCY JUDGES,MAGISTRATE JUDGES, UNITEDSTATES ATTORNEY, UNITED STATESMARSHAL, AND FEDERAL PUBLICDEFENDER.

(a) TRANSFER OF DISTRICT JUDGES.—(1) Anydistrict judge of the District Court of NewJersey who is holding office on the day be-fore the effective date of this Act and whoseofficial duty station is in Bergen, Essex,Hudson, Middlesex, Morris, Passaic, Sussex,

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:28 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.034 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1130 February 7, 2001or Union County shall, on or after such effec-tive date, be a district judge for the North-ern District of New Jersey. Any districtjudge of the District Court of New Jerseywho is holding office on the day before theeffective date of this Act and whose officialduty station is in Atlantic, Burlington, Cam-den, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester,Hunterdon, Mercer, Monmouth, Ocean,Salem, Somerset, or Warren County shall, onand after such effective date, be a districtjudge of the Southern District of New Jer-sey.

(2) Whenever a vacancy occurs in a judge-ship in either judicial district of New Jersey,the vacancy shall first be offered to thosejudges appointed before the enactment ofthis Act and in active service in the other ju-dicial district of New Jersey at the time ofthe vacancy, and of those judges wishing tofill the vacancy, the judge most senior inservice shall fill that vacancy. In such acase, the President shall appoint a judge tofill the vacancy resulting in the district ofNew Jersey from which such judge left office.

(b) TRANSFER OF BANKRUPTCY AND MAG-ISTRATE JUDGES.—Any bankruptcy judge ormagistrate judge of the District Court ofNew Jersey who is holding office on the daybefore the effective date of this Act andwhose official duty station is in Bergen,Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Morris, Passaic,Sussex, or Union County shall, on or aftersuch effective date, be a bankruptcy judge ormagistrate judge, as the case may be, for theNorthern District of New Jersey. Any bank-ruptcy judge or magistrate judge of the Dis-trict Court of New Jersey who is holding of-fice on the day before the effective date ofthis Act and whose official duty station is inAtlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May,Cumberland, Gloucester, Hunterdon, Mercer,Monmouth, Ocean, Salem, Somerset, or War-ren County shall, on and after such effectivedate, be a bankruptcy judge or magistratejudge, as the case may be, of the SouthernDistrict of New Jersey.

(c) UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, UNITEDSTATES MARSHAL, AND FEDERAL PUBLIC DE-FENDER.—

(1) THOSE IN OFFICE.—This Act and theamendments made by this Act shall not af-fect the tenure of office of the United Statesattorney, the United States marshal, and theFederal Public Defender, for the District ofNew Jersey who are in office on the effectivedate of this Act, except that such individualsshall be the United States attorney, theUnited States marshal, and the Federal Pub-lic Defender, respectively, for the NorthernDistrict of New Jersey as of such effectivedate.

(2) APPOINTMENTS.—The President shall ap-point, by and with the advice and consent ofthe Senate, a United States attorney and aUnited States marshal for the Southern Dis-trict of New Jersey. The Court of Appeals forthe Third Circuit shall appoint a FederalPublic Defender for the Southern District ofNew Jersey.

(d) PENDING CASES NOT AFFECTED.—ThisAct and the amendments made by this Actshall not affect any action commenced be-fore the effective date of this Act and pend-ing in the United States District Court forthe District of New Jersey on such date.

(e) JURIES NOT AFFECTED.—This Act andthe amendments made by this Act shall notaffect the composition, or preclude the serv-ice, of any grand or petit jury summoned,empaneled, or actually serving in the Judi-cial District of New Jersey on the effectivedate of this Act.SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—This Act and the amend-ments made by this Act shall take effect 180days after the date of the enactment of thisAct.

(b) APPOINTMENTS.—Notwithstanding sub-section (a), the President and the Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit may make theappointments under section 3(c)(2) at anytime after the date of the enactment of thisAct.

By Mr. BAUCUS:S. 274. A bill to establish a Congres-

sional Trade Office; to the Committeeon Finance.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am in-troducing a bill today to create a Con-gressional Trade Office. It is similar tothe bill I offered in the last session ofCongress. This legislation is designedto assist the Congress in fulfilling ourConstitutional responsibility for tradepolicy by creating an entity that canprovide us with the expertise we needto get independent, non-partisan, andneutral analysis and information abouttrade.

Over the past three decades, the roleof trade in our economy has grownenormously. In 1970, trade was equal toonly eleven percent of our Gross Do-mestic Product. In contrast, today ex-ports and imports are equivalent to 27percent of our economy.

I have been in Congress for 26 years.During that time, I have watched acontinuing transfer of authority andresponsibility for trade policy from theCongress to the Executive Branch. Thetrend has been subtle, but it has beenclear and constant. We need to reversethis trend.

Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Con-stitution says: ‘‘The Congress shallhave power . . . To regulate commercewith foreign nations.’’ It is our respon-sibility to set the direction for the Ex-ecutive Branch in its Formulation oftrade policy. It is our responsibility toensure that agreements with our trad-ing partners are followed and thatthere is full compliance. It is our re-sponsibility to provide more effectiveand active oversight of our nation’strade policy. I believe strongly that wemust re-assert Congress’ constitu-tionally defined responsibility forinternational commerce.

The Congressional Trade Office I amproposing will provide the entire Con-gress, through the Senate FinanceCommittee and the House Ways andMeans Committee, with the additionaltrade expertise that will allow us tomeet these responsibilities.

The trade issues that the Congressmay face this session are many andcomplex: Fast track; incorporating le-gitimate labor and environmentalissues into trade policy; the U.S./Jor-dan Free Trade Agreement; the U.S./Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement;Free Trade Area for the Americas; pos-sible free trade agreements with Singa-pore, Chile, and others; Chinese acces-sion to WTO and then compliance withits WTO commitments; and a new com-prehensive multilateral trade round.

Congress needs to be much betterprepared to deal with these issues re-sponsibly and authoritatively. Thatmeans we need access to more and bet-ter information, independently arrived

at, from people whose commitment isto the Congress, and only to the Con-gress.

The Congressional Trade Office wouldhelp us meet these responsibilitiesthrough its four core functions.

First, it will monitor compliancewith major bilateral, regional, andmultilateral trade agreements. Con-gress needs the independent ability tolook more closely at agreements withother countries. The CongressionalTrade Office will analyze the perform-ance under key agreements and evalu-ate success based on commercial re-sults. It will do this in close consulta-tion with the affected industries. TheCongressional Trade Office will rec-ommend to the Congress actions nec-essary to ensure that commitmentsmade to the United States are fully im-plemented. It will also provide annualassessments of the extent to whichagreements comply with labor and en-vironmental goals.

The General Accounting Office hasreported on the deficiencies in the Ex-ecutive Branch in following tradeagreements and monitoring compli-ance. Often more energy goes into ne-gotiating new agreements than into en-suring that existing agreements work.The Administration has increased theresources it devotes to compliance, andI supported that. But an independentand neutral assessment in the Congressof compliance is necessary. It is unre-alistic to expect an agency that nego-tiated an agreement to provide a to-tally objective and dispassionate as-sessment of that agreement’s successor failure. Human nature, and institu-tional nature, does not lead to such anoutcome.

Second, observing trade negotiationsfirst hand is critical to the ability ofCongress to provide meaningful over-sight of trade policy. CongressionalTrade Office staff will participate in se-lected negotiations as observers and re-port back to the Committees.

Third, the Congressional Trade Officewill be active in dispute settlement de-liberations. It will evaluate each WTOdecision where the U.S. is a partici-pant. In the case of a U.S. loss, it willexplain why it lost. In the case of aU.S. win, it will measure the commer-cial results from that decision. Con-gressional Trade Office staff shouldparticipate as observers on the U.S.delegation at appropriate dispute set-tlement panel meetings at the WTO.

I don’t think we even know whetherthe WTO dispute settlement processhas been successful or not from theperspective of U.S. commercial inter-ests. A count of wins versus losses tellsus nothing. The Congressional TradeOffice will give us the facts we need toevaluate this process properly.

Fourth, the Congressional Trade Of-fice will have an analytic function. Forexample, after the Administration de-livers its annual National Trade Esti-mates report, the NTE, to Congress, itwill analyze the major outstandingtrade barriers based on the cost to the

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.035 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1131February 7, 2001U.S. economy. It will also provide ananalysis of the Administration’s TradePolicy Agenda.

The Congressional Trade Office willanalyze proposed trade agreements. Itwill examine the impact of Administra-tion trade policy actions. And it willanalyze the trade accounts every quar-ter, including the global current ac-count, the global trade account, andkey bilateral trade accounts.

The Congressional Trade Office is de-signed to service the Congress. Its Di-rector will report to the Senate Fi-nance Committee and the House Waysand Means Committee. It will also ad-vise other committees on both the im-pact of trade negotiations and the im-pact of the Administration’s trade pol-icy on those committees’ areas of juris-diction. Trade rules increasingly affectdomestic regulations. Expertise on theimplications of trade policy on domes-tic regulatory issues will be vitallynecessary. The Congressional Trade Of-fice can provide that assistance.

The staff of the Congressional TradeOffice will consist of professionals whohave a mix of expertise in economicsand trade law, plus in various indus-tries and geographic regions. My expec-tation is that staff members will seethis as a career position, thus, pro-viding the Congress with long-term in-stitutional memory.

I encourage my colleagues to supportthis innovative proposal.

By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr.BREAUX, Mr. GRAMM, Mrs. LIN-COLN, and Mr. BAYH):

S. 275. A bill to amend the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 to repeal the Fed-eral estate and gift taxes and the taxon generation-skipping transfers, topreserve a step up in basis of certainproperty acquired from a decedent, andfor other purposes; to the Committeeon Finance.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, Sen-ators BREAUX, GRAMM, LINCOLN, andBAYH and I are introducing the EstateTax Elimination Act, a bill to replacethe federal estate tax with a tax oncapital gains earned from inherited as-sets due when those assets are sold.

This is the approach that won thesupport of bipartisan majorities inboth houses of Congress last year. In-stead of levying an estate tax at death,Congress agreed that a tax should beimposed when income is actually real-ized from inherited property—that is,when it is sold. The bipartisan con-sensus that already exists in support ofthis plan means that Congress andPresident Bush—who, unlike his prede-cessor, supports repeal of the deathtax—can come together and quicklydispose of the issue this year.

Mr. President, the beauty of this ap-proach is that it removes death as thetrigger for any tax. Whether an asset issold by the decedent during his or herlifetime, or by someone who later in-herits the property, the gain is taxedthe same. Death neither confers a ben-efit, nor results in a punitive, confis-

catory tax. Senators on both sides ofthe aisle accepted this arrangementlast year, and should support it againthis year.

Mr. President, we know that manyAmericans are troubled by the estatetax’s complexity and high rates, and bythe mere fact that it is triggered by aperson’s death rather than the realiza-tion of income. For a long time, I haveadvocated repeal, because I believedeath should not be a taxable event.

Others agree that the tax is problem-atic, but are concerned that the unreal-ized appreciation in certain assetsmight escape taxation forever if thedeath tax were repealed while the step-up in basis allowed by under currentlaw remained in effect. That is a legiti-mate concern.

We address this by recommending theelimination of both the death tax andthe step-up in basis, and attributing acarryover basis to inherited propertyso that all gains are taxed at the timethe property is sold and income is real-ized.

The concept of a carryover basis isnot new. It exists in current law withrespect to gifts, property transferred incases of divorce, and in connectionwith involuntary conversions of prop-erty relating to theft, destruction, sei-zure, requisition, or condemnation.

In the latter case, when an owner re-ceives compensation for involuntarilyconverted property, a taxable gain nor-mally results to the extent that thevalue of the compensation exceeds thebasis of the converted property. How-ever, Section 1033 of the Internal Rev-enue Code allows the taxpayer to deferthe recognition of the gain until theproperty is sold. The concept rec-ommended in this amendment wouldtreat the transfer of property atdeath—perhaps the most involuntaryconversion of all—the same way, defer-ring recognition of any gain until theinherited property is sold.

Small estates, which currently payno estate tax by virtue of the unifiedcredit, and no capital-gains tax by vir-tue of the step up, would be unaffectedby the basis changes being proposedhere. The estate tax would be elimi-nated for them, and a limited step-upin basis would be preserved. Each per-son could still step up the basis in hisor her assets by up to $2.8 million. Be-yond that, a carryover basis wouldapply.

I want to stress to colleagues, par-ticularly colleagues on the Democraticside of the aisle, that this measurewould not allow unrealized apprecia-tion in inherited assets—beyond thelimited step-up amount—to gountaxed, as other death-tax repeal pro-posals would do. We are merely sayingthat if a tax is imposed, it should beimposed when income is realized.

Mr. President, some people may askwhether the American people want thiskind of tax relief. I will answer thatquestion. Although most Americanswill probably never pay a death tax,most still sense that there is some-

thing terribly wrong with a systemthat allows Washington to seize morethan half of whatever is left aftersomeone dies—a system that preventshard-working Americans from passingthe bulk of their nest eggs to theirchildren or grandchildren.

Fairness, Mr. President. That is whatthe effort to repeal the death tax is allabout. A June 22–25, 2000 Gallup pollfound that 60 percent of the people sup-port repeal, even though about three-quarters of those supporters do notthink they will ever have to pay adeath tax themselves.

A poll conducted by Zogby Inter-national on July 6, 2000, found that,given a choice between a candidate whobelieves that a large estate left to heirsshould be taxed at a rate of 50 percentfor anything over $2 million, and a can-didate who believes that the estate taxis unfair to heirs and should be elimi-nated, 75 percent of the people preferthe person supporting death-tax repeal.

Other polls similarly put support forrepeal at between 70 and 80 percent.

Voters in two states approvedreferenda last November to repeal theirstate death tax: South Dakota by avote of 79 to 21 percent, and Montanaby a vote of 68 to 32 percent. Manyother states have already done thesame.

Mr. President, the significant majori-ties in the House and Senate that votedfor repeal last year means that we havefinally found a formula for taxing in-herited assets in a fair and common-sense way. Appreciated value will betaxed, but only when income is actu-ally realized—that is, when the assetsare sold. And then, the gains would betreated by the Tax Code no better, andno worse, than the gains from the saleof any other kind of asset.

I invite our Senate colleagues to joinin support of this bipartisan initiativeagain this year.

By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr.BOND, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. HAGEL,Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. HELMS, Mr.INHOFE, Mr. BURNS, Mr. KYL,Mr. COCHRAN, Ms. SNOWE, andMr. ALLARD):

S. 276. A bill to amend chapter 8 oftitle 5, United States Code, to providefor congressional review of any rulepromulgated by the Internal RevenueService that increases Federal revenue,and for other purposes; to the Com-mittee on Governmental Affairs.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I risetoday with my colleague Senator BOND,to introduce the Stealth Tax Preven-tion Act. Perhaps the most importantpower given to Congress by the Con-stitution of the United States, is theresponsibility of taxation. The Found-ing Fathers rationale behind bestowingthis power on Congress is that as elect-ed representatives, Congress remainsaccountable to the people when theylevy and collect taxes. Members ofCongress, unlike Federal agency bu-reaucrats, are rightly held responsibleto the public for producing fair andprudent tax legislation.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.057 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1132 February 7, 2001In 1996, Mr. President, Congress

passed the Congressional Review Act,which provides that when a majoragency rule takes effect, Congress has60 days to review it. During this timeperiod, Congress has the option to passa disapproval resolution. If no such res-olution is passed, the rule then goesinto effect.

As you know, Mr. President, the In-ternal Revenue Service maintains anenormous amount of power over thelives and the livelihoods of the Amer-ican taxpayers through their authorityto implement and enforce the TaxCode. Even though Congress, and onlyCongress, has the authority to tax, theInternal Revenue Service has found a‘‘backdoor’’ way to increase our federaltax burden through their interpretiveauthority. The Stealth Tax PreventionAct, that Senator BOND and I are intro-ducing along with Mr. THOMAS, Mr.HAGEL, Mr. KYL, Mr. BURNS, Mr.HELMS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr.COCHRAN, Ms. SNOWE, and Mr. ALLARD,will return the authority of taxation tothe United States Congress by expand-ing the definition of a major rule to in-clude any IRS regulation which in-creases Federal revenue.

For example, if the Office of Manage-ment and Budget finds that the imple-mentation and enforcement of a rulewould result in an increase of Federalrevenues over current practices or rev-enues anticipated from the rule on thedate of the enactment of the statute,the Stealth Tax Prevention Act wouldallow Congress to review the regula-tions and take appropriate measures toavoid raising taxes on hard workingAmericans and small businesses.

The discretionary authority of theInternal Revenue Service exposes smallbusinesses, farmers, and individual tax-payers to the sometimes arbitrary ac-tions of bureaucrats, creating an un-certain and, in many instances, a hos-tile environment in which to conductday-to-day activities. The Stealth TaxPrevention Act will be particularlyhelpful in lowering the tax burden onsmall business which suffers dispropor-tionately, Mr. President, from IRS reg-ulations. This tax burden discouragesthe startup of new firms and ulti-mately the creation of new jobs in theeconomy, which has really made Amer-ica great.

Average American families and smallbusinesses are saddled with the highesttax burden in our country’s history.Americans pay federal income taxes,they pay state income taxes and theypay property taxes. On the way to workin the morning they pay a gasoline taxwhen they fill up their car and a salestax when they buy a cup of coffee. Al-lowing federal bureaucrats to increasetaxes even further at their own discre-tion through interpretation of the taxcode is intolerable. The Stealth TaxPrevention Act will leave tax policywhere it belongs—to elected membersof Congress—not an unelected and un-accountable IRS.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I risetoday with my colleague from Alabama

to introduce the Stealth Tax Preven-tion Act. I sponsored this bill in the105th and again in the 106th Congress. Ifelt strongly enough about this bill tosponsor it again this year.

One of the most common concerns Ihear from my constituents is regardingthe Federal Government’s authority tolevy and collect taxes. This is an im-portant role that we in Congress do nottake lightly as we are accountable tothe voters who pay those taxes.

Three years ago, Congress passed theCongressional Review Act, which pro-vides that when a major agency ruletakes effect, Congress has 60 days to re-view it. During this time period, Con-gress has the option to pass a dis-approval resolution. If no such resolu-tion is passed, the rule then goes intoeffect.

The Stealth Tax Prevention Act willexpand the definition of a major rule toinclude any IRS regulation which in-creases taxes. It is not the role of theIRS to make decisions that will resultin increased taxes.

For example, if the Office of Manage-ment and Budget finds that the imple-mentation and enforcement of a rulewould result in an increase of Federalrevenues over current practices or rev-enues anticipated from the rule on thedate of the enactment of the statute,the Stealth Tax Prevention Act wouldallow Congress to review the regula-tions and take appropriate measures toavoid raising taxes on hard workingAmericans, in most cases, small busi-nesses.

Bureaucrats are not directly ac-countable to taxpayers—I am.

Under the bill introduced today, anIRS implemented stealth tax could notgo into effect for at least 60 days fol-lowing its publication in the Federal.Register. This window would allowCongress the opportunity to review therule and vote on a resolution to dis-approve the tax increase before it is ap-plied to a single taxpayer.

I urge my colleagues to join us insupporting this important legislationto ensure that the IRS neither usurpsthe proper role of Congress—nor skirtsits obligations to identify the impactof its proposed and final rules. Whenthe Department of the Treasury issuesa final IRS rule that increases taxes,Congress should have the ability to ex-ercise its discretion to enact a resolu-tion of disapproval before the rule isapplicable to a single taxpayer.

The Stealth Tax Prevention Act willleave tax policy where it belongs, toelected Members of the Congress, notunelected and unaccountable IRS bu-reaucrats.

Thank you, Mr. President, I yield thefloor.

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself,Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs.BOXER, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr.CORZINE, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr.DODD, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FEIN-GOLD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HAR-KIN, Mr. KERRY, Ms. LANDRIEU,

Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr.LEVIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. MUR-RAY, Mr. REED, Mr. ROCKE-FELLER, Mr. SARBANES, Mr.SCHUMER, Mr. WELLSTONE, andMr. WYDEN):

S. 277. A bill to amend the Fair LaborStandards Act of 1938 to provide for anincrease in the Federal minimum wage;to the Committee on Health, Edu-cation, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, thisafternoon I and others will be intro-ducing legislation to increase the min-imum wage. We will increase the min-imum wage by 60 cents this year, 50cents next year, and 40 cents the yearafter.

The reason we are doing this is torecognize that over the last 8 years, wehave had the most extraordinary eco-nomic expansion, but there are a num-ber of Americans, about 11 million to 13million Americans, who have not bene-fitted from our economic expansion.

They are the individuals who are onthe lowest rung of the economic ladder.This is an attempt to make an adjust-ment in their income, and this increasein the minimum wage will provide anextremely modest increase in that in-come.

This issue is a women’s issue becausethe great majority of those who receivethe minimum wage are women.

This is a children’s issue because thegreat majority of the women who arereceiving the minimum wage have chil-dren and their lives are directly af-fected by the amount of income theirmother or their parents make, and ifthey are making the minimum wage,often it is not just one job, but twojobs, and their lives are dramaticallyaffected.

It is a civil rights issue because somany of those who are earning theminimum wage are men and women ofcolor.

Most of all, it is a fairness issue. Menand women in this country who work 40hours a week, 52 weeks a year shouldnot have to live in poverty.

This is about rewarding work. It is arecognition that people in our countrywho are playing by the rules attempt-ing to provide for their family, if theyare making a minimum wage todaywith a family of three, they are stillfalling $3,400 below the poverty line inthe United States of America. Thisminimum wage will reduce that, butthey will still fall within the definitionof poverty.

With this extraordinary expansion wehave seen, with the extraordinary ben-efits that have gone to so many mil-lions of Americans, it is time that weought to give some attention to thosewho have been left out and left behind.

Who are these minimum wage work-ers? First of all, they are men andwomen of dignity; men and women whotake pride in the work they do; menand women who are proud to go towork and understand the value ofwork, frustrated as others might be,but nonetheless are willing to put their

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.078 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1133February 7, 2001shoulder to the wheel because theywant to take care of their families andbecause they have a sense of pride.

What do they do? By and large, min-imum wage workers work in child carecenters. They are helping to look afterthe children of others who are workinghard in American industry. Many ofthem are assistants to teachers in ourschools and, again, are working withchildren all across this country. Manyothers are working in nursing homeslooking after those who have retired,those who need nursing home atten-tion. These are men and women whoare doing very important work, inmany instances helping to make surethat the major buildings that houseour industries and corporations are at-tended to during the nighttime. Theseare hard-working people, and they arepeople who take great pride in whatthey do, as they should.

Let’s look at what their situation hascome to. This chart says: Workinghard, but losing ground. The real valueof the minimum wage. If we look atconstant dollars, the purchasing powerof the minimum wage was $7.66 in 1968.Over the years, we have seen how thathas fallen, with just a few interrup-tions when there was an increase in theminimum wage in 1988 and another in-crease in 1994. We can see what hashappened with the purchasing power ofthe minimum wage. Without an in-crease in the minimum wage, in theyear 2002, it would be down to $4.75,just about the lowest that it has beensince the mid-1960s. This is in real pur-chasing power.

If we raise the minimum wage 60cents, 50 cents, and 40 cents, and addthat $1.50 on top of the $5.15 an hournow, the purchasing power would onlybe $6.14, which is identical to what itwould be if we actually increased theminimum wage in the last 2 years by 50cents and 50 cents, which was our pro-posal. Since we lost a year, there hasbeen further deterioration in the pur-chasing power of the minimum wage.Even with the step-up of 60 cents, 50cents, and 40 cents, its purchasingpower will still only be $6.14.

This is an extremely modest in-crease. Historically, the percentage in-crease in the minimum wage we areasking for is extremely modest. Mostother times, the percentage has been agood deal higher than it is in this pro-posal. This is a modest increase, but avery important increase.

What has been happening to our min-imum wage workers? This chart indi-cates what has happened to averagehourly earnings from 1969 to the year2000.

You can see from the chart that theaverage hourly earnings have been con-stantly going up. Going back to 1969,the minimum wage was 53 percent ofaverage hourly earnings. In the year2000, do you think it has even held at 53percent? No. It has dropped to 37 per-cent of average hourly earnings—a dra-matic reduction, even in comparison towhat has been happening to the aver-

age American workers across the coun-try. They are falling further and fur-ther behind.

This chart is very interesting in thatit shows what is happening out there inthe workplace among those who havefamilies with children who are in thebottom 40 percent of U.S. family in-comes from 1979 to 1999.

All workers are averaging 416 hoursmore a year. Do we understand that? In1999, they are working more than 400hours a year more than they wereworking in 1979, even when theiramount of income proportionately wasa good deal better. Now we find Amer-ican workers are working longer andharder than any other workers in anyother industrial country in the world.And this is true about minimum wageworkers, who, in most instances, havenot just one job but have two jobs.

So for all those from whom we aregoing to hear in this Chamber aboutthe importance of rewarding peoplewho work, here we have some of thehardest workers in the world who aremaking pitiful little and find it enor-mously difficult to be able to providefor their families.

Four hundred sixteen hours, whatdoes that translate into? What it trans-lates into is this: The average min-imum wage worker today gets to spend25 hours a week less with his or herchildren than they did 15 years ago.When we are talking about family val-ues—and we will hear a great dealabout family values—one of the mostimportant and basic and fundamentalfamily values is having an adequate in-come to provide for one’s children. Theminimum wage does not provide it.

We see from this chart that workingfamilies are increasingly living in pov-erty. The red line indicates what thepoverty line represents here in theUnited States. What we have seen formany years—in the 1960s, 1970s, rightup to about 1980—is that the minimumwage was effectively the poverty wage.That was the bare minimum to be ableto live with some degree of dignity interms of providing the housing, thefood, the shelter, the clothing, the es-sentials for families. What we haveseen is this spread has been growingand increasing. Minimum wage work-ers are falling further and further be-hind.

Now, this is against a very importantchart here which reflects the changesin family incomes from 1979 to 1999.The top fifth of families’ incomes haveincreased by 42 percent in the last 20years; middle-income families by about11 percent over the last 20 years; thebottom fifth has actually declined interms of their quality of life and interms of what their income is. It showsthey are going down, working longer,working harder, providing importantkinds of services at a time of extraor-dinary economic prosperity. They arefalling further and further and furtherbehind. We have an opportunity to dosomething about that.

We provided an increase in theearned-income tax credit in the recent

times, which is helpful for those withlarger families who have a number ofchildren; but still, for the single mom,or the mother and father with a singlechild, the minimum wage is the way togo when you are talking about benefit-ting and increasing the income forfamilies.

We often hear on the Senate floor wecannot do that because if we do do it,we are going to have an adverse impactin terms of our employment situation.That is a lot of hogwash.

Let’s look at what has happenedsince the last time we increased theminimum wage. Since 1996, when we in-creased the minimum wage in twosteps, we heard: We do not want to dothat because it is going to have an ad-verse impact on teens. That is wrong.The unemployment rate for teens hasactually gone down with our two-stepincrease in the minimum wage.

For those who are lacking highschool diplomas—they said: They willnot be able to get employment at theMcDonald’s in order to gain work hab-its—wrong again. We found that theunemployment rate has gone downeven for those lacking a high school di-ploma.

How about, we often heard: This isn’tfair to African Americans. Wrongagain. We found out the unemploymentrate has still declined. It is certainlymore than double what it is for the na-tional average, but the employmentlevel has dropped over what it was pre-viously. The same is true with regardto Hispanics. And the same is true withregard to women.

So we believe this is an issue of fair-ness. We believe it is a matter of ur-gency. We have tried, over the period ofrecent years, to get this measure up be-fore the Senate. We were denied thatopportunity to have an up-or-downvote. We were told by the Republicanleadership at the end of the last Con-gress: You can have this if you provide$73 billion in tax breaks for Americancompanies and corporations. Effec-tively, they were saying: We are goingto hold this hostage. They were goingto hold this hostage until they got the$73 billion. They did not hold their ownpay increase hostage. They did nothold hostage increasing Members’ pay$3,800 a year in order to benefit busi-nesses and corporations. But they areholding hostage those who are at thelowest level, the most vulnerable peo-ple, working hard, trying to make endsmeet for their families. They are hold-ing them hostage until they get addi-tional tax breaks for companies andcorporations at an unparalleled level.

The last time we had the increase wehad a modest tax break for small busi-ness. Small business may need help andassistance, I am for that. But at thattime, it was $20 billion. Now that theyhave that up at $73 billion, and theyrefuse to let us give consideration toan increase in the minimum wage, theyare saying to all of those women, all ofthose children, all of those workerswho are minimum wage workers: No,

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:45 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.072 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1134 February 7, 2001you can just wait there. You can stayat $5.15 an hour. You can continue towork at $5.15 until we get around to de-veloping our package in order for the$73 billion in tax breaks. And then atthat time, when we are ready to getthat $73 billion, the Senate of theUnited States better take all $73 billionor we are not going to increase yourminimum wage.

I think that is an outrageous positionto take in terms of a contemptible atti-tude toward our fellow Americans.

I want to indicate, we welcome thesupport we have. This issue is notgoing to go away. We are going to haveto face this issue. We want to have afair opportunity. It is not one of thoseissues that needs a great deal of study.All of us remember the situation wherepeople tap us on the shoulder and say:Will you support H.R. 222 or S. 444? andwe are unfamiliar with the details of aparticular program. This one is verysimple. Increase in the minimum wage:Three steps, 60, 50, 40 cents. You don’tneed to have a lot of hearings.

To reiterate, Mr. President, the min-imum wage is one of the Nation’s fun-damental workplace protections. It is abedrock right of every working manand woman. For over 60 years, thiscountry has been committed to theprinciple that employees are entitledto a fair minimum wage that guaran-tees a fair day’s pay for a fair day’swork and protects the dignity of theiremployment.

In recent years, the country as awhole and most Americans have bene-fitted from unprecedented prosperity—the longest period of economic growthin the Nation’s history and the lowestunemployment rate in three decades.But minimum wage workers have beenleft out and left behind. A fair increasein the minimum wage is long overdue.

The real value of the minimum wageis now nearly $3 below what it was in1968. To have the purchasing power ithad in that year, the minimum wagewould have to be $8.05 an hour today,not $5.15 an hour.

At the same time, poverty has al-most doubled among full-time, year-round workers. Since the late 1970s, ithas climbed from about 1.5 million toalmost 2.5 million in 1999. An unaccept-ably low minimum wage is part of theproblem. Minimum wage employeesworking 40 hours a week, 52 weeks ayear, earn only $10,700 a year—$3,400below the poverty line for a family ofthree. Minimum wage workers todayfail to earn enough to afford adequatehousing in any area of this country. Noone who works for a living should haveto live in poverty.

In too many cases, minimum wageworkers are forced to work longer andlonger hours to make ends meet, withless and less time to spend with theirfamilies—still without sharing fairly inthe Nation’s prosperity. In fact, thelowest paid American families worked416 more hours in 1999 then they did in1979. Since 1969, the ratio of the min-imum wage to average hourly earnings

has dropped from 53 percent to 37 per-cent.

It is shameful that Congress acted toraise its own pay by $3,800 last year—the third pay increase in 4 years—yetwe did not find time to provide any payincrease at all to the lowest paid work-ers.

The increase in the legislation we areintroducing today—the Fair MinimumWage Act of 2001—will directly benefitover 11 million workers. It will raisethe minimum wage by $1.50 in three in-stallments: 60 cents on the 30th dayafter the bill’s enactment; another 50cents on January 1, 2002; and 40 morecents on January 1, 2003. The bill willalso apply the federal minimum wageto the Mariana Islands, which now hasan unacceptably low level of $3.05 anhour.

The $1.50 increase is necessary tomake up for lost time. In real value,the $1.50 increase will bring the min-imum wage up to the same level itwould have been if our proposed onedollar increase had gone into effectlast year.

Raising the minimum wage is a laborissue, because it guarantees that Amer-ican workers will be paid fairly fortheir contribution to building a strongNation and a strong economy. It is awomen’s issue, since 60 percent of min-imum wage earners are women. It is achildren’s issue, because 33 percent ofminimum wage earners are parentswith children—and 4.3 million childrenlive in poverty, despite being in a fam-ily where a bread-winner works full-time, year-round. And it is a civilrights issue, because 16 percent ofthose who will benefit from a minimumwage increase are African Americans,and 20 percent are Hispanic.

The record of past increases clearlyshows that raising the minimum wagehas not had a negative impact on jobs,employment, or inflation. After thelast increases in the minimum wage in1996 and 1997, the economy continuedto grow with impressive strength. Theunemployment rate has fallen from 5.2percent to 4.2 percent. Twelve millionnew jobs have been created, at a paceof 230,000 per month, with more than 6million new service industry jobs, in-cluding one and a half million new re-tail jobs, and over a half a million newrestaurant jobs. Similarly, the min-imum wage increase during the reces-sion in 1991 provided needed support forlow-income workers and caused no lossof jobs.

President Bush supports raising theminimum wage, but suggests thatstates should be able to opt out of theincrease. But allowing states to opt outof the minimum wage would violatethe basic principle, which we havestood by for over 60 years, that work-ing men and women are entitled to afair minimum wage. Millions of work-ers across the country deserve a payraise, and they deserve it now.

The Federal minimum wage guaran-tees a floor, but it also allows States toset wage rates higher than the Federal

minimum. Massachusetts recentlyraised its minimum wage to $6.75 anhour, one of the highest levels in thecountry. Other states, such as Cali-fornia, Connecticut, Vermont andRhode Island, have also set their Staterates higher than the Federal min-imum.

In other States, however, the Stateminimum wage is far below the Federallevel. In these States, the Federal levelapplies to the vast majority of work-ers. But for those not covered by theFederal law, the State level is often ex-tremely low. It is $1.60 in Wyoming,$2.65 in Kansas, and $3.35 in Texas.Clearly, Congress should not leave theminimum wage to the tender mercy ofthe States.

A fair increase in the federal min-imum wage is long overdue. I urge Con-gress to act as quickly as possible topass this long overdue increase.

I ask unanimous consent that thetext of the bill be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the bill wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

S. 277Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Min-imum Wage Act of 2001’’.SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6(a)(1) of the FairLabor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(1) except as otherwise provided in thissection, not less than—

‘‘(A) $5.75 an hour beginning 30 days afterthe date of enactment of the Fair MinimumWage Act of 2001;

‘‘(B) $6.25 an hour during the year begin-ning January 1, 2002; and

‘‘(C) $6.65 an hour beginning January 1,2003;’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentmade by subsection (a) shall take effect 30days after the date of enactment of this Act.SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF MINIMUM WAGE TO

THE COMMONWEALTH OF THENORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6 of the FairLabor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206)shall apply to the Commonwealth of theNorthern Mariana Islands.

(b) TRANSITION.—Notwithstanding sub-section (a), the minimum wage applicable tothe Commonwealth of the Northern MarianaIslands under section 6(a)(1) of the FairLabor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.206(a)(1)) shall be—

(1) $3.55 an hour beginning 30 days after thedate of enactment of this Act; and

(2) increased by $0.50 an hour (or such less-er amount as may be necessary to equal theminimum wage under section 6(a)(1) of suchAct), beginning 6 months after the date ofenactment of this Act and every 6 monthsthereafter until the minimum wage applica-ble to the Commonwealth of the NorthernMariana Islands under this subsection isequal to the minimum wage set forth in suchsection.

By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself,Mr. BINGAMAN, and Ms. SNOWE):

S. 278. A bill to restore health carecoverage to retired members of theuniformed services; to the Committeeon Armed Services.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.074 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1135February 7, 2001Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, our

country must honor its commitmentsto military retirees and veterans, notonly because it’s the right thing to do,but also because it’s the smart thing todo. We all know the history: for dec-ades, men and women who joined themilitary were promised lifetime healthcare coverage for themselves and theirfamilies. They were told, in effect, ifyou disrupt your family, if you workfor low pay, if you endanger your lifeand limb, we will in turn guaranteelifetime health benefits.

In my own family, my oldest son is inthe Army and has served tours of dutyin Bosnia and Kosovo. I fully appre-ciate what inadequate health care andbroken promises can do to the moraleof military families.

Military retirees and veterans areour nation’s most effective recruiters.Unfortunately, poor health care op-tions make it difficult for these menand women to encourage the youngergeneration to make a career of themilitary. In fact, in South Dakota, Iwas talking to military personnel andtalking to retirees who are loyal andpatriotic, who have paid a price secondto none for our nation’s liberty, andthey told me: ‘‘Tim, I can’t in goodfaith tell my nephews, my children,young people whom I encounter, thatthey ought to serve in the U.S. mili-tary, that they ought to make a careerof that service because I see what theCongress has done to its commitmentto me, to my family, to my neighbors.’’

I am pleased that last year we madehistoric improvements in health carecoverage for the approximately 12,600military retirees living in South Da-kota. In the 106th Congress, I intro-duced the Keep Our Promise to Amer-ica’s Military Retirees Act to restorethe broken promise of lifetime healthcare for military retirees and depend-ents. My bipartisan legislation re-ceived the endorsement from mostmilitary retiree and veterans organiza-tions and called for military retirees tohave the option of staying in theirTRICARE military health care pro-gram or electing to participate in theFederal Employees Health Benefit Pro-gram, FEHBP.

I offered my legislation as an amend-ment to last year’s defense bill and re-ceived 52 votes. Although the amend-ment failed on a procedural motion, Iwas able to convince my colleagues toinclude one part of my bill—the expan-sion of TRICARE to Medicare-eligiblemilitary retirees—in both the Senatedefense bill and the final version signedinto law.

While I am pleased that last year’sdefense bill begins to address problemswith military retiree health care, thereis more work that needs to be done.That is why I am once again workingwith fellow Democrats and Republicansin the Senate to continue the progresswe’ve made at living up to our coun-try’s commitment to those who servein the military.

Today, I am reintroducing the KeepOur Promise to America’s Military Re-

tirees Act to finish the job we startedlast year. I am pleased to be joined bySenator JEFF BINGAMAN and SenatorOLYMPIA SNOWE. Similar legislation in-troduced in the House of Representa-tives by Representative RONNIE SHOWSand Representative CHARLIE NORWOODalready has overwhelming bipartisansupport, and I expect a number ofDemocrats and Republicans here in theSenate to once again support my bill.

My legislation addresses the pressinghealth care needs of military retireesunder age 65. Thanks to our efforts lastyear, retirees over 65 soon will be ableto choose their own doctor and be cov-ered by Medicare and TRICARE as asecondary payer. However, retireesunder age 65 must continue coverageunder a TRICARE program that offerscare at military treatment facilities ona space available basis. Nationwide,base closures and downsizing havemade access to these military basesdifficult. For many military retirees inSouth Dakota and other rural states, itis next to impossible to find a doctorparticipating in TRICARE, and thesemen and women are forced to drivehundreds of miles just for basic healthcare.

In addition, retirees who entered theservice prior to June 7, 1956, whenspace-available care for military retir-ees was enacted, actually have seenmuch of their promised benefits takenaway. Under the Keep Our Promise toAmerica’s Military Retirees Act, theUnited States government would paythe full cost of FEHBP enrollment tothis most elderly group of retirees.

Congress has the unique opportunityto use a portion of the budget surplusto improve the quality of life for ourmilitary retirees, veterans, and activeduty personnel. I have always believedthat our nation’s defense is only asgood as the men and women who servein our armed forces. Broken promisesof health care, retirement benefits,education incentives, and pay haveeroded the morale of the most valuableassets to our national security. I amhopeful that members of both partieswill join me once again making theseissues a priority—instead of an after-thought—during this session of Con-gress.

By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself,Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. CAMPBELL,Mr. ENZI, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr.CLELAND, Mr. DASCHLE, and Mr.HOLLINGS):

S. 280. A bill to amend the Agri-culture Marketing Act of 1946 to re-quire retailers of beef, lamb, pork, andperishable agricultural commodities toinform consumers, at the final point ofsale to consumers, of the country of or-igin of the commodities; to the Com-mittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, andForestry.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I risetoday with my colleagues SenatorJOHNSON, Senator CAMPBELL, SenatorCRAIG, and Senator CLELAND to intro-duce the Consumer Right to Know Actof 2001.

This bill would require country of or-igin labeling of perishable agriculturalcommodities and meat products sold inretail establishments. I offer this legis-lation to ensure that Americans knowthe origin of every orange, banana, to-mato, cucumber, and green pepper ondisplay in the grocery store.

For two decades, Floridians shoppingat their local grocery stores have beenable to make educated choices aboutthe food products they purchase fortheir families. In 1979, during my firstyear as governor, I proudly signed leg-islation to make country-of-origin la-bels mandatory for produce sold inFlorida. This labeling requirement hasproven to be neither complicated norburdensome for Florida’s farmers or re-tailers.

Country of origin labeling is not newto the American marketplace. For dec-ades, ‘‘Made In’’ labels have been asvisible as price tags on clothes, toys,television sets, watches, and manyother products. It makes little sensethat such labels are nowhere to befound in the produce or meat sectionsof grocery stores in the vast majorityof states. The current lack of identi-fying information on produce meansthat Americans who wish to heed gov-ernment health warnings about foreignproducts don’t have the informationthey need to protect themselves. Norcan Americans show justifiable con-cerns about other nations’ labor, envi-ronmental, and agricultural standardsby choosing other perishables.

According to nationwide surveys, be-tween 74 and 83 percent of consumersfavor mandatory country of origin la-beling for fresh produce. This is a low-cost, common sense method of inform-ing consumers, as retailers will simplybe asked to provide this information bymeans of a label, stamp, or placard. Itis estimated that implementingproduce labeling would take about twohours per grocery store per week. Atthe current minimum wage, thisequates to about $10.30 per store perweek. This is a remarkable small priceto pay to provide American consumerswith the information they need tomake informed produce purchases.

In addition, a study by the GeneralAccounting Office found that all of the28 countries that account for must ofthe U.S. produce imports and exportshave requirements for fruit and vege-table labeling. By adopting this legisla-tion, our law will become more con-sistent with the laws of our tradingpartners.

Consumers have the right to knowbasic information about the fruits andvegetables that they bring home totheir families. Congress can take amajor step toward achieving this sim-ple goal by adopting this amendment,thereby restoring American shoppers’ability to make an informed decision.

Both Senator Johnson and I haveworked on this legislation for severalCongresses. I am very pleased to be in-troducing one legislative package thisyear which contains both fruit and veg-etable and meat labeling requirements.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.052 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1136 February 7, 2001Both have passed the Senate in the105th and 106th Congress.

I urge my colleagues who have sup-ported this concept in the past to co-sponsor our legislation. I urge those ofyou who are new to this issue to reviewthis legislation and ask yourselves ifAmerican consumers deserve this basiclevel of information about their foodsupply—the country of origin.

I ask for your support, and I look for-ward to working with my colleagues onthe Senate Agriculture Committee tomove this legislation expeditiouslythrough the Committee process.

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself andMr. LUGAR):

S. 282. A bill to establish in the Anti-trust Division of the Department ofJustice a position with responsibilityfor agriculture antitrust matters; tothe Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ampleased to introduce today, along withSenator LUGAR, legislation that wouldensure that there is in the AntitrustDivision of the Department of Justice aposition with the primary responsi-bility of providing advice and assist-ance to further effective enforcementof the antitrust laws in the food andagricultural sectors of our economy.

As so many of my colleagues under-stand, we are in a period of very rapidchange in the economic structure ofagriculture and of our food systemfrom the farm on through retail dis-tribution. Those changes includesweeping consolidation and greatly in-creased economic concentration inmany segments of our nation’s foodand agriculture system that have pro-foundly affected agricultural producersand rural communities and raised seri-ous questions about impacts on con-sumers.

The purpose of this bill is to ensurethat our nation’s antitrust laws arefully enforced during this time of rapidchange in our food and agriculture sys-tem. This is the same legislation asSenator LUGAR and I introduced late in1999. Following that introduction, theClinton Administration did appoint aperson to fill the position required bythis legislation. While that action ob-viated the necessity of enacting thelegislation at that time, we do notknow for certain what the present orfuture administrations may do in as-signing personnel at the Department ofJustice to antitrust enforcement in ag-riculture. This bill is an importantsafeguard to ensure that we have a per-son who is devoted full-time at Justiceto the critical task of enforcing ourantitrust laws in the food and agri-culture sector.

I urge my colleagues to support thisimportant legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that the text of the bill be printedin the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

S. 282Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—There shall be establishedwithin the Antitrust Division of the Depart-ment of Justice a position the primary re-sponsibility of which shall be to provide as-sistance and advice to the Assistant Attor-ney General of the Antitrust Division to fur-ther the effective enforcement of the anti-trust laws with respect to the food and agri-cultural sectors.

(b) APPOINTMENT.—Not later than 180 daysafter the date of enactment of this Act, theAttorney General shall appoint a person tothe position described in subsection (a).

(c) FUNCTIONS.—The responsibilities of theposition established under subsection (a)shall include all actions appropriate to fur-thering effective enforcement of the anti-trust laws with respect to the food and agri-cultural sectors, including—

(1) assisting and advising with respect tothe investigation of possible restraints oftrade;

(2) assisting and advising with respect tothe investigation of mergers and acquisi-tions; and

(3) ensuring that any investigation de-scribed in paragraphs (1) or (2) takes into ac-count the effects of the conduct or trans-action under investigation on consumers, ag-ricultural producers and rural communities.SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.

Nothing in this Act shall affect or limitthe authority of the Attorney General or theAssistant Attorney General of the AntitrustDivision to delegate or assign functions re-lating to the enforcement of any provision oflaw.SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE PERIOD.

This Act shall be effective until the datethat is 5 years after the date of enactment ofthis Act.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I risetoday to join my esteemed colleagueand Ranking Democratic Member ofthe Agriculture Committee from Iowa,Senator HARKIN, in once again intro-ducing legislation to help ensure thatantitrust laws impacting agricultureare properly enforced.

Mr. President, the face of ruralAmerica is rapidly changing. Ever-changing technologies, developmentsin biotechnology and concentration inproduction agriculture and agri-business are developing a new profile inrural areas. Farmers in my home stateof Indiana have many questions andconcerns related to these rapidchanges. Many remain to be convincedthat appropriate oversight of mergerand acquisition activity in ag businessis a reality.

The intent of this legislation is to es-tablish the Office of Special Counselfor Agriculture in the Antitrust Divi-sion of the Justice Department. Whilethis office will focus on reviewing agbusiness mergers and acquisition activ-ity, it will also serve as an informationresource for American agriculture pro-ducers wanting to provide input onantitrust-related issues.

It is important to note, Mr. Presi-dent, that shortly after introduction ofthis legislation in 1999, Attorney Gen-eral Reno, on her own initiative, estab-lished the Office of Special Counsel for

Agriculture and appointed Mr. DougRoss to that position. While the per-spective of Attorney General Ashcroftis not yet known on this matter, thislegislation is a signal, a strong state-ment, that the Chairman and theRanking Democratic Member of theSenate Agriculture Committee are infavor of greater transparency and con-sideration to those issues surroundingag business mergers in the UnitedStates.

By Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr.EDWARDS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. L.CHAFEE, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. SPEC-TER, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. HARKIN,Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. TORRICELLI,Mr. DODD, Mr. NELSON of Flor-ida, and Mr. SCHUMER):

S. 283. A bill to amend the PublicHealth Service Act, the Employee Re-tirement Income Security Act of 1974,and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986to protect consumers in managed careplans and other health coverage; to theCommittee on Health, Education,Labor, and Pensions.

S. 284. A bill to amend the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 to provide incen-tives to expand health care coveragefor individuals; to the Committee onFinance.

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the text of S.283 and S. 284 be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the billswere ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

S. 283Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited asthe ‘‘Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of2001’’.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of con-tents of this Act is as follows:Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I—IMPROVING MANAGED CARESubtitle A—Utilization Review; Claims; and

Internal and External AppealsSec. 101. Utilization review activities.Sec. 102. Procedures for initial claims for

benefits and prior authorizationdeterminations.

Sec. 103. Internal appeals of claims denials.Sec. 104. Independent external appeals pro-

cedures.Subtitle B—Access to Care

Sec. 111. Consumer choice option.Sec. 112. Choice of health care professional.Sec. 113. Access to emergency care.Sec. 114. Timely access to specialists.Sec. 115. Patient access to obstetrical and

gynecological care.Sec. 116. Access to pediatric care.Sec. 117. Continuity of care.Sec. 118. Access to needed prescription

drugs.Sec. 119. Coverage for individuals partici-

pating in approved clinicaltrials.

Sec. 120. Required coverage for minimumhospital stay for mastectomiesand lymph node dissections forthe treatment of breast cancerand coverage for secondary con-sultations.

Subtitle C—Access to InformationSec. 121. Patient access to information.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0655 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.053 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1137February 7, 2001Subtitle D—Protecting the Doctor-Patient

RelationshipSec. 131. Prohibition of interference with

certain medical communica-tions.

Sec. 132. Prohibition of discriminationagainst providers based on li-censure.

Sec. 133. Prohibition against improper in-centive arrangements.

Sec. 134. Payment of claims.Sec. 135. Protection for patient advocacy.

Subtitle E—DefinitionsSec. 151. Definitions.Sec. 152. Preemption; State flexibility; con-

struction.Sec. 153. Exclusions.Sec. 154. Coverage of limited scope plans.Sec. 155. Regulations.Sec. 156. Incorporation into plan or coverage

documents.TITLE II—APPLICATION OF QUALITY

CARE STANDARDS TO GROUP HEALTHPLANS AND HEALTH INSURANCE COV-ERAGE UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTHSERVICE ACT

Sec. 201. Application to group health plansand group health insurance cov-erage.

Sec. 202. Application to individual health in-surance coverage.

TITLE III—AMENDMENTS TO THE EM-PLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECU-RITY ACT OF 1974

Sec. 301. Application of patient protectionstandards to group health plansand group health insurance cov-erage under the Employee Re-tirement Income Security Actof 1974.

Sec. 302. Availability of civil remedies.Sec. 303. Limitations on actions.

TITLE IV—AMENDMENTS TO THEINTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986

Sec. 401. Application of requirements togroup health plans under theInternal Revenue Code of 1986.

Sec. 402. Conforming enforcement for wom-en’s health and cancer rights.

TITLE V—EFFECTIVE DATES;COORDINATION IN IMPLEMENTATION

Sec. 501. Effective dates.Sec. 502. Coordination in implementation.Sec. 503. Severability.

TITLE I—IMPROVING MANAGED CARESubtitle A—Utilization Review; Claims; and

Internal and External AppealsSEC. 101. UTILIZATION REVIEW ACTIVITIES.

(a) COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan, and

a health insurance issuer that provideshealth insurance coverage, shall conduct uti-lization review activities in connection withthe provision of benefits under such plan orcoverage only in accordance with a utiliza-tion review program that meets the require-ments of this section and section 102.

(2) USE OF OUTSIDE AGENTS.—Nothing inthis section shall be construed as preventinga group health plan or health insuranceissuer from arranging through a contract orotherwise for persons or entities to conductutilization review activities on behalf of theplan or issuer, so long as such activities areconducted in accordance with a utilizationreview program that meets the requirementsof this section.

(3) UTILIZATION REVIEW DEFINED.—For pur-poses of this section, the terms ‘‘utilizationreview’’ and ‘‘utilization review activities’’mean procedures used to monitor or evaluatethe use or coverage, clinical necessity, ap-propriateness, efficacy, or efficiency ofhealth care services, procedures or settings,

and includes prospective review, concurrentreview, second opinions, case management,discharge planning, or retrospective review.

(b) WRITTEN POLICIES AND CRITERIA.—(1) WRITTEN POLICIES.—A utilization review

program shall be conducted consistent withwritten policies and procedures that governall aspects of the program.

(2) USE OF WRITTEN CRITERIA.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Such a program shall uti-

lize written clinical review criteria devel-oped with input from a range of appropriateactively practicing health care professionals,as determined by the plan, pursuant to theprogram. Such criteria shall include writtenclinical review criteria that are based onvalid clinical evidence where available andthat are directed specifically at meeting theneeds of at-risk populations and covered in-dividuals with chronic conditions or severeillnesses, including gender-specific criteriaand pediatric-specific criteria where avail-able and appropriate.

(B) CONTINUING USE OF STANDARDS IN RET-ROSPECTIVE REVIEW.—If a health care servicehas been specifically pre-authorized or ap-proved for a participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee under such a program, the programshall not, pursuant to retrospective review,revise or modify the specific standards, cri-teria, or procedures used for the utilizationreview for procedures, treatment, and serv-ices delivered to the enrollee during thesame course of treatment.

(C) REVIEW OF SAMPLE OF CLAIMS DENIALS.—Such a program shall provide for a periodicevaluation of the clinical appropriateness ofat least a sample of denials of claims for ben-efits.

(c) CONDUCT OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.—(1) ADMINISTRATION BY HEALTH CARE PRO-

FESSIONALS.—A utilization review programshall be administered by qualified healthcare professionals who shall oversee reviewdecisions.

(2) USE OF QUALIFIED, INDEPENDENT PER-SONNEL.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—A utilization review pro-gram shall provide for the conduct of utiliza-tion review activities only through personnelwho are qualified and have received appro-priate training in the conduct of such activi-ties under the program.

(B) PROHIBITION OF CONTINGENT COMPENSA-TION ARRANGEMENTS.—Such a program shallnot, with respect to utilization review activi-ties, permit or provide compensation or any-thing of value to its employees, agents, orcontractors in a manner that encourages de-nials of claims for benefits.

(C) PROHIBITION OF CONFLICTS.—Such a pro-gram shall not permit a health care profes-sional who is providing health care servicesto an individual to perform utilization re-view activities in connection with the healthcare services being provided to the indi-vidual.

(3) ACCESSIBILITY OF REVIEW.—Such a pro-gram shall provide that appropriate per-sonnel performing utilization review activi-ties under the program, including the utili-zation review administrator, are reasonablyaccessible by toll-free telephone during nor-mal business hours to discuss patient careand allow response to telephone requests,and that appropriate provision is made to re-ceive and respond promptly to calls receivedduring other hours.

(4) LIMITS ON FREQUENCY.—Such a programshall not provide for the performance of uti-lization review activities with respect to aclass of services furnished to an individualmore frequently than is reasonably requiredto assess whether the services under revieware medically necessary and appropriate.

SEC. 102. PROCEDURES FOR INITIAL CLAIMS FORBENEFITS AND PRIOR AUTHORIZA-TION DETERMINATIONS.

(a) PROCEDURES OF INITIAL CLAIMS FORBENEFITS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan, orhealth insurance issuer offering health insur-ance coverage, shall—

(A) make a determination on an initialclaim for benefits by a participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee (or authorized represent-ative) regarding payment or coverage foritems or services under the terms and condi-tions of the plan or coverage involved, in-cluding any cost-sharing amount that theparticipant, beneficiary, or enrollee is re-quired to pay with respect to such claim forbenefits; and

(B) notify a participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee (or authorized representative) and thetreating health care professional involved re-garding a determination on an initial claimfor benefits made under the terms and condi-tions of the plan or coverage, including anycost-sharing amounts that the participant,beneficiary, or enrollee may be required tomake with respect to such claim for benefits,and of the right of the participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee to an internal appealunder section 103.

(2) ACCESS TO INFORMATION.—(A) TIMELY PROVISION OF NECESSARY INFOR-

MATION.—With respect to an initial claim forbenefits, the participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee (or authorized representative) and thetreating health care professional (if any)shall provide the plan or issuer with accessto information requested by the plan orissuer that is necessary to make a deter-mination relating to the claim. Such accessshall be provided not later than 5 days afterthe date on which the request for informa-tion is received, or, in a case described insubparagraph (B) or (C) of subsection (b)(1),by such earlier time as may be necessary tocomply with the applicable timeline undersuch subparagraph.

(B) LIMITED EFFECT OF FAILURE ON PLAN ORISSUER’S OBLIGATIONS.—Failure of the partic-ipant, beneficiary, or enrollee to complywith the requirements of subparagraph (A)shall not remove the obligation of the planor issuer to make a decision in accordancewith the medical exigencies of the case andas soon as possible, based on the available in-formation, and failure to comply with thetime limit established by this paragraphshall not remove the obligation of the planor issuer to comply with the requirements ofthis section.

(3) ORAL REQUESTS.—In the case of a claimfor benefits involving an expedited or con-current determination, a participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee (or authorized represent-ative) may make an initial claim for benefitsorally, but a group health plan, or health in-surance issuer offering health insurance cov-erage, may require that the participant, ben-eficiary, or enrollee (or authorized represent-ative) provide written confirmation of suchrequest in a timely manner on a form pro-vided by the plan or issuer. In the case ofsuch an oral request for benefits, the makingof the request (and the timing of such re-quest) shall be treated as the making at thattime of a claims for such benefits without re-gard to whether and when a written con-firmation of such request is made.

(b) TIMELINE FOR MAKING DETERMINA-TIONS.—

(1) PRIOR AUTHORIZATION DETERMINATION.—(A) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan, or

health insurance issuer offering health insur-ance coverage, shall make a prior authoriza-tion determination on a claim for benefits(whether oral or written) in accordance withthe medical exigencies of the case and assoon as possible, but in no case later than 14

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:39 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.042 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1138 February 7, 2001days from the date on which the plan orissuer receives information that is reason-ably necessary to enable the plan or issuer tomake a determination on the request forprior authorization and in no case later than28 days after the date of the claim for bene-fits is received.

(B) EXPEDITED DETERMINATION.—Notwith-standing subparagraph (A), a group healthplan, or health insurance issuer offeringhealth insurance coverage, shall expedite aprior authorization determination on a claimfor benefits described in such subparagraphwhen a request for such an expedited deter-mination is made by a participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee (or authorized represent-ative) at any time during the process formaking a determination and a health careprofessional certifies, with the request, thata determination under the procedures de-scribed in subparagraph (A) would seriouslyjeopardize the life or health of the partici-pant, beneficiary, or enrollee or the abilityof the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee tomaintain or regain maximum function. Suchdetermination shall be made in accordancewith the medical exigencies of the case andas soon as possible, but in no case later than72 hours after the time the request is re-ceived by the plan or issuer under this sub-paragraph.

(C) ONGOING CARE.—(i) CONCURRENT REVIEW.—(I) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), in

the case of a concurrent review of ongoingcare (including hospitalization), which re-sults in a termination or reduction of suchcare, the plan or issuer must provide by tele-phone and in printed form notice of the con-current review determination to the indi-vidual or the individual’s designee and theindividual’s health care provider in accord-ance with the medical exigencies of the caseand as soon as possible, with sufficient timeprior to the termination or reduction toallow for an appeal under section 103(b)(3) tobe completed before the termination or re-duction takes effect.

(II) CONTENTS OF NOTICE.—Such noticeshall include, with respect to ongoing healthcare items and services, the number of ongo-ing services approved, the new total of ap-proved services, the date of onset of services,and the next review date, if any, as well as astatement of the individual’s rights to fur-ther appeal.

(ii) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Clause (i)shall not be construed as requiring plans orissuers to provide coverage of care thatwould exceed the coverage limitations forsuch care.

(2) RETROSPECTIVE DETERMINATION.—Agroup health plan, or health insurance issueroffering health insurance coverage, shallmake a retrospective determination on aclaim for benefits in accordance with themedical exigencies of the case and as soon aspossible, but not later than 30 days after thedate on which the plan or issuer receives in-formation that is reasonably necessary toenable the plan or issuer to make a deter-mination on the claim, or, if earlier, 60 daysafter the date of receipt of the claim for ben-efits.

(c) NOTICE OF A DENIAL OF A CLAIM FORBENEFITS.—Written notice of a denial madeunder an initial claim for benefits shall beissued to the participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee (or authorized representative) and thetreating health care professional in accord-ance with the medical exigencies of the caseand as soon as possible, but in no case laterthan 2 days after the date of the determina-tion (or, in the case described in subpara-graph (B) or (C) of subsection (b)(1), withinthe 72-hour or applicable period referred toin such subparagraph).

(d) REQUIREMENTS OF NOTICE OF DETER-MINATIONS.—The written notice of a denial ofa claim for benefits determination undersubsection (c) shall be provided in printedform and written in a manner calculated tobe understood by the average participant,beneficiary, or enrollee and shall include—

(1) the specific reasons for the determina-tion (including a summary of the clinical orscientific evidence used in making the deter-mination);

(2) the procedures for obtaining additionalinformation concerning the determination;and

(3) notification of the right to appeal thedetermination and instructions on how toinitiate an appeal in accordance with section103.

(e) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this part:(1) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.—The

term ‘‘authorized representative’’ means,with respect to an individual who is a partic-ipant, beneficiary, or enrollee, any healthcare professional or other person acting onbehalf of the individual with the individual’sconsent or without such consent if the indi-vidual is medically unable to provide suchconsent.

(2) CLAIM FOR BENEFITS.—The term ‘‘claimfor benefits’’ means any request for coverage(including authorization of coverage), for eli-gibility, or for payment in whole or in part,for an item or service under a group healthplan or health insurance coverage.

(3) DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR BENEFITS.—Theterm ‘‘denial’’ means, with respect to aclaim for benefits, a denial (in whole or inpart) of, or a failure to act on a timely basisupon, the claim for benefits and includes afailure to provide benefits (including itemsand services) required to be provided underthis title.

(4) TREATING HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL.—The term ‘‘treating health care professional’’means, with respect to services to be pro-vided to a participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee, a health care professional who is pri-marily responsible for delivering those serv-ices to the participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee.SEC. 103. INTERNAL APPEALS OF CLAIMS DENI-

ALS.(a) RIGHT TO INTERNAL APPEAL.—(1) IN GENERAL.—A participant, bene-

ficiary, or enrollee (or authorized represent-ative) may appeal any denial of a claim forbenefits under section 102 under the proce-dures described in this section.

(2) TIME FOR APPEAL.—(A) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan, or

health insurance issuer offering health insur-ance coverage, shall ensure that a partici-pant, beneficiary, or enrollee (or authorizedrepresentative) has a period of not less than180 days beginning on the date of a denial ofa claim for benefits under section 102 inwhich to appeal such denial under this sec-tion.

(B) DATE OF DENIAL.—For purposes of sub-paragraph (A), the date of the denial shall bedeemed to be the date as of which the partic-ipant, beneficiary, or enrollee knew of thedenial of the claim for benefits.

(3) FAILURE TO ACT.—The failure of a planor issuer to issue a determination on a claimfor benefits under section 102 within the ap-plicable timeline established for such a de-termination under such section is a denial ofa claim for benefits for purposes this subtitleas of the date of the applicable deadline.

(4) PLAN WAIVER OF INTERNAL REVIEW.—Agroup health plan, or health insurance issueroffering health insurance coverage, maywaive the internal review process under thissection. In such case the plan or issuer shallprovide notice to the participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee (or authorized represent-ative) involved, the participant, beneficiary,

or enrollee (or authorized representative) in-volved shall be relieved of any obligation tocomplete the internal review involved, andmay, at the option of such participant, bene-ficiary, enrollee, or representative proceeddirectly to seek further appeal through ex-ternal review under section 104 or otherwise.

(b) TIMELINES FOR MAKING DETERMINA-TIONS.—

(1) ORAL REQUESTS.—In the case of an ap-peal of a denial of a claim for benefits underthis section that involves an expedited orconcurrent determination, a participant,beneficiary, or enrollee (or authorized rep-resentative) may request such appeal orally.A group health plan, or health insuranceissuer offering health insurance coverage,may require that the participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee (or authorized represent-ative) provide written confirmation of suchrequest in a timely manner on a form pro-vided by the plan or issuer. In the case ofsuch an oral request for an appeal of a de-nial, the making of the request (and the tim-ing of such request) shall be treated as themaking at that time of a request for an ap-peal without regard to whether and when awritten confirmation of such request ismade.

(2) ACCESS TO INFORMATION.—(A) TIMELY PROVISION OF NECESSARY INFOR-

MATION.—With respect to an appeal of a de-nial of a claim for benefits, the participant,beneficiary, or enrollee (or authorized rep-resentative) and the treating health careprofessional (if any) shall provide the plan orissuer with access to information requestedby the plan or issuer that is necessary tomake a determination relating to the appeal.Such access shall be provided not later than5 days after the date on which the request forinformation is received, or, in a case de-scribed in subparagraph (B) or (C) of para-graph (3), by such earlier time as may benecessary to comply with the applicabletimeline under such subparagraph.

(B) LIMITED EFFECT OF FAILURE ON PLAN ORISSUER’S OBLIGATIONS.—Failure of the partic-ipant, beneficiary, or enrollee to complywith the requirements of subparagraph (A)shall not remove the obligation of the planor issuer to make a decision in accordancewith the medical exigencies of the case andas soon as possible, based on the available in-formation, and failure to comply with thetime limit established by this paragraphshall not remove the obligation of the planor issuer to comply with the requirements ofthis section.

(3) PRIOR AUTHORIZATION DETERMINA-TIONS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan, orhealth insurance issuer offering health insur-ance coverage, shall make a determinationon an appeal of a denial of a claim for bene-fits under this subsection in accordance withthe medical exigencies of the case and assoon as possible, but in no case later than 14days from the date on which the plan orissuer receives information that is reason-ably necessary to enable the plan or issuer tomake a determination on the appeal and inno case later than 28 days after the date therequest for the appeal is received.

(B) EXPEDITED DETERMINATION.—Notwith-standing subparagraph (A), a group healthplan, or health insurance issuer offeringhealth insurance coverage, shall expedite aprior authorization determination on an ap-peal of a denial of a claim for benefits de-scribed in subparagraph (A), when a requestfor such an expedited determination is madeby a participant, beneficiary, or enrollee (orauthorized representative) at any time dur-ing the process for making a determinationand a health care professional certifies, withthe request, that a determination under theprocedures described in subparagraph (A)

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:39 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.042 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1139February 7, 2001would seriously jeopardize the life or healthof the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee orthe ability of the participant, beneficiary, orenrollee to maintain or regain maximumfunction. Such determination shall be madein accordance with the medical exigencies ofthe case and as soon as possible, but in nocase later than 72 hours after the time therequest for such appeal is received by theplan or issuer under this subparagraph.

(C) ONGOING CARE DETERMINATIONS.—(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), in

the case of a concurrent review determina-tion described in section 102(b)(1)(C)(i)(I),which results in a termination or reductionof such care, the plan or issuer must providenotice of the determination on the appealunder this section by telephone and in print-ed form to the individual or the individual’sdesignee and the individual’s health careprovider in accordance with the medical ex-igencies of the case and as soon as possible,with sufficient time prior to the terminationor reduction to allow for an external appealunder section 104 to be completed before thetermination or reduction takes effect.

(ii) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Clause (i)shall not be construed as requiring plans orissuers to provide coverage of care thatwould exceed the coverage limitations forsuch care.

(4) RETROSPECTIVE DETERMINATION.—Agroup health plan, or health insurance issueroffering health insurance coverage, shallmake a retrospective determination on anappeal of a claim for benefits in no case laterthan 30 days after the date on which the planor issuer receives necessary information thatis reasonably necessary to enable the plan orissuer to make a determination on the ap-peal and in no case later than 60 days afterthe date the request for the appeal is re-ceived.

(c) CONDUCT OF REVIEW.—(1) IN GENERAL.—A review of a denial of a

claim for benefits under this section shall beconducted by an individual with appropriateexpertise who was not involved in the initialdetermination.

(2) REVIEW OF MEDICAL DECISIONS BY PHYSI-CIANS.—A review of an appeal of a denial ofa claim for benefits that is based on a lackof medical necessity and appropriateness, orbased on an experimental or investigationaltreatment, or requires an evaluation of med-ical facts, shall be made by a physician(allopathic or osteopathic) with appropriateexpertise (including, in the case of a child,appropriate pediatric expertise) who was notinvolved in the initial determination.

(d) NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Written notice of a deter-

mination made under an internal appeal of adenial of a claim for benefits shall be issuedto the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee(or authorized representative) and the treat-ing health care professional in accordancewith the medical exigencies of the case andas soon as possible, but in no case later than2 days after the date of completion of the re-view (or, in the case described in subpara-graph (B) or (C) of subsection (b)(3), withinthe 72-hour or applicable period referred toin such subparagraph).

(2) FINAL DETERMINATION.—The decision bya plan or issuer under this section shall betreated as the final determination of theplan or issuer on a denial of a claim for bene-fits. The failure of a plan or issuer to issuea determination on an appeal of a denial ofa claim for benefits under this section withinthe applicable timeline established for sucha determination shall be treated as a finaldetermination on an appeal of a denial of aclaim for benefits for purposes of proceedingto external review under section 104.

(3) REQUIREMENTS OF NOTICE.—With respectto a determination made under this section,

the notice described in paragraph (1) shall beprovided in printed form and written in amanner calculated to be understood by theaverage participant, beneficiary, or enrolleeand shall include—

(A) the specific reasons for the determina-tion (including a summary of the clinical orscientific evidence used in making the deter-mination);

(B) the procedures for obtaining additionalinformation concerning the determination;and

(C) notification of the right to an inde-pendent external review under section 104and instructions on how to initiate such a re-view.SEC. 104. INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL APPEALS

PROCEDURES.(a) RIGHT TO EXTERNAL APPEAL.—A group

health plan, and a health insurance issuer of-fering health insurance coverage, shall pro-vide in accordance with this section partici-pants, beneficiaries, and enrollees (or au-thorized representatives) with access to anindependent external review for any denialof a claim for benefits.

(b) INITIATION OF THE INDEPENDENT EXTER-NAL REVIEW PROCESS.—

(1) TIME TO FILE.—A request for an inde-pendent external review under this sectionshall be filed with the plan or issuer notlater than 180 days after the date on whichthe participant, beneficiary, or enrollee re-ceives notice of the denial under section103(d) or notice of waiver of internal reviewunder section 103(a)(4) or the date on whichthe plan or issuer has failed to make a time-ly decision under section 103(d)(2) and noti-fies the participant or beneficiary that it hasfailed to make a timely decision and that thebeneficiary must file an appeal with an ex-ternal review entity within 180 days if theparticipant or beneficiary desires to file suchan appeal.

(2) FILING OF REQUEST.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the succeeding

provisions of this subsection, a group healthplan, and a health insurance issuer offeringhealth insurance coverage, may—

(i) except as provided in subparagraph(B)(i), require that a request for review be inwriting;

(ii) limit the filing of such a request to theparticipant, beneficiary, or enrollee involved(or an authorized representative);

(iii) except if waived by the plan or issuerunder section 103(a)(4), condition access toan independent external review under thissection upon a final determination of a de-nial of a claim for benefits under the inter-nal review procedure under section 103;

(iv) except as provided in subparagraph(B)(ii), require payment of a filing fee to theplan or issuer of a sum that does not exceed$25; and

(v) require that a request for review in-clude the consent of the participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee (or authorized represent-ative) for the release of necessary medicalinformation or records of the participant,beneficiary, or enrollee to the qualified ex-ternal review entity only for purposes of con-ducting external review activities.

(B) REQUIREMENTS AND EXCEPTION RELATINGTO GENERAL RULE.—

(i) ORAL REQUESTS PERMITTED IN EXPEDITEDOR CONCURRENT CASES.—In the case of an ex-pedited or concurrent external review as pro-vided for under subsection (e), the requestmay be made orally. A group health plan, orhealth insurance issuer offering health insur-ance coverage, may require that the partici-pant, beneficiary, or enrollee (or authorizedrepresentative) provide written confirmationof such request in a timely manner on a formprovided by the plan or issuer. Such writtenconfirmation shall be treated as a consentfor purposes of subparagraph (A)(v). In the

case of such an oral request for such a re-view, the making of the request (and thetiming of such request) shall be treated asthe making at that time of a request forsuch an external review without regard towhether and when a written confirmation ofsuch request is made.

(ii) EXCEPTION TO FILING FEE REQUIRE-MENT.—

(I) INDIGENCY.—Payment of a filing feeshall not be required under subparagraph(A)(iv) where there is a certification (in aform and manner specified in guidelines es-tablished by the appropriate Secretary) thatthe participant, beneficiary, or enrollee isindigent (as defined in such guidelines).

(II) FEE NOT REQUIRED.—Payment of a fil-ing fee shall not be required under subpara-graph (A)(iv) if the plan or issuer waives theinternal appeals process under section103(a)(4).

(III) REFUNDING OF FEE.—The filing fee paidunder subparagraph (A)(iv) shall be refundedif the determination under the independentexternal review is to reverse or modify thedenial which is the subject of the review.

(IV) COLLECTION OF FILING FEE.—The fail-ure to pay such a filing fee shall not preventthe consideration of a request for review but,subject to the preceding provisions of thisclause, shall constitute a legal liability topay.

(c) REFERRAL TO QUALIFIED EXTERNAL RE-VIEW ENTITY UPON REQUEST.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon the filing of a re-quest for independent external review withthe group health plan, or health insuranceissuer offering health insurance coverage,the plan or issuer shall immediately refersuch request, and forward the plan or issuer’sinitial decision (including the informationdescribed in section 103(d)(3)(A)), to a quali-fied external review entity selected in ac-cordance with this section.

(2) ACCESS TO PLAN OR ISSUER AND HEALTHPROFESSIONAL INFORMATION.—With respect toan independent external review conductedunder this section, the participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee (or authorized represent-ative), the plan or issuer, and the treatinghealth care professional (if any) shall pro-vide the external review entity with infor-mation that is necessary to conduct a reviewunder this section, as determined and re-quested by the entity. Such informationshall be provided not later than 5 days afterthe date on which the request for informa-tion is received, or, in a case described inclause (ii) or (iii) of subsection (e)(1)(A), bysuch earlier time as may be necessary tocomply with the applicable timeline undersuch clause.

(3) SCREENING OF REQUESTS BY QUALIFIEDEXTERNAL REVIEW ENTITIES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—With respect to a requestreferred to a qualified external review entityunder paragraph (1) relating to a denial of aclaim for benefits, the entity shall refer suchrequest for the conduct of an independentmedical review unless the entity determinesthat—

(i) any of the conditions described inclauses (ii) or (iii) of subsection (b)(2)(A)have not been met;

(ii) the denial of the claim for benefits doesnot involve a medically reviewable decisionunder subsection (d)(2);

(iii) the denial of the claim for benefits re-lates to a decision regarding whether an in-dividual is a participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee who is enrolled under the terms andconditions of the plan or coverage (includingthe applicability of any waiting period underthe plan or coverage); or

(iv) the denial of the claim for benefits isa decision as to the application of cost-shar-ing requirements or the application of a spe-cific exclusion or express limitation on the

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:34 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.042 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1140 February 7, 2001amount, duration, or scope of coverage ofitems or services under the terms and condi-tions of the plan or coverage unless the deci-sion is a denial described in subsection (d)(2).

Upon making a determination that any ofclauses (i) through (iv) applies with respectto the request, the entity shall determinethat the denial of a claim for benefits in-volved is not eligible for independent med-ical review under subsection (d), and shallprovide notice in accordance with subpara-graph (C).

(B) PROCESS FOR MAKING DETERMINATIONS.—(i) NO DEFERENCE TO PRIOR DETERMINA-

TIONS.—In making determinations under sub-paragraph (A), there shall be no deferencegiven to determinations made by the plan orissuer or the recommendation of a treatinghealth care professional (if any).

(ii) USE OF APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL.—Aqualified external review entity shall use ap-propriately qualified personnel to make de-terminations under this section.

(C) NOTICES AND GENERAL TIMELINES FORDETERMINATION.—

(i) NOTICE IN CASE OF DENIAL OF REFER-RAL.—If the entity under this paragraph doesnot make a referral to an independent med-ical reviewer, the entity shall provide noticeto the plan or issuer, the participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee (or authorized represent-ative) filing the request, and the treatinghealth care professional (if any) that the de-nial is not subject to independent medicalreview. Such notice—

(I) shall be written (and, in addition, maybe provided orally) in a manner calculated tobe understood by an average participant orenrollee;

(II) shall include the reasons for the deter-mination;

(III) include any relevant terms and condi-tions of the plan or coverage; and

(IV) include a description of any further re-course available to the individual.

(ii) GENERAL TIMELINE FOR DETERMINA-TIONS.—Upon receipt of information underparagraph (2), the qualified external reviewentity, and if required the independent med-ical reviewer, shall make a determinationwithin the overall timeline that is applicableto the case under review as described in sub-section (e), except that if the entity deter-mines that a referral to an independent med-ical reviewer is not required, the entity shallprovide notice of such determination to theparticipant, beneficiary, or enrollee (or au-thorized representative) within suchtimeline and within 2 days of the date ofsuch determination.

(d) INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW.—(1) IN GENERAL.—If a qualified external re-

view entity determines under subsection (c)that a denial of a claim for benefits is eligi-ble for independent medical review, the enti-ty shall refer the denial involved to an inde-pendent medical reviewer for the conduct ofan independent medical review under thissubsection.

(2) MEDICALLY REVIEWABLE DECISIONS.—Adenial of a claim for benefits is eligible forindependent medical review if the benefit forthe item or service for which the claim ismade would be a covered benefit under theterms and conditions of the plan or coveragebut for one (or more) of the following deter-minations:

(A) DENIALS BASED ON MEDICAL NECESSITYAND APPROPRIATENESS.—A determinationthat the item or service is not covered be-cause it is not medically necessary and ap-propriate or based on the application of sub-stantially equivalent terms.

(B) DENIALS BASED ON EXPERIMENTAL OR IN-VESTIGATIONAL TREATMENT.—A determina-tion that the item or service is not coveredbecause it is experimental or investigational

or based on the application of substantiallyequivalent terms.

(C) DENIALS OTHERWISE BASED ON AN EVAL-UATION OF MEDICAL FACTS.—A determinationthat the item or service or condition is notcovered based on grounds that require anevaluation of the medical facts by a healthcare professional in the specific case in-volved to determine the coverage and extentof coverage of the item or service or condi-tion.

(3) INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW DETER-MINATION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—An independent medicalreviewer under this section shall make a newindependent determination with respect towhether or not the denial of a claim for abenefit that is the subject of the reviewshould be upheld, reversed, or modified.

(B) STANDARD FOR DETERMINATION.—Theindependent medical reviewer’s determina-tion relating to the medical necessity andappropriateness, or the experimental or in-vestigation nature, or the evaluation of themedical facts of the item, service, or condi-tion shall be based on the medical conditionof the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee(including the medical records of the partici-pant, beneficiary, or enrollee) and valid, rel-evant scientific evidence and clinical evi-dence, including peer-reviewed medical lit-erature or findings and including expertopinion.

(C) NO COVERAGE FOR EXCLUDED BENEFITS.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construedto permit an independent medical reviewerto require that a group health plan, orhealth insurance issuer offering health insur-ance coverage, provide coverage for items orservices for which benefits are specificallyexcluded or expressly limited under the planor coverage in the plain language of the plandocument (and which are disclosed undersection 121(b)(1)(C)) except to the extent thatthe application or interpretation of the ex-clusion or limitation involves a determina-tion described in paragraph (2).

(D) EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION TO BE USEDIN MEDICAL REVIEWS.—In making a deter-mination under this subsection, the inde-pendent medical reviewer shall also considerappropriate and available evidence and infor-mation, including the following:

(i) The determination made by the plan orissuer with respect to the claim upon inter-nal review and the evidence, guidelines, orrationale used by the plan or issuer in reach-ing such determination.

(ii) The recommendation of the treatinghealth care professional and the evidence,guidelines, and rationale used by the treat-ing health care professional in reaching suchrecommendation.

(iii) Additional relevant evidence or infor-mation obtained by the reviewer or sub-mitted by the plan, issuer, participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee (or an authorized rep-resentative), or treating health care profes-sional.

(iv) The plan or coverage document.(E) INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION.—In mak-

ing determinations under this subtitle, aqualified external review entity and an inde-pendent medical reviewer shall—

(i) consider the claim under review withoutdeference to the determinations made by theplan or issuer or the recommendation of thetreating health care professional (if any);and

(ii) consider, but not be bound by the defi-nition used by the plan or issuer of ‘‘medi-cally necessary and appropriate’’, or ‘‘experi-mental or investigational’’, or other substan-tially equivalent terms that are used by theplan or issuer to describe medical necessityand appropriateness or experimental or in-vestigational nature of the treatment.

(F) DETERMINATION OF INDEPENDENT MED-ICAL REVIEWER.—An independent medical re-viewer shall, in accordance with the dead-lines described in subsection (e), prepare awritten determination to uphold, reverse, ormodify the denial under review. Such writ-ten determination shall include—

(i) the determination of the reviewer;(ii) the specific reasons of the reviewer for

such determination, including a summary ofthe clinical or scientific evidence used inmaking the determination; and

(iii) with respect to a determination to re-verse or modify the denial under review, atimeframe within which the plan or issuermust comply with such determination.

(G) NONBINDING NATURE OF ADDITIONAL REC-OMMENDATIONS.—In addition to the deter-mination under subparagraph (F), the re-viewer may provide the plan or issuer andthe treating health care professional withadditional recommendations in connectionwith such a determination, but any such rec-ommendations shall not affect (or be treatedas part of) the determination and shall notbe binding on the plan or issuer.

(e) TIMELINES AND NOTIFICATIONS.—(1) TIMELINES FOR INDEPENDENT MEDICAL

REVIEW.—(A) PRIOR AUTHORIZATION DETERMINATION.—(i) IN GENERAL.—The independent medical

reviewer (or reviewers) shall make a deter-mination on a denial of a claim for benefitsthat is referred to the reviewer under sub-section (c)(3) in accordance with the medicalexigencies of the case and as soon as pos-sible, but in no case later than 14 days afterthe date of receipt of information under sub-section (c)(2) if the review involves a priorauthorization of items or services and in nocase later than 21 days after the date the re-quest for external review is received.

(ii) EXPEDITED DETERMINATION.—Notwith-standing clause (i) and subject to clause (iii),the independent medical reviewer (or review-ers) shall make an expedited determinationon a denial of a claim for benefits describedin clause (i), when a request for such an ex-pedited determination is made by a partici-pant, beneficiary, or enrollee (or authorizedrepresentative) at any time during the proc-ess for making a determination, and a healthcare professional certifies, with the request,that a determination under the timeline de-scribed in clause (i) would seriously jeop-ardize the life or health of the participant,beneficiary, or enrollee or the ability of theparticipant, beneficiary, or enrollee to main-tain or regain maximum function. Such de-termination shall be made as soon in accord-ance with the medical exigencies of the caseand as soon as possible, but in no case laterthan 72 hours after the time the request forexternal review is received by the qualifiedexternal review entity.

(iii) ONGOING CARE DETERMINATION.—Not-withstanding clause (i), in the case of a re-view described in such subclause that in-volves a termination or reduction of care,the notice of the determination shall becompleted not later than 24 hours after thetime the request for external review is re-ceived by the qualified external review enti-ty and before the end of the approved periodof care.

(B) RETROSPECTIVE DETERMINATION.—Theindependent medical reviewer (or reviewers)shall complete a review in the case of a ret-rospective determination on an appeal of adenial of a claim for benefits that is referredto the reviewer under subsection (c)(3) in nocase later than 30 days after the date of re-ceipt of information under subsection (c)(2)and in no case later than 60 days after thedate the request for external review is re-ceived by the qualified external review enti-ty.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.042 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1141February 7, 2001(2) NOTIFICATION OF DETERMINATION.—The

external review entity shall ensure that theplan or issuer, the participant, beneficiary,or enrollee (or authorized representative)and the treating health care professional (ifany) receives a copy of the written deter-mination of the independent medical re-viewer prepared under subsection (d)(3)(F).Nothing in this paragraph shall be construedas preventing an entity or reviewer from pro-viding an initial oral notice of the reviewer’sdetermination.

(3) FORM OF NOTICES.—Determinations andnotices under this subsection shall be writ-ten in a manner calculated to be understoodby an average participant.

(f) COMPLIANCE.—(1) APPLICATION OF DETERMINATIONS.—(A) EXTERNAL REVIEW DETERMINATIONS

BINDING ON PLAN.—The determinations of anexternal review entity and an independentmedical reviewer under this section shall bebinding upon the plan or issuer involved.

(B) COMPLIANCE WITH DETERMINATION.—Ifthe determination of an independent medicalreviewer is to reverse or modify the denial,the plan or issuer, upon the receipt of suchdetermination, shall authorize coverage tocomply with the medical reviewer’s deter-mination in accordance with the timeframeestablished by the medical reviewer.

(2) FAILURE TO COMPLY.—(A) IN GENERAL.—If a plan or issuer fails to

comply with the timeframe establishedunder paragraph (1)(B) with respect to a par-ticipant, beneficiary, or enrollee, where suchfailure to comply is caused by the plan orissuer, the participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee may obtain the items or services in-volved (in a manner consistent with the de-termination of the independent external re-viewer) from any provider regardless ofwhether such provider is a participating pro-vider under the plan or coverage.

(B) REIMBURSEMENT.—(i) IN GENERAL.—Where a participant, bene-

ficiary, or enrollee obtains items or servicesin accordance with subparagraph (A), theplan or issuer involved shall provide for re-imbursement of the costs of such items orservices. Such reimbursement shall be madeto the treating health care professional or tothe participant, beneficiary, or enrollee (inthe case of a participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee who pays for the costs of such items orservices).

(ii) AMOUNT.—The plan or issuer shall fullyreimburse a professional, participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee under clause (i) for thetotal costs of the items or services provided(regardless of any plan limitations that mayapply to the coverage of such items or serv-ices) so long as the items or services wereprovided in a manner consistent with the de-termination of the independent medical re-viewer.

(C) FAILURE TO REIMBURSE.—Where a planor issuer fails to provide reimbursement to aprofessional, participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee in accordance with this paragraph, theprofessional, participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee may commence a civil action (or uti-lize other remedies available under law) torecover only the amount of any such reim-bursement that is owed by the plan or issuerand any necessary legal costs or expenses(including attorney’s fees) incurred in recov-ering such reimbursement.

(D) AVAILABLE REMEDIES.—The remediesprovided under this paragraph are in addi-tion to any other available remedies.

(3) PENALTIES AGAINST AUTHORIZED OFFI-CIALS FOR REFUSING TO AUTHORIZE THE DETER-MINATION OF AN EXTERNAL REVIEW ENTITY.—

(A) MONETARY PENALTIES.—(i) IN GENERAL.—In any case in which the

determination of an external review entity isnot followed by a group health plan, or by a

health insurance issuer offering health insur-ance coverage, any person who, acting in thecapacity of authorizing the benefit, causessuch refusal may, in the discretion in a courtof competent jurisdiction, be liable to an ag-grieved participant, beneficiary, or enrolleefor a civil penalty in an amount of up to$1,000 a day from the date on which the de-termination was transmitted to the plan orissuer by the external review entity until thedate the refusal to provide the benefit is cor-rected.

(ii) ADDITIONAL PENALTY FOR FAILING TOFOLLOW TIMELINE.—In any case in whichtreatment was not commenced by the plan inaccordance with the determination of anindependent external reviewer, the Secretaryshall assess a civil penalty of $10,000 againstthe plan and the plan shall pay such penaltyto the participant, beneficiary, or enrolleeinvolved.

(B) CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AND ORDER OFATTORNEY’S FEES.—In any action described insubparagraph (A) brought by a participant,beneficiary, or enrollee with respect to agroup health plan, or a health insuranceissuer offering health insurance coverage, inwhich a plaintiff alleges that a person re-ferred to in such subparagraph has taken anaction resulting in a refusal of a benefit de-termined by an external appeal entity to becovered, or has failed to take an action forwhich such person is responsible under theterms and conditions of the plan or coverageand which is necessary under the plan orcoverage for authorizing a benefit, the courtshall cause to be served on the defendant anorder requiring the defendant—

(i) to cease and desist from the alleged ac-tion or failure to act; and

(ii) to pay to the plaintiff a reasonable at-torney’s fee and other reasonable costs relat-ing to the prosecution of the action on thecharges on which the plaintiff prevails.

(C) ADDITIONAL CIVIL PENALTIES.—(i) IN GENERAL.—In addition to any penalty

imposed under subparagraph (A) or (B), theappropriate Secretary may assess a civilpenalty against a person acting in the capac-ity of authorizing a benefit determined by anexternal review entity for one or more grouphealth plans, or health insurance issuers of-fering health insurance coverage, for—

(I) any pattern or practice of repeated re-fusal to authorize a benefit determined by anexternal appeal entity to be covered; or

(II) any pattern or practice of repeated vio-lations of the requirements of this sectionwith respect to such plan or coverage.

(ii) STANDARD OF PROOF AND AMOUNT OFPENALTY.—Such penalty shall be payableonly upon proof by clear and convincing evi-dence of such pattern or practice and shallbe in an amount not to exceed the lesser of—

(I) 25 percent of the aggregate value of ben-efits shown by the appropriate Secretary tohave not been provided, or unlawfully de-layed, in violation of this section under suchpattern or practice; or

(II) $500,000.(D) REMOVAL AND DISQUALIFICATION.—Any

person acting in the capacity of authorizingbenefits who has engaged in any such pat-tern or practice described in subparagraph(C)(i) with respect to a plan or coverage,upon the petition of the appropriate Sec-retary, may be removed by the court fromsuch position, and from any other involve-ment, with respect to such a plan or cov-erage, and may be precluded from returningto any such position or involvement for a pe-riod determined by the court.

(4) PROTECTION OF LEGAL RIGHTS.—Nothingin this subsection or subtitle shall be con-strued as altering or eliminating any causeof action or legal rights or remedies of par-ticipants, beneficiaries, enrollees, and othersunder State or Federal law (including sec-

tions 502 and 503 of the Employee RetirementIncome Security Act of 1974), including theright to file judicial actions to enforcerights.

(g) QUALIFICATIONS OF INDEPENDENT MED-ICAL REVIEWERS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In referring a denial to 1or more individuals to conduct independentmedical review under subsection (c), thequalified external review entity shall ensurethat—

(A) each independent medical reviewermeets the qualifications described in para-graphs (2) and (3);

(B) with respect to each review at least 1such reviewer meets the requirements de-scribed in paragraphs (4) and (5); and

(C) compensation provided by the entity tothe reviewer is consistent with paragraph (6).

(2) LICENSURE AND EXPERTISE.—Each inde-pendent medical reviewer shall be a physi-cian (allopathic or osteopathic) or healthcare professional who—

(A) is appropriately credentialed or li-censed in 1 or more States to deliver healthcare services; and

(B) typically treats the condition, makesthe diagnosis, or provides the type of treat-ment under review.

(3) INDEPENDENCE.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph

(B), each independent medical reviewer in acase shall—

(i) not be a related party (as defined inparagraph (7));

(ii) not have a material familial, financial,or professional relationship with such aparty; and

(iii) not otherwise have a conflict of inter-est with such a party (as determined underregulations).

(B) EXCEPTION.—Nothing in subparagraph(A) shall be construed to—

(i) prohibit an individual, solely on thebasis of affiliation with the plan or issuer,from serving as an independent medical re-viewer if—

(I) a non-affiliated individual is not reason-ably available;

(II) the affiliated individual is not involvedin the provision of items or services in thecase under review;

(III) the fact of such an affiliation is dis-closed to the plan or issuer and the partici-pant, beneficiary, or enrollee (or authorizedrepresentative) and neither party objects;and

(IV) the affiliated individual is not an em-ployee of the plan or issuer and does not pro-vide services exclusively or primarily to oron behalf of the plan or issuer;

(ii) prohibit an individual who has staffprivileges at the institution where the treat-ment involved takes place from serving as anindependent medical reviewer merely on thebasis of such affiliation if the affiliation isdisclosed to the plan or issuer and the partic-ipant, beneficiary, or enrollee (or authorizedrepresentative), and neither party objects; or

(iii) prohibit receipt of compensation by anindependent medical reviewer from an entityif the compensation is provided consistentwith paragraph (6).

(4) PRACTICING HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALIN SAME FIELD.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—In a case involving treat-ment, or the provision of items or services—

(i) by a physician, a reviewer shall be apracticing physician (allopathic or osteo-pathic) of the same or similar specialty, as aphysician who typically treats the condition,makes the diagnosis, or provides the type oftreatment under review; or

(ii) by a health care professional (otherthan a physician), a reviewer shall be a prac-ticing physician (allopathic or osteopathic)or, if determined appropriate by the quali-fied external review entity, a practicing

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:34 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.042 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1142 February 7, 2001health care professional (other than such aphysician), of the same or similar specialtyas the health care professional who typicallytreats the condition, makes the diagnosis, orprovides the type of treatment under review.

(B) PRACTICING DEFINED.—For purposes ofthis paragraph, the term ‘‘practicing’’means, with respect to an individual who isa physician or other health care professionalthat the individual provides health care serv-ices to individual patients on average atleast 2 days per week.

(5) PEDIATRIC EXPERTISE.—In the case of anexternal review relating to a child, a re-viewer shall have expertise under paragraph(2) in pediatrics.

(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEWER COMPENSA-TION.—Compensation provided by a qualifiedexternal review entity to an independentmedical reviewer in connection with a re-view under this section shall—

(A) not exceed a reasonable level; and(B) not be contingent on the decision ren-

dered by the reviewer.(7) RELATED PARTY DEFINED.—For purposes

of this section, the term ‘‘related party’’means, with respect to a denial of a claimunder a plan or coverage relating to a partic-ipant, beneficiary, or enrollee, any of the fol-lowing:

(A) The plan, plan sponsor, or issuer in-volved, or any fiduciary, officer, director, oremployee of such plan, plan sponsor, orissuer.

(B) The participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee (or authorized representative).

(C) The health care professional that pro-vides the items or services involved in thedenial.

(D) The institution at which the items orservices (or treatment) involved in the de-nial are provided.

(E) The manufacturer of any drug or otheritem that is included in the items or servicesinvolved in the denial.

(F) Any other party determined under anyregulations to have a substantial interest inthe denial involved.

(h) QUALIFIED EXTERNAL REVIEW ENTI-TIES.—

(1) SELECTION OF QUALIFIED EXTERNAL RE-VIEW ENTITIES.—

(A) LIMITATION ON PLAN OR ISSUER SELEC-TION.—The appropriate Secretary shall im-plement procedures—

(i) to assure that the selection processamong qualified external review entities willnot create any incentives for external reviewentities to make a decision in a biased man-ner; and

(ii) for auditing a sample of decisions bysuch entities to assure that no such deci-sions are made in a biased manner.No such selection process under the proce-dures implemented by the appropriate Sec-retary may give either the patient or theplan or issuer any ability to determine or in-fluence the selection of a qualified externalreview entity to review the case of any par-ticipant, beneficiary, or enrollee.

(B) STATE AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TOQUALIFIED EXTERNAL REVIEW ENTITIES FORHEALTH INSURANCE ISSUERS.—With respect tohealth insurance issuers offering health in-surance coverage in a State, the State mayprovide for external review activities to beconducted by a qualified external appeal en-tity that is designated by the State or thatis selected by the State in a manner deter-mined by the State to assure an unbiased de-termination.

(2) CONTRACT WITH QUALIFIED EXTERNAL RE-VIEW ENTITY.—Except as provided in para-graph (1)(B), the external review process of aplan or issuer under this section shall beconducted under a contract between the planor issuer and 1 or more qualified external re-view entities (as defined in paragraph (4)(A)).

(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT.—The terms and conditions of a contract underparagraph (2) shall—

(A) be consistent with the standards theappropriate Secretary shall establish to as-sure there is no real or apparent conflict ofinterest in the conduct of external review ac-tivities; and

(B) provide that the costs of the externalreview process shall be borne by the plan orissuer.

Subparagraph (B) shall not be construed asapplying to the imposition of a filing feeunder subsection (b)(2)(A)(iv) or costs in-curred by the participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee (or authorized representative) ortreating health care professional (if any) insupport of the review, including the provi-sion of additional evidence or information.

(4) QUALIFICATIONS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—In this section, the term

‘‘qualified external review entity’’ means, inrelation to a plan or issuer, an entity that isinitially certified (and periodically recer-tified) under subparagraph (C) as meetingthe following requirements:

(i) The entity has (directly or through con-tracts or other arrangements) sufficientmedical, legal, and other expertise and suffi-cient staffing to carry out duties of a quali-fied external review entity under this sectionon a timely basis, including making deter-minations under subsection (b)(2)(A) and pro-viding for independent medical reviewsunder subsection (d).

(ii) The entity is not a plan or issuer or anaffiliate or a subsidiary of a plan or issuer,and is not an affiliate or subsidiary of a pro-fessional or trade association of plans orissuers or of health care providers.

(iii) The entity has provided assurancesthat it will conduct external review activi-ties consistent with the applicable require-ments of this section and standards specifiedin subparagraph (C), including that it willnot conduct any external review activities ina case unless the independence requirementsof subparagraph (B) are met with respect tothe case.

(iv) The entity has provided assurancesthat it will provide information in a timelymanner under subparagraph (D).

(v) The entity meets such other require-ments as the appropriate Secretary providesby regulation.

(B) INDEPENDENCE REQUIREMENTS.—(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), an

entity meets the independence requirementsof this subparagraph with respect to anycase if the entity—

(I) is not a related party (as defined in sub-section (g)(7));

(II) does not have a material familial, fi-nancial, or professional relationship withsuch a party; and

(III) does not otherwise have a conflict ofinterest with such a party (as determinedunder regulations).

(ii) EXCEPTION FOR REASONABLE COMPENSA-TION.—Nothing in clause (i) shall be con-strued to prohibit receipt by a qualified ex-ternal review entity of compensation from aplan or issuer for the conduct of external re-view activities under this section if the com-pensation is provided consistent with clause(iii).

(iii) LIMITATIONS ON ENTITY COMPENSA-TION.—Compensation provided by a plan orissuer to a qualified external review entityin connection with reviews under this sec-tion shall—

(I) not exceed a reasonable level; and(II) not be contingent on any decision ren-

dered by the entity or by any independentmedical reviewer.

(C) CERTIFICATION AND RECERTIFICATIONPROCESS.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—The initial certificationand recertification of a qualified external re-view entity shall be made—

(I) under a process that is recognized or ap-proved by the appropriate Secretary; or

(II) by a qualified private standard-settingorganization that is approved by the appro-priate Secretary under clause (iii).

In taking action under subclause (I), the ap-propriate Secretary shall give deference toentities that are under contract with theFederal Government or with an applicableState authority to perform functions of thetype performed by qualified external reviewentities.

(ii) PROCESS.—The appropriate Secretaryshall not recognize or approve a processunder clause (i)(I) unless the process appliesstandards (as promulgated in regulations)that ensure that a qualified external reviewentity—

(I) will carry out (and has carried out, inthe case of recertification) the responsibil-ities of such an entity in accordance withthis section, including meeting applicabledeadlines;

(II) will meet (and has met, in the case ofrecertification) appropriate indicators of fis-cal integrity;

(III) will maintain (and has maintained, inthe case of recertification) appropriate con-fidentiality with respect to individuallyidentifiable health information obtained inthe course of conducting external review ac-tivities; and

(IV) in the case recertification, shall re-view the matters described in clause (iv).

(iii) APPROVAL OF QUALIFIED PRIVATESTANDARD-SETTING ORGANIZATIONS.—For pur-poses of clause (i)(II), the appropriate Sec-retary may approve a qualified privatestandard-setting organization if such Sec-retary finds that the organization only cer-tifies (or recertifies) external review entitiesthat meet at least the standards required forthe certification (or recertification) of exter-nal review entities under clause (ii).

(iv) CONSIDERATIONS IN RECERTIFICATIONS.—In conducting recertifications of a qualifiedexternal review entity under this paragraph,the appropriate Secretary or organizationconducting the recertification shall reviewcompliance of the entity with the require-ments for conducting external review activi-ties under this section, including the fol-lowing:

(I) Provision of information under subpara-graph (D).

(II) Adherence to applicable deadlines(both by the entity and by independent med-ical reviewers it refers cases to).

(III) Compliance with limitations on com-pensation (with respect to both the entityand independent medical reviewers it referscases to).

(IV) Compliance with applicable independ-ence requirements.

(v) PERIOD OF CERTIFICATION OR RECERTIFI-CATION.—A certification or recertificationprovided under this paragraph shall extendfor a period not to exceed 2 years.

(vi) REVOCATION.—A certification or recer-tification under this paragraph may be re-voked by the appropriate Secretary or by theorganization providing such certificationupon a showing of cause.

(vii) SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF ENTITIES.—Theappropriate Secretary shall certify and re-certify a number of external review entitieswhich is sufficient to ensure the timely andefficient provision of review services.

(D) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—(i) IN GENERAL.—A qualified external re-

view entity shall provide to the appropriateSecretary, in such manner and at such timesas such Secretary may require, such infor-mation (relating to the denials which have

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:34 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.042 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1143February 7, 2001been referred to the entity for the conduct ofexternal review under this section) as suchSecretary determines appropriate to assurecompliance with the independence and otherrequirements of this section to monitor andassess the quality of its external review ac-tivities and lack of bias in making deter-minations. Such information shall includeinformation described in clause (ii) but shallnot include individually identifiable medicalinformation.

(ii) INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED.—The in-formation described in this subclause withrespect to an entity is as follows:

(I) The number and types of denials forwhich a request for review has been receivedby the entity.

(II) The disposition by the entity of suchdenials, including the number referred to aindependent medical reviewer and the rea-sons for such dispositions (including the ap-plication of exclusions), on a plan or issuer-specific basis and on a health care specialty-specific basis.

(III) The length of time in making deter-minations with respect to such denials.

(IV) Updated information on the informa-tion required to be submitted as a conditionof certification with respect to the entity’sperformance of external review activities.

(iii) INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO CERTI-FYING ORGANIZATION.—

(I) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a qualifiedexternal review entity which is certified (orrecertified) under this subsection by a quali-fied private standard-setting organization, atthe request of the organization, the entityshall provide the organization with the infor-mation provided to the appropriate Sec-retary under clause (i).

(II) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—Nothing inthis subparagraph shall be construed as pre-venting such an organization from requiringadditional information as a condition of cer-tification or recertification of an entity.

(iv) USE OF INFORMATION.—Information pro-vided under this subparagraph may be usedby the appropriate Secretary and qualifiedprivate standard-setting organizations toconduct oversight of qualified external re-view entities, including recertification ofsuch entities, and shall be made available tothe public in an appropriate manner.

(E) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.—No qualifiedexternal review entity having a contractwith a plan or issuer, and no person who isemployed by any such entity or who fur-nishes professional services to such entity(including as an independent medical re-viewer), shall be held by reason of the per-formance of any duty, function, or activityrequired or authorized pursuant to this sec-tion, to be civilly liable under any law of theUnited States or of any State (or politicalsubdivision thereof) if there was no actualmalice or gross misconduct in the perform-ance of such duty, function, or activity.

Subtitle B—Access to Care

SEC. 111. CONSUMER CHOICE OPTION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—If—(1) a health insurance issuer providing

health insurance coverage in connectionwith a group health plan offers to enrolleeshealth insurance coverage which provides forcoverage of services only if such services arefurnished through health care professionalsand providers who are members of a networkof health care professionals and providerswho have entered into a contract with theissuer to provide such services, or

(2) a group health plan offers to partici-pants or beneficiaries health benefits whichprovide for coverage of services only if suchservices are furnished through health careprofessionals and providers who are membersof a network of health care professionals and

providers who have entered into a contractwith the plan to provide such services,then the issuer or plan shall also offer or ar-range to be offered to such enrollees, partici-pants, or beneficiaries (at the time of enroll-ment and during an annual open season asprovided under subsection (c)) the option ofhealth insurance coverage or health benefitswhich provide for coverage of such serviceswhich are not furnished through health careprofessionals and providers who are membersof such a network unless such enrollees, par-ticipants, or beneficiaries are offered suchnon-network coverage through anothergroup health plan or through another healthinsurance issuer in the group market.

(b) ADDITIONAL COSTS.—The amount of anyadditional premium charged by the healthinsurance issuer or group health plan for theadditional cost of the creation and mainte-nance of the option described in subsection(a) and the amount of any additional costsharing imposed under such option shall beborne by the enrollee, participant, or bene-ficiary unless it is paid by the health plansponsor or group health plan through agree-ment with the health insurance issuer.

(c) OPEN SEASON.—An enrollee, participant,or beneficiary, may change to the offeringprovided under this section only during atime period determined by the health insur-ance issuer or group health plan. Such timeperiod shall occur at least annually.SEC. 112. CHOICE OF HEALTH CARE PROFES-

SIONAL.(a) PRIMARY CARE.—If a group health plan,

or a health insurance issuer that offershealth insurance coverage, requires or pro-vides for designation by a participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee of a participating pri-mary care provider, then the plan or issuershall permit each participant, beneficiary,and enrollee to designate any participatingprimary care provider who is available to ac-cept such individual.

(b) SPECIALISTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), a

group health plan and a health insuranceissuer that offers health insurance coverageshall permit each participant, beneficiary, orenrollee to receive medically necessary andappropriate specialty care, pursuant to ap-propriate referral procedures, from anyqualified participating health care profes-sional who is available to accept such indi-vidual for such care.

(2) LIMITATION.—Paragraph (1) shall notapply to specialty care if the plan or issuerclearly informs participants, beneficiaries,and enrollees of the limitations on choice ofparticipating health care professionals withrespect to such care.

(3) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sub-section shall be construed as affecting theapplication of section 114 (relating to accessto specialty care).SEC. 113. ACCESS TO EMERGENCY CARE.

(a) COVERAGE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES.—(1) IN GENERAL.—If a group health plan, or

health insurance coverage offered by ahealth insurance issuer, provides or coversany benefits with respect to services in anemergency department of a hospital, theplan or issuer shall cover emergency services(as defined in paragraph (2)(B))—

(A) without the need for any prior author-ization determination;

(B) whether the health care provider fur-nishing such services is a participating pro-vider with respect to such services;

(C) in a manner so that, if such services areprovided to a participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee—

(i) by a nonparticipating health care pro-vider with or without prior authorization, or

(ii) by a participating health care providerwithout prior authorization,

the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee isnot liable for amounts that exceed theamounts of liability that would be incurredif the services were provided by a partici-pating health care provider with prior au-thorization; and

(D) without regard to any other term orcondition of such coverage (other than exclu-sion or coordination of benefits, or an affili-ation or waiting period, permitted under sec-tion 2701 of the Public Health Service Act,section 701 of the Employee Retirement In-come Security Act of 1974, or section 9801 ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and otherthan applicable cost-sharing).

(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:(A) EMERGENCY MEDICAL CONDITION.—The

term ‘‘emergency medical condition’’ meansa medical condition manifesting itself byacute symptoms of sufficient severity (in-cluding severe pain) such that a prudentlayperson, who possesses an average knowl-edge of health and medicine, could reason-ably expect the absence of immediate med-ical attention to result in a condition de-scribed in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section1867(e)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act.

(B) EMERGENCY SERVICES.—The term‘‘emergency services’’ means, with respect toan emergency medical condition—

(i) a medical screening examination (as re-quired under section 1867 of the Social Secu-rity Act) that is within the capability of theemergency department of a hospital, includ-ing ancillary services routinely available tothe emergency department to evaluate suchemergency medical condition, and

(ii) within the capabilities of the staff andfacilities available at the hospital, such fur-ther medical examination and treatment asare required under section 1867 of such Act tostabilize the patient.

(C) STABILIZE.—The term ‘‘to stabilize’’,with respect to an emergency medical condi-tion (as defined in subparagraph (A)), has themeaning given in section 1867(e)(3) of the So-cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395dd(e)(3)).

(b) REIMBURSEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE CAREAND POST-STABILIZATION CARE.—A grouphealth plan, and health insurance coverageoffered by a health insurance issuer, mustprovide reimbursement for maintenance careand post-stabilization care in accordancewith the requirements of section 1852(d)(2) ofthe Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–22(d)(2)). Such reimbursement shall be pro-vided in a manner consistent with subsection(a)(1)(C).

(c) COVERAGE OF EMERGENCY AMBULANCESERVICES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—If a group health plan, orhealth insurance coverage provided by ahealth insurance issuer, provides any bene-fits with respect to ambulance services andemergency services, the plan or issuer shallcover emergency ambulance services (as de-fined in paragraph (2)) furnished under theplan or coverage under the same terms andconditions under subparagraphs (A) through(D) of subsection (a)(1) under which coverageis provided for emergency services.

(2) EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICES.—Forpurposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘emer-gency ambulance services’’ means ambu-lance services (as defined for purposes of sec-tion 1861(s)(7) of the Social Security Act) fur-nished to transport an individual who has anemergency medical condition (as defined insubsection (a)(2)(A)) to a hospital for the re-ceipt of emergency services (as defined insubsection (a)(2)(B)) in a case in which theemergency services are covered under theplan or coverage pursuant to subsection(a)(1) and a prudent layperson, with an aver-age knowledge of health and medicine, couldreasonably expect that the absence of suchtransport would result in placing the healthof the individual in serious jeopardy, serious

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.043 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1144 February 7, 2001impairment of bodily function, or seriousdysfunction of any bodily organ or part.SEC. 114. TIMELY ACCESS TO SPECIALISTS.

(a) TIMELY ACCESS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan or

health insurance issuer offering health insur-ance coverage shall ensure that participants,beneficiaries, and enrollees receive timelyaccess to specialists who are appropriate tothe condition of, and accessible to, the par-ticipant, beneficiary, or enrollee, when suchspecialty care is a covered benefit under theplan or coverage.

(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing inparagraph (1) shall be construed—

(A) to require the coverage under a grouphealth plan or health insurance coverage ofbenefits or services;

(B) to prohibit a plan or issuer from includ-ing providers in the network only to the ex-tent necessary to meet the needs of theplan’s or issuer’s participants, beneficiaries,or enrollees; or

(C) to override any State licensure orscope-of-practice law.

(3) ACCESS TO CERTAIN PROVIDERS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—With respect to specialty

care under this section, if a participatingspecialist is not available and qualified toprovide such care to the participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee, the plan or issuer shallprovide for coverage of such care by a non-participating specialist.

(B) TREATMENT OF NONPARTICIPATING PRO-VIDERS.—If a participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee receives care from a nonparticipatingspecialist pursuant to subparagraph (A),such specialty care shall be provided at noadditional cost to the participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee beyond what the partici-pant, beneficiary, or enrollee would other-wise pay for such specialty care if providedby a participating specialist.

(b) REFERRALS.—(1) AUTHORIZATION.—A group health plan or

health insurance issuer may require an au-thorization in order to obtain coverage forspecialty services under this section. Anysuch authorization—

(A) shall be for an appropriate duration oftime or number of referrals; and

(B) may not be refused solely because theauthorization involves services of a non-participating specialist (described in sub-section (a)(3)).

(2) REFERRALS FOR ONGOING SPECIAL CONDI-TIONS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan orhealth insurance issuer shall permit a partic-ipant, beneficiary, or enrollee who has an on-going special condition (as defined in sub-paragraph (B)) to receive a referral to a spe-cialist for the treatment of such conditionand such specialist may authorize such refer-rals, procedures, tests, and other medicalservices with respect to such condition, orcoordinate the care for such condition, sub-ject to the terms of a treatment plan (if any)referred to in subsection (c) with respect tothe condition.

(B) ONGOING SPECIAL CONDITION DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘ongoing specialcondition’’ means a condition or diseasethat—

(i) is life-threatening, degenerative, poten-tially disabling, or congenital; and

(ii) requires specialized medical care over aprolonged period of time.

(c) TREATMENT PLANS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan or

health insurance issuer may require that thespecialty care be provided—

(A) pursuant to a treatment plan, but onlyif the treatment plan—

(i) is developed by the specialist, in con-sultation with the case manager or primarycare provider, and the participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee, and

(ii) is approved by the plan or issuer in atimely manner, if the plan or issuer requiressuch approval; and

(B) in accordance with applicable qualityassurance and utilization review standards ofthe plan or issuer.

(2) NOTIFICATION.—Nothing in paragraph (1)shall be construed as prohibiting a plan orissuer from requiring the specialist to pro-vide the plan or issuer with regular updateson the specialty care provided, as well as allother reasonably necessary medical informa-tion.

(d) SPECIALIST DEFINED.—For purposes ofthis section, the term ‘‘specialist’’ means,with respect to the condition of the partici-pant, beneficiary, or enrollee, a health careprofessional, facility, or center that has ade-quate expertise through appropriate trainingand experience (including, in the case of achild, appropriate pediatric expertise) to pro-vide high quality care in treating the condi-tion.SEC. 115. PATIENT ACCESS TO OBSTETRIC AND

GYNECOLOGICAL CARE.(a) GENERAL RIGHTS.—(1) DIRECT ACCESS.—A group health plan, or

health insurance issuer offering health insur-ance coverage, described in subsection (b)may not require authorization or referral bythe plan, issuer, or any person (including aprimary care provider described in sub-section (b)(2)) in the case of a female partici-pant, beneficiary, or enrollee who seeks cov-erage for obstetrical or gynecological careprovided by a participating health care pro-fessional who specializes in obstetrics orgynecology.

(2) OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICALCARE.—A group health plan or health insur-ance issuer described in subsection (b) shalltreat the provision of obstetrical and gyne-cological care, and the ordering of relatedobstetrical and gynecological items andservices, pursuant to the direct access de-scribed under paragraph (1), by a partici-pating health care professional who special-izes in obstetrics or gynecology as the au-thorization of the primary care provider.

(b) APPLICATION OF SECTION.—A grouphealth plan, or health insurance issuer offer-ing health insurance coverage, described inthis subsection is a group health plan or cov-erage that—

(1) provides coverage for obstetric orgynecologic care; and

(2) requires the designation by a partici-pant, beneficiary, or enrollee of a partici-pating primary care provider.

(c) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in subsection(a) shall be construed to—

(1) waive any exclusions of coverage underthe terms and conditions of the plan orhealth insurance coverage with respect tocoverage of obstetrical or gynecologicalcare; or

(2) preclude the group health plan orhealth insurance issuer involved from requir-ing that the obstetrical or gynecological pro-vider notify the primary care health careprofessional or the plan or issuer of treat-ment decisions.SEC. 116. ACCESS TO PEDIATRIC CARE.

(a) PEDIATRIC CARE.—In the case of a per-son who has a child who is a participant,beneficiary, or enrollee under a group healthplan, or health insurance coverage offered bya health insurance issuer, if the plan orissuer requires or provides for the designa-tion of a participating primary care providerfor the child, the plan or issuer shall permitsuch person to designate a physician(allopathic or osteopathic) who specializes inpediatrics as the child’s primary care pro-vider if such provider participates in the net-work of the plan or issuer.

(b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in subsection(a) shall be construed to waive any exclu-

sions of coverage under the terms and condi-tions of the plan or health insurance cov-erage with respect to coverage of pediatriccare.SEC. 117. CONTINUITY OF CARE.

(a) TERMINATION OF PROVIDER.—(1) IN GENERAL.—If—(A) a contract between a group health

plan, or a health insurance issuer offeringhealth insurance coverage, and a treatinghealth care provider is terminated (as de-fined in paragraph (e)(4)), or

(B) benefits or coverage provided by ahealth care provider are terminated becauseof a change in the terms of provider partici-pation in such plan or coverage,the plan or issuer shall meet the require-ments of paragraph (3) with respect to eachcontinuing care patient.

(2) TREATMENT OF TERMINATION OF CON-TRACT WITH HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUER.—If acontract for the provision of health insur-ance coverage between a group health planand a health insurance issuer is terminatedand, as a result of such termination, cov-erage of services of a health care provider isterminated with respect to an individual, theprovisions of paragraph (1) (and the suc-ceeding provisions of this section) shallapply under the plan in the same manner asif there had been a contract between the planand the provider that had been terminated,but only with respect to benefits that arecovered under the plan after the contracttermination.

(3) REQUIREMENTS.—The requirements ofthis paragraph are that the plan or issuer—

(A) notify the continuing care patient in-volved, or arrange to have the patient noti-fied pursuant to subsection (d)(2), on a time-ly basis of the termination described in para-graph (1) (or paragraph (2), if applicable) andthe right to elect continued transitional carefrom the provider under this section;

(B) provide the patient with an oppor-tunity to notify the plan or issuer of the pa-tient’s need for transitional care; and

(C) subject to subsection (c), permit the pa-tient to elect to continue to be covered withrespect to the course of treatment by suchprovider with the provider’s consent during atransitional period (as provided for undersubsection (b)).

(4) CONTINUING CARE PATIENT.—For pur-poses of this section, the term ‘‘continuingcare patient’’ means a participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee who—

(A) is undergoing a course of treatment fora serious and complex condition from theprovider at the time the plan or issuer re-ceives or provides notice of provider, benefit,or coverage termination described in para-graph (1) (or paragraph (2), if applicable);

(B) is undergoing a course of institutionalor inpatient care from the provider at thetime of such notice;

(C) is scheduled to undergo non-electivesurgery from the provider at the time ofsuch notice;

(D) is pregnant and undergoing a course oftreatment for the pregnancy from the pro-vider at the time of such notice; or

(E) is or was determined to be terminallyill (as determined under section1861(dd)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act) atthe time of such notice, but only with re-spect to a provider that was treating the ter-minal illness before the date of such notice.

(b) TRANSITIONAL PERIODS.—(1) SERIOUS AND COMPLEX CONDITIONS.—The

transitional period under this subsectionwith respect to a continuing care patient de-scribed in subsection (a)(4)(A) shall extendfor up to 90 days (as determined by the treat-ing health care professional) from the date ofthe notice described in subsection (a)(3)(A).

(2) INSTITUTIONAL OR INPATIENT CARE.—Thetransitional period under this subsection for

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.043 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1145February 7, 2001a continuing care patient described in sub-section (a)(4)(B) shall extend until the ear-lier of—

(A) the expiration of the 90-day period be-ginning on the date on which the noticeunder subsection (a)(3)(A) is provided; or

(B) the date of discharge of the patientfrom such care or the termination of the pe-riod of institutionalization, or, if later, thedate of completion of reasonable follow-upcare.

(3) SCHEDULED NON-ELECTIVE SURGERY.—The transitional period under this subsectionfor a continuing care patient described insubsection (a)(4)(C) shall extend until thecompletion of the surgery involved and post-surgical follow-up care relating to the sur-gery and occurring within 90 days after thedate of the surgery.

(4) PREGNANCY.—The transitional periodunder this subsection for a continuing carepatient described in subsection (a)(4)(D) shallextend through the provision of post-partumcare directly related to the delivery.

(5) TERMINAL ILLNESS.—The transitionalperiod under this subsection for a continuingcare patient described in subsection (a)(4)(E)shall extend for the remainder of the pa-tient’s life for care that is directly related tothe treatment of the terminal illness or itsmedical manifestations.

(c) PERMISSIBLE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Agroup health plan or health insurance issuermay condition coverage of continued treat-ment by a provider under this section uponthe provider agreeing to the following termsand conditions:

(1) The treating health care provideragrees to accept reimbursement from theplan or issuer and continuing care patientinvolved (with respect to cost-sharing) at therates applicable prior to the start of thetransitional period as payment in full (or, inthe case described in subsection (a)(2), at therates applicable under the replacement planor coverage after the date of the terminationof the contract with the group health plan orhealth insurance issuer) and not to imposecost-sharing with respect to the patient inan amount that would exceed the cost-shar-ing that could have been imposed if the con-tract referred to in subsection (a)(1) had notbeen terminated.

(2) The treating health care provideragrees to adhere to the quality assurancestandards of the plan or issuer responsiblefor payment under paragraph (1) and to pro-vide to such plan or issuer necessary medicalinformation related to the care provided.

(3) The treating health care provideragrees otherwise to adhere to such plan’s orissuer’s policies and procedures, includingprocedures regarding referrals and obtainingprior authorization and providing servicespursuant to a treatment plan (if any) ap-proved by the plan or issuer.

(d) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing inthis section shall be construed—

(1) to require the coverage of benefitswhich would not have been covered if theprovider involved remained a participatingprovider; or

(2) with respect to the termination of acontract under subsection (a) to prevent agroup health plan or health insurance issuerfrom requiring that the health care pro-vider—

(A) notify participants, beneficiaries, orenrollees of their rights under this section;or

(B) provide the plan or issuer with thename of each participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee who the provider believes is a con-tinuing care patient.

(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:(1) CONTRACT.—The term ‘‘contract’’ in-

cludes, with respect to a plan or issuer and atreating health care provider, a contract be-

tween such plan or issuer and an organizednetwork of providers that includes the treat-ing health care provider, and (in the case ofsuch a contract) the contract between thetreating health care provider and the orga-nized network.

(2) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.—The term‘‘health care provider’’ or ‘‘provider’’means—

(A) any individual who is engaged in thedelivery of health care services in a Stateand who is required by State law or regula-tion to be licensed or certified by the Stateto engage in the delivery of such services inthe State; and

(B) any entity that is engaged in the deliv-ery of health care services in a State andthat, if it is required by State law or regula-tion to be licensed or certified by the Stateto engage in the delivery of such services inthe State, is so licensed.

(3) SERIOUS AND COMPLEX CONDITION.—Theterm ‘‘serious and complex condition’’means, with respect to a participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee under the plan or cov-erage—

(A) in the case of an acute illness, a condi-tion that is serious enough to require spe-cialized medical treatment to avoid the rea-sonable possibility of death or permanentharm; or

(B) in the case of a chronic illness or condi-tion, is an ongoing special condition (as de-fined in section 114(b)(2)(B)).

(4) TERMINATED.—The term ‘‘terminated’’includes, with respect to a contract, the ex-piration or nonrenewal of the contract, butdoes not include a termination of the con-tract for failure to meet applicable qualitystandards or for fraud.SEC. 118. ACCESS TO NEEDED PRESCRIPTION

DRUGS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—To the extent that agroup health plan, or health insurance cov-erage offered by a health insurance issuer,provides coverage for benefits with respectto prescription drugs, and limits such cov-erage to drugs included in a formulary, theplan or issuer shall—

(1) ensure the participation of physiciansand pharmacists in developing and reviewingsuch formulary;

(2) provide for disclosure of the formularyto providers; and

(3) in accordance with the applicable qual-ity assurance and utilization review stand-ards of the plan or issuer, provide for excep-tions from the formulary limitation when anon-formulary alternative is medically nec-essary and appropriate and, in the case ofsuch an exception, apply the same cost-shar-ing requirements that would have applied inthe case of a drug covered under the for-mulary.

(b) COVERAGE OF APPROVED DRUGS ANDMEDICAL DEVICES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan (orhealth insurance coverage offered in connec-tion with such a plan) that provides any cov-erage of prescription drugs or medical de-vices shall not deny coverage of such a drugor device on the basis that the use is inves-tigational, if the use—

(A) in the case of a prescription drug—(i) is included in the labeling authorized by

the application in effect for the drug pursu-ant to subsection (b) or (j) of section 505 ofthe Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,without regard to any postmarketing re-quirements that may apply under such Act;or

(ii) is included in the labeling authorizedby the application in effect for the drugunder section 351 of the Public Health Serv-ice Act, without regard to any post-marketing requirements that may apply pur-suant to such section; or

(B) in the case of a medical device, is in-cluded in the labeling authorized by a regu-lation under subsection (d) or (3) of section513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and CosmeticAct, an order under subsection (f) of suchsection, or an application approved undersection 515 of such Act, without regard toany postmarketing requirements that mayapply under such Act.

(2) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sub-section shall be construed as requiring agroup health plan (or health insurance cov-erage offered in connection with such a plan)to provide any coverage of prescription drugsor medical devices.SEC. 119. COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS PARTICI-

PATING IN APPROVED CLINICALTRIALS.

(a) COVERAGE.—(1) IN GENERAL.—If a group health plan, or

health insurance issuer that is providinghealth insurance coverage, provides coverageto a qualified individual (as defined in sub-section (b)), the plan or issuer—

(A) may not deny the individual participa-tion in the clinical trial referred to in sub-section (b)(2);

(B) subject to subsection (c), may not deny(or limit or impose additional conditions on)the coverage of routine patient costs foritems and services furnished in connectionwith participation in the trial; and

(C) may not discriminate against the indi-vidual on the basis of the enrollee’s partici-pation in such trial.

(2) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN COSTS.—For pur-poses of paragraph (1)(B), routine patientcosts do not include the cost of the tests ormeasurements conducted primarily for thepurpose of the clinical trial involved.

(3) USE OF IN-NETWORK PROVIDERS.—If oneor more participating providers is partici-pating in a clinical trial, nothing in para-graph (1) shall be construed as preventing aplan or issuer from requiring that a qualifiedindividual participate in the trial throughsuch a participating provider if the providerwill accept the individual as a participant inthe trial.

(b) QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL DEFINED.—Forpurposes of subsection (a), the term ‘‘quali-fied individual’’ means an individual who is aparticipant or beneficiary in a group healthplan, or who is an enrollee under health in-surance coverage, and who meets the fol-lowing conditions:

(1)(A) The individual has a life-threateningor serious illness for which no standardtreatment is effective.

(B) The individual is eligible to participatein an approved clinical trial according to thetrial protocol with respect to treatment ofsuch illness.

(C) The individual’s participation in thetrial offers meaningful potential for signifi-cant clinical benefit for the individual.

(2) Either—(A) the referring physician is a partici-

pating health care professional and has con-cluded that the individual’s participation insuch trial would be appropriate based uponthe individual meeting the conditions de-scribed in paragraph (1); or

(B) the participant, beneficiary, or enrolleeprovides medical and scientific informationestablishing that the individual’s participa-tion in such trial would be appropriate basedupon the individual meeting the conditionsdescribed in paragraph (1).

(c) PAYMENT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Under this section a group

health plan or health insurance issuer shallprovide for payment for routine patient costsdescribed in subsection (a)(2) but is not re-quired to pay for costs of items and servicesthat are reasonably expected (as determinedby the appropriate Secretary) to be paid forby the sponsors of an approved clinical trial.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.043 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1146 February 7, 2001(2) PAYMENT RATE.—In the case of covered

items and services provided by—(A) a participating provider, the payment

rate shall be at the agreed upon rate; or(B) a nonparticipating provider, the pay-

ment rate shall be at the rate the plan orissuer would normally pay for comparableservices under subparagraph (A).

(d) APPROVED CLINICAL TRIAL DEFINED.—(1) IN GENERAL.—In this section, the term

‘‘approved clinical trial’’ means a clinical re-search study or clinical investigation ap-proved and funded (which may include fund-ing through in-kind contributions) by one ormore of the following:

(A) The National Institutes of Health.(B) A cooperative group or center of the

National Institutes of Health.(C) The Food and Drug Administration.(D) Either of the following if the condi-

tions described in paragraph (2) are met:(i) The Department of Veterans Affairs.(ii) The Department of Defense.(2) CONDITIONS FOR DEPARTMENTS.—The

conditions described in this paragraph, for astudy or investigation conducted by a De-partment, are that the study or investiga-tion has been reviewed and approved througha system of peer review that the appropriateSecretary determines—

(A) to be comparable to the system of peerreview of studies and investigations used bythe National Institutes of Health; and

(B) assures unbiased review of the highestscientific standards by qualified individualswho have no interest in the outcome of thereview.

(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sectionshall be construed to limit a plan’s orissuer’s coverage with respect to clinicaltrials.SEC. 120. REQUIRED COVERAGE FOR MINIMUM

HOSPITAL STAY FORMASTECTOMIES AND LYMPH NODEDISSECTIONS FOR THE TREATMENTOF BREAST CANCER AND COVERAGEFOR SECONDARY CONSULTATIONS.

(a) INPATIENT CARE.—(1) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan, and

a health insurance issuer providing healthinsurance coverage, that provides medicaland surgical benefits shall ensure that inpa-tient coverage with respect to the treatmentof breast cancer is provided for a period oftime as is determined by the attending phy-sician, in consultation with the patient, tobe medically necessary and appropriatefollowing—

(A) a mastectomy;(B) a lumpectomy; or(C) a lymph node dissection for the treat-

ment of breast cancer.(2) EXCEPTION.—Nothing in this section

shall be construed as requiring the provisionof inpatient coverage if the attending physi-cian and patient determine that a shorter pe-riod of hospital stay is medically appro-priate.

(b) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN MODIFICA-TIONS.—In implementing the requirements ofthis section, a group health plan, and ahealth insurance issuer providing health in-surance coverage, may not modify the termsand conditions of coverage based on the de-termination by a participant, beneficiary, orenrollee to request less than the minimumcoverage required under subsection (a).

(c) SECONDARY CONSULTATIONS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan, and

a health insurance issuer providing healthinsurance coverage, that provides coveragewith respect to medical and surgical servicesprovided in relation to the diagnosis andtreatment of cancer shall ensure that fullcoverage is provided for secondary consulta-tions by specialists in the appropriate med-ical fields (including pathology, radiology,and oncology) to confirm or refute such diag-

nosis. Such plan or issuer shall ensure thatfull coverage is provided for such secondaryconsultation whether such consultation isbased on a positive or negative initial diag-nosis. In any case in which the attendingphysician certifies in writing that servicesnecessary for such a secondary consultationare not sufficiently available from special-ists operating under the plan or coveragewith respect to whose services coverage isotherwise provided under such plan or bysuch issuer, such plan or issuer shall ensurethat coverage is provided with respect to theservices necessary for the secondary con-sultation with any other specialist selectedby the attending physician for such purposeat no additional cost to the individual be-yond that which the individual would havepaid if the specialist was participating in thenetwork of the plan or issuer.

(2) EXCEPTION.—Nothing in paragraph (1)shall be construed as requiring the provisionof secondary consultations where the patientdetermines not to seek such a consultation.

(d) PROHIBITION ON PENALTIES OR INCEN-TIVES.—A group health plan, and a health in-surance issuer providing health insurancecoverage, may not—

(1) penalize or otherwise reduce or limitthe reimbursement of a provider or specialistbecause the provider or specialist providedcare to a participant, beneficiary, or enrolleein accordance with this section;

(2) provide financial or other incentives toa physician or specialist to induce the physi-cian or specialist to keep the length of inpa-tient stays of patients following a mastec-tomy, lumpectomy, or a lymph node dissec-tion for the treatment of breast cancer belowcertain limits or to limit referrals for sec-ondary consultations; or

(3) provide financial or other incentives toa physician or specialist to induce the physi-cian or specialist to refrain from referring aparticipant, beneficiary, or enrollee for asecondary consultation that would otherwisebe covered by the plan or coverage involvedunder subsection (c).

Subtitle C—Access to InformationSEC. 121. PATIENT ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

(a) REQUIREMENT—(1) DISCLOSURE.—(A) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan, and

a health insurance issuer that provides cov-erage in connection with health insurancecoverage, shall provide for the disclosure toparticipants, beneficiaries, and enrollees—

(i) of the information described in sub-section (b) at the time of the initial enroll-ment of the participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee under the plan or coverage;

(ii) of such information on an annualbasis—

(I) in conjunction with the election periodof the plan or coverage if the plan or cov-erage has such an election period; or

(II) in the case of a plan or coverage thatdoes not have an election period, in conjunc-tion with the beginning of the plan or cov-erage year; and

(iii) of information relating to any mate-rial reduction to the benefits or informationdescribed in such subsection or subsection(c), in the form of a notice provided not laterthan 30 days before the date on which the re-duction takes effect.

(B) PARTICIPANTS, BENEFICIARIES, AND EN-ROLLEES.—The disclosure required under sub-paragraph (A) shall be provided—

(i) jointly to each participant, beneficiary,and enrollee who reside at the same address;or

(ii) in the case of a beneficiary or enrolleewho does not reside at the same address asthe participant or another enrollee, sepa-rately to the participant or other enrolleesand such beneficiary or enrollee.

(2) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—Informa-tion shall be provided to participants, bene-ficiaries, and enrollees under this section atthe last known address maintained by theplan or issuer with respect to such partici-pants, beneficiaries, or enrollees, to the ex-tent that such information is provided toparticipants, beneficiaries, or enrollees viathe United States Postal Service or otherprivate delivery service.

(b) REQUIRED INFORMATION.—The informa-tional materials to be distributed under thissection shall include for each option avail-able under the group health plan or healthinsurance coverage the following:

(1) BENEFITS.—A description of the coveredbenefits, including—

(A) any in- and out-of-network benefits;(B) specific preventive services covered

under the plan or coverage if such servicesare covered;

(C) any specific exclusions or express limi-tations of benefits described in section104(b)(3)(C);

(D) any other benefit limitations, includ-ing any annual or lifetime benefit limits andany monetary limits or limits on the numberof visits, days, or services, and any specificcoverage exclusions; and

(E) any definition of medical necessityused in making coverage determinations bythe plan, issuer, or claims administrator.

(2) COST SHARING.—A description of anycost-sharing requirements, including—

(A) any premiums, deductibles, coinsur-ance, copayment amounts, and liability forbalance billing, for which the participant,beneficiary, or enrollee will be responsibleunder each option available under the plan;

(B) any maximum out-of-pocket expensefor which the participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee may be liable;

(C) any cost-sharing requirements for out-of-network benefits or services received fromnonparticipating providers; and

(D) any additional cost-sharing or chargesfor benefits and services that are furnishedwithout meeting applicable plan or coveragerequirements, such as prior authorization orprecertification.

(3) SERVICE AREA.—A description of theplan or issuer’s service area, including theprovision of any out-of-area coverage.

(4) PARTICIPATING PROVIDERS.—A directoryof participating providers (to the extent aplan or issuer provides coverage through anetwork of providers) that includes, at aminimum, the name, address, and telephonenumber of each participating provider, andinformation about how to inquire whether aparticipating provider is currently acceptingnew patients.

(5) CHOICE OF PRIMARY CARE PROVIDER.—Adescription of any requirements and proce-dures to be used by participants, bene-ficiaries, and enrollees in selecting, access-ing, or changing their primary care provider,including providers both within and outsideof the network (if the plan or issuer permitsout-of-network services), and the right to se-lect a pediatrician as a primary care pro-vider under section 116 for a participant, ben-eficiary, or enrollee who is a child if suchsection applies.

(6) PREAUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS.—Adescription of the requirements and proce-dures to be used to obtain preauthorizationfor health services, if such preauthorizationis required.

(7) EXPERIMENTAL AND INVESTIGATIONALTREATMENTS.—A description of the processfor determining whether a particular item,service, or treatment is considered experi-mental or investigational, and the cir-cumstances under which such treatments arecovered by the plan or issuer.

(8) SPECIALTY CARE.—A description of therequirements and procedures to be used by

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:34 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.043 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1147February 7, 2001participants, beneficiaries, and enrollees inaccessing specialty care and obtaining refer-rals to participating and nonparticipatingspecialists, including any limitations onchoice of health care professionals referredto in section 112(b)(2) and the right to timelyaccess to specialists care under section 114 ifsuch section applies.

(9) CLINICAL TRIALS.—A description the cir-cumstances and conditions under which par-ticipation in clinical trials is covered underthe terms and conditions of the plan or cov-erage, and the right to obtain coverage forapproved clinical trials under section 119 ifsuch section applies.

(10) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.—To the extentthe plan or issuer provides coverage for pre-scription drugs, a statement of whether suchcoverage is limited to drugs included in aformulary, a description of any provisionsand cost-sharing required for obtaining on-and off-formulary medications, and a de-scription of the rights of participants, bene-ficiaries, and enrollees in obtaining access toaccess to prescription drugs under section118 if such section applies.

(11) EMERGENCY SERVICES.—A summary ofthe rules and procedures for accessing emer-gency services, including the right of a par-ticipant, beneficiary, or enrollee to obtainemergency services under the prudentlayperson standard under section 113, if suchsection applies, and any educational infor-mation that the plan or issuer may provideregarding the appropriate use of emergencyservices.

(12) CLAIMS AND APPEALS.—A description ofthe plan or issuer’s rules and procedures per-taining to claims and appeals, a descriptionof the rights (including deadlines for exer-cising rights) of participants, beneficiaries,and enrollees under subtitle A in obtainingcovered benefits, filing a claim for benefits,and appealing coverage decisions internallyand externally (including telephone numbersand mailing addresses of the appropriate au-thority), and a description of any additionallegal rights and remedies available undersection 502 of the Employee Retirement In-come Security Act of 1974 and applicableState law.

(13) ADVANCE DIRECTIVES AND ORGAN DONA-TION.—A description of procedures for ad-vance directives and organ donation deci-sions if the plan or issuer maintains suchprocedures.

(14) INFORMATION ON PLANS AND ISSUERS.—The name, mailing address, and telephonenumber or numbers of the plan adminis-trator and the issuer to be used by partici-pants, beneficiaries, and enrollees seekinginformation about plan or coverage benefitsand services, payment of a claim, or author-ization for services and treatment. Notice ofwhether the benefits under the plan or cov-erage are provided under a contract or policyof insurance issued by an issuer, or whetherbenefits are provided directly by the plansponsor who bears the insurance risk.

(15) TRANSLATION SERVICES.—A summarydescription of any translation or interpreta-tion services (including the availability ofprinted information in languages other thanEnglish, audio tapes, or information inBraille) that are available for non-Englishspeakers and participants, beneficiaries, andenrollees with communication disabilitiesand a description of how to access theseitems or services.

(16) ACCREDITATION INFORMATION.—Any in-formation that is made public by accreditingorganizations in the process of accreditationif the plan or issuer is accredited, or any ad-ditional quality indicators (such as the re-sults of enrollee satisfaction surveys) thatthe plan or issuer makes public or makesavailable to participants, beneficiaries, andenrollees.

(17) NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS.—A descrip-tion of any rights of participants, bene-ficiaries, and enrollees that are establishedby the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of2001 (excluding those described in paragraphs(1) through (16)) if such sections apply. Thedescription required under this paragraphmay be combined with the notices of thetype described in sections 711(d), 713(b), or606(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act of 1974 and with any other no-tice provision that the appropriate Secretarydetermines may be combined, so long as suchcombination does not result in any reductionin the information that would otherwise beprovided to the recipient.

(18) AVAILABILITY OF ADDITIONAL INFORMA-TION.—A statement that the information de-scribed in subsection (c), and instructions onobtaining such information (including tele-phone numbers and, if available, Internetwebsites), shall be made available upon re-quest.

(c) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—The infor-mational materials to be provided upon therequest of a participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee shall include for each option availableunder a group health plan or health insur-ance coverage the following:

(1) STATUS OF PROVIDERS.—The State licen-sure status of the plan or issuer’s partici-pating health care professionals and partici-pating health care facilities, and, if avail-able, the education, training, specialtyqualifications or certifications of such pro-fessionals.

(2) COMPENSATION METHODS.—A summarydescription by category of the applicablemethods (such as capitation, fee-for-service,salary, bundled payments, per diem, or acombination thereof) used for compensatingprospective or treating health care profes-sionals (including primary care providersand specialists) and facilities in connectionwith the provision of health care under theplan or coverage.

(3) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.—Informationabout whether a specific prescription medi-cation is included in the formulary of theplan or issuer, if the plan or issuer uses a de-fined formulary.

(4) EXTERNAL APPEALS INFORMATION.—Ag-gregate information on the number and out-comes of external medical reviews, relativeto the sample size (such as the number ofcovered lives) under the plan or under thecoverage of the issuer.

(d) MANNER OF DISCLOSURE.—The informa-tion described in this section shall be dis-closed in an accessible medium and formatthat is calculated to be understood by an av-erage participant or enrollee.

(e) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing inthis section shall be construed to prohibit agroup health plan, or a health insuranceissuer in connection with health insurancecoverage, from—

(1) distributing any other additional infor-mation determined by the plan or issuer tobe important or necessary in assisting par-ticipants, beneficiaries, and enrollees in theselection of a health plan or health insur-ance coverage; and

(2) complying with the provisions of thissection by providing information in bro-chures, through the Internet or other elec-tronic media, or through other similarmeans, so long as—

(A) the disclosure of such information insuch form is in accordance with require-ments as the appropriate Secretary may im-pose, and

(B) in connection with any such disclosureof information through the Internet or otherelectronic media—

(i) the recipient has affirmatively con-sented to the disclosure of such informationin such form,

(ii) the recipient is capable of accessing theinformation so disclosed on the recipient’sindividual workstation or at the recipient’shome,

(iii) the recipient retains an ongoing rightto receive paper disclosure of such informa-tion and receives, in advance of any attemptat disclosure of such information to him orher through the Internet or other electronicmedia, notice in printed form of such ongo-ing right and of the proper software requiredto view information so disclosed, and

(iv) the plan administrator appropriatelyensures that the intended recipient is receiv-ing the information so disclosed and providesthe information in printed form if the infor-mation is not received..

Subtitle D—Protecting the Doctor-PatientRelationship

SEC. 131. PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE WITHCERTAIN MEDICAL COMMUNICA-TIONS.

(a) GENERAL RULE.—The provisions of anycontract or agreement, or the operation ofany contract or agreement, between a grouphealth plan or health insurance issuer in re-lation to health insurance coverage (includ-ing any partnership, association, or other or-ganization that enters into or administerssuch a contract or agreement) and a healthcare provider (or group of health care pro-viders) shall not prohibit or otherwise re-strict a health care professional from advis-ing such a participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee who is a patient of the professionalabout the health status of the individual ormedical care or treatment for the individ-ual’s condition or disease, regardless ofwhether benefits for such care or treatmentare provided under the plan or coverage, ifthe professional is acting within the lawfulscope of practice.

(b) NULLIFICATION.—Any contract provisionor agreement that restricts or prohibits med-ical communications in violation of sub-section (a) shall be null and void.SEC. 132. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION

AGAINST PROVIDERS BASED ON LI-CENSURE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan, anda health insurance issuer with respect tohealth insurance coverage, shall not dis-criminate with respect to participation orindemnification as to any provider who isacting within the scope of the provider’s li-cense or certification under applicable Statelaw, solely on the basis of such license orcertification.

(b) CONSTRUCTION.—Subsection (a) shallnot be construed—

(1) as requiring the coverage under a grouphealth plan or health insurance coverage of aparticular benefit or service or to prohibit aplan or issuer from including providers onlyto the extent necessary to meet the needs ofthe plan’s or issuer’s participants, bene-ficiaries, or enrollees or from establishingany measure designed to maintain qualityand control costs consistent with the respon-sibilities of the plan or issuer;

(2) to override any State licensure orscope-of-practice law; or

(3) as requiring a plan or issuer that offersnetwork coverage to include for participa-tion every willing provider who meets theterms and conditions of the plan or issuer.SEC. 133. PROHIBITION AGAINST IMPROPER IN-

CENTIVE ARRANGEMENTS.(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a

health insurance issuer offering health insur-ance coverage may not operate any physi-cian incentive plan (as defined in subpara-graph (B) of section 1876(i)(8) of the SocialSecurity Act) unless the requirements de-scribed in clauses (i), (ii)(I), and (iii) of sub-paragraph (A) of such section are met withrespect to such a plan.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.044 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1148 February 7, 2001(b) APPLICATION.—For purposes of carrying

out paragraph (1), any reference in section1876(i)(8) of the Social Security Act to theSecretary, an eligible organization, or an in-dividual enrolled with the organization shallbe treated as a reference to the applicableauthority, a group health plan or health in-surance issuer, respectively, and a partici-pant, beneficiary, or enrollee with the planor organization, respectively.

(c) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sectionshall be construed as prohibiting all capita-tion and similar arrangements or all pro-vider discount arrangements.SEC. 134. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.

A group health plan, and a health insur-ance issuer offering group health insurancecoverage, shall provide for prompt paymentof claims submitted for health care servicesor supplies furnished to a participant, bene-ficiary, or enrollee with respect to benefitscovered by the plan or issuer, in a mannerconsistent with the provisions of section1842(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42U.S.C. 1395u(c)(2)).SEC. 135. PROTECTION FOR PATIENT ADVOCACY.

(a) PROTECTION FOR USE OF UTILIZATION RE-VIEW AND GRIEVANCE PROCESS.—A grouphealth plan, and a health insurance issuerwith respect to the provision of health insur-ance coverage, may not retaliate against aparticipant, beneficiary, enrollee, or healthcare provider based on the participant’s,beneficiary’s, enrollee’s or provider’s use of,or participation in, a utilization review proc-ess or a grievance process of the plan orissuer (including an internal or external re-view or appeal process) under this title.

(b) PROTECTION FOR QUALITY ADVOCACY BYHEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan orhealth insurance issuer may not retaliate ordiscriminate against a protected health careprofessional because the professional in goodfaith—

(A) discloses information relating to thecare, services, or conditions affecting one ormore participants, beneficiaries, or enrolleesof the plan or issuer to an appropriate publicregulatory agency, an appropriate privateaccreditation body, or appropriate manage-ment personnel of the plan or issuer; or

(B) initiates, cooperates, or otherwise par-ticipates in an investigation or proceedingby such an agency with respect to such care,services, or conditions.If an institutional health care provider is aparticipating provider with such a plan orissuer or otherwise receives payments forbenefits provided by such a plan or issuer,the provisions of the previous sentence shallapply to the provider in relation to care,services, or conditions affecting one or morepatients within an institutional health careprovider in the same manner as they applyto the plan or issuer in relation to care, serv-ices, or conditions provided to one or moreparticipants, beneficiaries, or enrollees; andfor purposes of applying this sentence, anyreference to a plan or issuer is deemed a ref-erence to the institutional health care pro-vider.

(2) GOOD FAITH ACTION.—For purposes ofparagraph (1), a protected health care profes-sional is considered to be acting in goodfaith with respect to disclosure of informa-tion or participation if, with respect to theinformation disclosed as part of the action—

(A) the disclosure is made on the basis ofpersonal knowledge and is consistent withthat degree of learning and skill ordinarilypossessed by health care professionals withthe same licensure or certification and thesame experience;

(B) the professional reasonably believesthe information to be true;

(C) the information evidences either a vio-lation of a law, rule, or regulation, of an ap-

plicable accreditation standard, or of a gen-erally recognized professional or clinicalstandard or that a patient is in imminenthazard of loss of life or serious injury; and

(D) subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C) ofparagraph (3), the professional has followedreasonable internal procedures of the plan,issuer, or institutional health care providerestablished for the purpose of addressingquality concerns before making the disclo-sure.

(3) EXCEPTION AND SPECIAL RULE.—(A) GENERAL EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1)

does not protect disclosures that would vio-late Federal or State law or diminish or im-pair the rights of any person to the contin-ued protection of confidentiality of commu-nications provided by such law.

(B) NOTICE OF INTERNAL PROCEDURES.—Sub-paragraph (D) of paragraph (2) shall notapply unless the internal procedures in-volved are reasonably expected to be knownto the health care professional involved. Forpurposes of this subparagraph, a health careprofessional is reasonably expected to knowof internal procedures if those procedureshave been made available to the professionalthrough distribution or posting.

(C) INTERNAL PROCEDURE EXCEPTION.—Sub-paragraph (D) of paragraph (2) also shall notapply if—

(i) the disclosure relates to an imminenthazard of loss of life or serious injury to apatient;

(ii) the disclosure is made to an appro-priate private accreditation body pursuantto disclosure procedures established by thebody; or

(iii) the disclosure is in response to an in-quiry made in an investigation or proceedingof an appropriate public regulatory agencyand the information disclosed is limited tothe scope of the investigation or proceeding.

(4) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—It shallnot be a violation of paragraph (1) to take anadverse action against a protected healthcare professional if the plan, issuer, or pro-vider taking the adverse action involveddemonstrates that it would have taken thesame adverse action even in the absence ofthe activities protected under such para-graph.

(5) NOTICE.—A group health plan, health in-surance issuer, and institutional health careprovider shall post a notice, to be providedor approved by the Secretary of Labor, set-ting forth excerpts from, or summaries of,the pertinent provisions of this subsectionand information pertaining to enforcementof such provisions.

(6) CONSTRUCTIONS.—(A) DETERMINATIONS OF COVERAGE.—Noth-

ing in this subsection shall be construed toprohibit a plan or issuer from making a de-termination not to pay for a particular med-ical treatment or service or the services of atype of health care professional.

(B) ENFORCEMENT OF PEER REVIEW PROTO-COLS AND INTERNAL PROCEDURES.—Nothing inthis subsection shall be construed to prohibita plan, issuer, or provider from establishingand enforcing reasonable peer review or uti-lization review protocols or determiningwhether a protected health care professionalhas complied with those protocols or fromestablishing and enforcing internal proce-dures for the purpose of addressing qualityconcerns.

(C) RELATION TO OTHER RIGHTS.—Nothing inthis subsection shall be construed to abridgerights of participants, beneficiaries, enroll-ees, and protected health care professionalsunder other applicable Federal or State laws.

(7) PROTECTED HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALDEFINED.—For purposes of this subsection,the term ‘‘protected health care profes-sional’’ means an individual who is a li-

censed or certified health care professionaland who—

(A) with respect to a group health plan orhealth insurance issuer, is an employee ofthe plan or issuer or has a contract with theplan or issuer for provision of services forwhich benefits are available under the planor issuer; or

(B) with respect to an institutional healthcare provider, is an employee of the provideror has a contract or other arrangement withthe provider respecting the provision ofhealth care services.

Subtitle E—DefinitionsSEC. 151. DEFINITIONS.

(a) INCORPORATION OF GENERAL DEFINI-TIONS.—Except as otherwise provided, theprovisions of section 2791 of the PublicHealth Service Act shall apply for purposesof this title in the same manner as theyapply for purposes of title XXVII of suchAct.

(b) SECRETARY.—Except as otherwise pro-vided, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Sec-retary of Health and Human Services, in con-sultation with the Secretary of Labor andthe term ‘‘appropriate Secretary’’ means theSecretary of Health and Human Services inrelation to carrying out this title under sec-tions 2706 and 2751 of the Public Health Serv-ice Act and the Secretary of Labor in rela-tion to carrying out this title under section713 of the Employee Retirement Income Se-curity Act of 1974.

(c) ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.—For purposesof this title:

(1) APPLICABLE AUTHORITY.—The term ‘‘ap-plicable authority’’ means—

(A) in the case of a group health plan, theSecretary of Health and Human Services andthe Secretary of Labor; and

(B) in the case of a health insurance issuerwith respect to a specific provision of thistitle, the applicable State authority (as de-fined in section 2791(d) of the Public HealthService Act), or the Secretary of Health andHuman Services, if such Secretary is enforc-ing such provision under section 2722(a)(2) or2761(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act.

(3) ENROLLEE.—The term ‘‘enrollee’’means, with respect to health insurance cov-erage offered by a health insurance issuer, anindividual enrolled with the issuer to receivesuch coverage.

(4) GROUP HEALTH PLAN.—The term ‘‘grouphealth plan’’ has the meaning given suchterm in section 733(a) of the Employee Re-tirement Income Security Act of 1974, exceptthat such term includes a employee welfarebenefit plan treated as a group health planunder section 732(d) of such Act or defined assuch a plan under section 607(1) of such Act.

(5) HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL.—The term‘‘health care professional’’ means an indi-vidual who is licensed, accredited, or cer-tified under State law to provide specifiedhealth care services and who is operatingwithin the scope of such licensure, accredita-tion, or certification.

(6) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.—The term‘‘health care provider’’ includes a physicianor other health care professional, as well asan institutional or other facility or agencythat provides health care services and that islicensed, accredited, or certified to providehealth care items and services under applica-ble State law.

(7) NETWORK.—The term ‘‘network’’ means,with respect to a group health plan or healthinsurance issuer offering health insurancecoverage, the participating health care pro-fessionals and providers through whom theplan or issuer provides health care items andservices to participants, beneficiaries, or en-rollees.

(8) NONPARTICIPATING.—The term ‘‘non-participating’’ means, with respect to a

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:41 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.044 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1149February 7, 2001health care provider that provides healthcare items and services to a participant, ben-eficiary, or enrollee under group health planor health insurance coverage, a health careprovider that is not a participating healthcare provider with respect to such items andservices.

(9) PARTICIPATING.—The term ‘‘partici-pating’’ means, with respect to a health careprovider that provides health care items andservices to a participant, beneficiary, or en-rollee under group health plan or health in-surance coverage offered by a health insur-ance issuer, a health care provider that fur-nishes such items and services under a con-tract or other arrangement with the plan orissuer.

(10) PRIOR AUTHORIZATION.—The term‘‘prior authorization’’ means the process ofobtaining prior approval from a health insur-ance issuer or group health plan for the pro-vision or coverage of medical services.

(11) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The term‘‘terms and conditions’’ includes, with re-spect to a group health plan or health insur-ance coverage, requirements imposed underthis title with respect to the plan or cov-erage.SEC. 152. PREEMPTION; STATE FLEXIBILITY; CON-

STRUCTION.

(a) CONTINUED APPLICABILITY OF STATELAW WITH RESPECT TO HEALTH INSURANCEISSUERS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),this title shall not be construed to supersedeany provision of State law which establishes,implements, or continues in effect anystandard or requirement solely relating tohealth insurance issuers (in connection withgroup health insurance coverage or other-wise) except to the extent that such standardor requirement prevents the application of arequirement of this title.

(2) CONTINUED PREEMPTION WITH RESPECT TOGROUP HEALTH PLANS.—Nothing in this titleshall be construed to affect or modify theprovisions of section 514 of the Employee Re-tirement Income Security Act of 1974 withrespect to group health plans.

(3) CONSTRUCTION.—In applying this sec-tion, a State law that provides for equal ac-cess to, and availability of, all categories oflicensed health care providers and servicesshall not be treated as preventing the appli-cation of any requirement of this title.

(b) APPLICATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVA-LENT STATE LAWS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a State lawthat imposes, with respect to health insur-ance coverage offered by a health insuranceissuer and with respect to a group healthplan that is a non-Federal governmentalplan, a requirement that is substantiallyequivalent (within the meaning of subsection(c)) to a patient protection requirement (asdefined in paragraph (3)) and does not pre-vent the application of other requirementsunder this Act (except in the case of othersubstantially equivalent requirements), inapplying the requirements of this title undersection 2707 and 2753 (as applicable) of thePublic Health Service Act (as added by titleII), subject to subsection (a)(2)—

(A) the State law shall not be treated asbeing superseded under subsection (a); and

(B) the State law shall apply instead of thepatient protection requirement otherwiseapplicable with respect to health insurancecoverage and non-Federal governmentalplans.

(2) LIMITATION.—In the case of a grouphealth plan covered under title I of the Em-ployee Retirement Income Security Act of1974, paragraph (1) shall be construed toapply only with respect to the health insur-ance coverage (if any) offered in connectionwith the plan.

(3) PATIENT PROTECTION REQUIREMENT DE-FINED.—For purposes of this section, theterm ‘‘patient protection requirement’’means a requirement under this title, and in-cludes (as a single requirement) a group orrelated set of requirements under a sectionor similar unit under this title.

(c) DETERMINATIONS OF SUBSTANTIALEQUIVALENCE.—

(1) CERTIFICATION BY STATES.—A State maysubmit to the Secretary a certification thata State law provides for patient protectionsthat are at least substantially equivalent toone or more patient protection require-ments. Such certification shall be accom-panied by such information as may be re-quired to permit the Secretary to make thedetermination described in paragraph (2)(A).

(2) REVIEW.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall

promptly review a certification submittedunder paragraph (1) with respect to a Statelaw to determine if the State law providesfor at least substantially equivalent and ef-fective patient protections to the patientprotection requirement (or requirements) towhich the law relates.

(B) APPROVAL DEADLINES.—(i) INITIAL REVIEW.—Such a certification is

considered approved unless the Secretary no-tifies the State in writing, within 90 daysafter the date of receipt of the certification,that the certification is disapproved (and thereasons for disapproval) or that specified ad-ditional information is needed to make thedetermination described in subparagraph(A).

(ii) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—With re-spect to a State that has been notified by theSecretary under clause (i) that specified ad-ditional information is needed to make thedetermination described in subparagraph(A), the Secretary shall make the determina-tion within 60 days after the date on whichsuch specified additional information is re-ceived by the Secretary.

(3) APPROVAL.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall ap-

prove a certification under paragraph (1) un-less—

(i) the State fails to provide sufficient in-formation to enable the Secretary to make adetermination under paragraph (2)(A); or

(ii) the Secretary determines that theState law involved does not provide for pa-tient protections that are at least substan-tially equivalent to and as effective as thepatient protection requirement (or require-ments) to which the law relates.

(B) STATE CHALLENGE.—A State that has acertification disapproved by the Secretaryunder subparagraph (A) may challenge suchdisapproval in the appropriate United Statesdistrict court.

(4) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sub-section shall be construed as preventing thecertification (and approval of certification)of a State law under this subsection solelybecause it provides for greater protectionsfor patients than those protections otherwiserequired to establish substantial equiva-lence.

(d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sec-tion:

(1) STATE LAW.—The term ‘‘State law’’ in-cludes all laws, decisions, rules, regulations,or other State action having the effect oflaw, of any State. A law of the United Statesapplicable only to the District of Columbiashall be treated as a State law rather than alaw of the United States.

(2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ includes aState, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,the Northern Mariana Islands, any politicalsubdivisions of such, or any agency or in-strumentality of such.

SEC. 153. EXCLUSIONS.(a) NO BENEFIT REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in

this title shall be construed to require agroup health plan or a health insuranceissuer offering health insurance coverage toinclude specific items and services under theterms of such a plan or coverage, other thanthose provided under the terms and condi-tions of such plan or coverage.

(b) EXCLUSION FROM ACCESS TO CARE MAN-AGED CARE PROVISIONS FOR FEE-FOR-SERVICECOVERAGE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The provisions of sections111 through 117 shall not apply to a grouphealth plan or health insurance coverage ifthe only coverage offered under the plan orcoverage is fee-for-service coverage (as de-fined in paragraph (2)).

(2) FEE-FOR-SERVICE COVERAGE DEFINED.—For purposes of this subsection, the term‘‘fee-for-service coverage’’ means coverageunder a group health plan or health insur-ance coverage that—

(A) reimburses hospitals, health profes-sionals, and other providers on a fee-for-serv-ice basis without placing the provider at fi-nancial risk;

(B) does not vary reimbursement for such aprovider based on an agreement to contractterms and conditions or the utilization ofhealth care items or services relating to suchprovider;

(C) allows access to any provider that islawfully authorized to provide the coveredservices and that agrees to accept the termsand conditions of payment established underthe plan or by the issuer; and

(D) for which the plan or issuer does notrequire prior authorization before providingfor any health care services.SEC. 154. COVERAGE OF LIMITED SCOPE PLANS.

Only for purposes of applying the require-ments of this title under sections 2707 and2753 of the Public Health Service Act andsection 714 of the Employee Retirement In-come Security Act of 1974, section2791(c)(2)(A), and section 733(c)(2)(A) of theEmployee Retirement Income Security Actof 1974 shall be deemed not to apply.SEC. 155. REGULATIONS.

The Secretaries of Health and HumanServices and Labor shall issue such regula-tions as may be necessary or appropriate tocarry out this title. Such regulations shallbe issued consistent with section 104 ofHealth Insurance Portability and Account-ability Act of 1996. Such Secretaries maypromulgate any interim final rules as theSecretaries determine are appropriate tocarry out this title.SEC. 156. INCORPORATION INTO PLAN OR COV-

ERAGE DOCUMENTS.The requirements of this title with respect

to a group health plan or health insurancecoverage are deemed to be incorporated into,and made a part of, such plan or the policy,certificate, or contract providing such cov-erage and are enforceable under law as if di-rectly included in the documentation of suchplan or such policy, certificate, or contract.

TITLE II—APPLICATION OF QUALITYCARE STANDARDS TO GROUP HEALTHPLANS AND HEALTH INSURANCE COV-ERAGE UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTHSERVICE ACT

SEC. 201. APPLICATION TO GROUP HEALTHPLANS AND GROUP HEALTH INSUR-ANCE COVERAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart 2 of part A oftitle XXVII of the Public Health Service Actis amended by adding at the end the fol-lowing new section:‘‘SEC. 2707. PATIENT PROTECTION STANDARDS.

‘‘Each group health plan shall comply withpatient protection requirements under title Iof the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:41 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.044 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1150 February 7, 20012001, and each health insurance issuer shallcomply with patient protection require-ments under such title with respect to grouphealth insurance coverage it offers, and suchrequirements shall be deemed to be incor-porated into this subsection.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section2721(b)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–21(b)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(otherthan section 2707)’’ after ‘‘requirements ofsuch subparts’’.SEC. 202. APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUAL HEALTH

INSURANCE COVERAGE.Part B of title XXVII of the Public Health

Service Act is amended by inserting aftersection 2752 the following new section:‘‘SEC. 2753. PATIENT PROTECTION STANDARDS.

‘‘Each health insurance issuer shall com-ply with patient protection requirementsunder title I of the Bipartisan Patient Pro-tection Act of 2001 with respect to individualhealth insurance coverage it offers, and suchrequirements shall be deemed to be incor-porated into this subsection.’’.TITLE III—AMENDMENTS TO THE EM-

PLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECU-RITY ACT OF 1974

SEC. 301. APPLICATION OF PATIENT PROTECTIONSTANDARDS TO GROUP HEALTHPLANS AND GROUP HEALTH INSUR-ANCE COVERAGE UNDER THE EM-PLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SE-CURITY ACT OF 1974.

Subpart B of part 7 of subtitle B of title Iof the Employee Retirement Income Secu-rity Act of 1974 is amended by adding at theend the following new section:‘‘SEC. 714. PATIENT PROTECTION STANDARDS.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection(b), a group health plan (and a health insur-ance issuer offering group health insurancecoverage in connection with such a plan)shall comply with the requirements of title Iof the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of2001 (as in effect as of the date of the enact-ment of such Act), and such requirementsshall be deemed to be incorporated into thissubsection.

‘‘(b) PLAN SATISFACTION OF CERTAIN RE-QUIREMENTS.—

‘‘(1) SATISFACTION OF CERTAIN REQUIRE-MENTS THROUGH INSURANCE.—For purposes ofsubsection (a), insofar as a group health planprovides benefits in the form of health insur-ance coverage through a health insuranceissuer, the plan shall be treated as meetingthe following requirements of title I of theBipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001with respect to such benefits and not be con-sidered as failing to meet such requirementsbecause of a failure of the issuer to meetsuch requirements so long as the plan spon-sor or its representatives did not cause suchfailure by the issuer:

‘‘(A) Section 111 (relating to consumerchoice option).

‘‘(B) Section 112 (relating to choice ofhealth care professional).

‘‘(C) Section 113 (relating to access toemergency care).

‘‘(D) Section 114 (relating to timely accessto specialists).

‘‘(E) Section 115 (relating to patient accessto obstetrical and gynecological care).

‘‘(F) Section 116 (relating to access to pedi-atric care).

‘‘(G) Section 117 (relating to continuity ofcare), but only insofar as a replacementissuer assumes the obligation for continuityof care.

‘‘(H) Section 118 (relating to access toneeded prescription drugs).

‘‘(I) Section 119 (relating to coverage forindividuals participating in approved clinicaltrials).

‘‘(J) Section 120 (relating to required cov-erage for minimum hospital stay for

mastectomies and lymph node dissectionsfor the treatment of breast cancer and cov-erage for secondary consultations).

‘‘(K) Section 134 (relating to payment ofclaims).

‘‘(2) INFORMATION.—With respect to infor-mation required to be provided or madeavailable under section 121 of the BipartisanPatient Protection Act of 2001, in the case ofa group health plan that provides benefits inthe form of health insurance coveragethrough a health insurance issuer, the Sec-retary shall determine the circumstancesunder which the plan is not required to pro-vide or make available the information (andis not liable for the issuer’s failure to pro-vide or make available the information), ifthe issuer is obligated to provide and makeavailable (or provides and makes available)such information.

‘‘(3) INTERNAL APPEALS.—With respect tothe internal appeals process required to beestablished under section 103 of such Act, inthe case of a group health plan that providesbenefits in the form of health insurance cov-erage through a health insurance issuer, theSecretary shall determine the circumstancesunder which the plan is not required to pro-vide for such process and system (and is notliable for the issuer’s failure to provide forsuch process and system), if the issuer is ob-ligated to provide for (and provides for) suchprocess and system.

‘‘(4) EXTERNAL APPEALS.—Pursuant to rulesof the Secretary, insofar as a group healthplan enters into a contract with a qualifiedexternal appeal entity for the conduct of ex-ternal appeal activities in accordance withsection 104 of such Act, the plan shall betreated as meeting the requirement of suchsection and is not liable for the entity’s fail-ure to meet any requirements under suchsection.

‘‘(5) APPLICATION TO PROHIBITIONS.—Pursu-ant to rules of the Secretary, if a health in-surance issuer offers health insurance cov-erage in connection with a group health planand takes an action in violation of any of thefollowing sections of the Bipartisan PatientProtection Act of 2001, the group health planshall not be liable for such violation unlessthe plan caused such violation:

‘‘(A) Section 131 (relating to prohibition ofinterference with certain medical commu-nications).

‘‘(B) Section 132 (relating to prohibition ofdiscrimination against providers based on li-censure).

‘‘(C) Section 133 (relating to prohibitionagainst improper incentive arrangements).

‘‘(D) Section 135 (relating to protection forpatient advocacy).

‘‘(6) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sub-section shall be construed to affect or modifythe responsibilities of the fiduciaries of agroup health plan under part 4 of subtitle B.

‘‘(7) TREATMENT OF SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVA-LENT STATE LAWS.—For purposes of applyingthis subsection, any reference in this sub-section to a requirement in a section orother provision in the Bipartisan PatientProtection Act of 2001 with respect to ahealth insurance issuer is deemed to includea reference to a requirement under a Statelaw that is substantially equivalent (as de-termined under section 152(c) of such Act) tothe requirement in such section or other pro-visions.

‘‘(8) APPLICATION TO CERTAIN PROHIBITIONSAGAINST RETALIATION.—With respect to com-pliance with the requirements of section135(b)(1) of the Bipartisan Patient ProtectionAct of 2001, for purposes of this subtitle theterm ‘group health plan’ is deemed to in-clude a reference to an institutional healthcare provider.

‘‘(c) ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN REQUIRE-MENTS.—

‘‘(1) COMPLAINTS.—Any protected healthcare professional who believes that the pro-fessional has been retaliated or discrimi-nated against in violation of section 135(b)(1)of the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of2001 may file with the Secretary a complaintwithin 180 days of the date of the alleged re-taliation or discrimination.

‘‘(2) INVESTIGATION.—The Secretary shallinvestigate such complaints and shall deter-mine if a violation of such section has oc-curred and, if so, shall issue an order to en-sure that the protected health care profes-sional does not suffer any loss of position,pay, or benefits in relation to the plan,issuer, or provider involved, as a result ofthe violation found by the Secretary.

‘‘(d) CONFORMING REGULATIONS.—The Sec-retary shall issue regulations to coordinatethe requirements on group health plans andhealth insurance issuers under this sectionwith the requirements imposed under theother provisions of this title. In order to re-duce duplication and clarify the rights ofparticipants and beneficiaries with respectto information that is required to be pro-vided, such regulations shall coordinate theinformation disclosure requirements undersection 121 of the Bipartisan Patient Protec-tion Act of 2001 with the reporting and dis-closure requirements imposed under part 1,so long as such coordination does not resultin any reduction in the information thatwould otherwise be provided to participantsand beneficiaries.’’.

(b) SATISFACTION OF ERISA CLAIMS PROCE-DURE REQUIREMENT.—Section 503 of such Act(29 U.S.C. 1133) is amended by inserting ‘‘(a)’’after ‘‘SEC. 503.’’ and by adding at the endthe following new subsection:

‘‘(b) In the case of a group health plan (asdefined in section 733) compliance with therequirements of subtitle A of title I of theBipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001,and compliance with regulations promul-gated by the Secretary, in the case of aclaims denial shall be deemed compliancewith subsection (a) with respect to suchclaims denial.’’.

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section732(a) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1185(a)) isamended by striking ‘‘section 711’’ and in-serting ‘‘sections 711 and 714’’.

(2) The table of contents in section 1 ofsuch Act is amended by inserting after theitem relating to section 713 the followingnew item:‘‘Sec. 714. Patient protection standards.’’.

(3) Section 502(b)(3) of such Act (29 U.S.C.1132(b)(3)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(otherthan section 135(b))’’ after ‘‘part 7’’.SEC. 302. AVAILABILITY OF CIVIL REMEDIES.

(a) AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL CIVIL REM-EDIES IN CASES NOT INVOLVING MEDICALLYREVIEWABLE DECISIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 502 of the Em-ployee Retirement Income Security Act of1974 (29 U.S.C. 1132) is amended by adding atthe end the following new subsection:

‘‘(n) CAUSE OF ACTION RELATING TO PROVI-SION OF HEALTH BENEFITS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In any case in which—‘‘(A) a person who is a fiduciary of a group

health plan, a health insurance issuer offer-ing health insurance coverage in connectionwith the plan, or an agent of the plan, issuer,or plan sponsor—

‘‘(i) upon consideration of a claim for bene-fits of a participant or beneficiary under sec-tion 102 of the Bipartisan Patient ProtectionAct of 2001 (relating to procedures for initialclaims for benefits and prior authorizationdeterminations) or upon review of a denial ofsuch a claim under section 103 of such Act(relating to internal appeal of a denial of aclaim for benefits), fails to exercise ordinarycare in making a decision—

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.044 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1151February 7, 2001‘‘(I) regarding whether an item or service

is covered under the terms and conditions ofthe plan or coverage,

‘‘(II) regarding whether an individual is aparticipant or beneficiary who is enrolledunder the terms and conditions of the planor coverage (including the applicability ofany waiting period under the plan or cov-erage), or

‘‘(III) as to the application of cost-sharingrequirements or the application of a specificexclusion or express limitation on theamount, duration, or scope of coverage ofitems or services under the terms and condi-tions of the plan or coverage, or

‘‘(ii) otherwise fails to exercise ordinarycare in the performance of a duty under theterms and conditions of the plan with re-spect to a participant or beneficiary, and

‘‘(B) such failure is a proximate cause ofpersonal injury to, or the death of, the par-ticipant or beneficiary,such person shall be liable to the participantor beneficiary (or the estate of such partici-pant or beneficiary) for economic and non-economic damages (but not exemplary or pu-nitive damages) in connection with such per-sonal injury or death.

‘‘(2) CAUSE OF ACTION MUST NOT INVOLVEMEDICALLY REVIEWABLE DECISION.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A cause of action is es-tablished under paragraph (1)(A) only if thedecision referred to in clause (i) or the fail-ure described in clause (ii) does not includea medically reviewable decision.

‘‘(B) MEDICALLY REVIEWABLE DECISION.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term‘medically reviewable decision’ means a de-nial of a claim for benefits under the planwhich is described in section 104(d)(2) of theBipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001(relating to medically reviewable decisions).

‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub-section.—

‘‘(A) ORDINARY CARE.—The term ‘ordinarycare’ means—

‘‘(i) with respect to a determination on aclaim for benefits, that degree of care, skill,and diligence that a reasonable and prudentindividual would exercise in making a fairdetermination on a claim for benefits of likekind to the claim involved; and

‘‘(ii) with respect to the performance of aduty, that degree of care, skill, and diligencethat a reasonable and prudent individualwould exercise in performing the duty or aduty of like character.

‘‘(B) PERSONAL INJURY.—The term ‘per-sonal injury’ means a physical injury and in-cludes an injury arising out of the treatment(or failure to treat) a mental illness or dis-ease.

‘‘(C) CLAIM FOR BENEFITS; DENIAL.—Theterms ‘claim for benefits’ and ‘denial of aclaim for benefits’ have the meanings pro-vided such terms in section 102(e) of the Bi-partisan Patient Protection Act of 2001.

‘‘(D) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The term‘terms and conditions’ includes, with respectto a group health plan or health insurancecoverage, requirements imposed under title Iof the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of2001 or under part 6 or 7.

‘‘(E) GROUP HEALTH PLAN AND OTHER RE-LATED TERMS.—The provisions of sections732(d) and 733 apply for purposes of this sub-section in the same manner as they apply forpurposes of part 7, except that the term‘group health plan’ includes a group healthplan (as defined in section 607(1)).

‘‘(4) EXCLUSION OF EMPLOYERS AND OTHERPLAN SPONSORS.—

‘‘(A) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST EMPLOYERSAND PLAN SPONSORS PRECLUDED.—Subject tosubparagraph (B), paragraph (1)(A) does notauthorize a cause of action against an em-ployer or other plan sponsor maintaining theplan (or against an employee of such an em-

ployer or sponsor acting within the scope ofemployment).

‘‘(B) CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION PER-MITTED.—Notwithstanding subparagraph (A),a cause of action may arise against an em-ployer or other plan sponsor (or against anemployee of such an employer or sponsoracting within the scope of employment)—

‘‘(i) under clause (i) of paragraph (1)(A), tothe extent there was direct participation bythe employer or other plan sponsor (or em-ployee) in the decision of the plan under sec-tion 102 of the Bipartisan Patient ProtectionAct of 2001 upon consideration of a claim forbenefits or under section 103 of such Actupon review of a denial of a claim for bene-fits, or

‘‘(ii) under clause (ii) of paragraph (1)(A),to the extent there was direct participationby the employer or other plan sponsor (oremployee) in the failure described in suchclause.

‘‘(C) DIRECT PARTICIPATION.—‘‘(i) DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN DECISIONS.—

For purposes of subparagraph (B), the term‘direct participation’ means, in connectionwith a decision described in clause (i) ofparagraph (1)(A) or a failure described inclause (ii) of such paragraph, the actualmaking of such decision or the actual exer-cise of control in making such decision or inthe conduct constituting the failure.

‘‘(ii) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—For pur-poses of clause (i), the employer or plansponsor (or employee) shall not be construedto be engaged in direct participation becauseof any form of decisionmaking or other con-duct that is merely collateral or precedentto the decision described in clause (i) ofparagraph (1)(A) on a particular claim forbenefits of a participant or beneficiary orthat is merely collateral or precedent to theconduct constituting a failure described inclause (ii) of paragraph (1)(A) with respect toa particular participant or beneficiary, in-cluding (but not limited to)—

‘‘(I) any participation by the employer orother plan sponsor (or employee) in the se-lection of the group health plan or health in-surance coverage involved or the third partyadministrator or other agent;

‘‘(II) any engagement by the employer orother plan sponsor (or employee) in any cost-benefit analysis undertaken in connectionwith the selection of, or continued mainte-nance of, the plan or coverage involved;

‘‘(III) any participation by the employer orother plan sponsor (or employee) in the proc-ess of creating, continuing, modifying, orterminating the plan or any benefit underthe plan, if such process was not substan-tially focused solely on the particular situa-tion of the participant or beneficiary re-ferred to in paragraph (1)(A); and

‘‘(IV) any participation by the employer orother plan sponsor (or employee) in the de-sign of any benefit under the plan, includingthe amount of copayment and limits con-nected with such benefit.

‘‘(iv) IRRELEVANCE OF CERTAIN COLLATERALEFFORTS MADE BY EMPLOYER OR PLAN SPON-SOR.—For purposes of this subparagraph, anemployer or plan sponsor shall not be treat-ed as engaged in direct participation in a de-cision with respect to any claim for benefitsor denial thereof in the case of any par-ticular participant or beneficiary solely byreason of—

‘‘(I) any efforts that may have been madeby the employer or plan sponsor to advocatefor authorization of coverage for that or anyother participant or beneficiary (or anygroup of participants or beneficiaries), or

‘‘(II) any provision that may have beenmade by the employer or plan sponsor forbenefits which are not covered under theterms and conditions of the plan for that or

any other participant or beneficiary (or anygroup of participants or beneficiaries).

‘‘(5) REQUIREMENT OF EXHAUSTION.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

this paragraph, a cause of action may not bebrought under paragraph (1) in connectionwith any denial of a claim for benefits of anyindividual until all administrative processesunder sections 102 and 103 of the BipartisanPatient Protection Act of 2001 (if applicable)have been exhausted.

‘‘(B) LATE MANIFESTATION OF INJURY.—Therequirements under subparagraph (A) for acause of action in connection with any de-nial of a claim for benefits shall be deemedsatisfied, notwithstanding any failure totimely commence review under section 103with respect to the denial, if the personal in-jury is first known (or first reasonablyshould have been known) to the individual(or the death occurs) after the latest date bywhich the applicable requirements of sub-paragraph (A) can be met in connection withsuch denial.

‘‘(C) OCCURRENCE OF IMMEDIATE AND IRREP-ARABLE HARM OR DEATH PRIOR TO COMPLETIONOF PROCESS.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of sub-paragraph (A) shall not apply if the actioninvolves an allegation that immediate andirreparable harm or death was, or would be,caused by the denial of a claim for benefitsprior to the completion of the administra-tive processes referred to in subparagraph(A) with respect to such denial.

‘‘(ii) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in clause (i)shall be construed to preclude—

‘‘(I) continuation of such processes to theirconclusion if so moved by any party, and

‘‘(II) consideration in such action of thefinal decisions issued in such processes.

‘‘(iii) DEFINITION.—In clause (i), the term‘irreparable harm’, with respect to an indi-vidual, means an injury or condition that,regardless of whether the individual receivesthe treatment that is the subject of the de-nial, cannot be repaired in a manner thatwould restore the individual to the individ-ual’s pre-injured condition.

‘‘(D) RECEIPT OF BENEFITS DURING APPEALSPROCESS.—Receipt by the participant or ben-eficiary of the benefits involved in the claimfor benefits during the pendency of any ad-ministrative processes referred to in sub-paragraph (A) or of any action commencedunder this subsection—

‘‘(i) shall not preclude continuation of allsuch administrative processes to their con-clusion if so moved by any party, and

‘‘(ii) shall not preclude any liability undersubsection (a)(1)(C) and this subsection inconnection with such claim.The court in any action commenced underthis subsection shall take into account anyreceipt of benefits during such administra-tive processes or such action in determiningthe amount of the damages awarded.

‘‘(6) STATUTORY DAMAGES.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The remedies set forth

in this subsection (n) shall be the exclusiveremedies for causes of action brought underthis subsection.

‘‘(B) ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES.—Inaddition to the remedies provided for inparagraph (1) (relating to the failure to pro-vide contract benefits in accordance with theplan), a civil assessment, in an amount notto exceed $5,000,000, payable to the claimantmay be awarded in any action under suchparagraph if the claimant establishes byclear and convincing evidence that the al-leged conduct carried out by the defendantdemonstrated bad faith and flagrant dis-regard for the rights of the participant orbeneficiary under the plan and was a proxi-mate cause of the personal injury or deaththat is the subject of the claim.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.045 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1152 February 7, 2001‘‘(7) LIMITATION OF ACTION.—Paragraph (1)

shall not apply in connection with any ac-tion commenced after 3 years after the laterof—

‘‘(A) the date on which the plaintiff firstknew, or reasonably should have known, ofthe personal injury or death resulting fromthe failure described in paragraph (1), or

‘‘(B) the date as of which the requirementsof paragraph (5) are first met.

‘‘(8) TOLLING PROVISION.—The statute oflimitations for any cause of action arisingunder State law relating to a denial of aclaim for benefits that is the subject of anaction brought in Federal court under thissubsection shall be tolled until such time asthe Federal court makes a final disposition,including all appeals, of whether such claimshould properly be within the jurisdiction ofthe Federal court. The tolling period shall bedetermined by the applicable Federal orState law, whichever period is greater.

‘‘(10) PURCHASE OF INSURANCE TO COVER LI-ABILITY.—Nothing in section 410 shall be con-strued to preclude the purchase by a grouphealth plan of insurance to cover any liabil-ity or losses arising under a cause of actionunder subsection (a)(1)(C) and this sub-section.

‘‘(11) EXCLUSION OF DIRECTED RECORD-KEEPERS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph(C), paragraph (1) shall not apply with re-spect to a directed recordkeeper in connec-tion with a group health plan.

‘‘(B) DIRECTED RECORDKEEPER.—For pur-poses of this paragraph, the term ‘directedrecordkeeper’ means, in connection with agroup health plan, a person engaged in di-rected recordkeeping activities pursuant tothe specific instructions of the plan or theemployer or other plan sponsor, includingthe distribution of enrollment informationand distribution of disclosure materialsunder this Act or title I of the Bipartisan Pa-tient Protection Act of 2001 and whose dutiesdo not include making decisions on claimsfor benefits.

‘‘(C) LIMITATION.—Subparagraph (A) doesnot apply in connection with any directedrecordkeeper to the extent that the directedrecordkeeper fails to follow the specific in-struction of the plan or the employer orother plan sponsor.

‘‘(12) NO EFFECT ON STATE LAW.—No provi-sion of State law (as defined in section514(c)(1)) shall be treated as superseded orotherwise altered, amended, modified, invali-dated, or impaired by reason of the provi-sions of subsection (a)(1)(C) and this sub-section.’’.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section502(a)(1) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)) isamended—

(A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subpara-graph (A);

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking‘‘plan;’’ and inserting ‘‘plan, or’’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following newsubparagraph:

‘‘(C) for the relief provided for in sub-section (n) of this section.’’.

(b) RULES RELATING TO ERISA PREEMP-TION.—Section 514 of the Employee Retire-ment Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.1144) is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub-section (f); and

(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol-lowing new subsections:

‘‘(d) PREEMPTION NOT TO APPLY TO CAUSESOF ACTION UNDER STATE LAW INVOLVINGMEDICALLY REVIEWABLE DECISION.—

‘‘(1) NON-PREEMPTION OF CERTAIN CAUSES OFACTION.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided inthis subsection, nothing in this title (includ-ing section 502) shall be construed to super-

sede or otherwise alter, amend, modify, in-validate, or impair any cause of action underState law of a participant or beneficiaryunder a group health plan (or the estate ofsuch a participant or beneficiary) to recoverdamages resulting from personal injury orfor wrongful death against any person if suchcause of action arises by reason of a medi-cally reviewable decision.

‘‘(B) MEDICALLY REVIEWABLE DECISION.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term‘medically reviewable decision’ means a de-nial of a claim for benefits under the planwhich is described in section 104(d)(2) of theBipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001(relating to medically reviewable decisions).

‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES.—‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

clauses (ii) and (iii), with respect to a causeof action described in subparagraph (A)brought with respect to a participant or ben-eficiary, State law is superseded insofar as itprovides any punitive, exemplary, or similardamages if, as of the time of the personal in-jury or death, all the requirements of the fol-lowing sections of the Bipartisan PatientProtection Act of 2001 were satisfied with re-spect to the participant or beneficiary:

‘‘(I) Section 102 (relating to procedures forinitial claims for benefits and prior author-ization determinations).

‘‘(II) Section 103 of such Act (relating tointernal appeals of claims denials).

‘‘(III) Section 104 of such Act (relating toindependent external appeals procedures).

‘‘(ii) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS FORWRONGFUL DEATH.—Clause (i) shall not applywith respect to an action for wrongful deathif the applicable State law provides (or hasbeen construed to provide) for damages insuch an action which are only punitive or ex-emplary in nature.

‘‘(iii) EXCEPTION FOR WILLFUL OR WANTONDISREGARD FOR THE RIGHTS OR SAFETY OF OTH-ERS.—Clause (i) shall not apply with respectto any cause of action described in subpara-graph (A) if, in such action, the plaintiff es-tablishes by clear and convincing evidencethat conduct carried out by the defendantwith willful or wanton disregard for therights or safety of others was a proximatecause of the personal injury or wrongfuldeath that is the subject of the action.

‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub-section and subsection (e)—

‘‘(A) GROUP HEALTH PLAN AND OTHER RE-LATED TERMS.—The provisions of sections732(d) and 733 apply for purposes of this sub-section in the same manner as they apply forpurposes of part 7, except that the term‘group health plan’ includes a group healthplan (as defined in section 607(1)).

‘‘(B) PERSONAL INJURY.—The term ‘per-sonal injury’ means a physical injury and in-cludes an injury arising out of the treatment(or failure to treat) a mental illness or dis-ease.

‘‘(C) CLAIM FOR BENEFIT; DENIAL.—Theterms ‘claim for benefits’ and ‘denial of aclaim for benefits’ shall have the meaningprovided such terms under section 102(e) ofthe Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of2001.

‘‘(4) EXCLUSION OF EMPLOYERS AND OTHERPLAN SPONSORS.—

‘‘(A) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST EMPLOYERSAND PLAN SPONSORS PRECLUDED.—Subject tosubparagraph (B), paragraph (1) does notapply with respect to—

‘‘(i) any cause of action against an em-ployer or other plan sponsor maintaining theplan (or against an employee of such an em-ployer or sponsor acting within the scope ofemployment), or

‘‘(ii) a right of recovery, indemnity, or con-tribution by a person against an employer orother plan sponsor (or such an employee) fordamages assessed against the person pursu-

ant to a cause of action to which paragraph(1) applies.

‘‘(B) CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION PER-MITTED.—Notwithstanding subparagraph (A),paragraph (1) applies with respect to anycause of action described in paragraph (1)maintained by a participant or beneficiaryagainst an employer or other plan sponsor(or against an employee of such an employeror sponsor acting within the scope of em-ployment)—

‘‘(i) in the case of any cause of action basedon a decision of the plan under section 102 ofthe Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001upon consideration of a claim for benefits orunder section 103 of such Act upon review ofa denial of a claim for benefits, to the extentthere was direct participation by the em-ployer or other plan sponsor (or employee) inthe decision, or

‘‘(ii) in the case of any cause of actionbased on a failure to otherwise perform aduty under the terms and conditions of theplan with respect to a claim for benefits of aparticipant or beneficiary, to the extentthere was direct participation by the em-ployer or other plan sponsor (or employee) inthe failure.

‘‘(C) DIRECT PARTICIPATION.—‘‘(i) DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN DECISIONS.—

For purposes of subparagraph (B), the term‘direct participation’ means, in connectionwith a decision described in subparagraph(B)(i) or a failure described in subparagraph(B)(ii), the actual making of such decision orthe actual exercise of control in making suchdecision or in the conduct constituting thefailure.

‘‘(ii) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—For pur-poses of clause (i), the employer or plansponsor (or employee) shall not be construedto be engaged in direct participation becauseof any form of decisionmaking or other con-duct that is merely collateral or precedentto the decision described in subparagraph(B)(i) on a particular claim for benefits of aparticular participant or beneficiary or thatis merely collateral or precedent to the con-duct constituting a failure described in sub-paragraph (B)(ii) with respect to a particularparticipant or beneficiary, including (but notlimited to)—

‘‘(I) any participation by the employer orother plan sponsor (or employee) in the se-lection of the group health plan or health in-surance coverage involved or the third partyadministrator or other agent;

‘‘(II) any engagement by the employer orother plan sponsor (or employee) in any cost-benefit analysis undertaken in connectionwith the selection of, or continued mainte-nance of, the plan or coverage involved;

‘‘(III) any participation by the employer orother plan sponsor (or employee) in the proc-ess of creating, continuing, modifying, orterminating the plan or any benefit underthe plan, if such process was not substan-tially focused solely on the particular situa-tion of the participant or beneficiary re-ferred to in paragraph (1)(A); and

‘‘(IV) any participation by the employer orother plan sponsor (or employee) in the de-sign of any benefit under the plan, includingthe amount of copayment and limits con-nected with such benefit.

‘‘(iv) IRRELEVANCE OF CERTAIN COLLATERALEFFORTS MADE BY EMPLOYER OR PLAN SPON-SOR.—For purposes of this subparagraph, anemployer or plan sponsor shall not be treat-ed as engaged in direct participation in a de-cision with respect to any claim for benefitsor denial thereof in the case of any par-ticular participant or beneficiary solely byreason of—

‘‘(I) any efforts that may have been madeby the employer or plan sponsor to advocatefor authorization of coverage for that or any

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.045 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1153February 7, 2001other participant or beneficiary (or anygroup of participants or beneficiaries), or

‘‘(II) any provision that may have beenmade by the employer or plan sponsor forbenefits which are not covered under theterms and conditions of the plan for that orany other participant or beneficiary (or anygroup of participants or beneficiaries).

‘‘(5) REQUIREMENT OF EXHAUSTION.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

this paragraph, paragraph (1) shall not applywith respect to a cause of action described insuch paragraph in connection with any de-nial of a claim for benefits of any individualuntil all administrative processes under sec-tions 102, 103, and 104 of the Bipartisan Pa-tient Protection Act of 2001 (if applicable)have been exhausted.

‘‘(B) LATE MANIFESTATION OF INJURY.—Therequirements under subparagraph (A) for acause of action in connection with any de-nial of a claim for benefits shall be deemedsatisfied, notwithstanding any failure totimely commence review under section 103 or104 with respect to the denial, if the personalinjury is first known (or first should havebeen known) to the individual (or the deathoccurs) after the latest date by which the ap-plicable requirements of subparagraph (A)can be met in connection with such denial.

‘‘(C) OCCURRENCE OF IMMEDIATE AN IRREP-ARABLE HARM OR DEATH PRIOR TO COMPLETIONOF PROCESS.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of sub-paragraph (A) shall not apply if the actioninvolves an allegation that immediate andirreparable harm or death was, or would be,caused by the denial of a claim for benefitsprior to the completion of the administra-tive processes referred to in subparagraph(A) with respect to such denial.

‘‘(ii) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in clause (i)shall be construed to preclude—

‘‘(I) continuation of such processes to theirconclusion if so moved by any party, and

‘‘(II) consideration in such action of thefinal decisions issued in such processes.

‘‘(iii) DEFINITION.—In clause (i), the term‘irreparable harm’, with respect to an indi-vidual, means an injury or condition that,regardless of whether the individual receivesthe treatment that is the subject of the de-nial, cannot be repaired in a manner thatwould restore the individual to the individ-ual’s pre-injured condition.

‘‘(D) RECEIPT OF BENEFITS DURING APPEALSPROCESS.—Receipt by the participant or ben-eficiary of the benefits involved in the claimfor benefits during the pendency of any ad-ministrative processes referred to in sub-paragraph (A) or of any action commencedunder this subsection—

‘‘(i) shall not preclude continuation of allsuch administrative processes to their con-clusion if so moved by any party, and

‘‘(ii) shall not preclude any liability undersubsection (a)(1)(C) and this subsection inconnection with such claim.

‘‘(6) TOLLING PROVISION.—The statute oflimitations for any cause of action arisingunder section 502(n) relating to a denial of aclaim for benefits that is the subject of anaction brought in State court shall be tolleduntil such time as the State court makes afinal disposition, including all appeals, ofwhether such claim should properly be with-in the jurisdiction of the State court. Thetolling period shall be determined by the ap-plicable Federal or State law, whichever pe-riod is greater.

‘‘(7) EXCLUSION OF DIRECTED RECORD-KEEPERS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph(C), paragraph (1) shall not apply with re-spect to a directed recordkeeper in connec-tion with a group health plan.

‘‘(B) DIRECTED RECORDKEEPER.—For pur-poses of this paragraph, the term ‘directed

recordkeeper’ means, in connection with agroup health plan, a person engaged in di-rected recordkeeping activities pursuant tothe specific instructions of the plan or theemployer or other plan sponsor, includingthe distribution of enrollment informationand distribution of disclosure materialsunder this Act or title I of the Bipartisan Pa-tient Protection Act of 2001 and whose dutiesdo not include making decisions on claimsfor benefits.

‘‘(C) LIMITATION.—Subparagraph (A) doesnot apply in connection with any directedrecordkeeper to the extent that the directedrecordkeeper fails to follow the specific in-struction of the plan or the employer orother plan sponsor.

‘‘(8) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sub-section shall be construed as—

‘‘(A) saving from preemption a cause of ac-tion under State law for the failure to pro-vide a benefit for an item or service which isspecifically excluded under the group healthplan involved, except to the extent that—

‘‘(i) the application or interpretation of theexclusion involves a determination describedin section 104(d)(2) of the Bipartisan PatientProtection Act of 2001, or

‘‘(ii) the provision of the benefit for theitem or service is required under Federal lawor under applicable State law consistentwith subsection (b)(2)(B);

‘‘(B) preempting a State law which re-quires an affidavit or certificate of merit ina civil action;

‘‘(C) affecting a cause of action or remedyunder State law in connection with the pro-vision or arrangement of excepted benefits(as defined in section 733(c)), other thanthose described in section 733(c)(2)(A); or

‘‘(D) affecting a cause of action underState law other than a cause of action de-scribed in paragraph (1)(A).

‘‘(9) PURCHASE OF INSURANCE TO COVER LI-ABILITY.—Nothing in section 410 shall be con-strued to preclude the purchase by a grouphealth plan of insurance to cover any liabil-ity or losses arising under a cause of actiondescribed in paragraph (1)(A).

‘‘(e) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TOHEALTH CARE.—Nothing in this title shall beconstrued as—

‘‘(1) affecting any State law relating to thepractice of medicine or the provision of med-ical care, or affecting any action based uponsuch a State law,

‘‘(2) superseding any State law permittedunder section 152(b)(1)(A) of the BipartisanPatient Protection Act of 2001, or

‘‘(3) affecting any applicable State lawwith respect to limitations on monetarydamages.’’.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentsmade by this section shall apply to acts andomissions (from which a cause of actionarises) occurring on or after the date of theenactment of this Act.SEC. 303. LIMITATIONS ON ACTIONS.

Section 502 of the Employee RetirementIncome Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1132)(as amended by section 302(a)) is amendedfurther by adding at the end the followingnew subsection:

‘‘(o) LIMITATIONS ON ACTIONS RELATING TOGROUP HEALTH PLANS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided inparagraph (2), no action may be broughtunder subsection (a)(1)(B), (a)(2), or (a)(3) bya participant or beneficiary seeking reliefbased on the application of any provision insection 101, subtitle B, or subtitle D of titleI of the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of2001 (as incorporated under section 714).

‘‘(2) CERTAIN ACTIONS ALLOWABLE.—An ac-tion may be brought under subsection(a)(1)(B), (a)(2), or (a)(3) by a participant orbeneficiary seeking relief based on the appli-

cation of section 101, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117,118(a)(3), 119, or 120 of the Bipartisan PatientProtection Act of 2001 (as incorporated undersection 714) to the individual circumstancesof that participant or beneficiary, exceptthat—

‘‘(A) such an action may not be brought ormaintained as a class action; and

‘‘(B) in such an action, relief may only pro-vide for the provision of (or payment of) ben-efits, items, or services denied to the indi-vidual participant or beneficiary involved(and for attorney’s fees and the costs of theaction, at the discretion of the court) andshall not provide for any other relief to theparticipant or beneficiary or for any relief toany other person.

‘‘(3) OTHER PROVISIONS UNAFFECTED.—Noth-ing in this subsection shall be construed asaffecting subsections (a)(1)(C) and (n) or sec-tion 514(d).

‘‘(4) ENFORCEMENT BY SECRETARY UNAF-FECTED.—Nothing in this subsection shall beconstrued as affecting any action brought bythe Secretary.’’.

TITLE IV—AMENDMENTS TO THEINTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986

SEC. 401. APPLICATION TO GROUP HEALTHPLANS UNDER THE INTERNAL REV-ENUE CODE OF 1986.

Subchapter B of chapter 100 of the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 is amended—

(1) in the table of sections, by insertingafter the item relating to section 9812 thefollowing new item:

‘‘Sec. 9813. Standard relating to patients’bill of rights.’’;

and(2) by inserting after section 9812 the fol-

lowing:‘‘SEC. 9813. STANDARD RELATING TO PATIENTS’

BILL OF RIGHTS.‘‘A group health plan shall comply with

the requirements of title I of the BipartisanPatient Protection Act of 2001 (as in effect asof the date of the enactment of such Act),and such requirements shall be deemed to beincorporated into this section.’’.SEC. 402. CONFORMING ENFORCEMENT FOR

WOMEN’S HEALTH AND CANCERRIGHTS.

Subchapter B of chapter 100 of the InternalRevenue Code of 1986, as amended by section401, is further amended—

(1) in the table of sections, by insertingafter the item relating to section 9813 thefollowing new item:

‘‘Sec. 9814. Standard relating to women’shealth and cancer rights.’’;

and(2) by inserting after section 9813 the fol-

lowing:‘‘SEC. 9814. STANDARD RELATING TO WOMEN’S

HEALTH AND CANCER RIGHTS.‘‘The provisions of section 713 of the Em-

ployee Retirement Income Security Act of1974 (as in effect as of the date of the enact-ment of this section) shall apply to grouphealth plans as if included in this sub-chapter.’’.

TITLE V—EFFECTIVE DATES;COORDINATION IN IMPLEMENTATION

SEC. 501. EFFECTIVE DATES.(a) GROUP HEALTH COVERAGE.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2)

and subsection (d), the amendments made bysections 201(a), 301, 303, and 401 and 402 (andtitle I insofar as it relates to such sections)shall apply with respect to group healthplans, and health insurance coverage offeredin connection with group health plans, forplan years beginning on or after January 1,2002 (in this section referred to as the ‘‘gen-eral effective date’’).

(2) TREATMENT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAININGAGREEMENTS.—In the case of a group health

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:41 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.045 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1154 February 7, 2001plan maintained pursuant to one or morecollective bargaining agreements betweenemployee representatives and one or moreemployers ratified before the date of the en-actment of this Act, the amendments madeby sections 201(a), 301, 303, and 401 and 402(and title I insofar as it relates to such sec-tions) shall not apply to plan years begin-ning before the later of—

(A) the date on which the last collectivebargaining agreements relating to the planterminates (determined without regard toany extension thereof agreed to after thedate of the enactment of this Act); or

(B) the general effective date.

For purposes of subparagraph (A), any planamendment made pursuant to a collectivebargaining agreement relating to the planwhich amends the plan solely to conform toany requirement added by this division shallnot be treated as a termination of such col-lective bargaining agreement.

(b) INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COV-ERAGE.—Subject to subsection (d), theamendments made by section 202 shall applywith respect to individual health insurancecoverage offered, sold, issued, renewed, in ef-fect, or operated in the individual market onor after the general effective date.

(c) TREATMENT OF RELIGIOUS NONMEDICALPROVIDERS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act (orthe amendments made thereby) shall be con-strued to—

(A) restrict or limit the right of grouphealth plans, and of health insurance issuersoffering health insurance coverage, to in-clude as providers religious nonmedical pro-viders;

(B) require such plans or issuers to—(i) utilize medically based eligibility stand-

ards or criteria in deciding provider status ofreligious nonmedical providers;

(ii) use medical professionals or criteria todecide patient access to religious nonmedicalproviders;

(iii) utilize medical professionals or cri-teria in making decisions in internal or ex-ternal appeals regarding coverage for care byreligious nonmedical providers; or

(iv) compel a participant or beneficiary toundergo a medical examination or test as acondition of receiving health insurance cov-erage for treatment by a religious nonmed-ical provider; or

(C) require such plans or issuers to excludereligious nonmedical providers because theydo not provide medical or other requireddata, if such data is inconsistent with the re-ligious nonmedical treatment or nursingcare provided by the provider.

(2) RELIGIOUS NONMEDICAL PROVIDER.—Forpurposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘reli-gious nonmedical provider’’ means a pro-vider who provides no medical care but whoprovides only religious nonmedical treat-ment or religious nonmedical nursing care.

(d) TRANSITION FOR NOTICE REQUIREMENT.—The disclosure of information required undersection 121 of this Act shall first be providedpursuant to—

(1) subsection (a) with respect to a grouphealth plan that is maintained as of the gen-eral effective date, not later than 30 days be-fore the beginning of the first plan year towhich title I applies in connection with theplan under such subsection; or

(2) subsection (b) with respect to a indi-vidual health insurance coverage that is ineffect as of the general effective date, notlater than 30 days before the first date as ofwhich title I applies to the coverage undersuch subsection.SEC. 502. COORDINATION IN IMPLEMENTATION.

The Secretary of Labor, the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, and the Sec-retary of the Treasury shall ensure, through

the execution of an interagency memo-randum of understanding among such Secre-taries, that—

(1) regulations, rulings, and interpreta-tions issued by such Secretaries relating tothe same matter over which such Secretarieshave responsibility under the provisions ofthis division (and the amendments madethereby) are administered so as to have thesame effect at all times; and

(2) coordination of policies relating to en-forcing the same requirements through suchSecretaries in order to have a coordinatedenforcement strategy that avoids duplica-tion of enforcement efforts and assigns prior-ities in enforcement.SEC. 503. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendmentmade by this Act, or the application of suchprovision or amendment to any person orcircumstance is held to be unconstitutional,the remainder of this Act, the amendmentsmade by this Act, and the application of theprovisions of such to any person or cir-cumstance shall not be affected thereby.

S. 284Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘BipartisanPatient Protection Act of 2001—Part II’’.SEC. 2. EXPANDED AVAILABILITY OF ARCHER

MSAS.(a) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.—Paragraphs

(2) and (3)(B) of section 220(i) of the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 (defining cut-off year)are each amended by striking ‘‘2002’’ eachplace it appears and inserting ‘‘2004’’.

(b) INCREASE IN NUMBER OF PERMITTED AC-COUNT PARTICIPANTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (j) of section220 of such Code is amended by redesignatingparagraphs (3), (4), and (5) as paragraphs (4),(5), and (6) and by inserting after paragraph(2) the following new paragraph:

‘‘(3) DETERMINATION OF WHETHER LIMIT EX-CEEDED FOR YEARS AFTER 2001.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The numerical limita-tion for any year after 2001 is exceeded if thesum of—

‘‘(i) the number of Archer MSA returnsfiled on or before April 15 of such calendaryear for taxable years ending with or withinthe preceding calendar year, plus

‘‘(ii) the Secretary’s estimate (determinedon the basis of the returns described inclause (i)) of the number of Archer MSA re-turns for such taxable years which will befiled after such date, exceeds 1,000,000. Forpurposes of the preceding sentence, the term‘Archer MSA return’ means any return onwhich any exclusion is claimed under section106(b) or any deduction is claimed under thissection.

‘‘(B) ALTERNATIVE COMPUTATION OF LIMITA-TION.—The numerical limitation for any yearafter 2001 is also exceeded if the sum of—

‘‘(i) 90 percent of the sum determinedunder subparagraph (A) for such calendaryear, plus

‘‘(ii) the product of 2.5 and the number ofmedical savings accounts established duringthe portion of such year preceding July 1(based on the reports required under para-graph (5)) for taxable years beginning in suchyear,exceeds 1,000,000.’’

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(A) Clause (ii) of section 220(j)(2)(B) of such

Code is amended by striking ‘‘paragraph (4)’’and inserting ‘‘paragraph (5)’’.

(B) Subparagraph (A) of section 220(j)(4) ofsuch Code is amended by striking ‘‘and 2001’’and inserting ‘‘2001, 2002, and 2003’’.

(c) INCREASE IN SIZE OF ELIGIBLE EMPLOY-ERS.—Subparagraph (A) of section 220(c)(4) of

such Code is amended by striking ‘‘50 orfewer employees’’ and inserting ‘‘100 or feweremployees’’.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentsmade by this section shall take effect on thedate of the enactment of this Act.

(e) GAO STUDY.—Not later than 1 yearafter the date of the enactment of this Act,the Comptroller General of the United Statesshall prepare and submit a report to theCommittee on Ways and Means of the Houseof Representatives and the Committee on Fi-nance of the Senate on the impact of ArcherMSAs on the cost of conventional insurance(especially in those areas where there arehigher numbers of such accounts) and on ad-verse selection and health care costs.SEC. 3. DEDUCTION FOR 100 PERCENT OF

HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS OFSELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section162(l) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 isamended to read as follows:

‘‘(1) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—In the caseof an individual who is an employee withinthe meaning of section 401(c)(1), there shallbe allowed as a deduction under this sectionan amount equal to 100 percent of theamount paid during the taxable year for in-surance which constitutes medical care forthe taxpayer and the taxpayer’s spouse anddependents.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentmade by this section shall apply to taxableyears beginning after December 31, 2001.SEC. 4. CREDIT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE EX-

PENSES OF SMALL BUSINESSES.(a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart D of part IV of

subchapter A of chapter 1 of the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 (relating to business-re-lated credits) is amended by adding at theend the following:‘‘SEC. 45E. SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH INSURANCE

EXPENSES.‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—For purposes of sec-

tion 38, in the case of a small employer, thehealth insurance credit determined underthis section for the taxable year is anamount equal to the applicable percentage ofthe expenses paid by the taxpayer during thetaxable year for health insurance coveragefor such year provided under a new healthplan for employees of such employer.

‘‘(b) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For pur-poses of subsection (a), the applicable per-centage is—

‘‘(1) in the case of insurance purchased asa member of a qualified health benefit pur-chasing coalition (as defined in section 9841),30 percent, and

‘‘(2) in the case of insurance not describedin paragraph (1), 20 percent.

‘‘(c) LIMITATIONS.—‘‘(1) PER EMPLOYEE DOLLAR LIMITATION.—

The amount of expenses taken into accountunder subsection (a) with respect to any em-ployee for any taxable year shall not ex-ceed—

‘‘(A) $2,000 in the case of self-only cov-erage, and

‘‘(B) $5,000 in the case of family coverage.In the case of an employee who is covered bya new health plan of the employer for only aportion of such taxable year, the limitationunder the preceding sentence shall be anamount which bears the same ratio to suchlimitation (determined without regard tothis sentence) as such portion bears to theentire taxable year.

‘‘(2) PERIOD OF COVERAGE.—Expenses maybe taken into account under subsection (a)only with respect to coverage for the 4-yearperiod beginning on the date the employerestablishes a new health plan.

‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sec-tion—

‘‘(1) HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—Theterm ‘health insurance coverage’ has the

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:45 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.045 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1155February 7, 2001meaning given such term by section9832(b)(1).

‘‘(2) NEW HEALTH PLAN.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘new health

plan’ means any arrangement of the em-ployer which provides health insurance cov-erage to employees if—

‘‘(i) such employer (and any predecessoremployer) did not establish or maintain sucharrangement (or any similar arrangement)at any time during the 2 taxable years end-ing prior to the taxable year in which thecredit under this section is first allowed, and

‘‘(ii) such arrangement provides health in-surance coverage to at least 70 percent of thequalified employees of such employer.

‘‘(B) QUALIFIED EMPLOYEE.—‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified em-

ployee’ means any employee of an employerif the annual rate of such employee’s com-pensation (as defined in section 414(s)) ex-ceeds $10,000.

‘‘(ii) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES.—The term ‘employee’ shall include a leasedemployee within the meaning of section414(n).

‘‘(3) SMALL EMPLOYER.—The term ‘smallemployer’ has the meaning given to suchterm by section 4980D(d)(2); except that onlyqualified employees shall be taken into ac-count.

‘‘(e) SPECIAL RULES.—‘‘(1) CERTAIN RULES MADE APPLICABLE.—For

purposes of this section, rules similar to therules of section 52 shall apply.

‘‘(2) AMOUNTS PAID UNDER SALARY REDUC-TION ARRANGEMENTS.—No amount paid or in-curred pursuant to a salary reduction ar-rangement shall be taken into account undersubsection (a).

‘‘(f) TERMINATION.—This section shall notapply to expenses paid or incurred by an em-ployer with respect to any arrangement es-tablished on or after January 1, 2010.’’.

(b) CREDIT TO BE PART OF GENERAL BUSI-NESS CREDIT.—Section 38(b) of such Code (re-lating to current year business credit) isamended by striking ‘‘plus’’ at the end ofparagraph (12), by striking the period at theend of paragraph (13) and inserting ‘‘, plus’’,and by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(14) in the case of a small employer (as de-fined in section 45E(d)(3)), the health insur-ance credit determined under section45E(a).’’

(c) NO CARRYBACKS.—Subsection (d) of sec-tion 39 of such Code (relating to carrybackand carryforward of unused credits) isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(10) NO CARRYBACK OF SECTION 45E CREDITBEFORE EFFECTIVE DATE.—No portion of theunused business credit for any taxable yearwhich is attributable to the employee healthinsurance expenses credit determined undersection 45E may be carried back to a taxableyear ending before the date of the enactmentof section 45E.’’

(d) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT.—Section280C of such Code is amended by adding atthe end the following new subsection:

‘‘(d) CREDIT FOR SMALL BUSINESS HEALTHINSURANCE EXPENSES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No deduction shall be al-lowed for that portion of the expenses (other-wise allowable as a deduction) taken into ac-count in determining the credit under sec-tion 45E for the taxable year which is equalto the amount of the credit determined forsuch taxable year under section 45E(a).

‘‘(2) CONTROLLED GROUPS.—Persons treatedas a single employer under subsection (a) or(b) of section 52 shall be treated as 1 personfor purposes of this section.’’

(e) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table ofsections for subpart D of part IV of sub-chapter A of chapter 1 of such Code isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘Sec. 45E. Small business health insuranceexpenses.’’

(f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentsmade by this section shall apply to amountspaid or incurred in taxable years beginningafter December 31, 2001, for arrangements es-tablished after the date of the enactment ofthis Act.SEC. 5. CERTAIN GRANTS BY PRIVATE FOUNDA-

TIONS TO QUALIFIED HEALTH BEN-EFIT PURCHASING COALITIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4942 of the Inter-nal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to taxeson failure to distribute income) is amendedby adding at the end the following:

‘‘(k) CERTAIN QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITPURCHASING COALITION DISTRIBUTIONS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of sub-section (g), sections 170, 501, 507, 509, and2522, and this chapter, a qualified health ben-efit purchasing coalition distribution by aprivate foundation shall be considered to bea distribution for a charitable purpose.

‘‘(2) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFIT PURCHASINGCOALITION DISTRIBUTION.—For purposes ofparagraph (1)—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualifiedhealth benefit purchasing coalition distribu-tion’ means any amount paid or incurred bya private foundation to or on behalf of aqualified health benefit purchasing coalition(as defined in section 9841) for purposes ofpayment or reimbursement of amounts paidor incurred in connection with the establish-ment and maintenance of such coalition.

‘‘(B) EXCLUSIONS.—Such term shall not in-clude any amount used by a qualified healthbenefit purchasing coalition (as so defined)—

‘‘(i) for the purchase of real property,‘‘(ii) as payment to, or for the benefit of,

members (or employees or affiliates of suchmembers) of such coalition, or

‘‘(iii) for any expense paid or incurred morethan 48 months after the date of establish-ment of such coalition.

‘‘(3) TERMINATION.—This subsection shallnot apply—

‘‘(A) to qualified health benefit purchasingcoalition distributions paid or incurred afterDecember 31, 2009, and

‘‘(B) with respect to start-up costs of a coa-lition which are paid or incurred after De-cember 31, 2010.’’.

(b) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFIT PURCHASINGCOALITION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 100 of such Code(relating to group health plan requirements)is amended by adding at the end the fol-lowing new subchapter:

‘‘Subchapter D—Qualified Health BenefitPurchasing Coalition

‘‘Sec. 9841. Qualified health benefit pur-chasing coalition.

‘‘SEC. 9841. QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFIT PUR-CHASING COALITION.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health ben-efit purchasing coalition is a private not-for-profit corporation which—

‘‘(1) sells health insurance through Statelicensed health insurance issuers in theState in which the employers to which suchcoalition is providing insurance are located,and

‘‘(2) establishes to the Secretary, underState certification procedures or other pro-cedures as the Secretary may provide by reg-ulation, that such coalition meets the re-quirements of this section.

‘‘(b) BOARD OF DIRECTORS.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each purchasing coali-

tion under this section shall be governed bya Board of Directors.

‘‘(2) ELECTION.—The Secretary shall estab-lish procedures governing election of suchBoard.

‘‘(3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Board of Directorsshall—

‘‘(A) be composed of representatives of themembers of the coalition, in equal number,including small employers and employee rep-resentatives of such employers, but

‘‘(B) not include other interested parties,such as service providers, health insurers, orinsurance agents or brokers which may havea conflict of interest with the purposes of thecoalition.

‘‘(c) MEMBERSHIP OF COALITION.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A purchasing coalition

shall accept all small employers residingwithin the area served by the coalition asmembers if such employers request suchmembership.

‘‘(2) OTHER MEMBERS.—The coalition, at thediscretion of its Board of Directors, may beopen to individuals and large employers.

‘‘(3) VOTING.—Members of a purchasing co-alition shall have voting rights consistentwith the rules established by the State.

‘‘(d) DUTIES OF PURCHASING COALITIONS.—Each purchasing coalition shall—

‘‘(1) enter into agreements with small em-ployers (and, at the discretion of its Board,with individuals and other employers) toprovide health insurance benefits to employ-ees and retirees of such employers,

‘‘(2) where feasible, enter into agreementswith 3 or more unaffiliated, qualified li-censed health plans, to offer benefits tomembers,

‘‘(3) offer to members at least 1 open en-rollment period of at least 30 days per cal-endar year,

‘‘(4) serve a significant geographical areaand market to all eligible members in thatarea, and

‘‘(5) carry out other functions provided forunder this section.

‘‘(e) LIMITATION ON ACTIVITIES.—A pur-chasing coalition shall not—

‘‘(1) perform any activity (including cer-tification or enforcement) relating to com-pliance or licensing of health plans,

‘‘(2) assume insurance or financial risk inrelation to any health plan, or

‘‘(3) perform other activities identified bythe State as being inconsistent with the per-formance of its duties under this section.

‘‘(f) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PUR-CHASING COALITIONS.—As provided by theSecretary in regulations, a purchasing coali-tion shall be subject to requirements similarto the requirements of a group health planunder this chapter.

‘‘(g) RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.—‘‘(1) PREEMPTION OF STATE FICTITIOUS

GROUP LAWS.—Requirements (commonly re-ferred to as fictitious group laws) relating togrouping and similar requirements for healthinsurance coverage are preempted to the ex-tent such requirements impede the establish-ment and operation of qualified health ben-efit purchasing coalitions.

‘‘(2) ALLOWING SAVINGS TO BE PASSEDTHROUGH.—Any State law that prohibitshealth insurance issuers from reducing pre-miums on health insurance coverage soldthrough a qualified health benefit pur-chasing coalition to reflect administrativesavings is preempted. This paragraph shallnot be construed to preempt State laws thatimpose restrictions on premiums based onhealth status, claims history, industry, age,gender, or other underwriting factors.

‘‘(3) NO WAIVER OF HIPAA REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed tochange the obligation of health insuranceissuers to comply with the requirements oftitle XXVII of the Public Health Service Actwith respect to health insurance coverage of-fered to small employers in the small groupmarket through a qualified health benefitpurchasing coalition.

‘‘(h) DEFINITION OF SMALL EMPLOYER.—Forpurposes of this section—

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 01:19 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.047 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1156 February 7, 2001‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘small em-

ployer’ means, with respect to any calendaryear, any employer if such employer em-ployed an average of at least 2 and not morethan 50 qualified employees on business daysduring either of the 2 preceding calendaryears. For purposes of the preceding sen-tence, a preceding calendar year may betaken into account only if the employer wasin existence throughout such year.

‘‘(2) EMPLOYERS NOT IN EXISTENCE IN PRE-CEDING YEAR.—In the case of an employerwhich was not in existence throughout the1st preceding calendar year, the determina-tion under paragraph (1) shall be based onthe average number of qualified employeesthat it is reasonably expected such employerwill employ on business days in the currentcalendar year.’’.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table ofsubchapters for chapter 100 of such Code isamended by adding at the end the followingitem:

‘‘Subchapter D. Qualified health benefitpurchasing coalition.’’.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentmade by subsection (a) shall apply to taxableyears beginning after December 31, 2001.SEC. 6. STATE GRANT PROGRAM FOR MARKET IN-

NOVATION.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health

and Human Services (in this section referredto as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall establish a pro-gram (in this section referred to as the ‘‘pro-gram’’) to award demonstration grants underthis section to States to allow States todemonstrate the effectiveness of innovativeways to increase access to health insurancethrough market reforms and other innova-tive means. Such innovative means may in-clude (and are not limited to) any of the fol-lowing:

(1) Alternative group purchasing or poolingarrangements, such as a purchasing coopera-tives for small businesses, reinsurance pools,or high risk pools.

(2) Individual or small group market re-forms.

(3) Consumer education and outreach.(4) Subsidies to individuals, employers, or

both, in obtaining health insurance.(b) SCOPE; DURATION.—The program shall

be limited to not more than 10 States and toa total period of 5 years, beginning on thedate the first demonstration grant is made.

(c) CONDITIONS FOR DEMONSTRATIONGRANTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may notprovide for a demonstration grant to a Stateunder the program unless the Secretary findsthat under the proposed demonstrationgrant—

(A) the State will provide for demonstratedincrease of access for some portion of the ex-isting uninsured population through a mar-ket innovation (other than merely through afinancial expansion of a program initiatedbefore the date of the enactment of this Act);

(B) the State will comply with applicableFederal laws;

(C) the State will not discriminate amongparticipants on the basis of any health sta-tus-related factor (as defined in section2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act),except to the extent a State wishes to focuson populations that otherwise would not ob-tain health insurance because of such fac-tors; and

(D) the State will provide for such evalua-tion, in coordination with the evaluation re-quired under subsection (d), as the Secretarymay specify.

(2) APPLICATION.—The Secretary shall notprovide a demonstration grant under theprogram to a State unless—

(A) the State submits to the Secretarysuch an application, in such a form and man-ner, as the Secretary specifies;

(B) the application includes informationregarding how the demonstration grant willaddress issues such as governance, targetedpopulation, expected cost, and the continu-ation after the completion of the demonstra-tion grant period; and

(B) the Secretary determines that the dem-onstration grant will be used consistent withthis section.

(3) FOCUS.—A demonstration grant pro-posal under section need not cover all unin-sured individuals in a State or all healthcare benefits with respect to such individ-uals.

(d) EVALUATION.—The Secretary shall enterinto a contract with an appropriate entityoutside the Department of Health andHuman Services to conduct an overall eval-uation of the program at the end of the pro-gram period. Such evaluation shall includean analysis of improvements in access, costs,quality of care, or choice of coverage, underdifferent demonstration grants.

(e) OPTION TO PROVIDE FOR INITIAL PLAN-NING GRANTS.—Notwithstanding the previousprovisions of this section, under the programthe Secretary may provide for a portion ofthe amounts appropriated under subsection(f) (not to exceed $5,000,000) to be made avail-able to any State for initial planning grantsto permit States to develop demonstrationgrant proposals under the previous provi-sions of this section.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated$100,000,000 for each fiscal year to carry outthis section. Amounts appropriated underthis subsection shall remain available untilexpended.

(g) STATE DEFINED.—For purposes of thissection, the term ‘‘State’’ has the meaninggiven such term for purposes of title XIX ofthe Social Security Act.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I’mhonored to join my colleagues in intro-ducing the Bipartisan Patient Protec-tion Act. This bill is a true bipartisancompromise, and I am confident it willreceive the support of the majority ofthe Senate.

We believe that our proposal is justwhat the doctor ordered to end abusesby HMOs and managed care healthplans. Doctors and patients should bemaking medical decisions, not insur-ance company accountants. It is longpast time for Congress to start pro-tecting patients, instead of HMO prof-its.

Prompt passage of this legislation isvital for the 161 million Americanswith private health insurance cov-erage. This is the fifth year that Con-gress has considered patient protec-tion—and too many patients have beensubject to unacceptable abuses as theresult of our inaction. Every day thatCongress fails to act, more patientssuffer.

A survey by the School of PublicHealth at the University of Californiafound that every day—each and everyday—50,000 patients experience addedpain and suffering because of actionsby their health plan. Thirty-five thou-sand patients have needed care de-layed—or denied all together. Thirty-five thousand other patients have a re-ferral to a specialist delayed or denied.Thirty-one thousand patients areforced to change their doctors. Eight-een thousand patients are forced tochange their medications.

A survey of physicians by the KaiserFamily Foundation and the HarvardSchool of Public Health found similarresults. Every day, tens of thousands ofpatients across the country suffer seri-ous declines in their health as the re-sult of the action—or inaction—of theirhealth plan.

Whether the issue is diagnostic tests,specialty care, emergency care, accessto clinical trials, availability of neededdrugs, protection of doctors who givepatients their best possible advice, orwomen’s ability to obtain gyneco-logical services—too often, in all ofthese cases. HMOs and managed careplans treat the company’s bottom lineas more important than the patient’svital signs. These abuses have no placein American medicine. Every doctorknows it. Every patient knows it. Andin their hearts, every member of Con-gress knows it.

Every American also knows that it iswrong for the current legal system togive immunity to health insurancecompanies and HMOs that kill or in-jure patients. No other industry inAmerica has immunity from liabilitywhen it acts irresponsibly, and HMOsand health insurance companiesshouldn’t have it either.

The legislation we are offering todayis bipartisan. Whether the issue is li-ability, the appeals process, or stateflexibility, we have made significantmodifications to respond to legitimateconcerns. but we have preserved thebasic principle that when serious ill-ness strikes, every American deservesthe protection they were promised.

President Bush campaigned on apledge to pass an effective patients’bill of rights. We are ready to workwith him to bring the American peoplethe protection they deserve. Endingthe current abuses should be a priorityfor the new Congress and the new Ad-ministration, and I am hopeful that wecan work together to past this legisla-tion as soon as possible this year.

f

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 29

At the request of Mr. BOND, thenames of the Senator from Pennsyl-vania (Mr. SANTORUM) and the Senatorfrom Connecticut (Mr. DODD) wereadded as cosponsors of S. 29, a bill toamend the Internal Revenue Code of1986 to allow a deduction for 100 per-cent of the health insurance costs ofself-employed individuals.

S. 31

At the request of Mr. CAMPBELL, thename of the Senator from Mississippi(Mr. COCHRAN) was added as a cospon-sor of S. 31, a bill to amend the Inter-nal Revenue Code of 1986 to phase outthe estate and gift taxes over a 10-yearperiod.

S. 41

At the request of Mr. HAGEL, thenames of the Senator from California(Mrs. FEINSTEIN) and the Senator fromNorth Dakota (Mr. DORGAN) were added

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:33 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.047 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1157February 7, 2001as cosponsors of S. 41, a bill to amendthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 topermanently extend the research creditand to increase the rates of the alter-native incremental credit.

S. 88

At the request of Mr. ROCKEFELLER,the names of the Senator from NewHampshire (Mr. SMITH), the Senatorfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. SANTORUM),and the Senator from Idaho (Mr.CRAPO) were added as cosponsors of S.88, a bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to provide an incen-tive to ensure that all Americans gaintimely and equitable access to theInternet over current and future gen-erations of broadband capability.

S. 124

At the request of Mr. BROWNBACK, thenames of the Senator from West Vir-ginia (Mr. BYRD) and the Senator fromNorth Carolina (Mr. HELMS) were addedas cosponsors of S. 124, a bill to exemptagreements relating to voluntaryguidelines governing telecast material,movies, video games, Internet content,and music lyrics from the applicabilityof the antitrust laws, and for other pur-poses.

S. 126

At the request of Mr. CLELAND, thename of the Senator from Delaware(Mr. CARPER) was added as a cosponsorof S. 126, a bill to authorize the Presi-dent to present a gold medal on behalfof Congress to former President JimmyCarter and his wife Rosalynn Carter inrecognition of their service to the Na-tion.

S. 131

At the request of Mr. JOHNSON, thename of the Senator from Arkansas(Mr. HUTCHINSON) was added as a co-sponsor of S. 131, a bill to amend title38, United States Code, to modify theannual determination of the rate of thebasic benefit of active duty educationalassistance under the Montgomery GIBill, and for other purposes.

S. 148

At the request of Mr. CRAIG, thename of the Senator from New Hamp-shire (Mr. SMITH) was added as a co-sponsor of S. 148, a bill to amend theInternal Revenue Code of 1986 to ex-pand the adoption credit, and for otherpurposes.

S. 161

At the request of Mr. WELLSTONE, thenames of the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.INOUYE), the Senator from Illinois (Mr.DURBIN), the Senator from Rhode Is-land (Mr. REED), and the Senator fromNew Jersey (Mr. CORZINE) were addedas cosponsors of S. 161, a bill to estab-lish the Violence Against Women Of-fice within the Department of Justice.

S. 205

At the request of Mrs. HUTCHISON, thenames of the Senator from Colorado(Mr. ALLARD), the Senator from Lou-isiana (Ms. LANDRIEU) and the Senatorfrom Arizona (Mr. KYL) were added ascosponsors of S. 205, a bill to amend theInternal Revenue Code of 1986 to waive

the income inclusion on a distributionfrom an individual retirement accountto the extent that the distribution iscontributed for charitable purposes.

S. 208

At the request of Mr. FRIST, thenames of the Senator from New York(Mrs. CLINTON) and the Senator fromNew Jersey (Mr. CORZINE) were addedas cosponsors of S. 208, a bill to reducehealth care costs and promote im-proved health care by providing supple-mental grants for additional preventivehealth services for women.

S. 214

At the request of Mr. MCCAIN, thename of the Senator from South Da-kota (Mr. JOHNSON) was added as a co-sponsor of S. 214, a bill to elevate theposition of Director of the IndianHealth Service within the Departmentof Health and Human Services to As-sistant Secretary for Indian Health,and for other purposes.

S. 225

At the request of Mr. WARNER, thename of the Senator from Mississippi(Mr. COCHRAN) was added as a cospon-sor of S. 225, a bill to amend the Inter-nal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide in-centives to public elementary and sec-ondary school teachers by providing atax credit for teaching expenses, pro-fessional development expenses, andstudent education loans.

S. 234

At the request of Mr. GRASSLEY, thenames of the Senator from Colorado(Mr. ALLARD), the Senator from SouthDakota (Mr. JOHNSON), and the Senatorfrom Arkansas (Mrs. LINCOLN) wereadded as cosponsors of S. 234, a bill toamend the Internal Revenue Code of1986 to repeal the excise tax on tele-phone and other communications serv-ices.

S. CON. RES. 6At the request of Mr. TORRICELLI, the

names of the Senator from New Jersey(Mr. CORZINE), the Senator from Con-necticut (Mr. DODD) and the Senatorfrom Maryland (Mr. SARBANES) wereadded as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 6, aconcurrent resolution expressing thesympathy for the victims of the dev-astating earthquake that struck Indiaon January 26, 2001, and support for on-going aid efforts.

f

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLU-TION 8—EXPRESSING THE SENSEOF CONGRESS REGARDING SUB-SIDIZED CANADIAN LUMBER EX-PORTS

Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. LOTT,Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr.HUTCHINSON, Mr. THURMOND, Mr.CRAPO, and Mr. CRAIG) submitted thefollowing concurrent resolution; whichwas referred to the Committee on Fi-nance:

S. CON. RES. 8

Whereas the Canadian provinces use gov-ernment timber to subsidize lumber produc-tion and employment by providing timber toCanadian lumber companies through non-

competitive, administered pricing arrange-ments for a fraction of the timber’s marketvalue;

Whereas unfair subsidy practices have re-sulted in shipments of lumber to the UnitedStates to the point that subsidized Canadianlumber is being imported into the UnitedStates at record levels and now accounts forover one-third of the United States softwoodlumber market;

Whereas highly subsidized Canadian lum-ber imported into the United States has re-sulted in lost sales for United States lumbercompanies, depressed United States lumbervalues, jeopardized thousands of UnitedStates jobs, and contributed to a collapse inlumber prices;

Whereas Canadian lumber subsidy prac-tices have been identified by a variety ofindependent analyses;

Whereas United States Government offi-cials in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Ad-ministrations, United States industry,timberland owners, and labor unions havecalled for an end to the subsidies and for fairtrade; and

Whereas an agreement between the UnitedStates and Canada on lumber trade is sched-uled to expire on March 31, 2001: Now, there-fore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep-resentatives concurring), That the President,the United States Trade Representative, andthe Secretary of Commerce should—

(1) make the problem of subsidized Cana-dian lumber imports a top trade priority tobe addressed immediately;

(2) take every possible action to end Cana-dian lumber subsidy practices through openand competitive sales of timber and logs inCanada for fair market value, or if Canadawill not agree to end the subsidies imme-diately, provide that the subsidies be offsetin the United States; and

(3) if Canada does not agree to end sub-sidies for lumber—

(A) enforce vigorously, promptly, and fullythe trade laws with respect to subsidized anddumped imports;

(B) explore all options to stop unfairlytraded imports; and

(C) limit injury to the United States indus-try.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I risetoday to introduce a Senate concurrentresolution that urges the administra-tion to realize that an immediate tradepriority should be to address the prob-lem of subsidized Canadian softwoodlumber imports. I am pleased to bejoined in this effort by Senators LOTT,LINCOLN, COCHRAN, HUTCHINSON, THUR-MOND, CRAPO, and CRAIG.

The U.S.-Canada Softwood LumberAgreement of 1996 will expire on March31, 2001—just 53 short days from now—and there are no government-to-gov-ernment negotiations taking place. Wedo not know just what will happen ifthe Agreement is allowed to expirewith no alternative solution in place,but without restrictions, the subsidizedlumber from Canada will flood over theborder further impacting our U.S. saw-mills. This to me is unacceptable.

It is safe to say that we who rep-resent our respective states here in theSenate share the same goals for ourconstituents—economic growth andprosperity through secure businessesand jobs, a healthy environment, in-cluding the ability to purchase reason-ably priced homes and lumber withwhich to remodel. I cannot stand by,

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:33 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.046 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1158 February 7, 2001however, and watch someone’s dreambecome another’s nightmare.

The United States has over four mil-lion forest landowners, with approxi-mately 20,000 logging facilities, saw-mills and planing mills, which employover 700,000 employees. In the pastyear, lumber prices in the UnitedStates have plummeted by 33 percentwhile Canadian imports have grown torecord levels. Approximately 3,500mills have already closed, and I haveheard from those with sawmills inMaine that are still open that they areclose to laying off their hard-workingemployees and using their lumber toboard up their businesses. Their mes-sage, as is mine, is for free trade thatis also fair trade.

I would like to note that, the prob-lem of the subsidized lumber is notcoming from Maine’s good neighbors tothe North—those small sawmills of theCanadian Maritimes—as they do nothave vast amounts of crown, or govern-ment-owned, forest, but also get theirwood from private forests, and they donot fall under the current quotas of theAgreement. There are only four prov-inces that actually fall under the quotasystem, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta andBritish Columbia, and the large inte-grated sawmills—those that have bothpulp and sawmill operations, are doingvery well. On the other hand, the smallsawmills in the Maritimes are hurtingjust as much as our sawmills in theUnited States. This is a trade problemthat we must negotiate with Canada inthe interests of the United States whilethey also work to solve their own in-equities.

The U.S. timber prices for lumber areset by the market for both public andprivate forests, while the CanadianGovernment sets the price of timberfrom Quebec to British Columbia at alevel that is one half to one-quarter theactual market value of timber. Some ofthe Canadian provinces with vastcrown forests use government timberto subsidize lumber production and em-ployment by providing timber to Cana-dian lumber companies through non-competitive, administered pricing ar-rangements for a fraction of the tim-ber’s market value.

These unfair subsidy practices havefueled shipments to the United Statesto the point that subsidized Canadianimports are at record levels and nowcontrol over one-third of the U.S.softwood lumber market. The highlysubsidized Canadian lumber imports

have gained sales volume from U.S.lumber companies, depressed U.S. tim-ber values, and jeopardized thousandsof U.S. jobs, and contributed to a col-lapse in lumber prices.

Canadian lumber subsidy practiceshave been identified by a variety ofindependent analyses. U.S. Govern-ment officials in the Reagan, Bush andClinton administrations, the U.S. in-dustry and timberland owners, andlabor unions all have called for an endto the subsidies and for fair trade.

We are calling upon the President,the Office of the U.S. Trade Represent-ative, and the Secretary of Commerceto take every possible action to end Ca-nadian lumber subsidy practicesthrough open and competitive sales oftimber and logs in Canada for fair mar-ket value, or if Canada will not agreeto end the subsidies immediately, thesubsidies must be offset pending somesort of reform.

In addition, if Canada will not reachan agreement to vigorously, promptly,and fully enforce the trade lawsagainst subsidized and dumped importsand explore all options to stop unfairlytraded imports, and to limit injury tothe U.S. industry pending further ac-tion, the administration should be pre-pared to vigorously and fully enforcethe trade laws against subsidized anddumped imports from Canada.

I hope that these efforts today willjump start the administration as soonas tomorrow to start working towardsnegotiations with Canada. There are nosurprises here, as the issue has beenaround since the 1930s. There have beenyears of investigations, assessments,petitions, rulings, imposed duties, anda 1986 Memorandum of Understandingto address the inequities.

As a matter of fact, a major reasonfor bringing Canada to the negotiatingtable for the 1996 Agreement, alongwith a lawsuit by the Coalition for FairLumber Imports, was the imple-menting legislation for the GATT Uru-guay Round Agreements. Congress ap-proved the President’s ‘‘statement ofadministrative action’’ that statedthat lumber imports from Canadacould be subject to countervailing du-ties under the Uruguay Round.

Every possible action must be takenimmediately, to end Canadian lumbersubsidy practices through open andcompetitive sales of timber and logs inCanada at fair market value. Thistrade must be both free and fair. Ithank the Chair.

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TOMEET

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBANAFFAIRS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Com-mittee on Banking, Housing, andUrban Affairs be authorized to meetduring the session of the Senate onWednesday, February 7, 2001, to con-duct a hearing on ‘‘Establishing an Ef-fective, Modern Framework for ExportControls.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Com-mittee on Foreign Relations be author-ized to meet during the session of theSenate on Wednesday, February 7, 2001,at 10:30 a.m., to hold a business meet-ing.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Com-mittee on the Judiciary be authorizedto meet to conduct a hearing onWednesday, February 7, 2001, at 9:30a.m., in Dirksen 226.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the SelectCommittee on Intelligence be author-ized to meet during the session of theSenate on Wednesday, February 7, 2001at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing on intel-ligence matters, and at 2:30 p.m., tohold a closed hearing on intelligencematters.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

f

PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent, on behalf of Sen-ator BIDEN, that Paul Foldi, a StateDepartment fellow on the staff of theForeign Relations Committee, begranted floor privileges during the con-sideration of S. 248.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

hFOREIGN CURRENCY REPORTS

In accordance with the appropriate provisions of law, the Secretary of the Senate herewith submits the following re-port(s) of standing committees of the Senate, certain joint committees of the Congress, delegations and groups, and selectand special committees of the Senate, relating to expenses incurred in the performance of authorized foreign travel:

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:33 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 8634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.055 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1159February 7, 2001CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22

U.S.C. 1754(b), COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY FOR TRAVEL FROM OCT. 1, TO DEC. 31, 2000

Name and country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreign cur-rency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S. cur-rency

Foreign cur-rency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S. cur-rency

Foreign cur-rency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S. cur-rency

Foreign cur-rency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S. cur-rency

Sara Roberts:United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 8,048.26 .................... .................... .................... 8,048.26Taiwan ...................................................................................................... New T. Dollar ....................................... .................... 789.24 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 789.24China ........................................................................................................ Yaun ..................................................... .................... 226.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 226.00Korea ......................................................................................................... Won ....................................................... .................... 439.72 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 439.72Australia ................................................................................................... Aud ....................................................... .................... 468.24 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 468.24

Stephanie Mercier:United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,098.28 .................... .................... .................... 1,098.28Netherlands .............................................................................................. Guilder .................................................. .................... 1,204.55 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,204.55

Jeffry Burnam:United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 995.28 .................... .................... .................... 995.28Netherlands .............................................................................................. Guilder .................................................. .................... 1,362.47 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,362.47

Total ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 4,490.22 .................... 10,141.82 .................... .................... .................... 14,632.04

DICK LUGAR,Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Jan. 31, 2001.

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FOREIGN CURRENCIES AND APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDERAUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22 U.S.C. 1754(b), COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS FOR TRAVEL FROM OCT. 1 TO DEC. 31, 2000.

Name and country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Senator Daniel K. Inouye:Japan ........................................................................................................ Yen ....................................................... .................... 2,030.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 2,030.00

Charlie Houy:Japan ........................................................................................................ Yen ....................................................... .................... 2,030.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 2,030.00

James Morhard:France ....................................................................................................... Franc .................................................... .................... 976.00 .................... 5,976.31 .................... .................... .................... 6,952.31

Senator Judd Gregg:France ....................................................................................................... Franc .................................................... .................... 976.00 .................... 5,976.31 .................... .................... .................... 6,952.31

Senator Patrick Leahy:United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 741.12 .................... .................... .................... 741.12Canada ..................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 454.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 454.00

Tim Rieser:United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 734.25 .................... .................... .................... 734.25Canada ..................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 227.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 227.00

Senator Ernest F. Hollings:Panama ..................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 428.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 428.00

Lila Helms:Panama ..................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 428.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 428.00

Susan Hogan:United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 8,806.99 .................... .................... .................... 8,806.99Australia ................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 1,729.78 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,729.78

Total ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 9,278.78 .................... 22,234.98 .................... .................... .................... 31,513.76

TED STEVENS,Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Jan. 15, 2001.

AMENDMENT TO THE 3RD QUARTER 2000 CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDERAUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22 U.S.C. 1754(b), COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS FOR TRAVEL FROM JULY 1, TO SEPT. 30, 2000

Name and country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Steve Cortese:United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 4,399.00 .................... .................... .................... 4,399.00Greece ....................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 402.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 402.00Bosnia ....................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 351.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 351.00Croatia ...................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 274.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 274.00Italy ........................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 1,002.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,002.00Portugal .................................................................................................... Escudo .................................................. .................... 375.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 375.00

Sid Ashworth:United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 4,399.00 .................... .................... .................... 4,399.00Greece ....................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 402.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 402.00Bosnia ....................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 351.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 351.00Croatia ...................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 274.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 274.00Italy ........................................................................................................... Lire ....................................................... .................... 1,002.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,002.00Portugal .................................................................................................... Escudo .................................................. .................... 375.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 375.00

Kraig Siracuse:United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 4,399.00 .................... .................... .................... 4,399.00Greece ....................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 402.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 402.00Bosnia ....................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 351.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 351.00Croatia ...................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 274.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 274.00Italy ........................................................................................................... Lire ....................................................... .................... 1,002.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,002.00Portugal .................................................................................................... Escudo .................................................. .................... 250.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 250.00

Jennifer Chartrand:United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 4,399.00 .................... .................... .................... 4,399.00Greece ....................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 402.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 402.00Bosnia ....................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 351.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 351.00Croatia ...................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 274.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 274.00Italy ........................................................................................................... Lire ....................................................... .................... 1,002.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,002.00Portugal .................................................................................................... Escudo .................................................. .................... 375.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 375.00

Paul Doerrer:South Africa .............................................................................................. Rand ..................................................... .................... 650.00 .................... 5,679.00 .................... .................... .................... 6,329.00

Robin Cleveland:Singapore .................................................................................................. Dollar .................................................... .................... 1,500.00 .................... 5,856.46 .................... .................... .................... 7,356.46

Christine Drager:Canada ..................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 385.37 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 385.37

Total ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 12,026.37 .................... 29,131.46 .................... .................... .................... 41,157.83

TED STEVENS,Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Jan. 15, 2001.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:47 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 8634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.022 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1160 February 7, 2001AMENDMENT TO THE 3RD QUARTER 2000 CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FOREIGN CURRENCIES AND APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND

EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22 U.S.C. 1754(b), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, TRAVEL AUTHORIZED BY SENATOR JOHNWARNER, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FOR TRAVEL FROM JULY 1, TO SEPT. 30, 2000

Name and country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Senator Max Cleland:Japan ........................................................................................................ Yen ....................................................... 88,454 818.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 818.00Korea ......................................................................................................... Won ....................................................... 690,680 599.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 599.00

William S. Chapman:Japan ........................................................................................................ Yen ....................................................... 83,251 768.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 768.00Korea ......................................................................................................... Won ....................................................... 649,462 583.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 583.00

Patricia Murphy:Japan ........................................................................................................ Yen ....................................................... 90,080 831.63 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 831.63Korea ......................................................................................................... Won ....................................................... 727,887 653.40 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 653.40

Simon Sargent:Japan ........................................................................................................ Yen ....................................................... 73,152 674.84 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 674.84Korea ......................................................................................................... Won ....................................................... 512,743 460.27 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 460.27

Andrew Vanlandingham:Japan ........................................................................................................ Yen ....................................................... 84,300 777.67 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 777.67Korea ......................................................................................................... Won ....................................................... 531,873 477.44 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 477.44

Total ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 6,643.25

JOHN WARNER,Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Jan. 30, 2001.

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FOREIGN CURRENCIES AND APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDERAUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22 U.S.C. 1754(b), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, TRAVEL AUTHORIZED BY SENATOR JOHN WARNER FOR TRAVEL FROM OCT. 1, TO DEC.31, 2000

Name and country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Pamela Farrell:France ....................................................................................................... Franc .................................................... 15,264.40 2,462.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 2,462.00Germany .................................................................................................... Deutsche Mark ..................................... 825.72 393.20 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 393.20

Charles W. Alsup:Germany .................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 1,222.10 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,222.10

Daniel J. Cox:Germany .................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 1,057.49 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,057.49

Richard W. Fieldhouse:Russia ....................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 1,049.72 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,049.72United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 4,519.20 .................... .................... .................... 4,519.20

Mary Alice Hayward:Russia ....................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 3,910.21 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 3,910.21

John Barnes:Japan ........................................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... 590.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 590.00Korea ......................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 1,084.96 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,084.96

Thomas L. MacKenzie:Japan ........................................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... 590.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 590.00Korea ......................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 1,084.96 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,084.96

Senator James M. Inhofe:Kuwait ....................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 778.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 778.00Rwanda ..................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 125.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 125.00Congo ........................................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... 565.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 565.00Angola ....................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 494.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 494.00United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 6,311.00 .................... .................... .................... 6,311.00

Cord A. Sterling:Kuwait ....................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 740.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 740.00Rwanda ..................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 190.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 190.00Italy ........................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 40.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 40.00Spain ......................................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... 580.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 580.00United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 5,706.63 .................... .................... .................... 5,706.63

Senator Jack Reed:United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 4,903.84 .................... .................... .................... 4,903.84

Total ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 38,397.31

JOHN WARNER,Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Jan. 5, 2001.

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FOREIGN CURRENCIES AND APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDERAUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22 U.S.C. 1754(b), COMMITTEE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE TRAVEL AUTHORIZED BY ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLICWORKS COMMITTEE FOR TRAVEL FROM OCT. 1, 2000 TO DEC. 31, 2000

Name and Country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Christopher Miller:Netherlands .............................................................................................. ............................................................... .................... 2,610.00 .................... 831.90 .................... .................... .................... 3,441.90

Louis Renjel:Netherlands .............................................................................................. ............................................................... .................... 1,740.00 .................... 821.12 .................... .................... .................... 2,561.12

Total ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 4,350.00 .................... 1,653.02 .................... .................... .................... 6,003.02

BOB SMITH,Chairman, Committee on environment and Public Works, Jan. 22, 2001.

VerDate 07-FEB-2001 02:47 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 8634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.022 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1161February 7, 2001CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22

U.S.C. 1754(b), COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS FOR TRAVEL FROM OCT. 1, TO DEC. 31, 2000

Name and country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Elise Bean:United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,314.80 .................... .................... .................... 1,314.80Antigua/Dominica ..................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... 715.98 .................... .................... .................... .................... 715.98

Robert Roach:United States ............................................................................................ Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,314.80 .................... .................... .................... 1,314.80Antigua/Dominica ..................................................................................... Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... 708.65 .................... .................... .................... .................... 708.65

Total ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 1,424.63 .................... 2,629.60 .................... .................... .................... 4,054.23

FRED THOMPSON,Chairman, Committee on Government Affairs, Jan. 2, 2001.

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FOREIGN CURRENCIES AND APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE UNDERAUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22 U.S.C. 1754(c), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR TRAVEL FROM OCT. 1, 2000 TO DEC. 31, 2000

Name and country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Paul Palagyi:Brazil ......................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 900.00 .................... 3,287.80 .................... .................... .................... 4,187.80

Total ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 900.00 .................... 3,287.80 .................... .................... .................... 4,187.80

ORRIN HATCH,Chairman, Committee on Judiciary, Jan. 22, 2001.

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22U.S.C. 1754(c), COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS FOR TRAVEL FOR TRAVEL FROM OCT. 1, TO DEC. 31, 2000

Name and country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Patricia Forbes:France ....................................................................................................... Franc .................................................... .................... 886.12 .................... 39.08 .................... 90.51 .................... 1,015.71

Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 883.00 .................... .................... .................... 883.00

Total ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 886.12 .................... 922.08 .................... 90.51 .................... 1,898.71

KIT BOND,Chairman, Committee on Small Business, Dec. 18, 2000.

AMENDMENT TO THE 3RD QUARTER 2000 CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FOREIGN CURRENCIES AND APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS ANDEMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE—UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22 U.S.C. 1754(b), COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS FOR TRAVEL FROM JULY 1, TO SEP-TEMBER 30, 2000

Name and country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Doman O. McArthur:Spain ......................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 181.00 .................... .................... .................... 6.00 .................... 187.00Morocco ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 498.00 .................... .................... .................... 125.00 .................... 623.00Senegal ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 88.00 .................... .................... .................... 7.00 .................... 95.00Mali ........................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 79.00 .................... .................... .................... 19.00 .................... 98.00Ghana ....................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 136.00 .................... .................... .................... 10.00 .................... 146.00Democratic Republic of the Congo .......................................................... ............................................................... .................... 150.00 .................... .................... .................... 57.00 .................... 207.00Angola ....................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 10.00 .................... .................... .................... 31.00 .................... 41.00Zambia ...................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 98.00 .................... .................... .................... 35.00 .................... 133.00South Africa .............................................................................................. ............................................................... .................... 351.00 .................... .................... .................... 104.00 .................... 455.00Uganda ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 161.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 161.00Tunisia ...................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 71.00 .................... .................... .................... 111.00 .................... 182.00Algeria ....................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 80.00 .................... .................... .................... 32.00 .................... 112.00Portugal .................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 178.00 .................... .................... .................... 46.00 .................... 224.00

Total ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 2,081.00 .................... .................... .................... 583.00 .................... 2,664.00

ARLEN SPECTER,Chairman, Committee on Veterans Affairs, Dec. 20, 2000.

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22U.S.C. 1754(b), COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE FOR TRAVEL FROM OCT. 1, TO DEC. 31, 2000

Name and country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Kenneth Myers, III .............................................................................................. ............................................................... .................... 2,545.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 2,545.00Kenneth Myers, Jr. ............................................................................................. ............................................................... .................... 2,490.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 2,490.00Senator Richard Lugar ...................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 2,490.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 2,490.00Senator Richard Shelby ..................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 1,379.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,379.00

Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 5,571.76 .................... .................... .................... 5,571.76Senator Jon Kyl .................................................................................................. ............................................................... .................... 1,360.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,360.00

Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 5,571.76 .................... .................... .................... 5,571.76Randall Bookout ................................................................................................ ............................................................... .................... 1,329.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,329.00

Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 5,571.76 .................... .................... .................... 5,571.76James Barnett ................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 790.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 790.00

Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 8,806.99 .................... .................... .................... 8,806.99

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:33 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 8634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.022 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1162 February 7, 2001CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22

U.S.C. 1754(b), COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE FOR TRAVEL FROM OCT. 1, TO DEC. 31, 2000—Continued

Name and country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Senator Max Baucus ......................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 755.14 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 755.14Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 5,269.89 .................... .................... .................... 5,269.89

Lorenzo Goco ...................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 1,034.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,034.00Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 5,269.89 .................... .................... .................... 5,269.89

Zak Anderson ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 1,274.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,274.00Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 5,269.89 .................... .................... .................... 5,269.89

James Barnett ................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 1,947.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,947.00Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 5,208.00 .................... .................... .................... 5,208.00

Patricia McNerney .............................................................................................. ............................................................... .................... 1,947.00 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,947.00Dollar .................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3,609.30 .................... .................... .................... 3,609.30

Total ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 19,340.14 .................... 50,149.24 .................... .................... .................... 69,489.38

RICHARD SHELBY,Chairman, Committee on Intelligence, Feb. 1, 2001.

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22U.S.C. 1754(b), THE MAJORITY LEADER FOR TRAVEL FROM SEPT. 21, TO SEPT. 22, 2000

Name and country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson:Mexico ....................................................................................................... Pesos .................................................... .................... 146.25 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 146.25

Senator Jon Kyl:Mexico ....................................................................................................... Pesos .................................................... .................... 146.25 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 146.25

Senator Jeff Sessions:Mexico ....................................................................................................... Pesos .................................................... .................... 146.25 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 146.25

Larry DiRita:Mexico ....................................................................................................... Pesos .................................................... .................... 146.25 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 146.25

Mike Gerber:Mexico ....................................................................................................... Pesos .................................................... .................... 146.25 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 146.25

Julia Hart:Mexico ....................................................................................................... Pesos .................................................... .................... 146.25 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 146.25

Delegation expenses 1 ........................................................................................ ............................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 428.63 428.63

Total ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 877.50 .................... .................... .................... .................... 428.63 1,306.13

1 Delegation expenses include direct payments and reimbursements to the Department of State and the Department of Defense under authority of Sec. 502(b) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended by Sec. 22 of P.L. 95–384,and S. Res. 179 agreed to May 25, 1977.

TRENT LOTT,Majority Leader, Nov. 15, 2000.

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95–384—22U.S.C. 1754(b), DEMOCRATIC LEADER FOR TRAVEL FROM OCT. 1 TO DEC. 31, 2000

Name and country Name of currency

Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Foreigncurrency

U.S. dollarequivalent

or U.S.currency

Franz Wuerfmannsdorbler:Netherlands .............................................................................................. Dollar .................................................... .................... 3,359.28 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 3,359.28

Total ..................................................................................................... ............................................................... .................... 3,359.28 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 3,359.28

TOM DASCHLE,Democratic Leader, Jan. 31, 2001.

h

THE FUTURE OF INDO-AMERICANRELATIONS

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the pow-erful earthquake which recently dev-astated India’s densely populated west-ern state of Gujarat has focused our at-tention, once again, on India. Gujaratofficials estimate that 28,000 to 30,000people have died. Thousands more havebeen injured, and hundreds of thou-sands have been displaced.

In response to India’s dire need forhelp, USAID has sent blankets, genera-tors, water containers, plastic sheet-ing, food, and other relief supplies—allpart of our official commitment to pro-vide some $10 million in emergency hu-manitarian aid. But in my view this isnot enough. We can and should domore. In the initial phase of this dis-aster when India particularly neededsearch and rescue teams and medicalassistance, the United States was con-

spicuous in its absence. The Russians,the Brits, the Swiss and others wereengaged in pulling people out of therubble. We were not. At least half adozen countries, including Denmark,Israel, and Sweden, sent field hospitals,doctors and medical personnel. We didnot. Given our slow start, it is espe-cially important for the United Statesto be particularly generous when itcomes to reconstruction.

Indian-Americans, on the other hand,have moved quickly to mobilize theirown relief effort—collecting sizeabledonations and medical supplies as wellas assembling teams of doctors. Re-flecting the depth of concern amongAmericans for the tragedy that hasstruck India, President Bush, lastweek, made a condolence call to IndianPrime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Icommend the President for makingthis call, not only because it was the

right thing to do under the cir-cumstances, but also because it was animportant gesture by the new Adminis-tration toward a country in a regionthat the United States tends to ignore,except in times of crisis.

Regrettably the Clinton Administra-tion paid little attention to develop-ments in South Asia until May 1998,when India broke its 25 year morato-rium on nuclear testing with five un-derground tests. Taken by surprise, theAdministration tried—to no avail—topersuade Pakistan not to test in re-sponse. Confronted with escalating ten-sions not only in the nuclear realm buton the ground over Kashmir, the Ad-ministration was forced to focus ongrowing instability in the subconti-nent.

Belatedly the Administration pickedup the pace of its diplomacy in the re-gion, opening a high level dialogue

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:33 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE6.022 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1163February 7, 2001with India and Pakistan on nuclearissues, interceding to reduce tensionsover Kashmir, and arranging a Presi-dential visit last March to India, witha brief stop in Pakistan. PresidentClinton’s trip to India—the first by aUS president in 22 years—was an effort,in his words, to ‘‘rekindle the relation-ship’’ between the United States andIndia. It was a welcome initiative.

I was in India in December 1999, a fewmonths before President Clinton’svisit, to participate in the World Eco-nomic Forum’s India Economic Sum-mit. While there, I had an opportunityto meet with a number of Indian offi-cials including the Prime Minister, hisNational Security Adviser and the De-fense Minister. During the course ofthese meetings, it became very clear tome that India wanted a better relation-ship with the United States. In manyrespects, this was predictable becausefrom India’s perspective, the neighbor-hood in which it lives has become lessfriendly and more threatening, and itshistorical ally, the Soviet Union, nolonger exists.

Pakistan is under the control of amilitary regime rather than a demo-cratically elected government—a re-gime which New Delhi views as illegit-imate and threatening. In the monthsbefore the Clinton visit, tensions withPakistan had intensified not only overKashmir but also over Pakistani sup-port for terrorists. Although tensionshave subsided since then, Kashmir con-tinues to be a volatile issue that couldprovoke another war between India andPakistan both armed with nuclearweapons. Pakistan, like India, has de-clared its intention to be in the nucleargame. Pakistan clearly poses a secu-rity problem for India but not of themagnitude of China. As one Indian toldme during my visit, ‘‘Pakistan is a nui-sance but not a threat—China is athreat.’’

The biggest and from the Indianviewpoint most menacing power in theneighborhood is China—a country withwhich India has had longstanding ten-sions over border and territorial issues.China’s past assistance to Pakistan’snuclear program and its ongoing ef-forts to build influence with othersmaller countries in the region, par-ticularly those on India’s border suchas Burma, are proof at least in theminds of Indians that China is tryingto encircle India. Whereas most of thecountries in Southeast Asia see Chi-nese aspirations as limited to that of aregional power that wants recognitionand respect, India is wary of China’saspirations both in the region and glob-ally.

The Indian fear of China seems to meto be larger than reality but it is realnonetheless, and it is a major reasonwhy India has been seeking improvedrelations with the United States. TheClinton Administration, recognizingthat improved relations would be inAmerica’s interests as well as India’s,wisely took advantage of this oppor-tunity. India is the largest democracy

in Asia and a potentially importantpartner in our efforts to promote re-gional stability, economic growth andmore open political systems in sur-rounding countries. It is a fledgling nu-clear power with the potential to affectthe nuclear balance in South Asia aswell as our nonproliferation goals on aglobal level. It is involved in a long-standing conflict with Pakistan whichcould erupt into another war possiblyat the nuclear level. It is a player in aregion dominated by China, with whomthe US has mutual interests but alsomajor differences.

While the United States and Indiahave differences over serious issues re-lated to the development of India’s nu-clear program, labor and the environ-ment, Cold War politics and alliancesno longer stand in the way of improvedrelations. In fact, as many of my In-dian hosts suggested, the United Statesand India are ‘‘natural allies’’. Bothare vibrant democracies; Indian-Amer-ican family ties are strong and exten-sive. As India has begun to open andliberalize its economy over the pastdecade, American business and invest-ment in India has grown, particularlyin the high tech region of Bangalore,and America has become India’s largesttrading partner and source of foreigninvestment. And on the flip side, Indi-ans are playing a major role in thegrowth of our high tech industry inCalifornia, Massachusetts, New York,and elsewhere. Together with the Tai-wanese, Indians own more than 25 per-cent of the firms and supply more than25 percent of the labor in this countryin those technology fields. All of In-dia’s political parties have acceptedthe need to continue India’s economicmodernization. Undoubtedly there willbe disagreements over how to do it butcontinuation of the process holds outthe prospects of increased economicinteraction with the United States.

The potential exists for the U.S. andIndia to have a strong, cooperative re-lationship across a broad range ofissues. President Clinton’s visit toIndia was an important step in layingthe foundation for this new relation-ship. Working groups were set up ontrade, clean energy and environment,and science and technology. A broadrange of environmental, social andhealth agreements were signed. Tostrengthen economic ties, $2 billion inEximbank support for U.S. exports toIndia was announced;.U.S. firms signedsome $4 billion in agreements with In-dian firms. The effort to institu-tionalize dialogue was capped by anagreement between President Clintonand Prime Minister Vajpayee for reg-ular bilateral summits between theleaders of both countries. An invitationwas extended to the Prime Minister tovisit Washington, which he did lastSeptember. During that visit, the twoleaders agreed to expand cooperationto the areas of arms control, terrorismand AIDS.

The seeds have been sown for a newIndo-American relationship. It is up to

the Bush Administration to nurturethem. The Administration must devotetime and attention to the relation-ship—and to developments in the re-gion—on a consistent basis, not on acrisis only basis. President Clinton andPrime Minister Vajpayee set out toregularize bilateral contacts not onlyat the working level but also at thehighest levels. President Bush shouldcontinue this process. Personal diplo-macy at the highest levels, particu-larly when dealing with Asian coun-tries, is an essential element of rela-tionship-building. I also believe thatthe time is long overdue for the UnitedStates to distinguish, once and for all,between India and Pakistan and totreat each differently and according tothe demands of those bilateral rela-tionships.

A constant source of irritation for In-dians has been the inability or unwill-ingness of the United States to dif-ferentiate between India and Pakistan.From their perspective, India’s com-mitment to democracy and economicreform dictate that the United Stateshave a different relationship with Indiathan with Pakistan, which has a mili-tary regime that supports terrorism. Iagree that a distinction must be drawn.That the United States lumps them to-gether or even worse is soft on Paki-stan is clearly unacceptable from theIndian point of view. To a certain ex-tent, they have a point. To a certainextent, they have made their point ac-curately.

Just as the passing of the Cold Warhas improved the atmosphere for animprovement in Indo-American rela-tions, it has also removed the need forthe United States to ignore Pakistan’stransgressions both within and outsideof its borders. The United States nolonger needs to tilt toward Pakistan inpursuit of larger strategic objectives.We should look at our relationshipswith India and Pakistan separately,analyzing each in terms of mutual in-terests and differences and being morecandid in defining areas of agreementand disagreement. President Clintonattempted to find a new balance duringhis trip last year, by spending severaldays in India and only a few hours inIslamabad. But more needs to be done.In my view, we can advance our inter-ests and strengthen our relationshipwith India by immediately terminatingthe sanction on loans to India frominternational financial institutions(IFIs).

Although President Clinton waivedmost of the sanctions imposed on Indiaafter it tested in 1998, he chose not toexercise the waiver for IFI loans toIndia, amounting to some $1.7 billion,or for FMF (foreign military financing)for India. I believe that we should liftthe IFI sanction at this time. The re-lease of these funds would send an im-portant signal to India of our ongoingcommitment to improved relationswhile also encouraging the governmentof India to continue its economic mod-ernization.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:33 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.065 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1164 February 7, 2001The sanction on FMF needs discus-

sion in hopes of finding furtherprogress regarding India’s position onnuclear issues. At the moment, Indianofficials have made it clear that therewould be no rollback of India’s nuclearprogram and that India intends to havea credible minimum nuclear deterrentwhich means nuclear weapons and de-livery systems. They believe that theUnited States is under-emphasizing In-dia’s security needs and overempha-sizing nonproliferation objectives. I be-lieve there is a happy medium betweenthese two. Although there has been on-going dialogue between Indian andAmerican officials on the Clinton Ad-ministration’s four nonproliferationbenchmarks set after the 1998 tests—signing and ratifying the Comprehen-sive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), haltingfissile material production, refrainingfrom deploying or testing missiles ornuclear weapons, and instituting ex-port controls on sensitive goods andtechnology.

Despite the fact that we set up thesebenchmarks, the truth is there hasbeen little progress made with respectto them.

We must be frank and acknowledgeat the same time, as we see and meas-ure the progress, that we have to behonest about our own status, if youwill. That requires us to acknowledgethat our failure in the Senate to ap-prove the Comprehensive Test-BanTreaty has undermined our ability toinfluence India and many other coun-tries. And Pakistan, obviously, is inthe same equation.

Nevertheless, it is imperative thatthe dialog continue because too muchis at stake in terms of regional sta-bility and nonproliferation to allow itto wither. We need to understand thefears that are driving India’s sense ofsecurity and insecurity. We need to askourselves what is realistic to expectfrom India in light of those fears.

For their part, the Indians must un-derstand that much can be gained inthe relationship with the United Statesand with progress on these issues.Arms control and regional stability areinextricably linked, and global secu-rity is inextricably linked to our reso-lution of these issues.

I am very hopeful we can quicklyreach a mutual understanding to per-mit the FMF sanction to also be lifted.I believe we can make progress onthese difficult issues if both parties areprepared to tackle them and to be sen-sitive to understanding the other’s se-curity concerns.

India and the United States havebegun to build a new cooperative rela-tionship that reflects our common tiesand our common interests. A processhas begun, and the administrationneeds to continue that progress withcommitment and with zeal.

India and the United States have anenormous amount to offer each other.We both can benefit, in my judgment,from a more cooperative and friendlyworking relationship. I think the

groundwork has been laid. I hope thisadministration can move rapidly to liftthe current sanctions, to enter into thetalks, and to move forward in thismost critical relationship. I suggestthe absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call theroll.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, are wein morning business?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are ina period for morning business, withMembers allowed to speak for up to 10minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent to speak for up to20 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.(The remarks of Mr. KENNEDY per-

taining to the introduction of S. 277 arelocated in today’s RECORD under‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills andJoint Resolutions.’’)

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor andsuggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call theroll.

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

f

UNANIMOUS CONSENTAGREEMENT—S. 235

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, on be-half of the leader, I ask unanimousconsent that at 11 a.m. on Thursday,the Senate proceed to S. 235, the pipe-line safety bill and all amendments berelevant to the subject matter of pipe-line safety or energy policy in Cali-fornia or a study relative to energy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, in lightof this agreement, I announce to theMembers of the Senate that there willbe no further votes today.

f

MODIFICATION OF S. RES. 7

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, on be-half of the majority leader, I ask unan-imous consent that notwithstandingthe adoption of S. Res. 7, the resolutionbe modified to reflect the followingchanges which I send to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The modification reads as follows:MODIFICATION

Designating Senator Larry Craig as chair-man of the Committee on Aging;

Designating Senator Pat Roberts as Chair-man of the Committee on Ethics;

Designating Senator Harry Reid as ViceChairman of the Committee on Ethics;

Designating Senator Inouye as Vice Chair-man of the Committee on Indian Affairs.

f

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEEREPRESENTATION

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Senatenow proceed to the immediate consid-eration of S. 279 regarding the member-ship of the Joint Economic Committee.

Further, I ask that the bill be readthe third time and passed, with the mo-tion to reconsider laid upon the table.

There being no objection, the Senateproceeded to consider the bill.

The bill (S. 279) was read the thirdtime and passed, as follows:

S. 279Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled, That notwithstandingany other provision of law, and specificallysection 5(a) of the Employment Act of 1946(15 U.S.C. 1024(a)), the Members of the Senateto be appointed by the President of the Sen-ate shall for the duration of the One HundredSeventh Congress, for so long as the major-ity party and the minority party have equalrepresentation in the Senate, be representedby five Members of the majority party andfive Members of the minority party.

f

APPOINTMENTS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair, on behalf of the Majority Lead-er, pursuant to Public Law 106–553, an-nounces the appointment of the fol-lowing Senators to serve as members ofthe Congressional Recognition for Ex-cellence in Arts Education AwardsBoard: The Senator from Mississippi(Mr. COCHRAN) and the Senator fromUtah (Mr. BENNETT).

The Chair, on behalf of the Presidentpro tempore, pursuant to Public Law96–388, as amended by Public Law 97–84and Public Law 106–292, appoints thefollowing Senators to the UnitedStates Holocaust Memorial Council forthe 107th Congress: The Senator fromUtah (Mr. HATCH), the Senator fromAlaska (Mr. MURKOWSKI), and the Sen-ator from Maine (Ms. COLLINS).

f

ORDERS FOR THURSDAY,FEBRUARY 8, 2001

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, on be-half of the majority leader, I ask unan-imous consent that when the Senatecompletes its business today, it ad-journ until the hour of 9:30 a.m. onThursday, February 8. I further askconsent that on Thursday, imme-diately following the prayer, the Jour-nal of proceedings be approved to date,the morning hour be deemed to haveexpired, the time for the two leaders bereserved for their use later in the day,and then the Senate proceed to a pe-riod for morning business until 11 a.m.,to be divided in the following manner:Senator TORRICELLI, in control of thetime between 9:30 a.m. and 10 a.m.;Senator DURBIN, or his designee, con-trolling the time between 10 a.m. and

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:33 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.067 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1165February 7, 200110:15 a.m.; Senator THOMAS, or his des-ignee, controlling the time between10:15 and 11 a.m.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

f

PROGRAM

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, tomor-row the Senate will begin the day witha period of morning business. At 11a.m. the Senate will proceed to theconsideration of the pipeline safetylegislation. Relevant amendments arein order under a previous agreement,and Senators who have amendmentsare encouraged to inform the managersof that fact. It is hoped a vote on finalpassage can occur as early as tomorrowafternoon.

f

ORDER TO RECOGNIZE THEMAJORITY LEADER

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the majorityleader be recognized at 11 a.m. tomor-row for up to 15 minutes for a tribute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

f

ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, if thereis no further business to come beforethe Senate, I ask unanimous consentthat the Senate stand in adjournmentimmediately following my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

f

HAITI: A HUMAN TRAGEDY

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, let meturn to an event occurring to ourneighbor to the south, Haiti, this veryday. It is an event that has impact notjust for the people of that impoverishedcountry, but also for the United States.

Today, Jean-Bertrand Aristide willbe inaugurated. This is the second timethat Aristide is being inaugurated asHaiti’s President. Aristide, with greatpopularity and great expectations, willtoday be succeeding his hand-pickedsuccessor of Rene Preval.

For Aristide, and more importantlyfor the Haitian people, this is a mo-ment of great historic import and sig-nificant opportunity. Aristide’s secondinauguration represents a monumentalopportunity because this man has thepower to save his tiny nation from itsown self-destruction—destruction duein large part to the collective ideas,hopes, and dreams that both PresidentPreval and President Aristide himselfhave squandered over the preciousyears since 1994.

When last many Americans tunedinto Haiti, it was 1994. In 1994, ourcountry sent 20,000 troops to Haiti aspart of an internationally endorsed ef-fort to restore Aristide to power. Thatdid occur in 1994. Tragically, though,during these past 6 years, both Presi-dent Aristide, and then President

Preval, have failed to enact the nec-essary reforms to bring democracy,stability, and, yes, hope to Haiti. As aresult, Haiti, today, still has a declin-ing gross national product. Nobodyknows what the unemployment is. Offi-cial estimates are between 60 and 70percent unemployment. There is littleto no foreign investment. In fact, thereis less today than a number of yearsago. They have the hemisphere’s lowestper capita income and highest infantmortality rate. The Haitian NationalPolice, HNP, a civilian police force,which the United States and the inter-national community helped to estab-lish 6 years ago, and that we workedvery hard on and saw great successmade, now, today, unfortunately, is de-clining in its expertise.

Six years ago, there was great prom-ise for the Haitian National Police.Today, though, the HNP has becomemore corrupt, more engaged in politics,and is in a state of steady decline.

In 1994, when Aristide was returnedto power, everyone was realistic. Noone expected miracles. Haiti was, afterall, a country that has been miserablygoverned by Haitians and non-Haitiansalike for not just decades but for cen-turies. What could have been expectedand should have been expected was theestablishment of a foundation forchange and the establishment of afoundation for progress that would helpmove that country away from its failedpast and toward a hopeful and produc-tive future.

Tragically, under both PresidentAristide, and then President Preval,there has been no movement in that di-rection. Moreover, the few Haitianswho comprised the economic elite haveshown no interest in becoming stake-holders in their country’s overall so-cial, political, and economic progress.For them, it seems, they think it is intheir best interest to stand back fromthe turmoil that surrounds them so asto not risk their own wealth and secu-rity. That has been true of the eco-nomic elite, and it has been true of thepolitical elite as well.

Despite this, in politics, as in theaterand in life itself, there are second acts,second opportunities for redemption.President Aristide now has such an op-portunity. His immense popularity andhis political hold on the country givehim the capability to reverse Haiti’sdestructive course. It is within hismeans to do the things that are nec-essary. Quite frankly, anyone who hasspent any time looking at Haiti knowsthat there are four, five, six basicthings that Haitians need to do to gettheir country moving in the right di-rection. It is within Aristide’s grasptoday to help Haiti begin to eliminatecorruption, create free markets andnew industries, to do basic things suchas privatize Port-au-Prince port, whichtoday, unbelievably, is the most expen-sive port in the entire hemisphere toship anything into or out of. He has itwithin his power to improve the coun-try’s judicial system, to stabilize its

political system, to respect humanrights, and to learn to establish andsustain an agricultural system thatcan begin to feed its own people.

It is within Aristide’s means to helpHaiti break out of its vicious cycle ofdespair, a cycle in which politicalstalemate stops government and judi-cial reforms which, in turn, discourageinvestment and privatization. Caughtin a cycle such as this, the economystands to shrink further and furtheruntil there is no economic investmentto speak of at all.

That will occur unless some action istaken. Aristide already has given someindication—at least on paper—that heis willing to make some of thesechanges. In a December letter to Presi-dent Clinton, he said he was committedto a broad range of governmental andpolitical reforms, including: Rapid re-view and rectification of 10 contestedSenate seats; creation of a credible newprovisional electoral council in con-sultation with opposition party mem-bers; substantial enhancement of co-operation with the United States tocombat drug trafficking; nomination ofcapable and respected officials for sen-ior security positions, including theHaitian National Police; strengtheningof democratic institutions and protec-tion of human rights; installation of abroad-based government, includingmembers of the opposition; initiationof new dialogue with international fi-nancial institutions to enhance freemarkets and private investment; andnegotiation of an agreement for the re-patriation of illegal migrants.

All of these things were spelled outin that letter from President Aristideto then-President Clinton. All of thesethings are readily achievable.

Aristide’s pledge is encouraging. But,unless he has the political will to actu-ally carry out these reforms and createa stable and democratic government,Haiti has no hope of making real andlasting economic, political, and judi-cial progress. Quite candidly, there’snothing the United States can do to fixHaiti if its government isn’t willing tofix itself. Since the mid-1990s, we’vespent more than $2 billion—and theinternational community has poured inat least another $1.5 billion—to try tobring democracy and stability to Haiti.

Yet if we look at where Haiti is todayversus where it was 6 years ago, a cas-ual observer going through that coun-try would come to the conclusion thatvirtually nothing has changed, thatnothing has happened.

Candidly, Mr. President, the fact isthat extraordinary amounts of finan-cial assistance and the good intentionsbehind them are no substitute for thepolitical will and leadership necessaryto rescue an unstable country in aneconomic freefall. Unless Aristide andhis Family Lavalas Party take respon-sibility for the situation and committo turning things around, history willrepeat itself.

Unless President Aristide, his polit-ical party, and the leadership of Haiti

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:33 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.082 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES1166 February 7, 2001take responsibility for the situationand commit to turning things around,history will once again tragically re-peat itself.

Unless Aristide makes concretechanges, we will once again be seeingmakeshift boats and rafts overflowingwith Haitians who want a better lifetrying to get to Florida. We will beginto see that again—people risking theirlives as they float towards Miami for achance of freedom and democracy andfood for their children.

But should Aristide begin to dem-onstrate a legitimate commitment tochange, the United States and theinternational community stand readyto resume our efforts to help the Gov-ernment of Haiti. But it will take ac-tion, and it will take action from thePresident, President Aristide, and fromthe Haitians. Until then, until we seethat kind of commitment, U.S. com-mitment will remain limited to di-rectly helping the children of Haiti, thepeople of Haiti, and not the Govern-ment.

The United States, irrespective ofwhat Aristide does, must remain in-volved in humanitarian efforts—effortssuch as Public Law 480, the Food As-sistance Program, a food assistanceprogram that is helping tens of thou-sands of Haitian children every day,giving them the one meal a day theyhave, and for many of them givingthem an incentive to go to school andbecome educated. We must continue todo that.

One of the bright spots of what hasbeen going on in Haiti, and one of thethings of which I think this countryshould be very proud, is how manyAmericans are in Haiti every singleday working to make a difference.Many of them are religious. Many of

them belong to church groups. Many ofthem belong to other nonprofit organi-zations or groups. Some go for a week,some go for 2 weeks, and some havegone to live and stay. But there arethousands and thousands of Americansevery day who are making a differencein Haiti.

We must continue as a U.S. Govern-ment to assist them as they try to as-sist the children of Haiti because it isthe children who are the true casual-ties in Haiti. It is the children whohave suffered the most from the lack ofprogress over the last 6 years. It is thechildren who have suffered the mostfrom the inability and the unwilling-ness of the Haitian Government tomove to make real changes in Haiti.

So the real victims have been thechildren. They are the victims of theturmoil. They are the victims of the in-stability. They are the victims of alack of political will. We as a countryand as a people simply cannot and willnot turn our back on them.

This is a country where the infantmortality rate is approximately 15times that of the United States. It hasthe highest infant mortality rate inour hemisphere. Of those Haitian chil-dren under 5 years of age, 129 of every1,000 never make it to the age of 6.

Because Haiti lacks the means toproduce enough food to feed its popu-lation, the vast majority of Haitianchildren who survive are malnourishedand rely heavily on our humanitarianfood aid.

Additionally, because of the lack ofclean water and sanitation, only 39 per-cent of the population has access toclean water and 26 percent has accessto decent sanitation. Because of that,diseases such as measles and tuber-culosis are epidemic, and children die

from the simplest thing as diarrhea.That happens every single day in Haiti.

The future of Haiti’s children ulti-mately is in Aristide’s hands. It is timefor President Aristide to match hiswords with his deeds and uphold his re-cent pledge to place his country and itspeople on a path of significant demo-cratic societal reform. Lip service andpiecemeal efforts, actions temporarilyto appease the United States and theinternational community, frankly, willget Haiti nowhere.

This is Aristide’s second act. Thecurtain comes up on that act today. Heand the political rulers have a simplechoice: To break with recent historyand create a stable political systemand a free and democratic, market-driven economy, or to perpetuate thestatus quo and the needless bloodytragedy that confines future genera-tions of Haitians to lives of distress,disillusionment, and despair.

It is, quite candidly and quite blunt-ly, up to President Aristide to makethat determination. This is the secondact. This is the second opportunity.History will judge whether or not hetakes that opportunity for the peopleof Haiti or whether that opportunity issquandered.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

f

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M.TOMORROW

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the Senate standsadjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 4:59 p.m.,adjourned until Thursday, February 8,2001, at 9:30 a.m.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:33 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G07FE6.084 pfrm01 PsN: S07PT1

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E127February 7, 2001

HONORING THE 100TH ANNIVER-SARY OF THE EUREKA WOMEN’SCLUB

HON. MIKE THOMPSONOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker,I wish to rise today in recognition of the 100thanniversary of the Eureka Women’s Club ofHumboldt County, California.

Formed in 1901 as the Monday Club Fed-eration of Eureka, the club quickly allied withthe California Federation of Women’s Clubs,and finally became known as the EurekaWomen’s Club. The club membership has pro-vided countless hours of service for the better-ment of the community.

Through cultural and educational events, aswell as charitable interests, the Eureka Wom-en’s Club has encouraged a high moral stand-ard and abiding interest in the historical tradi-tions of Eureka and the region. Their legacyincludes advocacy for the preservation of theacclaimed California Federated Women’s ClubGrove along the Eel River in Humboldt Red-woods State Park, as well as their classicCraftsman styled 1917 clubhouse, located at1531 J Street, in the Victorian Seaport town ofEureka, California.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this timethat we honor the members of the EurekaWomen’s Club and acknowledge their dedica-tion and commitment to the many worthwhileprojects over the past century that have en-hanced the broader community.

f

TRIBUTE TO THE ALPHA KAPPAALPHA DEBUTANTES OF HUNTS-VILLE, ALABAMA

HON. ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, JR.OF ALABAMA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, today I recog-nize the accomplishments and bright future ofthirty-one young ladies in my district. Theseoutstanding young women will be honored onFebruary 23, 2001 at the Forty-Third AnnualDebutante Presentation Ball. In conjunctionwith the upcoming ball, five of these debu-tantes, Carlquista Champagne Johnson,Deanna Dion-Belvin Davis, De’ShandraNatasha Teague, Jasamine Greene and Jes-sica LaTori Burwell, will be honored by theirparents this Saturday at a Sweetheart Tea.

I wanted to take a moment and recognizethese women for their dedication to the debu-tante program. For these past few months,these women have attended training sessionsemphasizing the areas of leadership, health,careers, personal enhancement and socialgraces. Before celebrating their coming of agein the traditional ball these women will havecompleted cultural and community serviceprojects and prepared a scrapbook.

Chosen on the basis of academic, leader-ship, personal development, social graces,spiritual and civic awareness, these womenrepresent the promise of a better future andthe potential for making a difference in theircommunity. This year the Epsilon GammaOmega Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha is fol-lowing the international theme of ‘‘Blazing NewTrails’’.

I commend these debutantes for blazingnew trails of knowledge and understanding. Ialso commend their parents for their dedica-tion to their daughters’ upbringing and suc-cess. I send my best wishes to the debutantesfor a delightful tea and a magical Ball.

f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

HON. TOM OSBORNEOF NEBRASKA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, on February6, 2001, I was unavoidably detained andmissed having the opportunity to vote on H.J.Res. 7, a resolution recognizing the 90th birth-day of Ronald Reagan. If I had been present,I would have voted for the resolution.

President Reagan served his country honor-ably as President and was a great leader ofthe free world. He is very deserving of thisrecognition on his birthday, and I deeply regretthat I was not present to vote in favor of theresolution honoring him.

f

IN HONOR OF ANN BALDERSON

HON. JAMES P. McGOVERNOF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise todayto pay tribute to Ann Balderson of Dartmouth,Massachusetts. For over 25 years, Mrs.Balderson has served the people of the Com-monwealth of Massachusetts as a devotedschoolteacher, and she will retire on June 30thof this year. I commend her for her tireless ef-forts aimed at educating and molding theminds of our greatest resource, our children.

Mrs. Balderson has spent the majority of hercareer in the Dartmouth school system. Aftergraduating in 1965 from Notre Dame Collegeof Maryland in Baltimore, Mrs. Baldersonmoved to Massachusetts to continue her ca-reer as an educator, and she has continued tothis day as a teacher of the 2nd grade. Today,I join with her husband William, and her twochildren Margaret and Robert, and applaudher for her many years of distinguished serv-ice. Nothing is more important than the edu-cation of our children, and I commend andthank Ann Balderson for devoting 25 years ofher time and energy to the youth of Massa-chusetts.

TRIBUTE TO JULIE GRISHAM

HON. ZOE LOFGRENOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise torecognize the achievements of Julie Grisham,Senior Public Health Manager for Health Pro-motion and Director of Maternal, Child and Ad-olescent Health for the Public Health Depart-ment of Santa Clara County. Ms. Grisham isretiring after 30 years of dedicated service tothe people of Santa Clara County.

Julie Grisham began serving in the Depart-ment of Public Health in 1971 as a staff PublicHealth Nurse. She was consistently com-mended for her dedication and the quality ofher nursing care and was promoted first to Su-pervising Public Health Nurse and then AIDSProgram Manager before assuming her cur-rent roles of Senior Public Health ProgramManager for Health Promotion and Director ofMaternal, Child and Adolescent Health.

Julie Grisham demonstrated leadership andvision in both Santa Clara County and theState of California by assuming the respon-sibilities of President of the California Con-ference of Local Maternal, Child and Adoles-cent Health Directors and President of theCalifornia Public Health Association, North.She took active roles in promoting legislationthrough such committee assignments as Chil-dren and Families Committee Liaison, theSanta Clara County Health Department Front-line Leadership Committee and the EarlyChildhood Development Collaborative.

Julie Grisham is a role model and a leaderboth in her community and in the county, andis valued as a coworker and a friend. TheSanta Clara Valley Health and Hospital Sys-tem has benefited greatly from her vision, ex-pertise, commitment and care for the commu-nity and her coworkers.

I wish to thank Julie Grisham for her tirelessand loyal service to the County and wish herthe best in her future endeavors. Furthermore,she has my personal thanks for our years offriendship. Though we will miss her creativity,expertise and commitment, her dedication hasleft its mark on both the Public Health Depart-ment and all of Santa Clara County.

f

IN RECOGNITION OF THEHARRISBURG BULLDOGS

HON. DAVID D. PHELPSOF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, today I wish torecognize and congratulate one of my district’shigh school football teams. The HarrisburgBulldogs of Harrisburg, IL recently won the Illi-nois Class 3A state football championship.The Bulldogs defeated the Oregon Hawks 41–13 in the championship game at University of

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:14 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\A07FE8.000 pfrm02 PsN: E07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE128 February 7, 2001Illinois’ Memorial Stadium. The Bulldogsended their season with a perfect record of14–0.

Led by coaches Al Way and Greg Langley,members of the 2000 Harrisburg Bulldogs in-clude Roth Clayton, Braden Jones, JoeyPilcher, Kyle Smithpeters, Walker Franks, BobDovell, Noah Stearns, Blake Emery, BradBrachear, John Potts, Jeff McDonald, MikeHancock, Nathan Potts, Cameron Chapman,Matt Oshel, A.J. Smith, Kyle Hicks, Jared Bor-ders, Seth Hall, Tyler Rumsey, Justin Aud,Chris Stokich, Jacob Potter, Jacob Grubbs,Mark Hancock, Houston Ellis, Bard Karnes,Denver Milligan, Marques Scott, Kory Potts,Josh Goemaat, Patrick Beal, Travis Jerrels,Joe Speaks, Nick George, Alan Hurd, JasonPigg, Justin Milligan, Daniel Henderson, TravisBoots, Travis Butler; cheerleaders, CaseySowels, Jayna Beal, Sophia Hobson, BrookeLane, Krystal Eudy, Liz Franks, Erin Brannock,Devin Kielhorn, Ashley Williams, and BrittanyEnglish.

The members of the Harrisburg Bulldogsshould be proud of their achievement. I con-gratulate them and wish them good luck in fu-ture football seasons.

f

IN MEMORY OF JOHN R. STOKES,HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

HON. MIKE THOMPSONOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker,I wish today to recognize Humboldt County at-torney and World War II hero John ReynoldsStokes, who died Friday, January 5, 2001 inArcata, California at the age of 83. His life wasdedicated to the defense of democracy in warand in peace.

John Stokes grew up in Southern Californiaand received his undergraduate education atSanta Barbara State College. In 1942 he wascommissioned a Second Lieutenant in theArmy Air Corps and was trained to fly the Mar-tin B–26 Marauder. Stationed in England, heflew many missions over France. His 29thmission was the D-Day bombing of the Nor-mandy Coast. After the liberation of Paris,Group Commander Stokes, based in France,made his last combat flight on March 13,1945. He served with valor and distinction andwas awarded the Distinguished Flying Crosswith ten Oak Leaf Clusters. Throughout hislife, he stayed in touch with survivors of the344th Bomb Group with whom he had sharedthe perils of war. He returned often to Franceto visit with French comrades.

John Stokes returned to California and en-tered Boalt Hall School of Law at the Univer-sity of California at Berkeley. After graduationin 1948, he moved to Arcata, California withhis wife Edith where he practiced law for morethan fifty years. He served that community asCity Attorney from 1950 to 1983. He was amember of the State Bar Board of Governorsfrom 1979 to 1982 and was Chairman of theCommittee of Bar Examiners from 1985 to1986. Many young lawyers, new to the prac-tice of law, were grateful for his guidance andcounsel.

A life-long Democrat, he took particularpleasure in helping young people who soughtcareers in public service. Many successful

candidates valued his advice and support. Heserved as Chairman of the Humboldt CountyDemocratic Central Committee for ten years.

Courageous in war, honorable and valiant inthe pursuit of justice, John Stokes devoted hislife to safeguarding the liberties we all enjoyas American citizens.

He has left a distinguished legacy to his fivechildren, Katherine, John, Mary, Lucy andEmily, as well as his grandchildren, Sam,Catherine and Anna.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this timethat we recognize John Reynolds Stokes forhis unwavering commitment to the ideals andvalues that sustain our great country.

f

TRIBUTE TO MISS REBECCA PAS-SION, MISS RODEO USA OF ATH-ENS, ALABAMA

HON. ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, JR.OF ALABAMA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, today I recog-nize the outstanding success of Rebecca Pas-sion of Athens, Alabama. Crowned Miss Lime-stone Rodeo 2000, Miss Passion representedLimestone County at the IPRA National Finalsin Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on January 15.Miss Passion was crowned Miss Rodeo USAon January 20. As her community gathers tohonor her victory this Saturday at the Lime-stone County Sheriff’s Rodeo Arena, I wouldlike to join them in congratulating her.

Miss Passion’s win is a testament to her tal-ent, hard work and perseverance. The gruel-ing competition included a test of riding skills,a public speaking portion and a lengthy inter-view. She excelled in all levels and surpassedthe other competitors easily.

I know that Limestone County is very proudof their ‘‘hometown hero’’. They have sup-ported her every step of the way. The MissRodeo USA crown is a crown that she shareswith her community. Miss Passion is a won-derful role model and I know that she will useher time as Miss Rodeo USA to serve hercommunity.

On behalf of the United States Congress, Icongratulate Miss Passion and wish her a re-warding reign as Miss Rodeo USA. I wish herthe best in all her future endeavors.

f

INTRODUCTION OF THE INDE-PENDENT TELECOMMUNI-CATIONS CONSUMER ENHANCE-MENT ACT OF 2001

HON. BARBARA CUBINOF WYOMING

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, today I have thepleasure of introducing the Independent Tele-communications Consumer Enhancement Actof 2001.

As many will recall, last year I introducedH.R. 3850, the Independent Telecommuni-cations Consumer Enhancement Act of 2000,to lessen the burdens on small and mid-sizedtelephone companies and allow them to shiftmore of their resources to deploying advancedtelecommunication services to consumers inall areas of the country.

Small and mid-size companies are trulythat—while the more than 1,200 small andmid-size companies serve less than 10% ofthe nation’s lines, they cover a much largerpercentage of rural markets and are located inor near most major markets in the country.

Some of these telephone companies aremom and pop operations typically serving ruralareas of the country where most other carriersfear to tread—in high cost places where it isless profitable than more populated areas.

In 1996 Congress passed historic legislationin the form of the Telecommunications Act.Section 706 of the Act sent a clear messageto the American people and to the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC) that thedeployment of new telecommunications serv-ices in rural areas around the country musthappen quickly and without delay.

Unfortunately the FCC has not made it anyeasier for small telephone companies to de-ploy advanced services in rural areas—insome cases they’ve actually made it more dif-ficult. The reason is that the FCC more oftenthan not uses a one size fits all model in regu-lating all Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers(ILECs). This type of model may be fine forthe big companies than have the ability to hirelegions of attorneys and staff to interpret andensure compliance with the federal rules.

However, I for one would rather see thesmall and mid-size companies use their re-sources to deploy new services and make in-vestment in their telecommunications infra-structure.

Two examples of these burdensome FCCrequirements are CAM and ARMIS reports.

These reports, separately, cost about$500,000 to compile and would equate to asmall phone company installing a DSLAM orother facilities to provide high speed Internetaccess to customers in rural areas.

Just to give you an example of how burden-some these reports are, the Commission’s in-structions for filling them out are over 900pages long. More often than not, the FCCdoes not refer to—and in some cases simplyignores—the data filed by mid-size companies.

Let me be very clear, however, that the billdoes nothing to restrict the Commission’s au-thority to request this or any other data at anytime.

I want to be fair—the FCC should be com-mended for their efforts to bring some of thesereporting requirements down to a reasonablelevel. In fact, during our hearing on this legis-lation, the FCC told the TelecommunicationsSubcommittee that it may be issuing a noticeof proposed rule-making on the reporting re-quirements for 2 percent companies sometimethis fall.

The problem, though, is that the agency’stime frame on issuing these proposed ruleshas changed like the Wyoming winds. It’s timethose obligations are met and this legislationwould solidify what the FCC has promised todo for a long time.

In addition, I want everyone to know that Ihave bent over backwards to accommodatemany of the initial concerns that some mem-bers had with this legislation and have incor-porated a majority of their helpful suggestions.

Some of the changes that were adoptedduring the Commerce Committee’s consider-ation of the bill took into account several tech-nical provisions that will continue to allow theFCC to do its job but in a way that still en-sures that small and mid-size companies aretreated differently.

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:14 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\A07FE8.006 pfrm02 PsN: E07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E129February 7, 2001Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the record

what this legislation does and what it does notdo.

The bill does not reopen the 1996 Act; itdoes not fully deregulate two percent carriers;and it does not impact regulations dealing withlarge local carriers. It would, however, be thefirst free-standing legislation that would mod-ernize regulations of two percent carriers; itwould accelerate competition in many small tomid-size markets; accelerate the deploymentof new, advanced telecommunication services;and benefit consumers by allowing two per-cent carriers to redirect resources to networkinvestment and new services.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical forrural areas across the country where thesesmall telephone companies operate.

Without this bill, these two percent compa-nies will continue to be burdened with this‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ regulatory approach that haskept them from providing rural areas with whatthey need most—a share of the new econ-omy.

I want to remind members of the House thatH.R. 3850 passed with wide-spread supportduring the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, theSenate wasn’t able to bring up the bill due totime constraints, but I am confident that wewill continue to garner support for this com-mon sense regulatory initiative.

In closing I want to thank the original co-sponsors of the bill: Reps. BART GORDON,CHIP PICKERING, and TOM BARRETT. The co-sponsors and I acknowledged that there maybe room for improvement and welcome refine-ments. As I acknowledged earlier, last year Iwas very receptive to concerns that individualmembers and industry representatives broughtto my attention. My office has always had anopen door policy and that will never change.We look forward to working with incumbentand competitive interests so that in the endthe ultimate goal will be realized: improved ac-cess to advanced telecommunications andcommon sense regulatory changes that lessenthe burdens on small and mid-size tele-communications providers.

We collectively acknowledge the new lead-ership at the Federal Communications Com-mission and look forward to their thoughtfulsuggestions as well as their own internalchanges that will hopefully improve the regu-latory environment that these small and mid-size companies operate under.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the membersof the Commerce Committee for their help inmoving this bill last year and ask my col-leagues to once again unanimously supportthis very important piece of legislation.

f

RAISING THE SUBSTANTIAL GAIN-FUL ACTIVITY AMOUNT FORPERSONS WITH SPINAL CORD IN-JURIES

HON. PATSY T. MINKOF HAWAII

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise to

introduce a bill that would provide Social Se-curity disability beneficiaries with severe spinalcord injuries the same protections as are af-forded the blind.

Many people who suffer from spinal cord in-juries are unable to earn a living, and receiveSocial Security disability.

My legislation seeks to help those who haveovercome their debilitating injury, and are ableto work.

Under current law, recipients of Social Se-curity disability are eligible for benefits if theyare unable to earn no more than the Substan-tial Gainful Activity (SGA) amount, which is$740/month.

The Senior Citizens’ Right to Work Act of1995 increased the SGA amount for blind indi-viduals to $1000/month. The provision allowsblind individuals to qualify for Social Securitydisability even if their income is $1000/month.In 2001, the monthly SGA amount was raisedto $1,240/month.

My bill would raise the SGA amount for per-sons with spinal cord injuries to $1,240/month.These individuals should not be discouragedfrom earning income that could supplementtheir disability payments.

Social Security disability benefits should notbe withdrawn from persons with spinal cord in-juries because they have the courage to returnto work.

I urge my colleagues to join as cosponsorsof this legislation.

f

ON THE INTRODUCTION OF THECOMMUNITY ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE ACT OF 2001

HON. GENE GREENOF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I risetoday in support of the Community Access toHealth Care Act of 2001, legislation I am intro-ducing to help our states and communitiesdeal with the crisis of the uninsured.

More than 42 million Americans do not havehealth insurance and this number is increasingby over a million persons a year. Most of theuninsured are working people and their chil-dren—nearly 74 percent are families with full-time workers. Low income Americans, thosewho earn less than 200 percent of the federalpoverty level or $27,300 for a family of three,are the most likely to be uninsured.

Texas is a leader nationally in the numberof insured, ranking second only to Arizona.About 4 million persons, or 26.8 percent of ournon-elderly population, are without health in-surance.

The uninsured and under-insured tend to bemore expensive to treat because they fallthrough the cracks of our health care system.The uninsured and under-insured often can’tafford to see the doctor for routine physicalsand preventive medicine. Consequently, theyarrive in the emergency room with costlier,often preventable, health problems.

Research by the Kaiser Family Foundationunderscores this problem. Nearly 40 percentof uninsured adults skip a recommended med-ical test or treatment, and 20 percent say theyhave needed but not received care for a seri-ous problem in the past year. Kaiser also re-ports that uninsured children are at least 70percent less likely to receive preventive care.Uninsured adults are more than 30 percentless likely to have had a check-up in the pastyear, uninsured men 40 percent less likely tohave had a prostate exam and uninsuredwomen 60 percent less likely to have had amammogram than compared to the insured.

This broken health care system yields dan-gerous, sometimes deadly results. The unin-sured are at least 50 percent more likely thanthe insured to be hospitalized for conditionssuch as pneumonia and diabetes. Death ratesfrom breast cancer are higher for the unin-sured than for those with insurance.

Our Nation’s health care safety net is in direneed of repair. Communities across the coun-try are identifying ways to better tend to theuninsured, to provide preventive, primary andemergency clinical health services in an inte-grated and coordinated manner. This kind ofservice can only be accomplished, however, ifour safety net providers have the resources toimprove communication to better reach thistarget population.

The Community Access Program (CAP) pro-motes this kind of interagency coordinationand communication. It stems from a very suc-cessful Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-funded project that demonstrated how commu-nity collaboration can increase access to qual-ity, cost-effective health care. The CommunityAccess to Health Care Act of 2001 providescompetitive grants to assist communities indeveloping programs to better serve their un-insured population.

Funding under CAP can be used to supporta variety of projects to improve access for alllevels of care for the uninsured and under-in-sured. Each community designs a programthat best addresses the needs of its uninsuredand under insured and its providers. Fundingis intended to encourage safety net providersto develop coordinated care systems for thetarget population.

The Clinton Administration created a $25million CAP demonstration project in FY 2000.More than two hundred applications were sub-mitted by groups from 46 states and the Dis-trict of Columbia. Applications were evenly dis-tributed between urban and rural areas; andsix were submitted by tribal organizations.

Funding in FY 2000 provided grants to 23communities. An increase to $125 million inFY 2001 will make grants available to an addi-tional 55 projects. While this increase hashelped communities get their program off theground, more can be done to ensure that fu-ture funding is available.

I would like to highlight one program, theHarris County Public Health and Environ-mental Services Department, in my hometownof Houston, TX. This program is a good exam-ple of how CAP funds can improve a commu-nity’s health care network. Harris County,Texas is the third most populated county inthe nation and the most populated county inthe state with approximately 3.2 million resi-dents.

The Texas Health and Human ServicesCommission estimated that in 1999, 25.5 per-cent of the total population in Harris County—834,867—was uninsured. Harris County’s CAPproject aims to assist three populations: Thosewith incomes under 200 percent of the Federalpoverty level; those with incomes over 200percent of the Federal poverty level; and thosewho are under insured.

The primary focus of this project is to im-prove the interagency communication and re-ferral infrastructure of major health care sys-tems in the city. This will improve their abilityto provide preventive, primary and emergencyclinical health services in an integrated andcoordinated manner for the uninsured andunder insured population. Harris County will

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:05 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\A07FE8.009 pfrm02 PsN: E07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE130 February 7, 2001place particular emphasis on the developmentand/or enhancement of the existing local infra-structure and necessary information systems.

In addition to expanding the number andtype of providers who participate in collabo-rative care giving efforts, Harris County wouldestablish a clearinghouse for local resources,care navigation and telephone triage to in-crease accessibility and reduce emergencyroom care. The clearinghouse will receive re-ferrals of uninsured patients from health serv-ice providers and patient self-referrals. Theconsortia will give special attention to healthdisparities in minority groups. It will establish adatabase for monitoring, tracking, care naviga-tion and evaluation. In Harris County, it is ex-pected that this initial support from grant fundswould become self-sustained through contribu-tions from participating providers, especiallysmaller primary care providers who can relyon the centralized triage program for after-hours response.

Harris County will also develop a plan toallow private and public safety-net providers toshare eligibility information, medical and ap-pointment records, and other information. Theprogram will beef up efforts to make sure fam-ilies and children enroll in programs for whichthey might be eligible, including Medicaid andthe Children’s Health Insurance Program(CHIP). In addition, Harris County would facili-tate simplified enrollment procedures for chil-dren’s health programs.

Fortunately for my constituents in Houston,Harris County’s program is eligible for a grantthrough the FY 2001 demonstration project.They have completed their site visit, and arein the final stages of having their program ap-proved. Unfortunately, communities whoweren’t fortunate enough to receive grants arestill searching for ways to improve the healthof their uninsured.

We in Congress have argued for yearsabout the federal government’s role in ensur-ing access to affordable health care. I believethat some type of universal care should be apriority for the long term. For the short term,however, authorizing the CAP program willplace much-needed funds in the hands oflocal consortia who, working together, canhelp to alleviate this crisis—town by town andpatient by patient.

f

RECOGNIZING JOSEPH PEATMAN

HON. MIKE THOMPSONOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker,

I wish today to recognize and congratulate Mr.Joseph Peatman for his exceptional 41 yearsof service to the legal field and his outstandingcommitment and generosity to the Napa Val-ley community.

Joe Peatman was born in Los Angeles in1934 and was admitted to the bar in 1959after completing his education at Stanford Uni-versity. His extensive experience within thecommunity can be traced back over 40 years.From the early–60s through the mid–70s, hewas a member of the Napa County Board ofSupervisors and served as a Trustee andPresident of the Napa Valley Unified SchoolDistrict.

He has also served, Mr. Speaker, as aMember of the Board of Directors to the Napa

National Bank and as a Member of the Boardof Visitors of Stanford Law School from 1978–1980. He is a member of the Napa CountyBar Association and served as its Presidentfrom 1963–1964. A managing partner in theprofessional law corporation of Dickenson,Peatman & Fogarty, established in 1965, hehas specialized in land use, zoning, and realestate law for the past 41 years. On Decem-ber 31, 2000, Joe Peatman officially retiredfrom his successful legal practice.

In addition to his numerous legal accom-plishments, Joe Peatman continues to be anactive member of the Napa community. Hiscontributions to the Queen of the Valley Hos-pital Foundation ensure that quality healthcare is available to the northern Californiacommunity. He serves as the Executive Direc-tor of the Gasser Foundation and a Member ofthe Board of Trustees of the American Centerfor Wine, Food and the Arts. The GasserFoundation is Napa Valley’s largest philan-thropic organization and its two main bene-ficiaries are Queen of the Valley Hospital andJustin-Siena High School. The American Cen-ter for Wine, Food and the Arts is posed toprovide an array of public programs, includingfilms, classes, demonstrations, tastings, andworkshops for those individuals who enjoyfood and drink as expressions of Americanculture.

Joe Peatman and his wonderful wife of 43years, Angela, reside in Napa. They havethree children and seven grandchildren. Mr.Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize, con-gratulate and thank my friend Joe Peatman forhis 41 years of extraordinary service to thelegal profession and to the community of NapaValley. I wish him the best of luck in future en-deavors.

f

TRIBUTE TO ELDER EDWARDEARL CLEVELAND OF OAKWOODCOLLEGE

HON. ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, JR.OF ALABAMA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, today I pay trib-ute to one of this century’s most powerfulevangelists, Elder Edward Earl Cleveland. Asa worldwide evangelist traveling to over 67countries of the world, Oakwood College isvery fortunate to have had the talents of ElderCleveland reside on their campus since 1977.During his fruitful 24-year career, Elder Cleve-land has shared his evangelistic techniqueswith Oakwood students as a Lecturer in theDepartment of Religion at the College.

Cleveland’s life and accomplishments aretruly extraordinary. He has conducted over 60public Evangelism campaigns, trained over1100 pastors world-wide, preached on 6 con-tinents and brought over 16,000 new believersinto the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

His involvement with his community and hiscommitment to civil rights is no less impres-sive. Cleveland participated in the First Marchon Washington in 1957 with Dr. Martin LutherKing, Jr. He took the message of Dr. King withhim to Oakwood organizing the NAACP Chap-ter for students there. He also took it to hisChurch where he was the first African-Amer-ican integrated into a department of the Gen-eral Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

I believe Elder Cleveland’s blessed life canbe captured in his life philosophy, ‘‘I haveseen God, for so long, do much with so little,I now believe He can do anything with noth-ing—meaning me.’’ Thank goodness he hadleft a library of his works for us to learn fromincluding ‘‘The Middle Wall,’’ ‘‘The Exodus’’and his most recent work, ‘‘Let the ChurchRoll On.’’

As Elder Cleveland retires, I would like toextend my gratitude for his service to his fam-ily, his wife Celia, his son Edward Earl and hisgrandsons Edward Earl II and Omar Cliffordfor sharing their beloved husband, father andgrandfather with the world.

On behalf of United States Congress, I payhomage to Elder Cleveland and thank him fora job well done. I congratulate him on his re-tirement and wish him a well-deserved rest.

f

HONORING DR. JOHN M. SMITH,JR. OF BEATTYVILLE, KEN-TUCKY FOR 50 YEARS OF DISTIN-GUISHED AND DEDICATED MED-ICAL SERVICE

HON. HAROLD ROGERSOF KENTUCKY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, ournation’s history is filled with countless storiesof people from humble beginnings who turntheir challenges into triumphant success.These stories have a familiar ring: ambitiousand hard-working young people from ruralcommunities making good in the big city.

These inspiring stories, however, sometimeshave a down side. In southern and easternKentucky, for example, the hope for biggerand better things has at times created an ‘out-migration’ of our best, brightest and most ef-fective young people. At the same time thatthey were seeking a better life away from ruralareas, the friends and family members theyleft behind continued the struggle at home toimprove the qualify of life in their communities.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to salute a Ken-tucky citizen who made the choice to stay andfight—helping thousands of people in one ofthe most remote regions of the nation. Pleasejoin me in this salute to my constituent, Dr.John M. Smith, Jr., of Beattyville, Kentucky.

More than a half-century ago, as a youngmedical student, John Smith faced the com-mon problem of how to finance a medical edu-cation. In 1942, after graduating Phi BetaKappa with an undergraduate degree from theUniversity of Kentucky in Lexington, he en-listed in the United States Navy and servedwith distinction through the war years until1946. He saved, scraped and borrowedmoney to begin his coursework at the Univer-sity of Louisville School of Medicine, but heneeded much more financial help. Fortunately,he learned about the Rural Medical Fund,sponsored by the Kentucky State Medical As-sociation.

The idea of the scholarship fund was sim-ple: a student would receive a year of financialassistance at the U of L medical school in ex-change for a commitment to practice one fullyear in a rural county that was short of doc-tors. After graduation, and service as a med-ical intern in the U.S. Navy, Dr. John Smith,Jr., chose Lee County, Kentucky.

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:14 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\A07FE8.011 pfrm02 PsN: E07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E131February 7, 2001The Louisville Courier-Journal newspaper

recognized Dr. Smith in an October 26, 1952,article by Joe Creason, which I ask to be in-serted in the record at the conclusion of theseremarks. In that article, the essence of Dr.Smith’s commitment to Lee County and thepeople of Beattyville is clearly expressed:

‘‘If John Smith is a fair sample, then theRural Medical Fund can be pronounced quitea large success. He has now served his yearof obligation, owns a home in town and showsno signs of leaving, which is exactly whatsponsors of the fund were hoping for. Theyreasoned that if they could get young doctorsinto rural areas for a year or so, some ofthem, at least, would settle down to perma-nent practice.’’

Mr. Speaker, Dr. John Smith had the oppor-tunity to serve his year in Lee County andmove onto a more lucrative practice else-where. Instead, he chose a career that nowspans 50 years. He has helped thousands ofpeople in a mountainous and remote area whowould otherwise have been forced to travelmany miles for medical care. Most folks whodrive down country roads need a map to findtheir bearings. Dr. Smith could find his waysimply by knowing the homes of the countlesspatients he visited over the years.

Since opening his practice in Beattyville onJuly 16th, 1951, he has been a distinguishedmember of the Kentucky medical community.He is the owner and operator of The SmithClinic in Beattyville, which provides primarymedical care to families in Lee County and be-yond. Since 1985, he has served as the med-ical director for Lee County Constant Care,Inc., a nursing home facility, and is the med-ical director of the Geri-Young House, a seniorcare facility. His outstanding record of accom-plishments has earned him the award of Cit-izen of the Year from the Beattyville/LeeCounty Chamber of Commerce.

Tomorrow evening, surrounded by his fam-ily, friends, colleagues, patients and admirers,Dr. John M. Smith, Jr. will be honored for his50 years of distinguished and dedicated med-ical service. I regret that I am unable to jointhis celebration personally, but know that I joinliterally thousands of fellow Kentuckians whoextend our congratulations and our humblegratitude.

Most of all, we are grateful that Dr. Smithmade that choice 50 years ago to stay amongus—choosing to help make our home a betterplace to live. Mr. Speaker, Dr. John M. Smith,Jr. has been a success beyond measure. Hisdedication, his professionalism, and his gen-erosity has enriched us all and will continuefor years to come. He is an outstanding Ken-tuckian and American who has earned the re-spect of this House. I thank you for joining mein this recognition today.

[From the Courier-Journal, Oct. 26, 1952]BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY

(By Joe Creason)John M. Smith, Jr., had a pretty good idea

he’d be in for some unusual times when hehung up shingle and started the practice ofmedicine in Beattyville, Ky.

After all, he knew beforehand that LeeCounty was one of some 40 in Kentucky thatwas critically short on doctors, havingthen—in 1951—only one for a population ofmore than 8,000 people.

And he knew six other neighboring coun-ties of mountainous East-Central Ken-tucky—Clay, Owsley, Jackson, Wolfe, Powelland Menifee—likewise were on short rationsindeed, so far as doctors were concerned.

So he must have suspected he’d face a lotof situations and experiences not generallycovered in medical textbooks.

But, even with all that forewarning, it’sextremely doubtful if Dr. John M. Smith,Jr., expected the time would come when atractor would be the only way he’d be able toget into a remote area to see a patient.

Or that he’d have to cross the rain-swollenKentucky River in a rowboat in the dead ofwinter with a half-blind woman at the oars.

Or that he’d ever take country hams—atthe exchange rate of $1 a pound—in line ofpayment for medical services.

Or that a dozen and one other unusual ex-periences would come his way in less than ayear and a half.

For that’s just the length of time Dr. JohnM. Smith, Jr., one of the first 12 products ofthe Rural Kentucky Medical ScholarshipFund, has been practicing in Beattyville.

The Rural Medical Fund, sponsored by theKentucky State Medical Association in co-operation with the University of LouisvilleSchool of Medicine, was started in the 1946–47 school year. The purpose of the fund,raised by public subscription, was to providebetter medical care for the people of ruralKentucky. Medical students needing finan-cial help may borrow from the fund andmake repayment on the basis of a year ofpractice in a doctor-short section for eachyear of aid.

To translate the intention of the fund intoa real situation, John Smith received helpfrom it for one year—1946–47. That was hisfirst in medical school and the year the firstof his two sons was born. Having very littlehe could use for money, he borrowed in orderto get started in school After that he neededno help.

In return for that year of financial assist-ance, he was obligated to devote one year’spractice to a county approved by the StateBoard of health as needing doctors. Afterlooking over the field, he chose Lee County.

If John Smith is a fair sample, then theRural Medical Fund can be pronounced quitea large success. He now has served his yearof obligation, owns a home in town andshows no signs of leaving, which is exactlywhat sponsors of the fund were hoping for.They reasoned that if they could get youngdoctors into rural areas for a year or so,some of them, at least, would settle down topermanent practice.

During his year-plus in Lee County, Dr.John Smith has given medical help to hun-dreds of people from a rather populous andmountainous seven-county area who, con-ceivably, would have had none otherwise.

Moreover, the people he serves are the kindwho don’t go rushing off to the doctor withevery stomach-ache, or some such.

‘‘Most of these folks are stoic and will suf-fer a long time before coming in,’’ he says.

‘‘Why, I’ve had patents with pneumoniawalk in to the office from seven or eightmiles away.

‘‘I do all I can for them and send them tothe hospital—the nearest one is in Rich-mond, 52 miles away—only in emergencies,’’he adds. ‘‘After all, many of my patientscan’t afford to go to the hospital with everyache and pain like city folks.’’

Sponsors of the fund actually got a morethan somewhat rare bargain in John Smith.They didn’t get just one rural doctor—theygot two. For his wife also is a doctor, a 1945medical graduate of New York University,and she recently opened an office atBooneville, 12 miles south in adjoiningOwsley County.

Although there were two doctors inBooneville, both were old. One had suffered astroke. Smith was receiving so many pa-tients from that area it seemed a perfectspot for his wife to open a office to relievesome of the strain.

Now that he’s settled in Lee County, JohnSmith has become a family doctor in everysense of the word. He’s known as ‘‘Doc’’ ev-erywhere and can call most of the folks hepasses on the road by their first names. Hecan point to children he brought into theworld. He is taken into confidences, soughtout for advice on every conceivable situa-tion.

Since opening his office, he has been toobusy even to attend a single movie. The onlydays he has been away from work was onceduring a medical meeting and the coupledays he was out last winter with the flu.

Incidentally, that case of the deep snifflescame in the line of duty. He was called to seea woman in the Oakdale section of the coun-try who was sick with pneumonia. He had tofollow a narrow path above an ice-lacedcreek in reaching the home.

As he inched along the bank, it suddenlycaved in and he was dunked, bag, baggageand pill bottles, into waist-deep water. Hewent on and completed the call before chang-ing clothes, something he’d raise cain with acustomer for doing, and the result was flu.

Smith keeps a pair of galoshes in the backof his car for hiking over terrain not suitedeven for the most sturdy horseless carriage.And it’s quite often that a car can’t make itback into a particularly rough, hilly section.As, for instance, when the husband of a sickwoman had to ride him in and out on a trac-tor, the only transportation that could makethe trip.

Then there was the boat ride last winterthat he—a veteran of three years of de-stroyer-escort duty in the Navy—never willforget. He had gone to call on a patient wholived on the other side of the North Fork ofthe Kentucky River some distance aboveBeattyville. The only way across the riverwas by boat. The return was long after sun-down and in inky darkness. The pilot was apartially blind woman.

‘‘I crouched in the bottom of the boat,’’ herecalls, ‘‘and wondered about my life insur-ance.’’

‘‘How she hit the tiny landing on the otherside of the river in that darkness and pullinginto a swift current, I’ll never know.’’

Numerous times he has been called to seepatients in parts of the area he doesn’t know.In such cases, the family of the sick personwill more or less blaze a trail for him.They’ll place a forked stick at the place he’ssupposed to turn off the main road and leaveassorted other signs along the way.

He gets night calls, of course, but not asmany as might be expected.

‘‘These folks are sturdy, and they’ll usu-ally stick it out until morning,’’ he says.

But the night calls do come. This spring hewas ’roused at 1 a.m. He went with the callerto see the man’s wife, gave her some pillsand returned home to bed.

Less than 30 minutes later, he was broughtout of bed again. It was the same man.

‘‘Better come again, Doc,’’ he urged, ‘‘sheain’t a bit better.’’

Lots of patients have been unable to paycash for doctor-work. So Smith has taken al-most everything in payment. He keeps wellsupplied in ham, chicken and farm produce.

‘‘At first my wife had a little trouble un-derstanding what some patients were talkingabout,’’ he says.

‘‘Folks would come in and say, ‘Take alook at this kid, Doc, he’s been daunceyin’’round,’ and she’d have a hard time figuringwhat they meant.

‘‘But since I was born in Perry County andgrew up in Jackson County, I knew whenthey talked about ‘daunceying ’round’ or‘punying ’round,’ another very descriptivebit of speech, they meant the child was sortof dragging around and showing little life.’’

Since he opened his office, another youngdoctor has come to Beattyville. Sam D. Tay-lor, born there, and also a U. of L. graduate,

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:05 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE8.014 pfrm02 PsN: E07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE132 February 7, 2001returned home in August to start practice.The two have worked out a scheme wherebyone day a week they take the other’s officecalls. That allows them to get one day all tothemselves.

Smith has his office in what was an olddrugstore across the street from the Court-house. He has divided the gunbarrel-shapedspace into a reception room, office, drugroom, examination room and delivery room.He delivers babies at homes, but prefers tohave expectant mothers come to his officewhere he has all necessary equipment, in-cluding oxygen. He keeps them 10 to 12 hoursafter the delivery and sends them home in anambulance.

Beattyville has no pharmacist, so Smithhas to dispense his own pills and medicines.Neither is there an X-ray machine in town,although he hopes to install one soon.

Besides his unusual doctoring experiences,Smith has the rather unique distinction ofhaving served as an officer in two differentbranches of the Navy within a five-year pe-riod.

After being graduated from the Universityof Kentucky in 1942, the 30-year-old Smithwent into the Navy as a line officer. Upon hisdischarge, he entered medical school and wasgraduated in 1949. Then, following his internwork, along came the war in Korea and hevolunteered to go back into the Navy, thistime as a medical officer. He served for morethan a year in Louisville at the recruitingstation.

His second discharge came July 6, 1951. Heopened his office 10 days later.

In the nearly seven years since the RuralMedical Fund was set up, 64 students havereceived $100,450 in financial help. Twelve ofthose students, including Smith, have servedat least one year in rural areas. Nine arestill there. Of the three who left the ruralfield, one is in the Army, one is sick and onemoved to another state.

Besides Smith, other fund-helped doctorswith at least one year in rural practice areO. C. Cooper, Wickliffe; Carson E. Crabtree,Buffalo; Oscar A. Cull, Corinth; William G.Edds, Calhoun; Clyde J. Nichols, Clarkson;Benjamin C. Stigall, Livermore; William L.Taylor, Guthrie, and Loman C. Trover,Earlington.

Six other doctors who were helped by thefund completed their intership in July andnow are practicing in the country.

‘‘Rural practice gets next to a fellow,’’John Smith says. ‘‘You have to make a lot ofchanges from what they say in the books—you have to be down-to-earth and forget allabout dignity and professional manners attimes.

‘‘But there’s an awful lot of satisfaction inserving people who really need help.’’

Which pretty nearly describes the countrydoctor.

f

TRIBUTE TO WILLIAM BENJAMINGOULD IV

HON. ZOE LOFGRENOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I wish todayto recognize the accomplishments of WilliamBenjamin Gould IV, the Charles A. BeardsleyProfessor of Law at Stanford Law School. Pro-fessor Gould was Chairman of the NationalLabor Relations Board from 1994–1998. Whileawarding William Gould his fifth honorary doc-torate, the Rutgers University President re-marked: ‘‘perhaps more than any other living

American . . . [he has] contributed to theanalysis, the practice, and the transformationof labor law and labor relations.’’

William Gould has been a member of theNational Academy of Arbitration since 1970,and has arbitrated and mediated more than200 labor disputes, including the 1989 wagedispute between the Detroit Federation ofTeachers and the Board of Education of thatcity, as well as the 1992 and 1993 salary dis-putes between the Major League BaseballPlayers Association and the Major LeagueBaseball Player Relations Committee. WilliamGould was named in Ebony Magazine’s ‘‘100+Most Influential Black Americans’’ List for1996, 1997 and 1998. He is a member of theStanford University John S. Knight JournalismFellows Program Committee, and the Rand In-stitute Board of Overseers.

I commend to my colleagues the followingarticle by Professor Gould, which appeared inthe San Francisco Chronicle on January 17,2001.[From the San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 17,

2001]‘‘BORKING’’—THEN AND NOW

(By William B. Gould IV)When Bill Clinton was inaugurated as

president in January 1993, most Republicansin Congress commenced a sustained driveagainst the legitimacy of his election, not-withstanding the undisputed nature of hisvictory.

Except for the gays-in-the-military con-troversy, the most immediate conflicts re-lated to confirmation of his nominees at theCabinet and subcabinet levels.

‘‘Nannygate’’ doomed Zoe Baird, his firstchoice for attorney general, but soon ideasand political philosophy were to affect thedebate about Lani Guinier (whose JusticeDepartment nomination as assistant attor-ney general in charge of the civil rights divi-sion was withdrawn), and Jocelyn Elders(who was confirmed as surgeon general).

Both were African American. I was thethird of Clinton’s black subcabinet early se-lections (for chairman of the National LaborRelations Board), and, although confirmed, Iattracted the largest number of senatorial‘‘no’’ votes of any administration appointeeduring that time.

Bill Lann Lee, a Chinese American lawyerfrom California, was put forward for assist-ant attorney general, but his nominationwas stymied. He was forced to serve on anacting basis, without Senate confirmation.

Opposition to Clinton nominees was saidby some to be Republican vengeance for theSenate’s 1987 rejection of Robert Bork forthe U.S. Supreme Court. The press created averb, ‘‘Borked.’’ The term is now attached tothe pending nominations of John Ashcroftfor attorney general, Gale Norton for sec-retary of the interior, and the now-with-drawn candidacy of Linda Chavez for sec-retary of labor.

The Borking of Clinton nominees differsfrom the Borking of the Bush triumvirate.

Formal debate about my nomination, forinstance, focused on my proposals tostrengthen existing labor law. This contrastswith Chavez, who opposes minimum wage,family leave and affirmative action legisla-tion. The contention was that when I wouldadjudicate labor-management disputes, Iwould use my reform proposals aimed at for-tifying the law.

Bork was attacked primarily because hehad opposed most civil rights legislation af-fecting public accommodations and employ-ment. The Senate rejected him because hewas outside the mainstream in the racearena and also opposed the Supreme Court’sRoe vs. Wade decision.

Ashcroft and Norton, like Senate MajorityLeader Trent Lott, R-Miss., extol the virtuesof the Confederacy and lament its defeat,which spelled slavery’s extinction. As Mis-souri’s attorney general, Ashcroft fought de-segregation orders in that state. He was avigorous opponent of affirmative action. Assenator, he single handedly scuttled thenomination of a black Missouri judge to thefederal bench—an act which President Clin-ton properly denounced as ‘‘disgraceful,’’ il-lustrating the unequal treatment of minor-ity and women nominees.

As senator, Ashcroft decried the cherishedAmerican principle of separation of churchand state, railed against common-sense guncontrol legislation and, like Bork, denouncedRoe vs. Wade. Thus, like Bork, the questionis whether he can faithfully enforce and pro-mote laws to which is so deeply opposed.

All of this is in sharp contrast to the threeof us Clinton nominees whose sin was fidel-ity to existing law. In 1993, today’s sup-porters of Ashcroft derailed the nominationof those of us who supported the law. Nowthey support those who would radicallytransform it.

Some deference to a new president’s nomi-nation is appropriate. This was not followedin the Clinton era. As a result, the presidentwas obliged to nominate middle-of-the-roadand sometimes downright innocuous judicialcandidates and to accept Republican selec-tions for his own administrative agencies.

No one’s interests are served if the Demo-crats now wreak havoc for Bush in responseto the Borking visited upon Clinton. Butelected representatives have the right andduty to both scrutinize and reject nomineeswho are out of the mainstream and whowould disturb precedent in the absence of amandate. A half-million Gore plurality inthe voting and the murkiness of the Floridaballot hardly supply a mandate for GeorgeW. Bush.

f

WASTEFUL GOVERNMENTSPENDING

HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.OF TENNESSEE

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. DUNCAN Mr. Speaker, I believe thatone of the most serious problems facing ourcountry today is wasteful government spend-ing. Each year our government spends billionsof taxpayer dollars on things that are ineffec-tive and simply unnecessary.

I have heard many stories from federal em-ployees about the pressure to spend all of themoney they have been appropriated for agiven fiscal year. Agency administrators knowthat if they have a surplus at the end of thefiscal year, it is likely that their budgets will becut the following year.

That is why I have decided to introduce leg-islation to address this problem. This bill willallow government agencies to keep half of anyunspent administrative funds. This money canthen be used to pay for employee bonuses.The remaining half would be returned to theTreasury for the purpose of reducing the na-tional debt.

My bill rewards fiscal responsibility by givingemployees a direct benefit for saving taxpayerdollars. At the same time, it will address oneof the biggest problems facing our Country—the national debt. I think this is an importantstep toward restoring the financial security ofour Nation.

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:05 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE8.016 pfrm02 PsN: E07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E133February 7, 2001GIFTED AND TALENTED STU-

DENTS EDUCATION ACT—MATHAND SCIENCE TEACHER RE-CRUITMENT ACT

HON. ELTON GALLEGLYOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, today I am in-troducing two bills aimed at improving thequality of education in areas that need imme-diate attention. One would provide incentivesfor prospective teachers to train in math andthe sciences; the other would increase oppor-tunities for gifted students from all back-grounds to succeed.

The Math and Science Teacher RecruitmentAct would allow forgiveness of up to $10,000in federal student loans for math and sciencemajors who teach in a middle or secondaryschool for up to six years. Beginning with thesuccessful completion of the third year ofteaching, educators could have $2,500 inloans forgiven each year, up to a total of$10,000. This bill will provide an incentive forstudents majoring in math, the sciences, engi-neering, and technology to choose educationas a career. Students are failing to graspbasic math and science concepts becausethey are being taught by teachers who are notgrounded in the field. Last year, only 41 per-cent of our students learned math from teach-ers who majored the subject in college. Thisbill helps to ensure that our children will betaught by teachers who have extensive knowl-edge of mathematics and the sciences.

I am also reintroducing the Gifted and Tal-ented Students Education Act, with my col-leagues, Representatives ETHERIDGE,MORELLA, BALDACCI, BURR, MOORE, ALLEN,MINK, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, FILNER, ENGLISH,BOUCHER, BONO, BERKLEY, Mr. LEWIS of Ken-tucky, STARK, and Mr. WHITFIELD. The meas-ure provides grants to State educational agen-cies to identify gifted and talented studentsfrom all economic, ethnic and racial back-grounds—including students with limitedEnglish proficiency, those who live in low-in-come areas and students with disabilities. Themeasure authorizes State educational agen-cies to distribute competitive grants to localeducational agencies, which will allow them todevelop and expand gifted and talented edu-cation programs. This bill will ensure that allgifted children will have access to challengingprograms designed to develop and enhancetheir gifts and reach their full potential.

Mr. Speaker, we must ensure our childrenare ready and able to take on the challengesof the new economy. I strongly encourage mycolleagues to cosponsor these importantpieces of legislation and work toward theirpassage.

f

RECOGNIZING RABBI DAVID WHITEFOR ACHIEVING A DOCTOR OFDIVINITY

HON. MIKE THOMPSONOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker,I wish today to recognize an outstanding

member of our Napa community, Rabbi DavidWhite, for his 25 years of service as a rabbiand for achieving a Doctor of Divinity degree.

Rabbi White was raised in San Francisco,the only son of Rabbi Saul E. White, whoserved as Rabbi of Congregation Beth Sholomfor 48 years. After his Bar Mitzvah at BethSholom, Rabbi David White began his journeyby attending Camp Tel Yehuda in New York atthe age of 17. The camp was a Young Judaeaacademic summer program providing leader-ship in Israel, Zionism and youth program-ming.

Entering the Jewish Theological Seminary in1970, David was ordained a ConservativeRabbi five years later. In 1977, Rabbi Whiteobtained his first pulpit, Congregation Kol Sho-far in Tiburon consisting of 45 families. RabbiWhite left in 1991 after the Congregation hadgrown to 200 families.

After 14 dedicated years of service to thesynagogue, Rabbi White entered the businessworld, creating Relationship Resources Unlim-ited, establishing awareness of partnershipand collaboration. Since 1993, he has beenworking at both Congregation Beth Sholom asa rabbi and at Relationship Resources Unlim-ited.

Rabbi White was recently elected to theBoard of Directors of the Community Founda-tion of the Napa Valley, a program of philan-thropy dedicated to meeting the needs ofmany worthy groups and causes. In addition,Rabbi White is the Executive Director of theWine Spirit, exploring the relationship betweenthe wine industry and spirituality, and an ac-tive member of the Napa Interfaith Council.

On March 14, 2001, Rabbi White will behonored by the Jewish Theological Seminaryin New York with an honorary Doctor of Divin-ity degree. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate RabbiDavid White for his enthusiastic participation inand generous contributions to the Nap com-munity, his 25 years of dedicated service tothe Rabbinate and for the monumental goal ofattaining the Doctor of Divinity degree.

f

TO BILL AND MARY KOCH,CUSTOMERS WERE FAMILY

HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKIOF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise todayto pay tribute to Bill and Mary Koch of BearCreek Township, Pennsylvania, who recentlyclosed their beloved Koch’s Deli in Wilkes-Barre after 20 years of excellent service.

For more than 10 years, my district officewas located next door to Koch’s Deli, and al-most every day that I was working fromWilkes-Barre, I stopped into the deli for a cupof coffee or a cheeseburger. Like everyoneelse who frequented the deli, I could alwayscount on welcoming smiles and excellent serv-ice.

To the Koches, people in their deli were notjust customers—they were friends and family.Their business is housed in the Ten EastSouth building, which is home to dozens ofsenior citizens, and near Washington Square,another residence for the elderly. Bill andMary delivered meals to many of them andeven ran errands for them, such as banking,picking up their mail and getting their prescrip-

tions filled. And even regular customers whodid not need these favors often found their or-ders waiting for them on the table when theycame in. Basically, Koch’s Deli became formany residents of Wilkes-Barre a home awayfrom home.

Before starting the deli, Bill already had along career in the restaurant business, havingrisen to district manager for a chain, but foundthat it took too many hours away from his fam-ily. So Bill and Mary went into business forthemselves, and eventually involved theirthree daughters. Becky, Christine and Lisa,who are all grown now, learned valuable skillsat the deli, like handling money and interactingwith people.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to call Bill andMary personal friends, as well as constituents.I am pleased to call the Koch family’s longservice and many kindnesses to the attentionof the House of Representatives, and I wishthem all the best in their retirement.

f

RUSSIA’S UNFREE PRESS

HON. BARNEY FRANKOF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, while there aremany aspects of recent developments in Rus-sia which are encouraging, especially in theeconomic area, there are also some very dis-turbing trends from the standpoint of humanrights and democracy. Recently, in the BostonGlobe, one of the leading American scholarsfocused on Russia, Marshall Goldman, wroteabout the disturbing aspects of PresidentPutin’s apparent opposition to freedom of thepress. As a professor of economics at Welles-ley College, who is also the Associate Directorof the Center for Russian Studies at HarvardUniversity, Mr. Goldman is one of the mostacute observers of what is happening in Rus-sia and I think his very thoughtful analysisought to be widely read by those of us whohave policy making responsibilities. I submit itfor the RECORD.

RUSSIA’S UNFREE PRESS

(By Marshall I. Goldman)

As the Bush administration debates itspolicy toward Russia, freedom of the pressshould be one of its major concerns. UnderPresident Vladimir Putin the press is freeonly as long as it does not criticize Putin orhis policies. When NTV, the television net-work of the media giant Media Most, refusedto pull its punches, Media Most’s owner,Vladimir Gusinsky, found himself in jail, andGazprom, a company dominated by the state,began to call in loans to Media Most.

Unfortunately, Putin’s actions are ap-plauded by more than 70 percent of the Rus-sian people. They crave a strong and forcefulleader; his KGB past and conditioned KGBresponses are just what they seem to wantafter what many regard as the social, polit-ical, and economic chaos of the last decade.

But what to the Russians is law and order(the ‘‘dictatorship of the law,’’ as Putin hasso accurately put it) looks more and morelike an old Soviet clampdown to many West-ern observers.

There is no complaint about Putin’s prom-ises. He tells everyone he wants freedom ofthe press. But in the context of his KGB her-itage, his notion of freedom of the press issomething very different. In an interview

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:05 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE8.022 pfrm02 PsN: E07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE134 February 7, 2001with the Toronto Globe and Mail, he saidthat that press freedom excludes the‘‘hooliganism’’ or ‘‘uncivilized’’ reporting hehas to deal with in Moscow. By that hemeans criticism, especially of his conduct ofthe war in Chechnya, his belated response tothe sinking of the Kursk, and the heavy-handed way in which he has pushed asidecandidates for governor in regional electionsif they are not to Putin’s liking.

He does not take well to criticism. Whenasked by the relatives of those lost in theKursk why he seemed so unresponsive, Putintried to shift the blame for the disaster ontothe media barons, or at least those who hadcriticized him. They were the ones, he in-sisted, who had pressed for reduced fundingfor the Navy while they were building villasin Spain and France. As for their criticism ofhis behavior, They lie! They lie! They lie!

Our Western press has provided good cov-erage of the dogged way Putin and his aideshave tried to muscle Gusinsky out of theMedia Most press conglomerate he created.But those on the Putin enemies list now in-clude even Boris Berezovsky, originally oneof Putin’s most enthusiastic promoters whoafter the sinking of the Kursk also became acritic and thus an opponent.

Gusinsky would have a hard time winninga merit badge for trustworthiness(Berezovsky shouldn’t even apply), but in thelate Yeltsin and Putin years, Gusinsky hasearned enormous credit for his consistentlyobjective news coverage, including a spot-light on malfeasance at the very top. Morethan that, he has supported his programmerswhen they have subjected Yeltsin and nowPutin to bitter satire on Kukly, his Sundayevening prime-time puppet show.

What we hear less of, though, is what ishappening to individual reporters, especiallythose engaged in investigative work. Almostmonthly now there are cases of violence andintimidation. Among those brutalized sincePutin assumed power are a reporter forRadio Liberty who dared to write negativereports about the Russian Army’s role inChechnia and four reporters for NovayaGazeta. Two of them were investigating mis-deeds by the FSB (today’s equivalent of theKGB), including the possibility that it ratherthan Chechins had blown up a series ofapartment buildings. Another was pursuingreports of money-laundering by Yeltsin fam-ily members and senior staff in Switzerland.Although these journalists were very muchin the public eye, they were all physicallyassaulted.

Those working for provincial papers laborunder even more pressure with less visi-bility. There are numerous instances whereregional bosses such as the governor of Vlad-ivostok operate as little dictators, and as agrowing number of journalists have discov-ered, challenges are met with threats, phys-ical intimidation, and, if need be, murder.

True, freedom of the press in Russia is stillless than 15 years old, and not all the coun-try’s journalists or their bosses have alwaysused that freedom responsibly. During the1996 election campaign, for example, themedia owners, including Gusinsky conspiredto denigrate or ignore every viable candidateother than Yeltsin. But attempts to muffle ifnot silence criticism have multiplied sincePutin and his fellow KGB veterans havecome to power. Criticism from any source, beit an individual journalist or a corporate en-tity, invites retaliation.

When Media Most persisted in its criti-cism, Putin sat by approvingly as his subor-dinates sent in masked and armed tax policeand prosecutors. When that didn’t work,they jailed Gusinsky on charges that werelater dropped, although they are seeking toextradite and jail him again, along with histreasurer, on a new set of charges. Yesterday

the prosecutor general summoned TatyanaMitkova, the anchor of NTV’s evening newsprogram, for questioning. Putin’s aides arealso doing all they can to prevent Gusinskyfrom refinancing his debt-ridden operationwith Ted Turner or anyone else in or outsideof the country.

According to one report, Putin told one of-ficial, you deal with the shares, debts, andmanagement and I will deal with the jour-nalists. His goal simply is to end inde-pendent TV coverage in Russia.

An uninhibited press in itself is no guar-antee that a society will remain a democ-racy, but when it becomes inhibited, thechances that there will be such freedom allbut disappear.

When Western leaders meet Putin, theymust insist that a warm handshake and skillat karate are not enough for Russia andPutin to qualify as a democratic member ofthe Big 8. To do that, Russia must have free-dom of the press—a freedom determined bydeeds, not mere declarations.

f

TRIBUTE TO KENNETH W.MONFORT

HON. BOB SCHAFFEROF COLORADO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, today I riseto recognize and honor the life of a greatAmerican, Mr. Kenneth W. Monfort of Greeley,Colorado. A cattleman, philanthropist, commu-nity leader, humanitarian, devoted father andhusband, Mr. Monfort exemplified the Amer-ican dream and the great western spirit. Sadly,Kenny Monfort passed away on Friday, Feb-ruary 2, 2001.

Mr. Monfort had a long and distinguishedcareer in the cattle industry in which he pio-neered many new processes and innovations.His first measure of success came at the ageof 12, winning the prize of Grand ChampionSteer at the National Western Stock Show.From there he used hard work, intelligenceand perseverance to turn the family’s 18 headof cattle into the largest stockyard operation inthe world.

From the prosperity in his business, Mr.Monfort used his wealth to enrich the lives ofall around him. During his childhood in theGreat Depression, Kenny Monfort learned thevalue of giving back to the community, and inturn, has passed this lesson on to his fourchildren. Through the Monfort Family Founda-tion and individual contributions totaling over$33 million have been donated to a wide vari-ety of organizations in the Monfort name.

Today Greeley, Colorado is a much betterplace for having had Kenny Monfort as a na-tive son. One merely has to look around at themany landmarks bearing the Monfort name tosee the impact his generosity has had. To thenorth one can see the Monfort Children’s Clin-ic treating the children of low-income parents.To the west is Monfort Elementary whereevery student is taught to be a steward of thecommunity. To the east is the Monfort Schoolof Business at the University of Northern Colo-rado educating the future business leaders oftomorrow. To the south, new-born babies arebrought into the world in the safety of theMonfort Birthing Center.

Despite his tremendous success in all hedid, Mr. Monfort will always be remembered

as a modest, humble man whose legacyserves as a role model to those who knew himand whose lives he touched. I ask the Houseto join me in commemorating the remarkableMr. Kenneth W. Monfort of Colorado.

f

LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE VET-ERANS BENEFITS TO MEMBERSOF THE PHILIPPINE COMMON-WEALTH ARMY AND THE MEM-BERS OF THE SPECIAL PHIL-IPPINE SCOUTS, H.R. 491

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMANOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to in-troduce H.R. 491, the Filipino Veterans EquityAct of 2001. I urge my colleagues to join mein supporting this worthy legislation.

On July 26, 1941, President Rooseveltissued a military order, pursuant to the Phil-ippines Independence Act of 1934, callingmembers of the Philippine CommonwealthArmy into the service of the United StatesForces of the Far East, under the command ofLt. Gen. Douglas MacArthur.

For almost 4 years, over 100,000 Filipinos,of the Philippine Commonwealth Army foughtalongside the allies to reclaim the PhilippineIslands from Japan. Regrettably, in return,Congress enacted the Rescission Act of 1946.That measure limited veterans eligibility forservice-connected disabilities and death com-pensation and also denied the members of thePhilippine Commonwealth Army the honor ofbeing recognized as veterans of the UnitedStates Armed Forces.

A second group, the Special PhilippineScouts called ‘‘New Scouts’’ who enlisted theUnited States armed forces after October 6,1945, primarily to perform occupation duty inthe Pacific, were similarly excluded from bene-fits.

It is long past due to correct this injusticeand to provide the members of the PhilippineCommonwealth Army and the Special Phil-ippine Scouts with the benefits and the serv-ices that they valiantly earned during theirservice in World War II.

There are some who may object to this leg-islation on the grounds of its cost. In yearspast, when we were running chronic deficits,this may have been a valid argument. Thatpast validity however, has been dispelled bytoday’s record surpluses.

While progress has been made towards re-storing these long overdue benefits to thosebrave veterans who earned them, much re-mains to be done. I would remind my col-leagues that time is not on the side of theseveterans. Each year, thousands of these vet-erans pass away. We have a moral obligationto correct this problem before the last of thesededicated soldiers passes from this life.

These Philippine veterans have waited morethan 50 years for the benefits which, by virtueof their military service, they were entitled toback in 1946.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to care-fully review this legislation that corrects thisgrave injustice and provides veterans benefitsto members of the Philippine CommonwealthArmy and to the members of the Special Phil-ippine Scouts.

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:05 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\A07FE8.023 pfrm02 PsN: E07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E135February 7, 2001I request that the full text of the bill be in-

cluded at this point in the RECORD:

H.R. 491

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FilipinoVeterans Equity Act of 2001’’.SEC. 2 CERTAIN SERVICE IN THE ORGANIZED

MILITARY FORCES OF THE PHIL-IPPINES AND THE PHILIPPINESCOUTS DEEMED TO BE ACTIVESERVICE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 107 of title 38,United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—(A) by striking out ‘‘not’’ after ‘‘Army of

the United States, shall’’; and(B) by striking out ‘‘, except benefits

under—’’ and all that follows in that sub-section and inserting in lieu thereof a period;

(2) in subsection (b)—(A) by striking out ‘‘not’’ after ‘‘Armed

Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945shall’’; and

(B) by striking out ‘‘except—’’ and all thatfollows in that subsection and inserting inlieu thereof a period; and

(3) by striking out the subsection (c) in-serted by section 501 of H.R. 5482 of the 106thCongress, as introduced on October 18, 2000,and enacted into law by Public Law 106–377,and the subsection (c) inserted by section332(a)(2) of the Veterans Benefits and HealthCare Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law106–419).

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Theheading of such section is amended to readas follows:

‘‘§ 107. Certain service deemed to be activeservice: service in organized military forcesof the Philippines and in the PhilippineScouts’’.(2) The item relating to such section in the

table of sections at the beginning of chapter1 of such title is amended to read as follows:

‘‘107. Certain service deemed to be activeservice: service in organizedmilitary forces of the Phil-ippines and in the PhilippineScouts.’’.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.(a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by

this Act shall take effect on january 1, 2002.(b) APPLICABILITY.—No benefits shall ac-

crue to any person for any period before theeffective date of this Act by reason of theamendments made by this Act.

f

INTRODUCTION OF HOUSE JOINTRESOLUTION REGARDING QUAL-ITY OF CARE IN ASSISTED LIV-ING FACILITIES

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARKOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise withMr. WAXMAN, Mr. COYNE, Mr. FROST, Mr. LAN-TOS, Mr. MILLER, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, and Mr.STRICKLAND to re-introduce a joint resolutioncalling for a White House conference to dis-cuss and develop national quality of care rec-ommendations for assisted living facilities(ALFs). Between 800,000 and 1.5 millionAmerican seniors currently reside in ALFs andthese numbers may double in the next 20years. Until recently, the industry has been al-

most entirely private-pay. But times are chang-ing and ALFs increasingly seek and receivefederal funding through Medicaid’s Home andCommunity-Based Services waiver. In fact,overall spending for this waiver swelled 29%between 1988–1999, due in part to growingnumbers of ALF placements.

In many states, industry expansion has notbeen accompanied by a tightening of qualitystandards or accountability measures. Instead,the definition and philosophy across ALFs var-ies from state to state and their is little consist-ency in state regulatory efforts. Furthermore, a1999 General Accounting Office report foundthat 25% of surveyed facilities were cited forfive or more quality of care violations between1996–1997 and 11% were cited for 10 ormore problems. Frequently cited problemsranged from providing inadequate care, par-ticularly around medication issues, to havinginsufficient and unqualified staff.

I’d like to call attention to an article entitled,‘‘ ‘Assisted Living’ firm prospers by housing afrail population,’’ published on January 15th inthe Wall Street Journal. This article discussesindustry trends and carefully details the busi-ness practices and policies of Sunrise As-sisted Living, Inc., one of the country’s mostsuccessful ALF companies. At a time whenmany of its competitors are posting large oper-ating losses, Sunrise earns millions of dollarsin profits each year. How do they do it?—byaccepting elderly applicants with serioushealth conditions and collecting extra-carefees, sometimes as high as $1640/month (ontop of regular monthly fees) for very sick orcognitively impaired residents. Paul Klassen,Sunrise’s chief executive, makes no bonesabout this marketing strategy. At a recent ori-entation for new Sunrise managers, he urgedthat ‘‘the frailest of the frail’’ be considered ascandidates for assisted living.

Although originally developed as an alter-native to nursing homes, this article makesabundantly clear that ALFs are now recruitingthe same frail seniors that might otherwise beserved by nursing homes. Yet the averageSunrise facility (housing 90 residents) main-tains only one registered nurse on duty for 8–12 hours per day. Nursing homes of that samesize average four to five nurses on duty at alltimes. Furthermore, nursing homes must com-ply with federal quality regulations, but ALFsanswer only to states, where there is consider-able variation in terms of regulation and over-sight.

This regulatory variation can have deadlyconsequences. As reported by the Wall StreetJournal, staffing issues contributed to thedeath of a visually-impaired Sunrise residentin Georgia, who was awaiting delivery of a liq-uid herbal supplement. At the resident’s re-quest, a substitute concierge delivered a pack-age that was not specifically addressed to theresident. After drinking what they thought wasan herbal supplement (but was really causticbathroom cleaner), both the resident and hiswife became critically ill and she died severaldays later. Perhaps as disturbing as the inci-dent itself, is the fact that the facility’s onlypenalty to date has been a paltry $3000 statefine.

Closer to home, last August in my district,an elderly woman passed away in an assistedliving facility due to hemorrhaging from her di-alysis shunt. Two times, she pressed her callpendant for help, but no help came. Instead,the ALF staff cleared the alarms and reset the

machines both times. The facility did not placea 911 call for assistance until 1 hour and 34minutes later. There was no nurse on duty,and all four resident aides in the facility at thetime have denied responding to the calls orclearing/resetting the call system. This situa-tion is still under investigation, but it highlightsthe seriousness of inadequate quality of carein these facilities.

I believe that ALFs that receive federal fund-ing should be required to meet reasonable,commonsense quality standards to protectresidents. This joint resolution presents a valu-able opportunity for policymakers, industrystakeholders, and consumers to discuss anddebate how best to develop these neededquality standards. Frail, elderly ALF residentsmust be protected and sub-par facilities mustface real consequences. I look forward toworking with my colleagues on both sides ofthe aisle to protect frail seniors in ALFsthroughout our country.

The resolution has been endorsed by theConsumer Consortium on Assisted Living.California Advocates for Nursing Home Re-form, National Association for HomeCare, andElder Care America, which are organizationsactive in protecting consumer interests in as-sisted living and other settings. The January15, 2001 article by Ann Davis of the WallStreet Journal appears below:

‘‘ASSISTED LIVING’’ FIRM PROSPERS BYHOUSING A FRAIL POPULATION

(By Ann Davis)ATLANTA.—Early last year, Tom Spiro, the

director of a Sunrise Assisted Living Inc.home here, warned his boss he might lose an-other resident.

It wasn’t welcome news. The home’s 71%occupancy was already far below the cor-porate target of 95%. But the resident, an 82-year-old woman just out of a hospital, couldno longer walk, took a battery of medica-tions and was being fed from a tube. Mr.Spiro felt that his assisted-living facility—anursing-home alternative that provides lesscare—was in no position to accommodatesomeone so frail.

He was told he was being too cautious.‘‘There was pressure to take everybody,’’ hesays. Ultimately, Mr. Spiro retained the resi-dent, along with several others he consideredtoo infirm. Even so, with the home’s per-formance still lagging a few months later, hewas asked to resign.

Linda Selvidge, who was his boss but hasalso since left the company, says it madesense to keep the elderly woman as a resi-dent because her husband was in the facility.But Ms. Selvidge acknowledges urging Mr.Spiro to accept residents despite his reserva-tions. ‘‘Being frail is nothing to be nervousabout,’’ she recalls telling him.

THE MISSION

Why such eagerness to enroll clients whosecare would seem sure to mean extra cost,complexity and risk? One reason is the com-pany founders’ longtime commitment to of-fering a homelike alternative to nursinghomes. But accepting residents who are in-firm also helps to fill beds, at a time whenthe assisted-living industry is burdened byovercapacity. And Sunrise, more so than itscompetitors, has figured out how to makeserving such clients a profitable business.

The assisted-living industry is at a cross-roads, two decades after springing up amiddissatisfaction with nursing homes. Its mis-sion was to offer attractive housing—forthose who could afford it—where the elderlycould get help with daily routines like bath-ing and dressing, but no intensive nursing

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:05 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE8.025 pfrm02 PsN: E07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE136 February 7, 2001care. Yet while the initial target was the rel-atively healthy elderly, providers have in-creasingly targeted frailer and frailer peoplesince a capacity glut developed in the late1990s. At the same time, staffs of assisted-liv-ing homes often aren’t qualified or permittedto do some of the things nursing homes dofor infirm residents, such as administermedication. And because the facilities typi-cally aren’t paid by Medicaid, they needn’tmeet the extensive federal regulations nurs-ing homes face. This has led critics to callfor tighter controls on whom the facilitiescan admit—even as some residents and fami-lies are pushing in the opposite direction,claiming a right to choose the homes regard-less of any risk.

Sunrise’s founders, Paul and TerryKlaassen, make no apologies for housing ail-ing seniors. The couple, who own 13.2% of theMcLean, Va., company, refer to shunting oldpeople into nursing homes as ‘‘the dreadedact of our society.’’ At a recent orientationsession, Mr. Klaassen, who is Sunrise’s chiefexecutive, urged new managers to see ‘‘thefrailest of the frail’’ as candidates for as-sisted living.

Meanwhile, Sunrise facilities have higheroperating-profit margins than those of otherpublic assisted-living companies that dis-close this information. A key reason for itssuccess is occupancy. A rule of thumb in thebusiness is that facilities don’t producemuch profit till they reach about 90% occu-pancy, but can throw off rich profits abovethat level. Sunrise averages 91.4% occupancyat homes open at least a year; most competi-tors are below 90%.

Sunrise credits its customer service. In ad-dition, says David Schless of the AmericanSeniors Housing Association in Washington,some other companies ‘‘have had muchshorter resident stays’’ because they‘‘haven’t ever been willing to provide some ofthe supportive-care services to care for thetruly frail elderly’’ that Sunrise does.

Sunrise doesn’t just enroll more people—italso charges them more. The company ‘‘hasfigured out how to price its services betterthan its competitors,’’ Mr. Schless adds.

Sunrise makes the business pay by charg-ing hefty premiums for care beyond assistedliving’s basics, which are help with dressing,bathing and getting around. Competitors dosomething similar in pricing, but Sunrisecollects extra-care fees from a larger per-centage of residents, about 60%, than most.Extra-care fees average $517 a month perresident at Sunrise; they come to about $200a month at one major competitor, AlterraHealthcare Corp.

And despite the industry overcapacity,Sunrise manages to raise fees. it has in-creased the base rent about 5% a year (nowan average of $2,700 monthly). And lately ithas made a concerted effort, when residentsgrow frailer, to reassign them to higher-care,higher-price categories. In typical homes,residents’ monthly bills are $677 higher thanthey were in 1998, figures supplied by Sunriseshow. The company’s costs for resident carehave risen just $180 a month per resident, thesame figures show.

Mr. Klaassen says fees went up becauselocal Sunrise managers realized they weren’tcharging enough, given the costs and stafftime that frailer residents require. The CEOalso says Sunrise spends more to run itshomes than others do, and that the key tosuccess is offering consumers such high qual-ity that it contrasts sharply with a nursing-home environment. ‘‘Competitors that arenot as full charge less,’’ Mr. Klaassen says,‘‘and that’s their problem. Most assisted-liv-ing communities do not charge enough anddo not spend enough.’’

Sunrise earned $15.5 million the first threequarters of 2000, including gains on the sale

of several properties it is managing undercontract. Rival Alterra had a $35 million netloss in the nine months, and another bigcompetitor, the Marriott Senior Living Serv-ices unit of Marriott International Inc., hada $6 million operating loss. Sunrise’s stock isup about 50% from a year ago, making theKlaassen’s stake worth about $60 million.

Sunrise’s methods have been put to a se-vere test in Atlanta. The city seemed anideal market when Sunrise was launching abig expansion in the 1990s. It targets metro-politan areas ‘‘with dense rings of relativelyaffluent people,’’ says the company’s presi-dent, Tom Newell. Sunrise ultimately builtor acquired six assisted-living facilities inthe Atlanta area and two more elsewhere inGeorgia.

TARGETING ELDER DAUGHTERS

Its marketing focus isn’t the elderly them-selves but their grown children. The targetcustomer is a 45-to-64-year-old eldest daugh-ter who is deciding how to care for an octo-genarian parent. The chain adapts ideas fromother franchises, setting out to emulate, asMr. Klaassen puts it, the pleasant environ-ment of the Ritz-Carlton and the personal-ized customer service of Nordstrom.

Many Sunrise buildings resemble sprawlingVictorian mansions, with curving staircases.They have hair salons, libraries and smallkitchens in rooms, whose doors have locksfor privacy. To avoid an institutional feel,handrails in hallways look like molding Sig-nature touches include ice-cream parlorswith jukeboxes that play Sinatra and exhib-its of antique wedding dresses to stimulatememories.

Peggy Farris of Atlanta jumped at thechance to put her mother in a special Sun-rise unit for Alzheimer’s patients ratherthan in a nursing home. Now her mother istaking part in flower-arranging and musicprograms and ‘‘seems to be flourishing morethan she was in my home,’’ Ms. Farris says.A great many other customers are similarlypleased.

Sunrise was part of a building boom thatadded about 3,700 assisted-living beds in At-lanta in four years, quintupling the supply,according to market-research firm AZ Con-sulting. The facility Mr. Spiro managed washalf-empty and losing tens of thousands ofdollars a month for parts of 1998 and 1999,Sunrise records show.

Competitors resorted to price wars. Sun-rise experimented with discounting, too, butmostly it threw its energy into recruitingresidents. Marketing directors at five of itshomes were asked to log 20 face-to-facemeetings, 100 phone calls and 200 mailings aweek to potential customers and medicalprofessionals, some recall. One incentive: acommission of about $250 whenever a newcustomer made a deposit.

Chris Boyce of Atlanta says that afterMarriott expressed reluctance in 1998 to takehis mother, who was incontinent, the Sun-rise in Decatur, Ga., accepted her, along withher husband. ‘‘Sunrise told us they wouldhandle my parents until they died,’’ Mr.Boyce says. Nonetheless, he eventuallymoved them to a nursing home when theirhealth declined further.

Sunrise also scored points with hospitals’‘‘discharge planners,’’ making it easy forthem to place patients needing too muchcare to go home. With Sunrise, ‘‘we canmake a call in the morning and by the after-noon it’s taken care of and the patient ismoving in,’’ says John Dornbusch, a planerat DeKalb Medical Center in Decatur.

In handling health needs, Sunrise facilitiesare quite different from nursing homes. De-spite nursing homes’ chronic problems withshort staffing, those the size of Sunrise’shomes—about 90 residents—average two reg-

istered nurses and two or three licensedpractical nurses on duty at all times, accord-ing to federal data. Sunrise says it usuallyhas one registered nurse on duty the eight to12 hours during the day and none the rest ofthe time. Nursing homes also have to havean on-call medical director. Assisted-livinghomes rely on residents’ own outside doc-tors.

While nursing homes are supposed to meetnumerous federal requirements, assisted-liv-ing homes face only state regulation. Inabout half of the states, they come under an-tiquated rules covering ‘‘board and care’’group homes. Such homes, which fell out offavor in the 1970s provided meals and mini-mal assistance, often in private houses andfor just two or three residents. While manystates have strengthened the regulations,there is still lots of leeway.

Medication is a particularly knotty issue.A key function of nursing homes is admin-istering medicines to residents, whetherpills, IVs or injections. Not so at assisted-liv-ing facilities, in most states. Georgia’s rulessay that with a few exceptions, notably insu-lin shots, assisted-living homes’ staffs are al-lowed only to prompt residents to take theirmedication. Putting a pill in a resident’smouth and helping him or her hold a glass ofwater to swallow it isn’t permitted.

But some aides feel they have no choice.Sharon Thompson, a former caregiver on theAlzheimers’ floor at Sunrise at East Cobb(County) says that if she merely left a pill ona table, the resident, often wouldn’t take it.While the rules said that in such a case sheshould simply note on the resident’s filesthat the person refused the medication, shesays she routinely placed pills to people’smouths and got them to swallow. Otherwise,‘‘in an Alzheimers’ unit, they’ll never gettheir medications, I know you’re not sup-posed to administer medicine, but what areyou going to do?’’

ADMISSIONS RULES

Tim Cox, a Sunrise senior vice president,says there are various ways around thisproblem, including asking the family to givethe medicine and developing an eating ordrinking routine that gets the resident ac-customed to taking medicine at a certaintime. ‘‘It is never appropriate to administerif the regulations to do not permit us to,’’ hesays. A Georgia regulator says the medica-tion issue is one of the reasons for restrict-ing whom assisted-living homes can admit.

Georgia bars assisted-living facilities fromtaking certain kinds of residents, such aspeople too weak to propel a wheelchair orwalker in an emergency evacuation. In sixmonths, the state has cited Sunrise’s six At-lanta-area homes for accepting 27 residentswho needed more care than the homes werelicensed to provide, Alterra and Marriott,which together have seven Atlanta homes,were each cited just once. David Dunbar,Georgia’s top long-term-care regulator, callsSunrise’s number of citations ‘‘unusual.’’

Yet the state has never asked Sunrise todischarge a resident, he says. When cited, afacility can simply apply for a waiver tokeep the person. The state routinely grantsone if it is the resident’s and family’s wish tostay and if the home explains how it canmeet the resident’s needs, the regulatorsays.

A government ombudsman wasn’t so le-nient in 1998, when Sunrise at East Cobbsought to admit a man to its Alzheimer’sunit who couldn’t communicate, dress, feedhimself or walk. Laura Formby, who hadbeen notified of the case by a social worker,says she found the man ‘‘totally unaccept-able’’ for assisted living and contacted thefacility, which canceled the admission.

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:05 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE8.028 pfrm02 PsN: E07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E137February 7, 2001Sunrise President Tom Newell says Sun-

rise tries to ‘‘balance risk’’ against the pref-erences of residents and family. It some-times asks the relatives of people who wantto remain, despite worsening health, to sup-plement the care at their own expense. ‘‘Wework with the regulators to explain how wewill be able to care for them,’’ Mr. Newellsays. ‘‘Part of the plan that’s developed toallow them to live in assisted living would beprivate-duty aides they would bring in orhome-care agencies.’’

Gwen Birchall says she paid Sunrise $930 amonth in extra-care charges for her agedmother but still felt obliged to hire an aide.She says she also did certain chores thatSunrise staff had promised to handle, andher husband routinely washed dishes aftermeals to free up frazzled Sunrise caregivers.She moved her mother to a nursing home inJanuary. Told of the case, Tiffany Tomasso,Sunrise’s president of resident-care oper-ations, says such an experience is ‘‘unfortu-nate’’ but when the company is made awareof these concerns, it addresses them rightaway.

FINE-TUNING

Sunrise calibrates its staffing levels pre-cisely with residents’ ‘‘acuity level’’—howmedically needy they are—and facilitiesquickly adjust workers’ hours when the resi-dent mix changes. Sometimes, Sunrise ap-pears to cut it too close. After a Dec. 5 in-spection of Sunrise at Huntcliff Summit inAtlanta, Georgia regulators said the facility‘‘has consistently operated with fewer em-ployees than needed to properly safeguardthe health, safety and welfare of all resi-dents.’’ Muriel Flournoy, an 87-year-old resi-dent of the facility, says, ‘‘If you need helpat night, it can be almost impossible to getan answer.’’

Ms. Tomasso says Sunrise’s review of itshours at that home indicates staffing was‘‘well within the parameters of our model’’and exceeded minimum state staffing ratios.She adds that Sunrise increases staff hourswhen a resident is reassessed at a higher-care level. ‘‘It’s a very fluid process,’’ shesays. As for Ms. Flournoy’s complaint,‘‘We’re never happy when customers don’tfeel their needs are being met,’’ Ms. Tomassosays. A company spokeswoman adds thatSunrise has recently taken steps to improveresponse time at night to address her com-plaint.

In 1999, Sunrise rolled out new, more-ex-pensive pricing tiers, such as ‘‘Plus Plus’’ forextra-sick residents and ‘‘ReminiscencePlus’’ for those with later-stage dementia.Such care levels can add as much as $1,640 amonth in fees. Families say they were toldthat residents placed in higher-care cat-egories would get more staff time. But CarlaNeal, former head of the Alzheimer’s floor atSunrise at East Cobb, says her boss told hershe was ‘‘overstaffing’’ her floor and shouldstick more closely to the staffing formula.She says she wound up giving residents lessattention than before, even though theywere now paying more. ‘‘There wasn’t anyway we could deliver the care needed,’’ saysMs. Neal, who left Sunrise.

Rick Gagnon, who was her boss but whoalso has since left, terms the staffing guide-lines ‘‘quite appropriate.’’ Caregivers, he ob-serves, ‘‘tend to err on the side of the personwhom they’re caring for.’’ But also impor-tant, in his view, are managers with ‘‘thecorporate mentality to make the systemwork.’’

Staffing issues contributed to a death atSunrise at East Cobb last July. A volunteerwas filling in at the front desk for an absentconcierge when a visually impaired residentasked for a package he thought contained aliquid herbal supplement he was expecting.

Though the box was addressed to Sunrise,not to the resident, the volunteer deliveredit to the man’s room, a state ‘‘complaintnarrative’’ says. The liquid was a causticbathtub cleaner. The man and his wife eachdrank some. He became critically ill and shedied a few days later.

The state fined the company $3,001 after al-leging that it had failed to provide the carethese residents needed. Sunrise’s Mr. Coxsays the facility erred in not training thevolunteer to safeguard all packages in themailroom. Since Mr. Cox was interviewed,the surviving husband has filed suit againstSunrise.

FIGHTING AN EVICTION

Some of Sunrise’s rivals have also drawnregulatory scrutiny. For instance, Michiganregulators cited Alterra last summer for ac-cepting a number of patients the statedeemed too sick for assisted living.

Alterra helped two of the residents find anattorney, and the residents then sued thestate of Michigan, alleging that their evic-tion would violate federal laws barring hous-ing discrimination against the disabled. Thesuit is pending, but in the meantime, Michi-gan has enacted a law saying regulatorsmust let a resident stay in an assisted-livingfacility if the resident, the family, the resi-dent’s doctor and the facility all agree theperson can remain. It isn’t clear whether thenew law applies to the two who sued.

In the Atlanta area, Sunrise’s efforts to re-cruit and accommodate increasingly infirmresidents finally paid off. Its facilities therenow have occupancy and operating-profitrates in line with company averages. Mean-while, marketing and pricing efforts con-tinue. To interest younger seniors in its fa-cilities, Sunrise is testing a new service,Sunrise At Home, which sends aides andnurses to private residences. It is also cast-ing about for new ways to cater to the oldestand frailest of Americans. Internally, theinitiative is dubbed ‘‘Plus Plus Plus.’’

f

INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATIONTO CREATE THE ‘‘WORKER’S IN-COME TAX CREDIT’’

HON. JOHN J. LaFALCEOF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, today In intro-duce legislation to provide substantial tax reliefto all Americans through the Worker’s IncomeTax Credit. In brief, this bill will create a re-fundable tax credit equal to 6.2% of wages, upto a maximum of $350 per earner. For cou-ples, the credit is computed per earner, for amaximum credit of $700 per couple.

I believe any tax cut plan should pass tworequirements: it should be fair, and it shouldbe fiscally responsible. This proposal meetsboth standards. The Worker’s Income TaxCredit provides a tax cut to all workers, butprovides the most relief to those who need itmost—middle and lower income workers. Andit does so without undermining fiscal responsi-bility. This proposal will cost less than $440billion over ten years, leaving enough sur-pluses to achieve the goals of debt reductionand meeting critical investment needs.

‘‘The Worker’s Income Tax Credit Is Fairand Simple’’.—All workers, rich and poor, willbenefit from this tax cut. But the relief will begreatest for those whose tax burden is mostonerous—middle and lower income working

families. The vast majority of the tax cut’s ben-efits would accrue, not to the wealthiest 10%of tax payers, but to the remaining 90%. Com-pare this to President Bush’s version of taxfairness and equity. When fully phased in, the$2.1 trillion Bush tax plan would deliver half ofall its benefits to the wealthiest 5% of tax-payers. President Bush may hold up highly-stylized examples of waitresses and lawyerswho will benefit from his tax cut, but in reality,it will tax a legion of tax lawyers to determinewho qualifies and who doesn’t for the Bushtax cuts. But the complexity of his plan cannot obscure the basic fact of where most ofthe money goes—and it doesn’t go to thewaitresses of this country. For example, whilethe lawyer earning $200,000 in PresidentBush’s example would receive a tax cut of ap-proximately $3,100 a year, a waitress who ismarried with family earnings of $25,000 wouldreceive absolutely no benefits from the Bushtax plan.

Low-income workers will benefit from theWorker’s Income Tax Credit because the cred-it is refundable. A full-time minimum wageearner would qualify for the full $350 credit,and a couple working at minimum wage wouldreceive a $700 credit. But the benefits are notlimited to low-income workers. Anyone earningmore than $5,600 a year would qualify for thefull credit, and those earning less would re-ceive a partial credit.

‘‘The WITC is a better alternative to Presi-dent Bush’s Marginal Rate Cuts’’.—Because amajority of Americans pay more in payrolltaxes than they do in income taxes, adjust-ments to marginal income tax rates will notprovide significant tax relief to most taxpayers,and particularly to lower and middle incomeworkers. In focusing on marginal rate adjust-ments, particularly to lower and middle incomeworkers. In focusing on marginal rate adjust-ments, particularly at the high end, PresidentBush makes our tax system more regressive,favoring wealthier taxpayers over middle andlower income workers. While the bottom 40percent of the population would receive just4% of the Bush tax cuts, the wealthiest 1% oftaxpayers would receive 43% of the total taxcuts. The Worker’s Income Tax Credit doesjust the opposite, favoring lower and middle in-come workers over the wealthy by extendinga refundable credit to all workers, even whenthey face little or no income tax liability.

‘‘The Worker’s Income Tax Credit will allevi-ate the Marriage Tax Penalty’’.—There is con-siderable support in this Congress for ad-dressing the marriage tax penalty. I amstrongly in favor of achieving a workable solu-tion to addressing this problem in the taxcode, but I would also offer the Worker’s In-come Tax Credit as a means of providingsome relief from the penalty. In short, the taxcredit is doubled for two-earner married cou-ples. As a result, it will provide relief from theadditional tax burden that two-earner couplesface as a result of being married.

‘‘The Worker’s Income Tax Credit is fiscallyresponsible’’.—The tax credit will cost approxi-mately $440 billion over ten years, less than 1/4 the estimated cost of the Bush tax plan,which has grown to exceed $2 trillion by re-cent estimates.

Given current and projected budget sur-pluses, it is appropriate to provide taxpayerswith significant tax relief. However, favorablesurplus estimates do not give us license topursue an irresponsible fiscal policy. We

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:05 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\A07FE8.031 pfrm02 PsN: E07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE138 February 7, 2001worked hard during the 1990’s and madepainful budget decisions to achieve the sur-pluses we now enjoy. It would be tremen-dously irresponsible to squander that effort be-fore we achieve our debt reduction and federalinvestment goals.

The total cost of the broad-based Worker’sIncome Tax Credit is modest enough that itcould be combined with other reasonable taxcut priorities. I have suggested that a reason-able tax package would not exceed $700–$800 billion over ten years, allowing room forpassage of a number of other tax cut prioritiesin addition to the Worker’s Income Tax Credit.

Mr. Speaker, if we can all agree on the prin-ciples of fairness and fiscal responsibility inconsidering any tax cut, then I hope we canalso agree that the Worker’s Income TaxCredit is an excellent means of providing taxrelief to the American people this year.

The text of the bill follows:

H.R. —Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled.SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Worker’s In-come Tax Credit Act of 2001’’.SEC. 2. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR INDIVIDUALS

BASED ON EARNED INCOME.(a) GENERAL RULE.—Subpart C of part IV of

subchapter A of chapter 1 of the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 (relating to refundablecredits) is amended by redesignating section35 as section 36 and by inserting after section34 the following new section:‘‘SEC. 35. WORKER CREDIT.

‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—In the case ofan individual, there shall be allowed as acredit against the tax imposed by this sub-title for the taxable year the amount equalto 6.2 percent of the sum of—

‘‘(1) the individual’s wages, salaries, tips,and other employee compensation includiblein gross income, plus

‘‘(2) the individual’s earned income (as de-fined in section 401(c)(2)).

‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—The amount allowed as acredit under subsection (a) to an individualfor any taxable year shall not exceed $350.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United

States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘orfrom section 35 of such Code,’’ after ‘‘1978,’’.

(2) The table of sections for subpart C ofpart IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of theInternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended bystriking the last item and inserting the fol-lowing new items:‘‘Sec. 35. Worker credit.‘‘Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.’’

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendmentsmade by this section shall apply to taxableyears beginning after the date of the enact-ment of this Act.

f

RECOGNIZING 90TH BIRTHDAY OFRONALD REAGAN

SPEECH OF

HON. JOHN B. SHADEGGOF ARIZONA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, February 6, 2001

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, today we cel-ebrate President Reagan’s birthday. Althoughhe left office more than 12 years ago, aftereight years of distinguished service as ourCommander in Chief, Americans today con-

tinue to benefit from the fruits of his hardwork. It is for that reason; I rise to honor Ron-ald Reagan on his 90th birthday.

During the 20th Century America witnessedthe rise of a handful of great leaders. FromTheodore Roosevelt to Franklin Roosevelt toJohn Kennedy, America rose to prominence—she expanded internationally, built the Pan-ama Canal, overcame a Great Depression andfought two world wars. However, it was underRonald Reagan that America achieved hertrue greatness.

President Reagan was a common man who,unlike many who came before him, enteredpolitics at a later stage in life. He did so be-cause of a belief that the country was headedin the wrong direction. A common man whotouched every American, Ronald Reagan usedhis charm and steadfast beliefs to right the di-rection and shape the United States into thegreat country she is today.

President Reagan turned around the publicperception of government, sparked economicgrowth, restored the military, won the ColdWar and restored our faith in America.

My first memory of Ronald Reagan datesback to 1964 when Ronald Reagan spoke tothe country on behalf of the Republican can-didate for President that year—Senator BarryGoldwater of Arizona. On a personal note, myfather, Stephen Shadegg, worked for SenatorGoldwater during the 1964 presidential cam-paign. This afforded me the opportunity to ex-perience, first-hand, what a true visionary andleader Mr. Reagan was. Ronald Reagan gavea speech on behalf of Senator Goldwater thatyear. It later became known as ‘‘A Time forChoosing.’’ Many of the points he raised inthat speech I hold dear and use to guide myjudgment while serving the citizens of my Dis-trict and the state of Arizona.

In that speech President Reagan spoke ofseveral principles Republicans, indeed allAmericans, continue to hold dear. The firstprinciple is personal freedom. Ronald Reaganquoted James Madison when he stated thatthe Framers of the Constitution, ‘‘base[d] allour experiments on the capacity of mankindfor self-government.’’ He was correct: Eachperson should be able to live with the freedomthat the Constitution guarantees. RonaldReagan spent every day in office seeing to itthat this principle was advanced and de-fended.

The second principle that President Reaganadvocated was that the government is be-holden to the people. Not the reverse. He stat-ed: ‘‘This idea that the government was be-holden to the people, that it had no othersource of power is still the newest, mostunique idea in all the long history of man’s re-lation to man.

‘‘This is the issue of this nation: whether webelieve in our capacity for self-government orwhether we abandon the American Revolutionand confess that a little intellectual elite in afar-distant capital can plan our lives betterthan we can plan them ourselves.’’ Thereinlies the essence of President Reagan. Per-sonal choice should not be a right or a gift.Rather, left to their devices, the American peo-ple would grow the economy, improve ourschools, save for the future and have personalflexibility to achieve those goals. RonaldReagan showed us the way. We, the Amer-ican people, proved him right.

During the speech, he also asked: ‘‘Are youwilling to spend time studying the issues, mak-

ing yourself aware, and then conveying thatinformation to family and friends?’’ He contin-ued: ‘‘Will you resist the temptation to get agovernment handout for your community? Re-alize that the doctor’s fight against socializedmedicine is your fight. We can’t socialize thedoctors without socializing the patients. Rec-ognize that government invasion of publicpower is essentially an assault upon yourbusiness. If some of you fear taking a standbecause you are afraid of reprisals from cus-tomers, clients or even government, recognizethat you are just feeding the crocodile hopinghe’ll eat you last.’’ Truer words have neverbeen spoken, Mr. Speaker. In fact, thesewords ring true today.

Mr. Reagan extended his vision to a thirdprinciple—the economy and the tax code. Hisbelief in lower taxes and private enterprisewas based upon the idea that each individualbest knows how to spend their money andmanage their store. Like the Founding Fa-thers, President Reagan believed that govern-ment control of any enterprise leads to controlof the people who run them. How correct hewas when he stated:

‘‘The Founding Fathers knew a governmentcan’t control the economy without controllingthe people. And they knew when a govern-ment sets out to do that, it must use force andcoercion to achieve that purpose. So we havecome to a time for choosing. Public servantssay, always with the best of intentions, ‘‘Whatgreater service we could render if only we hada little more money and a little more power.’’But the truth is that outside of its legitimatefunction, government does nothing as well oras economically as the private sector.’’

President Reagan led by those principles.His faith in the individual, belief in free enter-prise, and unending conviction in providingfreedom of choice in everyday decisionshelped to restore the ‘‘great, confident roar ofAmerican progress, growth and optimism.’’The ‘‘choice’’ was right then. It is right today.Yet, we must continue to fight for these prin-ciples today.

In his farewell address in January of 1989,President Reagan modestly summed up hiseight years in office, ‘‘All in all, not bad, notbad at all.’’ Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe this ismore fitting of his overall contribution to theAmerican public: ‘‘All in all, not bad, not badat all.’’ Happy Birthday Mr. President. We sa-lute you.

f

IMPROVING EDUCATION THROUGHTHE THREE R’S

HON. SUSAN DAVISOF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, there

is widespread agreement that improving edu-cation must be our priority in this session ofCongress. Fortunately, there is bipartisanagreement about much of the thrust of a pro-gram to use our surplus to substantially in-crease funding for programs that will reach thepoorest students.

An important area that we must work on,however, is how to deal with schools wherechildren are not succeeding in learning. As amember of the California Assembly’s Edu-cation Committee, I worked with my col-leagues on both sides of the aisle to address

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:05 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\A07FE8.032 pfrm02 PsN: E07PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E139February 7, 2001this issue. The program which was put inplace makes very clear rewards for schoolswhich demonstrate improvement for studentsat all levels of achievement.

But what happens where a school doesn’timprove? This is the important difference. Wedo not propose using critical funds in the TitleI program for low income students to offer aportion of the cost for a child to seek privateeducation. Instead, the failing schools them-selves much be changed—through focusingprofessional development dollars on the prin-cipals and teachers or, if necessary replacingthe leadership altogether. No school should beallowed to fail.

One of the most critical elements of theNew Democrat proposal for the Three R’s,therefore, is investment in recruiting, training,and retraining teachers. We must do our bestto support our professional educators. Everychild has a right to an excellent teacher.

f

FARMERS NEED A SAFETY NET INADDITION TO FLEXIBILITY

HON. DOUG BEREUTEROF NEBRASKA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Membercommends to his colleagues the following edi-torial from the February 2, 2001, OmahaWorld-Herald. The editorial highlights the chal-lenges in developing a workable agriculturepolicy which maintains flexibility while pro-viding farmers with assistance when needed.

‘‘FREEDOM’’ NOT IN FARM LAW

The time is at hand for the U.S. govern-ment and the Americans involved in produc-tion agriculture to decide how they’re goingto coexist for the next few years. For farm-ers, in addition, there is the matter of howto survive in a world in which their productis often available in income-depressing sur-plus.

Freedom to farm, the tag line given to the1996 federal farm policy, came along at an in-opportune time. The original plan—an end tofederal crop subsidies as of next year—turnedout to be impractical. Something else isneeded.

The underlying philosophy was worth atry. Agriculture was stagnating under theold system, in which farmers received sub-sidies for planting a specified number ofacres to a specified crop. The 1996 idea was tode-link subsidies from planting decisions fora half-dozen years while continuing the flowof cash in the form of transition payments.

This was ‘‘freedom to farm.’’ At the end ofthe transition period, the subsidies wouldtheoretically dry up. Farmers, having tai-lored their production to maximize their in-come from the marketplace, would theoreti-cally be ready for financial independence.

Now, with the transition period nearing anend, agriculture’s ability to take that nextstep is more than a little doubtful. It turnedout that even a relatively deregulated grain-producing industry couldn’t respond in timeto take advantage of fast-changing marketconditions. As the Asian currency crisisworsened in the late 1990s, American farmerswere stuck with huge piles of grain they hadproduced on the theory that the Pacific Rimboom would be sustained into the new cen-tury. From planning to planting to harvesttakes many months. When conditionschange, it’s too late if the crop is in theground.

The transition payments, instead of de-scending as planned, have skyrocketed.Since 1996, when the total was $7 billion, theamount quadrupled. This year’s $28 billionconstituted half of all the revenues thatfarmers received from their operations.

This isn’t healthy. But the best idea tocome out of a federal panel, created to mon-itor the outcome of the 1996 approach, is anew variety of subsidy to provide incomemaintenance for farmers when hit by saggingmarket demand for their products.

Subsidies have a downside. They keep inef-ficient operations from being squeezed outby efficient competitors. This creates a self-fulfilling cycle. Inefficiency intensifies thedemand for subsidies, leading to more ineffi-ciency.

Subsidies, in addition, sometimes under-mine the political support for agriculture inparts of the country where the Midwesterncorn-wheat-cattle-hogs economy is not wellunderstood. Eastern commentators includefarms among the recipients of corporate wel-fare. They seem to forget that subsidies havebeen part of a cheap-food policy under whichAmericans pay a lower percentage of theirincome for food than is possible in nearlyany other part of the world.

So the aid the government has given to ag-riculture is not necessarily bad. Indeed,former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glick-man said the alternative would have beenchaos in rural America last year. And thecurrent secretary, Ann Veneman, says a‘‘safety net’’ of some sort has to be kept inplace, although she has not been more spe-cific.

Few farmers and ranchers, given a choice,would accept the subsidized way of life as op-posed to an economic system in which theyhad an even chance to get a fair return ontheir labor and investment. On the otherhand, survival would be difficult, with condi-tions as they currently are, without whatVeneman calls a safety net.

Accordingly, designing a system thatmakes sense financially, politically and so-cially is a task for the sharpest economicminds. As they proceed, some thought shouldbe given to what returns—such as habitatrestoration, wetlands preservation and thesafeguarding of productive land in the formof conservation reserves—might be secured,in the process, for the tax-payers.

f

SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Title IV of Senate Resolution 4,agreed to by the Senate on February 4,1977, calls for establishment of a sys-tem for a computerized schedule of allmeetings and hearings of Senate com-mittees, subcommittees, joint commit-tees, and committees of conference.This title requires all such committeesto notify the Office of the Senate DailyDigest—designated by the Rules com-mittee—of the time, place, and purposeof the meetings, when scheduled, andany cancellations or changes in themeetings as they occur.

As an additional procedure alongwith the computerization of this infor-mation, the Office of the Senate DailyDigest will prepare this information forprinting in the Extensions of Remarkssection of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORDon Monday and Wednesday of eachweek.

Meetings scheduled for Thursday,February 8, 2001 may be found in theDaily Digest of today’s RECORD.

MEETINGS SCHEDULED

FEBRUARY 9

10 a.m.Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

To hold hearings to examine the currentstate of California’s electricity crisisand the use of the Defense ProductionAct.

SD–538

FEBRUARY 12

2:30 p.m.Budget

To hold hearings to examine the currentoutlook for the national defense budg-et.

SD–608

FEBRUARY 13

9:30 a.m.Armed Services

To hold hearings on current and futureworldwide threats to the national secu-rity of the United States, to be fol-lowed by closed hearings (in Room S–407, Capitol).

SD–10610 a.m.

Banking, Housing, and Urban AffairsTo hold oversight hearings to examine

the first Monetary Policy Report for2001.

SH–216Health, Education, Labor, and PensionsAging Subcommittee

To hold hearings to examine the nursingshortage and it’s impact on America’shealth care delivery system.

SD–430Judiciary

To hold hearings to examine the Hart/Rudman Commission findings on ter-rorism.

SD–22610:30 a.m.

Governmental AffairsTo hold hearings on the nomination of

Joe M. Allbaugh, of Texas, to be Direc-tor of the Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency.

SD–342

FEBRUARY 14

10 a.m.Judiciary

To hold hearings to examine the impactof recent pardons granted by PresidentClinton.

SD–2262 p.m.

AppropriationsTransportation Subcommittee

To hold oversight hearings on the De-partment of Transportation’s manage-ment challenges.

SD–1242:30 p.m.

Banking, Housing, and Urban AffairsTo hold hearings to examine the issues of

saving investors money and strength-ening the Security and Exchange Com-mission.

SD–538

FEBRUARY 15

9:30 a.m.Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

To hold hearings on proposed legislationto strengthen certain education pro-grams.

SD–430

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:05 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A07FE8.036 pfrm02 PsN: E07PT1

D102

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

Daily DigestSenate

Chamber ActionRoutine Proceedings, pages S1097–S1166Measures Introduced: Sixteen bills and two resolu-tions were introduced, as follows: S. 269–284, S.J.Res. 4, and S. Con. Res. 8. Pages S1121–22

Measures Reported:S. Res. 17, congratulating President Chandrika

Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and the people of theDemocratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on thecelebration of 53 years of independence.

S. Res. 18, expressing sympathy for the victims ofthe devastating earthquake that struck El Salvadoron January 13, 2001.

S. 248, to amend the Admiral James W. Nanceand Meg Donovan Foreign Relations AuthorizationAct, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, to adjust a condi-tion on the payment of arrearages to the United Na-tions that sets the maximum share of any UnitedNations peacekeeping operation’s budget that maybe assessed of any country.

S. Con. Res. 6, expressing the sympathy for thevictims of the devastating earthquake that struckIndia on January 26, 2001, and support for ongoingaid efforts. Page S1121

Measures Passed:United Nations Dues: By a unanimous vote of 99

yeas (Vote No. 10), Senate passed S. 248, to amendthe Admiral James W. Nance and Meg DonovanForeign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years2000 and 2001, to adjust a condition on the pay-ment of arrearage to the United Nations that setsthe maximum share of any United Nations peace-keeping operation’s budget that may be assessed ofany country. Pages S1110–18

Joint Economic Committee Membership: Senatepassed S. 279, affecting the representation of the ma-jority and minority membership of the Senate Mem-bers of the Joint Economic Committee. Page S1164

Pipeline Safety—Agreement: A unanimous-consentagreement was reached providing for consideration ofS. 235, to provide for enhanced safety, public aware-

ness, and environmental protection in pipeline trans-portation, on Thursday, February 8, 2001. Page S1164

Chairman Resolution Modification—Agreement:A unanimous-consent agreement was reached pro-viding that notwithstanding the adoption of S. Res.7, designating Chairmen of certain Senate commit-tees, on January 3, 2001, the resolution be modifiedto reflect the following changes: Designating SenatorCraig as Chairman of the Committee on Aging; des-ignating Senator Roberts as Chairman of the Com-mittee on Ethics; designating Senator Reid as ViceChairman of the Committee on Ethics; and desig-nating Senator Inouye as Vice Chairman of the Com-mittee on Indian Affairs. Page S1164

Appointments:Excellence in Arts Education Awards Board:

The Chair, on behalf of the Majority Leader, pursu-ant to Public Law 106–553, announced the appoint-ment of Senators Cochran and Bennett to serve asmembers of the Congressional Recognition for Excel-lence in Arts Education Awards Board. Page S1164

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council: The Chair, onbehalf of the President pro tempore, pursuant toPublic Law 96–388, as amended by Public Law97–84 and Public Law 106–292, appointed SenatorsHatch, Murkowski, and Collins to the United StatesHolocaust Memorial Council for the 107th Congress. Page S1164

Messages From the House: Page S1121

Executive Reports of Committees: Page S1121

Statements on Introduced Bills: Pages S1122–56

Additional Cosponsors: Pages S1156–57

Authority for Committees: Page S1158

Privileges of the Floor: Page S1158

Record Votes: One record vote was taken today.(Total—10) Page S1118

Adjournment: Senate met at 10 a.m., and ad-journed at 4:59 p.m., until 9:30 a.m., on Thursday,February 8, 2001. (For Senate’s program, see the re-marks of the Acting Majority Leader in today’sRecord on page S1165.)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:02 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 0627 Sfmt 0627 E:\CR\FM\D07FE1.REC pfrm02 PsN: D07FE1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D103February 7, 2001

Committee Meetings(Committees not listed did not meet)

SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTSCommittee on Appropriations: on Friday, February 2,Committee announced the following subcommitteeassignments:

Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, andRelated Agencies: Senators Cochran (Chairman), Spec-ter, Bond, McConnell, Burns, Craig, Kohl (RankingMember), Harkin, Dorgan, Feinstein, Durbin, andJohnson.

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judi-ciary: Senators Gregg (Chairman), Stevens, Domenici,McConnell, Hutchison, Campbell, Hollings (Rank-ing Member), Inouye, Mikulski, Leahy, Kohl, andMurray.

Subcommittee on Defense: Senators Stevens (Chair-man), Cochran, Specter, Domenici, Bond, McCon-nell, Shelby, Gregg, Hutchison, Inouye (RankingMember), Hollings, Byrd, Leahy, Harkin, Dorgan,Durbin, Reid, and Feinstein.

Subcommittee on District of Columbia: SenatorsDeWine (Chairman), Hutchison, Landrieu (RankingMember), and Durbin.

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development: Sen-ators Domenici (Chairman), Cochran, McConnell,Bennett, Burns, Craig, Reid (Ranking Member),Byrd, Hollings, Murray, Dorgan, and Feinstein.

Subcommittee on Foreign Operations: Senators McCon-nell (Chairman), Specter, Gregg, Shelby, Bennett,Campbell, Bond, Leahy (Ranking Member), Inouye,Harkin, Mikulski, Durbin, Johnson, and Landrieu.

Subcommittee on Interior: Senators Burns (Chairman),Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Bennett, Gregg, Camp-bell, Byrd (Ranking Member), Leahy, Hollings,Reid, Dorgan, Feinstein, and Murray.

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,and Education: Senators Specter (Chairman), Cochran,Gregg, Craig, Hutchison, Stevens, DeWine, Harkin(Ranking Member), Hollings, Inouye, Reid, Kohl,Murray, and Landrieu.

Subcommittee on Legislative Branch: Senators Bennett(Chairman), Stevens, Durbin (Ranking Member), andJohnson.

Subcommittee on Military Construction: SenatorsHutchison (Chairman), Burns, Craig, DeWine, Fein-stein (Ranking Member), Inouye, Johnson, andLandrieu.

Subcommittee on Transportation: Senators Shelby(Chairman), Specter, Bond, Bennett, Campbell,Hutchison, Murray (Ranking Member), Byrd, Mi-kulski, Reid, Kohl, and Durbin.

Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government:Senators Campbell (Chairman), Shelby, DeWine,Dorgan (Ranking Member), Mikulski, and Landrieu.

Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies:Senators Bond (Chairman), Burns, Shelby, Craig,Domenici, DeWine, Mikulski (Ranking Member),Leahy, Harkin, Byrd, Kohl, and Johnson.

EXPORT CONTROLSCommittee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:Committee held hearings on S. 149, to provide au-thority to control exports, and to examine how to es-tablish an effective, modern framework for computer,manufacturing, and electronics export controls, andits potential impact on the proliferation of weaponsof mass destruction worldwide, receiving testimonyfrom Dan Hoydysh, Unisys Corporation, on behalf ofthe Computer Coalition for Responsible Exports, andRichard T. Cupitt, University of Georgia Center forInternational Trade and Security, both of Wash-ington, D.C.; Paul H. Freedenberg, Association forManufacturing Technology, McLean, Virginia; andLarry E. Christensen, Vastera, Inc., Dulles, Virginia,on behalf of the American Electronics Association.

Hearings recessed subject to call.

DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS IMPACTCommittee on the Budget: Committee concluded hear-ings to examine the impact of demographic trends,such as the apparent end of the population explosion,population aging, the retirement of the baby boomgeneration, and the possibility of large budget sur-pluses, on the budget and long-term fiscal policy,after receiving testimony from Ben J. Wattenberg,American Enterprise Institute, and Robert B.Friedland, Georgetown University Center on anAging Society, both of Washington, D.C.; RonaldD. Lee, University of California Center for the Eco-nomics and Demography of Aging, Berkeley; andPeter R. Orszag, Sebago Associates, Belmont, Cali-fornia.

BUSINESS MEETINGCommittee on Foreign Relations: Committee ordered fa-vorably reported the following business items:

S. 248, to amend the Admiral James W. Nanceand Meg Donovan Foreign Relations AuthorizationAct, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, to adjust a condi-tion on the payment of arrearages to the United Na-tions that sets the maximum share of any UnitedNations peacekeeping operation’s budget that maybe assessed of any country;

S. Res. 17, congratulating President ChandrikaBandaranaike Kumaratunga and the people of theDemocratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on thecelebration of 53 years of independence;

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:02 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0627 Sfmt 0627 E:\CR\FM\D07FE1.REC pfrm02 PsN: D07FE1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGESTD104 February 7, 2001

S. Res. 18, expressing sympathy for the victims ofthe devastating earthquake that struck El Salvadoron January 13, 2001;

S. Con. Res. 6, resolution expressing the sympathyfor the victims of the devastating earthquake thatstruck India on January 26, 2001, and support forongoing aid efforts;

The nomination of Paul Henry O’Neill, of Penn-sylvania, to be United States Governor of the Inter-national Monetary Fund, United States Governor ofthe International Bank for Reconstruction and De-velopment, United States Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank, United States Gov-ernor of the African Development Bank, UnitedStates Governor of the Asian Development Bank,United States Governor of the African DevelopmentFund, and United States Governor of the EuropeanBank for Reconstruction and Development; and cer-tain Foreign Service Officer promotion lists.

Also, Committee discussed S. 219, to suspend fortwo years the certification procedures under section490(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 inorder to foster greater multilateral cooperation ininternational counternarcotics programs, adopted itsrules of procedure for the 107th Congress, and an-nounced the following subcommittee assignments:

Subcommittee on African Affairs: Senators Frist(Chairman), Brownback, Smith (OR), Feingold(Ranking Member), Dodd, and Boxer.

Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs: Sen-ators Thomas (Chairman), Helms, Lugar, Hagel,Kerry (Ranking Member), Torricelli, Feingold, andBiden.

Subcommittee on European Affairs: Senators Smith(OR) (Chairman), Lugar, Chafee, Hagel, Biden(Ranking Member), Sarbanes, Dodd, and Wellstone.

Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Exportand Trade Promotion: Senators Hagel (Chairman),Thomas, Chafee, Allen, Sarbanes (Ranking Member),Nelson (FL), Wellstone, and Torricelli.

Subcommittee on International Operations: SenatorsAllen (Chairman), Helms, Frist, Brownback, Boxer(Ranking Member), Kerry, Nelson (FL), and Biden.

Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Af-fairs: Senators Brownback (Chairman), Smith (OR),Thomas, Frist, Wellstone (Ranking Member),Torricelli, Boxer, and Sarbanes.

Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps,Narcotics and Terrorism: Senators Chafee (Chairman),Allen, Helms, Lugar, Dodd (Ranking Member), Nel-son (FL), Kerry, and Feingold.

AIRLINE CONSOLIDATIONCommittee on the Judiciary: Committee held hearingsto examine the competitive impact of the announcedmergers involving United Airlines, US Airways, DCAir, American Airlines, and TWA, receiving testi-mony from Senators Warner, Bond, and Reid; Rep-resentatives Myrick and Meeks; Gordon Bethune,Continental Airlines, and Robert L . Johnson, DCAir, both of Washington, D.C.; Leo F. Mullin, DeltaAir Lines, Atlanta, Georgia; William A.Franke,America West Airlines, Phoenix, Arizona; JoeLeonard, AirTran Airways, Orlando, Florida; MichaelE. Levine, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massa-chusetts; Donald Carty, American Airlines, FortWorth, Texas; James E. Goodwin, United Airlines,Chicago, Illinois; William F. Compton, Trans WorldAirlines, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri; and Stephen M.Wolf, US Airways Group, Inc., Arlington, Virginia.

Hearings recessed subject to call.

WORLD THREATS ASSESSMENTSSelect Committee on Intelligence: Committee concludedopen and closed hearings to examine worldwidethreats to national security, after receiving testimonyfrom George J. Tenet, Director, Central IntelligenceAgency; Thomas Fingar, Acting Assistant Secretaryof State for Intelligence and Research; and ViceAdm. Thomas R. Wilson, Director, Defense Intel-ligence Agency.

h

House of RepresentativesChamber ActionBills Introduced: 124 public bills, H.R. 394–483,488–521; 6 private bills, H.R. 484–487, 522–523;and 11 resolutions, H.J. Res. 9–13; H. Con. Res.21–22, and H. Res. 28–31, were introduced. Pages H218–23

Reports Filed: No reports were filed today.

Speaker Pro Tempore: Read a letter from theSpeaker wherein he designated Representative Millerof Florida to act as Speaker pro tempore for today. Page H203

Guest Chaplain: The prayer was offered by theguest Chaplain, Imam Bassam A. Estwani, Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center of Herndon, Virginia. Page H203

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:02 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 0627 Sfmt 0627 E:\CR\FM\D07FE1.REC pfrm02 PsN: D07FE1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D105February 7, 2001

Suspension—Goro Hokama Post Office Buildingof Lanai City, Hawaii: The House agreed to sus-pend the rules and pass H.R. 132, to designate thefacility of the United States Postal Service located at620 Jacaranda Street in Lanai City, Hawaii, as the‘‘Goro Hokama Post Office Building’’ by a yea andnay vote of 413 yeas with none voting ‘‘nay’’, RollNo. 11. Pages H205–07

Meeting Hour—Monday, February 12: Agreedthat when the House adjourns on Thursday, Feb. 8,it agree to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, February 12. Page H208

Meeting Hour—Tuesday, February 13: Agreedthat when the House adjourns on Monday, February12, it agree to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb-ruary 13 for morning-hour debate. Page H208

Quorum Calls—Votes: One yea-and-nay vote de-veloped during the proceedings of the House todayand appears on pages H206–07. There were noquorum calls.Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and ad-journed at 12:25 p.m.

Committee MeetingsCOMMITTEE ORGANIZATIONCommittee on Armed Services: Met for organizationalpurposes.

COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION; FRESHMENMEMBERS DAYCommittee on the Budget: Met for organizational pur-poses.

The Committee also held a hearing on budget pri-orities of the Freshmen Members of the 107th Con-gress. Testimony was heard from RepresentativesSchrock, Acevedo-Vila, Brown of South Carolina,Pence, Flake, Culberson, Langevin, Larsen of Wash-ington, Akin, Putnam, Israel and Schiff.

COMMITTEE ORGANIZATIONCommittee on Education and the Workforce: Met for or-ganizational purposes.

COMMITTEE ORGANIZATIONCommittee on Energy and Commerce: Met for organiza-tional purposes.

COMMITTEE ORGANIZATIONCommittee on House Administration: Met for organiza-tional purposes.

BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION ANDCONSUMER PROTECTION ACTCommittee on the Judiciary: Held a hearing on H.R.333, Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and ConsumerProtection Act of 2001. Testimony was heard frompublic witnesses.

Hearings continue tomorrow.

COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION; OVERSIGHTPLANCommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Met fororganizational purposes.

The Committee approved an Oversight Plan forthe 107th Congress.

COMMITTEE ORGANIZATIONCommittee on Ways and Means: Met for organizationalpurposes.

The Committee approved an Oversight Plan forthe 107th Congress.f

COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR THURSDAY,FEBRUARY 8, 2001

(Committee meetings are open unless otherwise indicated)

SenateCommittee on Armed Services: to hold hearings on the Sec-

retary’s priorities and plans for the Department of Energynational security programs, 9:30 a.m., SH–216.

Committee on the Budget: to resume hearings to examinecertain budgetary issues and the economic outlook of theUnited States, 10:30 a.m., SD–608.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: tohold hearings to examine the Department of Health andHuman Services’ regulations that affect patient privacy,9:30 a.m., SD–106.

Committee on the Judiciary: to hold hearings on proposedlegislation relating to bankruptcy reform issues, 10 a.m.,SD–226.

HouseCommittee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on

Telecommunications, hearing entitled: ‘‘Is ICANN’s NewGeneration of Internet Domain Name Selection ProcessThwarting Competition?’’ 10 a.m., 2123 Rayburn.

Committee on Government Reform, to hold an organiza-tional meeting, 9:30 a.m. followed by a hearing on ‘‘TheControversial Pardon of International Fugitive MarcRich,’’ 10 a.m., 2154 Rayburn.

Committee on the Judiciary, to continue hearings on H.R.333, Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protec-tion Act of 2001, 10 a.m., 2141 Rayburn.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:02 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 0627 Sfmt 0627 E:\CR\FM\D07FE1.REC pfrm02 PsN: D07FE1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST

Congressional Record The public proceedings of each House of Congress, as reported bythe Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to directionsof the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate

provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, excepting veryinfrequent instances when two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed at one time. ¶Public access to

the Congressional Record is available online through GPO Access, a service of the Government Printing Office, free of charge to the user.The online database is updated each day the Congressional Record is published. The database includes both text and graphics from thebeginning of the 103d Congress, 2d session (January 1994) forward. It is available through GPO Access at www.gpo.gov/gpoaccess. Customerscan also access this information with WAIS client software, via telnet at swais.access.gpo.gov, or dial-in using communications softwareand a modem at (202) 512–1661. Questions or comments regarding this database or GPO Access can be directed to the GPO Access UserSupport Team at: E-Mail: gpoaccess@gpo.gov; Phone 1–888–293–6498 (toll-free), 202–512–1530 (D.C. area); Fax: 202–512–1262. The Team’s hours ofavailability are Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, except Federal holidays. ¶The Congressional Recordpaper and 24x microfiche will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, at the following prices: paper edition, $197.00 for sixmonths, $393.00 per year, or purchased for $4.00 per issue, payable in advance; microfiche edition, $141.00 per year, or purchased for $1.50 perissue payable in advance. The semimonthly Congressional Record Index may be purchased for the same per issue prices. To place an orderfor any of these products, visit the U.S. Government Online Bookstore at: bookstore.gpo.gov. Mail orders to: Superintendent of Documents,P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954, or phone orders to (202) 512–1800, or fax to (202) 512–2250. Remit check or money order, madepayable to the Superintendent of Documents, or use VISA, MasterCard, Discover, or GPO Deposit Account. ¶Following each session ofCongress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and sold by the Superintendent of Documents in individualparts or by sets. ¶With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from theCongressional Record.

UNUME PLURIBUS

D106 February 7, 2001

Next Meeting of the SENATE

9:30 a.m., Thursday, February 8

Senate Chamber

Program for Thursday: After the recognition of threeSenators for speeches and the transaction of any morningbusiness (not to extend beyond 11 a.m.), the MajorityLeader will be recognized to offer a tribute; followingwhich, Senate will consider S. 235, Pipeline Safety.

Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 8

House Chamber

Program for Thursday: Pro forma session.

Extensions of Remarks, as inserted in this issueHOUSE

Bereuter, Doug, Nebr., E139Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr., Ala., E127, E128, E130Cubin, Barbara, Wyo., E128Davis, Susan, Calif., E138Duncan, John J., Jr., Tenn., E132Frank, Barney, Mass., E133

Gallegly, Elton, Calif., E133Gilman, Benjamin A., N.Y., E134Green, Gene, Tex., E129Kanjorski, Paul E., Pa., E133LaFalce, John J., N.Y., E137Lofgren, Zoe, Calif., E127, E132McGovern, James P., Mass., E127Mink, Patsy T., Hawaii, E129

Osborne, Tom, Nebr., E127Phelps, David D., Ill., E127Rogers, Harold, Ky., E130Schaffer, Bob, Colo., E134Shadegg, John B., Ariz., E138Stark, Fortney Pete, Calif., E135Thompson, Mike, Calif., E127, E128, E130, E133

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:02 Feb 08, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 0664 Sfmt 0664 E:\CR\FM\D07FE1.REC pfrm02 PsN: D07FE1